Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrLabGuy
My post
"To use a historical context would you agree that we should have done everything we could do to keep nuclear weapons out of the hand of Hitler?
He was working on such a project and had a rudimentary dirty bomb under testing.
So...Keeping a bomb out of the hands of Aquavelvajihad should be a top priority."
Your answer
"Awfull comparison.
You might have an easier time comparing using a certain leader from the Western hemisphere".
Your words...You seem to allude in your post that George Bush is closer to Hitler than Aquavelvajihad.
I can only conclude that given a choice of two candidates one being closer to Hitler that you would choose the former.
Unless you would prefer a Hitler type in office.
Which is it now?
|
Why assume my preference?
Or more importantly, what does my preference have to do with my ONLY point made?
Is assuming a baseless idea, your way of sidestepping the original rebuttle I made of Bush being closer to Hitler?
It seems pretty clear you'd much rather argue over irrelevant and unreal scenarios, but I hope I'm not assuming, lol.