And we are supposed to listen to them??????

Il Duce is Nelson Mandela

Published on October 12, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

THe BBC, that bastion of right wing conservatism, had a poll where people were asked to pick 11 (out of 100) people to 'rule the world'. The Winner? Nelson Mandela. Say what? Ok, Mandela is not a thug or tyrant, just a stupid fool that gets duped by the likes of Castro and Hussein.

But check out number 2: Slick Willie Clinton! Say good bye to women's rights!

But it gets better! Here is the top 11:

1 - Nelson Mandela
2 - Bill Clinton
3 - Dalai Lama
4 - Noam Chomsky
5 - Alan Greenspan
6 - Bill Gates
7 - Steve Jobs
8 - Archbishop Desmond Tutu
9 - Richard Branson
10 - George Soros
11 - Kofi Annan

Naom Chomsky? George Soros? Kofi Anan? What a bunch of bozos! I can see the others possibily, but combined with Clinton and Mandela, that makes almost half the list a bunch of buffoons and clowns!

But it still gets better:

Fidel Castro - 36th - and Hugo Chavez, 33rd.

Simon, tell me that this was a put on piece! Oh, and Hillary was number 16! And Michael Moron was 15! Osama Bin Laden at 70? What, they could not resurrect Adolph Hitler for the poll? Such a shame.

The really scary thing about this poll? Half the votes came from the US! DU.org is alive and well and now packing polls!

Comments (Page 1)

HC1240

on Oct 12, 2005

What? Martin Sheen didn't make the list?

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

What? Martin Sheen didn't make the list?

Could have! They did not give the complete list, just some of the more 'progressive' ones.

DJBandit

on Oct 12, 2005

Strange, I figured Bush would have been in the top ten (add sarcastic look). I wouldn't mind Clinton..., if having sex with other women other than your wife is not having sex with women.

latour999

on Oct 12, 2005

These are just living people, not all time, correct?

I do think Chomsky, Mandela and Chavez are decent choices.

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

Strange, I figured Bush would have been in the top ten (add sarcastic look). I wouldn't mind Clinton..., if having sex with other women other than your wife is not having sex with women.

43. And I gather you are male? So I got to ask. Would your wife approve of your non-sex?

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

I do think Chomsky, Mandela and Chavez are decent choices.

Chomsky is an intellectual snob and total ass hole! Mandela is so farking naive, he would not know a scumbag from a terrorist (and he knows both). Chavez is so rabid, that he would cut off his nose to spite his face!

you want them, you can have them! Just dont make the other 6 billion people suffer for your idiocy.

sunwukong

on Oct 12, 2005

His articles are typically well researched and he provides links and excerpts from news stories that lend credibility to his "reporting" of political happenings and current events.

Yeeeeeah ...

I don't disagree about Chomsky's personal traits, but his insights into media are provacative and non-trivial, i.e., not all smart people are nice or even personable. As a ruler, it depends in what capacity ...

As for Mandela I usually keep a few things in mind:
- his "brief tenure" under the Apartheid regime
- the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (a brilliant idea for an almost intractable problem)
- his continued involvement on issues of importance to his people, e.g., AIDs

In the face of everything else that defined the close relationship between Canada and the USA during the Reagon-Mulroney presidency/prime ministership, our PM Mulroney took the absolutely correct stand and opposed the Apartheid regime in the face of US antagonism towards anyone affecting their strategic interests (as key supporters of the regime). Mandela was cited as central to that inspiration and, at least in most of the world, his leadership and example in overcoming Apartheid and nuturing a new South Africa are certainly praiseworthy. As a world ruler .... I think the hot political fires in him are long doused.

Chavez is a populist like any other -- in opposition he played to the audience the ruling party ignored/disaffected and in power he remembers the people who brought him there. A pragmatist with respect to holding onto power.

sunwukong

on Oct 12, 2005

you want them, you can have them! Just dont make the other 6 billion people suffer for your idiocy.

Now, of course, is the time that you present your top picks ... oh, and very fatherly reply!

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

In the face of everything else that defined the close relationship between Canada and the USA during the Reagon-Mulroney presidency/prime ministership, our PM Mulroney took the absolutely correct stand and opposed the Apartheid regime in the face of US antagonism towards anyone affecting their strategic interests (as key supporters of the regime). Mandela was cited as central to that inspiration and, at least in most of the world, his leadership and example in overcoming Apartheid and nuturing a new South Africa are certainly praiseworthy. As a world ruler .... I think the hot political fires in him are long doused.

Canada has that luxury because it has a big brother. America is the big brother. What you abhor about us you would gladly assume if the roles were switched. Leadership sucks, because you do have to make tough decisions (something none of them including Chavez can do).

I will gladly acknowledge anyone what can take over for the US, and do it better - after they prove that point.

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

Now, of course, is the time that you present your top picks ... oh, and very fatherly reply!

Sometimes a kick in the butt is better than a peck on the cheek.

But of course your question supposes that I would even consider world rule. And that is your fallacy.

DJBandit

on Oct 12, 2005

I would doubt she would approve, but then again it's not sex according to Clintons idea of what sex is. Hehe.

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

would doubt she would approve, but then again it's not sex according to Clintons idea of what sex is. Hehe.

And so a generation of kids grew up doing it because the president said it was not sex. I guess NAMBLA is happy as well. Since now they can get a BJ from a 10 year old and it is not sex, and so it is not against the law.

DJBandit

on Oct 12, 2005

Just in case, you do realize I was not serious? I should be the last person to decide who should rule. I'm not to good at telling when people are being serious with me or not.

sunwukong

on Oct 12, 2005

The problem is that you don't know what it is that we have issues with. You presume that it is entirely to do with power, i.e., whomever has the power has the same issues. You fail to realize that we are much different culturally and that there are tensions because of this.

I agree anyone in a power leadership position like the USA would be forced to make a lot of the same types of choices and compromises, but the one in power also has some freedom to pick what "little evils" (and the subsequent cost to morality/ethics) to support their status. The USA and the UK decided it was in their strategic interest to support the reprehensible Apartheid regime and encouraged both citizens and private corporations to conduct business and normal relations.

In Canada several entities (e.g., University of Toronto), companies and individuals also had vested interest in the regime. However, with Prime Minister Mulroney (one of our most conservative) on the bully pulpit and with complete public support, these groups and individuals were shamed into withdrawing from South Africa. During the remainder of Apartheid's lifespan, he continued to harrangue our allies in the USA, the Commonwealth and the Francophonie, and was instrumental in having sanctions placed on South Africa.

Consider that the leaders of the USA, UK and Canada were all conservative, pro-business, pro-trade liberalisation, anti-communist/socialist in their ideology and practice. Consider that taking a strict anti-Apartheid stance would only hurt the economy in the short term as it meant withdrawal from lucrative investments and business activity. Finally, consider the price to be paid by drawing the ire of two much more powerful (politically and economically) allies at a time when Canada was attemping to draw closer to both (and especially to the USA). Why did Mulroney's government have complete public support for this stance and the other two barely any pressure to change the status quo? On the topic of Apartheid (and others), I believe the inherent cultural differences between our two countries was the deciding factor.

As for the Cold War factor in making these types of decisions .... at this point in time, what enemy are you fighting that we in Canada are not such that we will approve of, say, gay marriage, and you won't?

sunwukong

on Oct 12, 2005

But of course your question supposes that I would even consider world rule. And that is your fallacy.

You would never entertain a hypothetical question about a situation you disagree with? Or do you think the results of the poll are binding on the world ... ?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!