[feminism] Finland

amRam said:
Yeah man a shitty leader totally almost took over the world.... :lies:
Click to expand...

was he a leader of the world or a leader of germany? was germany completely demolished by his decisions and did it end up occupied by two other nations as a result, or do great leaders sometimes just get a bad roll and it's totally not their fault?
 
He united the masses and moved his people. He built and commanded an army that was almost able to take over Europe.

What you think about his politics or whether he was ultimately successful doesn't matter. He showed incredible leadership. Leadership specifically.
 
amRam said:
He united the masses and moved his people. He built and commanded an army that was almost able to take over Europe.

What you think about his politics or whether he was ultimately successful doesn't matter. He showed incredible leadership. Leadership specifically.
Click to expand...

a leader chooses where to lead his people. he lead 5 million of them to their deaths for gains that lasted no more than 6 years, made them enemies of the world, and left his country in economic and physical ruin. you are choosing to look at only the motivational capacity of leadership. he was extremely effective at rallying people, and extremely poor at leading them where they wanted to go.

if he had pulled the reins in 1939 maybe you'd have some point. he attacked the soviet union, and he attacked the united kingdom, and he lost the war on every single front. telling your people they will rule the world is all well and good until it comes time to deliver.
 
He was excellent at motivating an entire population towards a common goal. That's the fundamental definition of leadership.

I'd say a guy who manages to convince a thousand people to jump off a bridge is a pretty good fuckin leader. Outcome be damned.
 
and i'm saying that the fundamental definition of leadership is

motivating an entire population towards a common goal and accomplishing that goal
Click to expand...

short term, sure i'll give it to them, but i'm pretty sure it was a long term goal. something about 999 years or around that.
 
Mitchdubai said:
Havax is literally seething about this. He's SO fucking angry about wimmin in power, he's banging his head on the wall and grinding his teeth.
Click to expand...

In mitch's country women like this can't even rent their own hotel room without a mans permission

can't let a man sleep over unless they are married to them or they will go to prison

if they get raped walking the street they will also go to prison for being a whore

but look at him be a woman's rights advocate in here right now

adorable

:lol:
 
bowl of blood said:
a leader chooses where to lead his people. he lead 5 million of them to their deaths for gains that lasted no more than 6 years, made them enemies of the world, and left his country in economic and physical ruin. you are choosing to look at only the motivational capacity of leadership. he was extremely effective at rallying people, and extremely poor at leading them where they wanted to go.

if he had pulled the reins in 1939 maybe you'd have some point. he attacked the soviet union, and he attacked the united kingdom, and he lost the war on every single front. telling your people they will rule the world is all well and good until it comes time to deliver.
Click to expand...

i have some major issues with this (obviously)

So if you die you weren't a good leader?

I disagree.......we all die most never lived

If you end up defeated you weren't a good leader?

I could disagree

I mean was JFK a bad President because he got killed.....

your argument suggests yes

I would rather have died under Hitler's rule than lived another fucking day in the Weimar Republic before it.

That is just a fact for me........

I would rather fight and die under say George Washington, gone out like crazy MEL GIBSON in the PATRIOT, than bend the knee to pee like Canada still does to the Brits.

That is just a fact for me........

The South lost the Civil War yet I still understand and even sympathize with their position. I get it.

Lincoln was a bag of shit........an actual tyrant.

So......I can also safely say that I would rather be burned in an actual holocaust of flames in Dresden, my family burned to the ground in ashes, than live under MERKEL's rule and be controlled by not just foreign countries, not just an unelected EU, who only serves people trying to rape and ruin Germany, but has made that country the work horse for every dead beat nation in Europe who can't pay their own bills.

and Merkel is called the true real world leader to this day by Vanster types

:shrug:

but then again I'm not a Got Haggis type man child who still thinks living inside Baltimore is cool or trendy.

Don't value the future in "woke" gamergate culture and his next soy and almond + oat milk latte.

More to me than urban underarmor camo and searching out hot new witch house bands at trendy pubs

More to me than hipster 8 track players and betamax sundays

Some of us really are a give me liberty, give me meaning, or give me death kind of people.
 
Last edited:
and lastly none of these ladies surprise me

I mean they are all still more men and manly than absent

who spends all day in the BERNIE thread begging a crusty old 80 year old communist Jew for his next government subsidized estrogen injection

wonders where his next free shit will come from

which titty to suckle on

at least we can point to some young subtle breasts for once

better than momma Merkel and her sag hag holders
 
StapleMammal1 said:
The unedited version is better because the PM does have a pretty cooter. :p

fH4a8gA.jpg
Click to expand...

God damnit I am too gullible these days.
 
Mitchdubai said:
Havax is literally seething about this. He's SO fucking angry about wimmin in power, he's banging his head on the wall and grinding his teeth.
Click to expand...

lol is that what you got out of "God help you all"?

calm your tits, Francis.
 
havax said:
lol is that what you got out of "God help you all"?

calm your tits, Francis.
Click to expand...

he had to put his angst and outrage on someone somewhere

other than on anyone in his country

or towards the country of Dubai

or he would go to prison...........:lol:

jokes on you again havax

this is what real winning looks like in here
 
Captain Tele said:
i have some major issues with this (obviously)

So if you die you weren't a good leader?

I disagree.......we all die most never lived

If you end up defeated you weren't a good leader?

I could disagree

I mean was JFK a bad President because he got killed.....

your argument suggests yes

I would rather have died under Hitler's rule than lived another fucking day in the Weimar Republic before it.

That is just a fact for me........

I would rather fight and die under say George Washington, gone out like crazy MEL GIBSON in the PATRIOT, than bend the knee to pee like Canada still does to the Brits.

That is just a fact for me........

The South lost the Civil War yet I still understand and even sympathize with their position. I get it.

Lincoln was a bag of shit........an actual tyrant.

So......I can also safely say that I would rather be burned in an actual holocaust of flames in Dresden, my family burned to the ground in ashes, than live under MERKEL's rule and be controlled by not just foreign countries, not just an unelected EU, who only serves people trying to rape and ruin Germany, but has made that country the work horse for every dead beat nation in Europe who can't pay their own bills.

and Merkel is called the true real world leader to this day by Vanster types

:shrug:

but then again I'm not a Got Haggis type man child who still thinks living inside Baltimore is cool or trendy.

Don't value the future in "woke" gamergate culture and his next soy and almond + oat milk latte.

More to me than urban underarmor camo and searching out hot new witch house bands at trendy pubs

More to me than hipster 8 track players and betamax sundays

Some of us really are a give me liberty, give me meaning, or give me death kind of people.
Click to expand...

no, the difference is that hitler destroyed the german nation *doing what he promised to do and intended to do all along*. it was absolutely his intent to go to war with the world. it wasn't his intent to lose that war, but that's the responsibility of a leader. the people entrust him to carry them to their goals.

to use amrams example, a leader who leads people to jump off a cliff could be a great leader... as long as the people who followed him consider jumping off a cliff a desirable result. however, if he told them "there's a pot of gold over this hill" when in fact he had no idea, and it turned out to be a cliff and they all fell off, that is a fool and a manipulator, not a leader, because the people only followed on the assumption that they were getting the gold.

if you are saying a great leader doesn't need to deliver results, then fine, we have a definitional difference, but i would ask what is the use of your term? i am a consequentialist, i don't believe in lauding people for their feelings and ideals. results are all that matters. i know amram is a feelsies weelsies progressive but i didn't think you were cpt t.

to use a different analogy, i could say the cinncinati bengals are a great football team. after all, they work together toward a common goal, help each other out, and complement each other's roles. they all wear matching uniforms too! that's what a team is, right? except they lose every fucking game. maybe they are great at being a losing team, but who cares when the goal of every football team is to win? a great team accomplishes shared goals, like a great leader and his followers accomplish shared goals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top