For Jeb Bush: Rules Regarding Hitler

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 The Jeb Bush thread regarding his comments about killing baby Hitler is gone. I looked for this link all day to post in that thread. So, despite it having little or no context now that the thread is gone, I'm just going to post it out of spite. 

 http://www.tor.com/2011/08/31/wikihistory/

 

  

[The Mance]

I'm just going to post it out of spite.   

Worth it.  

[TheKitttenGuard]

The next question for Jeb:

When you go back to kill baby Hitler there was a mistake and you end a few months before he was born.  Will you abort fetus Hitler?

[Spring Bass]

The next question for Jeb:

When you go back to kill baby Hitler there was a mistake and you end a few months before he was born.  Will you abort fetus Hitler?

Why not? Can't hurt.

If he's already born and a few months old, I'd probably just bring him back with me and dump him at a hospital somewhere. Chances are that if you remove him from early 20th century Germany, he's probably just going to grow up and become a second-rate artist.

There is a chance that someone worse might be waiting in the wings if Hitler disappears. Fascism wasn't just about Hitler - there was a good chance that Germany goes fascist in the 1930s with or without him, just like how many other countries in Europe were doing so.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hey, don't forget Ben Carson and his opinion about the gigantic pyramid shaped grain silos near Cairo.

[Corvinus85]

In order to stop WWII, you pretty much have to stop WWI, too, which means you have to stop the ridiculous arms race that happened in the decades before that. You'd pretty much have to go on a murdering rampage in the late 19th century, taking out various dynasties and political leadership.

[Assar]

Why would you even anwer such a question? It's idiotic whatever the answer.

[Wise Fool]

Before the forum reset I had written a nice, lengthy, detailed description of how Jeb murdering a baby Hitler with a knife. I think that has now been lost forever. A pity. Perhaps my finest work.

[Fez]

In order to stop WWII, you pretty much have to stop WWI, too, which means you have to stop the ridiculous arms race that happened in the decades before that. You'd pretty much have to go on a murdering rampage in the late 19th century, taking out various dynasties and political leadership.

Anarchist!

Or you could go back further and support Napoleon's war effort (bring AK-47s), or at the very least tell him going into Russia is a bad idea. If he never loses, the Congress of Vienna never happens and a whole lot of 19th century history gets changed, probably for the better.

[MinDonner]

I thought Kung Fury couldn't have been any more awesome but... what if it had also included Jeb Bush???

*goes back in time to persuade the Kung Fury directors to add in this crucial detail*

[A True Kaniggit]

I thought Kung Fury couldn't have been any more awesome but... what if it had also included Jeb Bush???

*goes back in time to persuade the Kung Fury directors to add in this crucial detail*

That is exactly what Kung Fury needed. An epic battle between Kung Bush and Kung Fuhrer. 

Edit: I would've also liked to see a Donkey Kung in there fighting somebody.

Edit2: If you don't mind, while you're persuading the Kung Fury directors  about the Jeb Bush thing, could you please mention Donkey Kung? Thanks.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

I thought the cause of WWII was WWI, you'd have to go back further than Hitler.

 

Also, without the driving force of WWII our military industrial complex never would have advanced so fast and a lot of the technologies from that lead to our current levels.  So it is possible if you eliminate WWII (and WWI while we're at it) you actually slow technological advancements to the point where you can't go back in time and change things.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Also, without the driving force of WWII our military industrial complex never would have advanced so fast and a lot of the technologies from that lead to our current levels.  So it is possible if you eliminate WWII (and WWI while we're at it) you actually slow technological advancements to the point where you can't go back in time and change things.

That was the primary premise of the little messageboard short story I posted. Without Hitler, you don't have the technological jump needed to eventually develop time travel. Therefore, going back in time and killing Hitler is prohibited.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

That was the primary premise of the little messageboard short story I posted. Without Hitler, you don't have the technological jump needed to eventually develop time travel. Therefore, going back in time and killing Hitler is prohibited.

I think I head this on Doctor Who as well

We might have discussed it in a history class once too (or maybe it was just me and the ex-husband, we were such geeks, we'd have all sorts of convos like this).  I do know when I heard on Dr. Who recently, I laughed as I recalled discussing it before and came to the same conclusions

[MinDonner]

But think of all the hovercars we'd have instead!

[Xray the Enforcer]

Lost in the muds of northern France.

[Seaworth'sShipmate]

Wait.. Jeb! was actually asked this question?

They kept telling me that Jeb! was the smarter of the Bush boys.

The more I think on it, the more I realize GWB was probably the smart one after all. Sure he was kind of stupid and arrogant in his own way, but he did have a certain amount of people skills and low animal cunning.

Jeb! just looks like a flustered "out of it" guy who has lived in a country club all his life and only recently has had to deal with the "real world" where his name alone won't get him very far at all.

From what I remember, George could make you forget that he was a Yankee blue-blood instead of the Everyday  Texan Cowboy he sold himself as. He also had a sharp tongue which Kerry and Gore both received.

I can't imagine the Donald being able to walk all over George ( or not so easily) were he running again

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Debating which idiot brother is smarter is pointless if they're still idiots at the end of the day.

And killing baby Hitler would actually be a bad idea, considering the unknowable and the fact that Hitler's decisions in many ways lost the war.

Still hilarious that he was asked it though.

[The Anti-Targ]

I thought the cause of WWII was WWI, you'd have to go back further than Hitler.

 

Also, without the driving force of WWII our military industrial complex never would have advanced so fast and a lot of the technologies from that lead to our current levels.  So it is possible if you eliminate WWII (and WWI while we're at it) you actually slow technological advancements to the point where you can't go back in time and change things.

Meh, people were (and are) always looking for excuses to go to war. Some sort of major shit fight would have broken out no matter who you went back and assassinated to try to prevent the ones that have happened in our current timeline. 

Which is why I agree with AsianAvenger that IATT bulletin 1147 is totally racist. 

[Fez]

Another option; wait until we've developed cures for alzheimer's and lung cancer and go back in time and give those to Paul von Hindenburg. If he was still healthy in 1932/33, he probably would've followed through on his threat to impose martial law and arrest all Nazi officials instead of signing Hitler's Enabling Act. And if not, well, we've got a time machine, we can try something else after that.

That way there's no ethical quandaries about killing babies and we don't have deal with the potential that the Nazis would still rise to power without Hitler, either due to their other founding members or some other guy who could've taken Hitler's place if Hitler never existed.