Well yeah, but I was going more for British leaders in general. Besides I'm not 'pure' English, there's some Scottish and most importantly in this case, probably some Welsh blood in me.Xenowolf said:
Worst leaders of your country
- Thread starter sb666
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh, yeah, it's not like all those countries that invaded Israel immediately after it was created, just because the israelis were mainly Jewish, had anything to do with it. Also, fixed it for you.Heimir said:
So you're saying that bush is worse than leaders who engaged in deliberate acts of cruelty based on ethnicity, and whose decisions made conditions significant worse for said group of people, simply because its personally affected you? While it certainly justifies your dislike of him, calling him the worst president of all time based on that simply reeks of egoism.ThePenguinKnight said:
Government from the USSR times. All of them, equally terrible. And some of the electoral kings.
Electors - they only cared about money, while country went to hell from internal issues and external attacks.
Governments in the previous century - very bad ideas, for instance when we had problems with money, they thought it would be a good idea to print some more and try to trick everyone... somehow... nobody understood the thought process. Result was huge inflation and loss of value of the currency.
Electors - they only cared about money, while country went to hell from internal issues and external attacks.
Governments in the previous century - very bad ideas, for instance when we had problems with money, they thought it would be a good idea to print some more and try to trick everyone... somehow... nobody understood the thought process. Result was huge inflation and loss of value of the currency.
Compared to intentional murder of millions? Of course it is. Besides which, hundreds of thousands of people didn't die in Sweden and Norway, and who was it who killed the ones who did die? The French and the British?Heimir said:
Look there is a massive difference between killing as part of military campaign and rounding people up to commit genocide as part of your ideology. Execpt this isn't even that, you're saying that that the allies are as bad as the Nazis becaue while the Nazis killed millions of innocent people for insane reasons the allies, as part of their efforst to stop the Nazi's killing people, allowed the Nazi's to kill people. Do you not see the what's wrong with that arguement?
The part about him being a "good ol' boy" can be accepted here, but I feel I should bring up an important point concerning the first Johnson.Neverhoodian said:
As one of the only token democrats left in office (everyone else left office to go to the CSA), he was pretty much screwed for reconstruction. The radical republicans wanted to pretty much "salt the earth" when it came to the South, so he was pretty unpopular in a radical republican congress. With Lincoln gone, and the inability to mediate as a moderate Republican.. the whole thing kinda went.. south. This also led to the Tenure of Office Act, attempting to limit Johnson's power and ability to replace important people who would carry out reconstruction as per the orders of said radical republican congress. I think it was Stanton- and his hilarious armed response antics. Given that the act was repealed later, and similar laws have been found unconstitutional, I don't think it's poor leadership that caused him to violate this.
Aka, congress and the president going at it cuz from different places and having different opinions.
Anywhos, he got impeached, but got acquitted by one vote. He was quite unpopular, but he did help to prevent further division in the union.
Racist? Yes. Worst leader? I dunno, there was a lot of racists in power at the time- Woodrow Wilson allowed Klan v2 to premiere their "Birth of a Nation" at the White House.
A much more suitable, yet popular candidate for "the worst leader" position could be "Andrew freaking Jackson". His borderline insane hate for the British, his dealings with foreign nationals, and his spoils system really set bad precedents for future presidents and leaders. I mean, this guy executed British civilians on Spanish soil in summary executions. (They were plotting.) His leadership style was more akin to the persona of Duke Nukem.
Although hilarious and popular, Jackson really lacked the mind for the job.
As a close second, Grant lacked any real presidential leadership, and pretty much just followed whatever Congress told him. Oh and the scandals. THE SCANDALS!
I don't suppose you've seen the watchmen movie? 'Cause I don't think you'd be very pleased with it.Neverhoodian said:
Nixon is elected for third/fourth term in it to prevent communist domination or whatever
It wasn't absolutely necessary, perfectly understandable yes, necessary not so much.Revnak said:
Next time I will make my decision only after I set aside myself, my family, my friends, my race, my religion, my opinions, and my personal experiences and how they've effected me to give a proper robotic answer derived from statistics so that I am selfless and therefore don't reek of egoism.Sutter Cane said:
Every president who's ever lived has fucked over a group of people based on ethnicity/standing and made conditions significantly worse for said group of people. Are you saying the suffering of one group of people should be seen as less disgraceful as the suffering of a different group? Because it certainly seems like that's what your saying, and that's fucked up.
It absolutely was, Britain was not willing to give up its rule over the United States and the United States desired sovereignty. Any nation or people group that desires sovereignty has some degree of entitlement to it and if they can make adequate arguments for why they deserve it, which the founding fathers did, then their going to war to gain said sovereignty is necessary and they are fully entitled to it.DirtyJunkieScum said:
Hmmmm...... Canada's a though one, most of our politicans are only slightly incompetent not outright terrible. Some of the Royal governors were pretty awful but they were either French or British so I'm not sure they really count.
I guess Mackenzie King was a bit of a lunatic, what with the seances and talking to his dead mother all the time. Also the blatant racism but most world leaders were fairly racist prior to maybe the 1960's. Still not a terrible leader compared to some.
I guess Mackenzie King was a bit of a lunatic, what with the seances and talking to his dead mother all the time. Also the blatant racism but most world leaders were fairly racist prior to maybe the 1960's. Still not a terrible leader compared to some.
Well, ought to be Gustav IV Adolf, the king who wouldn't sit back and enjoy what he had, but had to gamble it all away, getting loads of people killed, by bumbling away Finland and Pomerania. It's a wee bit like seeing someone playing Europa Universalis while high.
In fact, he was so unusually awful at the whole dictatorship-gig that the nobles tossed him out and appointed his uncle to warm the throne instead, until they could import someone better.
Gustav himself, meanwhile, died forever alone in the 19'th century equivolent to a flea motel in Switzerland. Lawl.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Gustav_IV_Adolf_of_Sweden.jpg
"Have at thee, flies!"
In fact, he was so unusually awful at the whole dictatorship-gig that the nobles tossed him out and appointed his uncle to warm the throne instead, until they could import someone better.
Gustav himself, meanwhile, died forever alone in the 19'th century equivolent to a flea motel in Switzerland. Lawl.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Gustav_IV_Adolf_of_Sweden.jpg
"Have at thee, flies!"
Going to have to go with Rick Santorum, former senator from my state and guy who compared consensual homosexual relationships to child abuse.
And we considered letting this guy run the fucking country.
And we considered letting this guy run the fucking country.