Worst leaders of your country

[Belaam]

Hitler.

I win.

Godwin's Law.

You lose.

 

[gim73]

And the US and the UK are guilty for the problems today with Israel.

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.

So what gave the UK and US the rights to throw out the inhabitants of the area just because the jews wanted it? Are you daft? Todays problems are caused by the carelessness of the US and UK creating Israel thinking there'd be absolutley no problems at all. Other than pissing of the entire arab world.

Well, to be blunt, back then nobody gave a crap what the arabs thought. There really weren't any strong states back then. The great empires were coming down, and alot of weak countries came about in those days.

As a thought exercise: how about if we give Utah to the american indians? Their very own sovereign country on US soil? Sure, the mormons wouldn't like it, but if you go back far enough you can show that they controlled that land long ago before losing it, and it would be fitting.

As far as horrid leaders... I'll put Queen Mary up there on the list.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

Pretty much all of them, but George W. Bush is the first that comes to mind. Of course you can't really just blame the president for everything, our government doesn't work that way. Most, if not all of the government is actually to blame not just Bush.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Buchanan, LBJ, and Andrew Johnson. All of them crazy, all of them morons, all of them terrible leaders.

LBJ was awesome. If he didn't go to Vietnam, he would have been considered one of the greatest presidents of all time.

He fought for Civil Rights, made education cheaper with financial aid, reduced poverty dramatically, established Medicaid, made immigration easier, consumer protection, gun control, space race..... the list goes on man.

Except he was also absolutely crazy and he totally deserves to be hated for Vietnam in ways that no other president can compare to. But other than that he was among the most liberal presidents we ever had, and you appear to have a different opinion on whether that is always a good thing.

 

[Sutter Cane]

For me, personally, yes I consider Bush to be the worst.

I have friends and family who were sent to Iraq and never made it back. And due to the chain of events Bush started by his stupidity and greed me, my friends, and my family can barely get by because of the economy.

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.

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.

Well in this case, yes you should, as you have not personally experienced all 200+ years of American history personally.

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.

Please name ONE thing that the Bush administration carried out and actively supported that is even in the same ballpark of the trail of tears.

So let me get this straight, You actually want me to judge 200+ years of american history atrocities that even you admit I have never experienced? You want me to sit here and say that I believe X atrocity is worse than Y atrocity? Sure, lets see how sensible that would be in a hypothetical situation.

Hey fatherless child of war! You shouldn't feel so bad that your father was tortured until he died laying in his own waste from starvation! Being captured by terrorists isn't as bad as being a slave! Now stop crying because you're egotistical, it could have been worse.

You want to talk egotistical? You're the one trying to control my opinions.

I don't mind the thread subject and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just don't like being badgered because I dislike Bush more than previous presidents due to personal experiences rather than historical happenings.

Note that I never said that you weren't justified for disliking the bush administration, but simply that

1. There have been presidents that have caused more damage than bush (Cooledge, Johnson, Buchanan)
2. There've been presidents that intentionally committed atrocities (Jackson and perhaps the expansionist presidents as well)
3. There have been presidents more incompetent than Bush(Harding, Grant)

and that your justification for calling bush worse than all of these leaders was not that his actions were more severe, or more damaging to the country as a whole, but simply that they affected you and those close to you. That is not sufficient for making a case that he is the worst leader in US history. That's like saying "Transformers 2 is the greatest film ever made," and when asked why you reply "because I had I great time when I went to see it with my friends." It fails to establish what about the film merits it being viewed by everyone as the best film of all time, just as your explanation for why bush is the worst president has failed to establish how he is worse than those above, and if you honestly believe that Bush should be recognized by us as the worst president of all time simply because he affected you personally, that that would indeed be egocentric, as it would imply that the suffering caused by all those others does not measure up to the hardship that you personally have been through.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

The stupid man who currently leads our country... right into the ground.

That guy looks like he's half ghost or something. He's like so white even his eyes refuse to have any color that's not complete dull. You guys may want to make sure he's not one of the undead, just for safety sake.

 

[pastrami05]

For me, personally, yes I consider Bush to be the worst.

I have friends and family who were sent to Iraq and never made it back. And due to the chain of events Bush started by his stupidity and greed me, my friends, and my family can barely get by because of the economy.

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.

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.

Well in this case, yes you should, as you have not personally experienced all 200+ years of American history personally.

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.

Please name ONE thing that the Bush administration carried out and actively supported that is even in the same ballpark of the trail of tears.

So let me get this straight, You actually want me to judge 200+ years of american history atrocities that even you admit I have never experienced? You want me to sit here and say that I believe X atrocity is worse than Y atrocity? Sure, lets see how sensible that would be in a hypothetical situation.

Hey fatherless child of war! You shouldn't feel so bad that your father was tortured until he died laying in his own waste from starvation! Being captured by terrorists isn't as bad as being a slave! Now stop crying because you're egotistical, it could have been worse.

You want to talk egotistical? You're the one trying to control my opinions.

I don't mind the thread subject and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just don't like being badgered because I dislike Bush more than previous presidents due to personal experiences rather than historical happenings.

You're deliberately misrepresenting what SutterCane said. He didn't say that this hypothetical child shouldn't feel bad. It is a terrible thing, and the kid has every right in the world to feel terrible. What is egotistical would be to say, "my suffering is worse than the suffering of the Cherokee on the trail of tears. Do you get the difference? If you want to think that Bush is a bad president, thats not egotistical in any way. What is egotistical is to say that bush is a WORSE president than Jackson, simply because you personally experienced some suffering due to Bush.

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

Note that I never said that you weren't justified for disliking the bush administration, but simply that

1. There have been presidents that have caused more damage than bush (Cooledge, Johnson, Buchanan)
2. There've been presidents that intentionally committed atrocities (Jackson and perhaps the expansionist presidents as well)
3. There have been presidents more incompetent than Bush(Harding, Grant)

and that your justification for calling bush worse than all of these leaders was not that his actions were more severe, or more damaging to the country as a whole, but simply that they affected you and those close to you. That is not sufficient for making a case that he is the worst leader in US history. That's like saying "Transformers 2 is the greatest film ever made," and when asked why you reply "because I had I great time when I went to see it with my friends." It fails to establish what about the film merits it being viewed by everyone as the best film of all time, just as your explanation for why bush is the worst president has failed to establish how he is worse than those above, and if you honestly believe that Bush should be recognized by us as the worst president of all time simply because he affected you personally, that that would indeed be egocentric, as it would imply that the suffering caused by all those others does not measure up to the hardship that you personally have been through.

If I call you a dick, does that mean your literally a dick? No.

If I call Bush the worst US president does that factually make him the worst US president? No.

Can you factually prove who the worst US president is? No, you can't, because depending on who you are PERSONALLY and what you have EXPERIENCED in your lifetime manipulates your view on what is and isn't morally right or wrong and in turn manipulates your view on the severity of what is wrong and what is right.

I don't understand how you can remember the names of presidents and what they have done, but fail to grasp what an opinion is.

 

[Stanislav Janosik]

This guy here

http://i.pravda.sk/07/034/skcl/P231a0c6b_dzurindaV.jpg

Apart from selling out strategic state-owned companies, he promoted corruption like no other. Generally he is a sleazy guy who will go to great lengths to avoid answering questions and telling the truth. Thankfully, as of now he is no longer able to do any more damage on such a large scale.

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

You're deliberately misrepresenting what SutterCane said. He didn't say that this hypothetical child shouldn't feel bad. It is a terrible thing, and the kid has every right in the world to feel terrible. What is egotistical would be to say, "my suffering is worse than the suffering of the Cherokee on the trail of tears. Do you get the difference? If you want to think that Bush is a bad president, thats not egotistical in any way. What is egotistical is to say that bush is a WORSE president than Jackson, simply because you personally experienced some suffering due to Bush.

I said numerous times that it was my opinion. I said numerous times that he was chosen through a list of presidents I've experienced. And he just keeps telling me over and over again what I meant by my posts, as if he dictates what I type.

He's saying I reek of egotism because of my opinion, and he's trying to form an argument out of nothing.

 

[Strazdas]

Rolandas Paksas
He became a president, sold countries secrets to russia, got removed, sued the country for "illegal removal of presidency" and won. hes trying to get to the position again this year.

 

[cahtush]

Gustav IV Adolf, the king that lost us Finland, that had been a part of Sweden for 700 years. He lost HALF the country.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

His actions are really indefensible.

Challenge accepted.

In some ways it could be argued he was the Hitler of his time. All the elements are there, genocidal religious intolerance, a series of atrocities and mass killings, oppression of his own people by forcing his own biases onto them and starting a war motivated by his hatred and biases.

Cromwell was a general. In the 17th century. You realise what that means don't you? People get killed, in vast numbers, and there's no Geneva Convention or UN Declaration of Human Rights to protect them - Cromwell was by no definition an astoundingly cruel commander. I don't know what war you think he started? Please enlighten me. His hatred and bias against the Irish was a hatred and bias held by virtually every single person in England at the time.

Anyone that kills or starts wars in the name of religion is definitely a nutcase, Cromwell didn't just kill or start a war either.

No, he just didn't start the war at all ... and therefore not in the name of religion ... The Irish rebelled in 1641. Cromwell, after serving in the English Civil Wars, then went to return the government to English hands.

 

[DirtyJunkieScum]

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.

I think we are disagreeing on the use of the word "necessary" here, and "absolutely" come to think of it.

Also, the US did not exist. There were colonies under the rule of the UK. Some of those colonists wanted to leave British rule and start up for themselves, some did not. Hence why it was originally seen as a civil disorder matter in the UK. Should they have been given the option to vote on secession, yes sure, by today's standards I'd go for that.

 

[J Tyran]

His actions are really indefensible.

Challenge accepted.

In some ways it could be argued he was the Hitler of his time. All the elements are there, genocidal religious intolerance, a series of atrocities and mass killings, oppression of his own people by forcing his own biases onto them and starting a war motivated by his hatred and biases.

Cromwell was a general. In the 17th century. You realise what that means don't you? People get killed, in vast numbers, and there's no Geneva Convention or UN Declaration of Human Rights to protect them - Cromwell was by no definition an astoundingly cruel commander. I don't know what war you think he started? Please enlighten me. His hatred and bias against the Irish was a hatred and bias held by virtually every single person in England at the time.

Anyone that kills or starts wars in the name of religion is definitely a nutcase, Cromwell didn't just kill or start a war either.

No, he just didn't start the war at all ... and therefore not in the name of religion ... The Irish rebelled in 1641. Cromwell, after serving in the English Civil Wars, then went to return the government to English hands.

Defence attempt failed, "others did it too!" or "so and so did something worse!" is not a viable excuse. Without trying to be insulting that kind of defence is almost play school like. Even by the standards of the time butchering the civilians in a town after the garrison had surrendered was considered pretty brutal.

His war had little to do with suppressing a rebellion, it had everything to do with getting revenge for the Portadown massacre.

 

[Porygon-2000]

Edmund Barton

The first one we ever got (outside the monarchy), and the first bit of legislation he passes effectively banned anyone not British and White from entering the country. Way to make a first impression!

Though, on the whole, we have had a reasonable amount of competent pollies, especially after the second world war.

 

[Porygon-2000]

EDIT: Whoopsie daisy!