NationStates Jolt Archive

Theodore Bilbo (my opinion)

NOTE: Yeah, I know I posted this before, but my old post got deleted, so I'm re-doing it...

Ben franklin, with all his bi-focals and electricity and the like

hmmmm i had never heard of theodore bilbo before so i googled him

seems fairly evil but i doubt he is MOST evil unless my quick search left out some worse sins than advocating racism

we have advocates of genocide, baby rapers, cannibals, lynchers, drug lords, im sure i could make a long long list of people at least as evil as this guy

hmmmm i had never heard of theodore bilbo before so i googled him

seems fairly evil but i doubt he is MOST evil unless my quick search left out some worse sins than advocating racism

we have advocates of genocide, baby rapers, cannibals, lynchers, drug lords, im sure i could make a long long list of people at least as evil as this guy

Good point. Bilbo was more than just an advocate of racism, though. He was a full-fledged member of the KKK, vehemently opposed anti-lynching laws, wanted all blacks deported to Africa, and once called on "every red-blooded white man to use any means necessary to keep the n*****s away from the polls." (Or, something like that...) But yeah, there were probably many people far more evil, but Bilbo was the first one that came to mind.

The traitor Benedict Arnold for betraying the USA in the Revolutionary war!

Truman or Nixon. :headbang: I hate those mass murderers.

The traitor Benedict Arnold for betraying the USA in the Revolutionary war!
Despite the fact that we never would have gotten to the point of him betraying us if it weren't for the excellency of his generalship. We would have never won the Revolution. He, until changing sides, was America's best general.

Despite the fact that we never would have gotten to the point of him betraying us if it weren't for the excellency of his generalship. We would have never won the Revolution. He, until changing sides, was America's best general.

Was past tense. I think he did us a disservice by changing sides, thus I think was the most "evil" American ever!

Was past tense. I think he did us a disservice by changing sides, thus I think was the most "evil" American ever!
I'm just curious as to how much you know about Benedict Arnold from after the Revolution. Like, his life and how he died and such.

By the way...the most evil American ever is Al Gore for "inventing the Internet" which I've become addicted to and therefore must deal with NationStaters all the time...sigh...

Uh, please don't turn this into a Benedict Arnold thread...so, who are some other evil Americans you guys can think of? Oh, I know, I know, how about Sam Bowers? Or Malcolm X? Or WEB DuBois? Or other white or black racists?

Truman or Nixon. :headbang: I hate those mass murderers.

A fine choice!

Anybody else? Anybody? Going once, going twice...

Come on, people! I know you have some ideas...I wanna hear 'em!

Truman or Nixon. :headbang: I hate those mass murderers.

Truman? I would assume that you hate him for dropping the nuclear bombs on Japan, (our enemy), in order to the end the biggest and bloodiest war in world history, correct? Do you realize that if we had invaded the main islands of Japan, we would have suffered over one million casualities? That's not including the tens of thousands -- or even millions -- of Japanese that would have been killed by a complete invasion of the islands. While dropping the nukes killed many people, it saved far more lives than it ended.....

***

Is this thread dedicated strictly to the most evil Americans?

Me!

Well, Truman should have left his hatred of anime outside the white house and Nixon was as crooked as, well, a politician.

Truman? I would assume that you hate him for dropping the nuclear bombs on Japan, (our enemy), in order to the end the biggest and bloodiest war in world history, correct? Do you realize that if we had invaded the main islands of Japan, we would have suffered over one million casualities? That's not including the tens of thousands -- or even millions -- of Japanese that would have been killed by a complete invasion of the islands. While dropping the nukes killed many people, it saved far more lives than it ended.....

***

Is this thread dedicated strictly to the most evil Americans?

Me!

Whether dropping the bomb was justified or not, or necessary or not, will always be open to debate. However, many sources acknowledge that the Japanese had been trying to surrender for at least a year.

Whether dropping the bomb was justified or not, or necessary or not, will always be open to debate. However, many sources acknowledge that the Japanese had been trying to surrender for at least a year.

Yes, it will always be open to debate...that's part of why this nation is the greatest on earth.... :)

When the Emperor of Japan, Hiroheto(sp?), was preparing to record the surrender address on the radio, there was a coup planned by one his generals, (whose name is escaping me at the moment). Fortunately, the coup failed as the Emperor was able to get the recorded message off to the radio...

Me!

Well, Truman should have left his hatred of anime outside the white house and Nixon was as crooked as, well, a politician.

Hatred of anime? :p And yes, Nixon was crooked...he did get us out of Vietnam....but his scandel(s) sunk him....

Me!

So, who do you think it is (the most evil American, I mean), Colerica?

So, who do you think it is (the most evil American, I mean), Colerica?

Too broad of a question, Roach-Busters.....I can't really narrow that down to just one...I could split it into scores of sub-catergories.....I mean, mass-murderers like Ted Bundy and Ed Gein(sp?), for example, are definitely evil...Tratiors like Benedict Arnold and John Walker Lindh would fit my definition of evil.....I know I sound like I'm dodging the question, but I don't think I can really narrow it down to just a handful of people.....

Me!

Too broad of a question, Roach-Busters.....I can't really narrow that down to just one...I could split it into scores of sub-catergories.....I mean, mass-murderers like Ted Bundy and Ed Gein(sp?), for example, are definitely evil...Tratiors like Benedict Arnold and John Walker Lindh would fit my definition of evil.....I know I sound like I'm dodging the question, but I don't think I can really narrow it down to just a handful of people.....

Me!

Who's John Walker Lindh?

There's always John Wayne Gacy. Truman and Nixon killed hundreds of thousands of people indirectly, but he killed 33 directly and brutally.

Who's John Walker Lindh?

A young American citizen who became brainwashed, for lack of a better word, by the Islamo-Fascist extremists of Al-Quada and left the nation to join the Taliban. He fought against the US in Operation: Enduring Freedom and was taken captive by our forces. When he revealed that he was an American, he sent him back over here for trial. Treason used to warrent execution. He only got seven years, (if I remember correctly.)

Me!

A young American citizen who became brainwashed, for lack of a better word, by the Islamo-Fascist extremists of Al-Quada and left the nation to join the Taliban. He fought against the US in Operation: Enduring Freedom and was taken captive by our forces. When he revealed that he was an American, he sent him back over here for trial. Treason used to warrent execution. He only got seven years, (if I remember correctly.)

Me!

Thanks.

Most Evil? Lou Pearlman. (http://loupearlmaninfo.sphosting.com/)

Most Evil? Lou Pearlman. (http://loupearlmaninfo.sphosting.com/)

Who?

Follow the link. I'll give you a hint--he's a "music" producer in Orlando. Music is in quotes because I use the term quite loosely to describe what he produces.

What about Henry Kissinger? His actions led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people yet he received the Nobel Prize for peace.

What about Henry Kissinger? His actions led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people yet he received the Nobel Prize for peace.

Good point! He was also a Soviet agent. (Read Henry Kissinger: Soviet Agent for more details) But then again, a lot of murderers have won the Nobel Peace Prize. Nelson Mandela, Woodrow Wilson, Yassir Arafat (I probably spelled his first name wrong), etc...

Good point! He was also a Soviet agent. (Read Henry Kissinger: Soviet Agent for more details) But then again, a lot of murderers have won the Nobel Peace Prize. Nelson Mandela, Woodrow Wilson, Yassir Arafat (I probably spelled his first name wrong), etc...


Didn't know that Nelson Mandela was a mass murderer but I did know that he sold aluminium shell casings for nuclear weapons to Saddam Hussein and left the nation's economy and crime rate in a worst state than when he came into office . Also, there is an increasing number of black people becoming racist towards white people.

Didn't know that Nelson Mandela was a mass murderer but I did know that he sold aluminium shell casings for nuclear weapons to Saddam Hussein and left the nation's economy and crime rate in a worst state than when he came into office . Also, there is an increasing number of black people becoming racist towards white people.

That's funny. You didn't know he was a murderer...and I didn't know that he sold stuff to SH. Well, ya learn somethin' new every day...Have you ever heard of the ANC? (African National Congress) That's Mandela's group. They used to do a tactic called 'neck-lacing' to anticommunist blacks. They'd tie the victim's hands with barbed wire, put a tire soaked in gasoline around the victim's neck, make the victim swallow gasoline, and then set the victim on fire and taunt him as he slowly and painfully died. Mandela's ANC did everything they could to provoke and instigate riots, which caused many black people to be killed. Even though he was allegedly 'helping' black people, the vast majority of people the ANC (which was and is a terroristic group) killed were blacks.

However, many sources acknowledge that the Japanese had been trying to surrender for at least a year.

They were offering a conditional surrender (as oppose to unconditional) where they keep some of their occupied territories. That was not acceptable.

Either way, I think the Chinese Communist 8th Route Army would have been able to kick out the Japanese without help, but it would have taken a LOOOONNNNG time.


JiangGuo

They were offering a conditional surrender (as oppose to unconditional) where they keep some of their occupied territories. That was not acceptable.

Either way, I think the Chinese Communist 8th Route Army would have been able to kick out the Japanese without help, but it would have taken a LOOOONNNNG time.


JiangGuo

and a lot more deaths.

the japanese got less than they deserved with the dropping of the bombs.
ask any korean, chinese, or filipino person who was alive at that time.

evil is such a difficult term. kissinger supported the deaths of many more people but he didnt EAT any of them like jeffery dahlmer did.

people who rape their own children while keeping them locked up and starving are very evil but we never learn their names

i have a hard spot in my heart for andrew jackson for what he did to the eastern indians. but i suppose he was a product of his time rather than flat out evil, if the general public had opposed the relocation of the indians, it wouldnt happened.

those white men who kept black people down by systematic lynchings were evil. i support the courts going back and trying any of those bastards no matter how old they are now. there can be no time limit on justice.

then there was jerry fallwell saying that we brought 9/11 on ourselves through our support of womens rights and gay rights.

so much evil so little time to list it.

Some people here seem to think that treason is the most evil thing a person can do, and that even doing it once is worse than a lifetime of baby raping. I think it comes from the popularity of patriotism, still in 2004 the last best and most prefered vestige of scoundrals. Such people confuse morality with state loyalty, which comes from confusing God with country, and is exacerbated by the treatment of symbols such as the flag as sacred objects, even to the point of attempting to pass laws requiring it to be treated as holy and enshrining rituals that debase our children to it in idolatry.

Benedict Arnold and John Walker Lynd are by NO means more evil than John Wayne Gace and Cardinal Bernard Law, accessory to hundreds of child rapes. Cardinal Law gets my vote, hands down. He was not a psychotic, he was not brainwashed. He was a beurocrat who knowingly enabled his subordinates in the rape of children.

- Rev. A.J. Harris
for President of the U.S.A.

good point dru!

yeah id put cardinal law high up on the list. the priest who molest children at least do it out of a deep psycholigical drive (not that that in any way excuses them) but law did it out of an utter callous disregard for what was being done to children in favor of not ruining men's careers. evil evil evil, he should be in jail.

So you'll vote for me? :)

hey baby, if its a choice between you and george bush, you got my vote.

are you 35+ and a native born american citizen?

hey baby, if its a choice between you and george bush, you got my vote.

are you 35+ and a native born american citizen?

Yes and I have never been convicted of a felony and I have never sworn alliegence to a foreign state.

you got some dammed good qualifications there.
what are you rev. of?

I have a clergy license in the state of california, which I got on the internet.

I am a neo-Arianite. Arianism is/was a form of Gnostic Christianity that holds that, although sinless, Christ was not the son of God in the sense of being equal &/or identicle with Him. He was a human being.

- A.J.H.

ahhh i googled it, its a very old heresy
so are there arian churches out there that people go to?

uh keeping to the topic. any very evil arians in the US?

Herman Mudgett (http://njnj.essortment.com/hermanmudgettb_rzsg.htm) should probably be in the running.

Leynier's got a good one.

um...Timothy McVeigh (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial9/mcveigh/) was the first that came to my mind.

Herman Mudgett (http://njnj.essortment.com/hermanmudgettb_rzsg.htm) should probably be in the running.

The name sounds familiar...if I'm not mistaken, he killed his wife, disguised himself as a boy, escaped via a ship, and was caught and hanged, correct? Or am I confusing him with someone else?

The name sounds familiar...if I'm not mistaken, he killed his wife, disguised himself as a boy, escaped via a ship, and was caught and hanged, correct? Or am I confusing him with someone else?
Click the link in my original post (his name is the link) for a summary of his rather dastardly deeds.

Herman Mudgett (http://njnj.essortment.com/hermanmudgettb_rzsg.htm) should probably be in the running.

I'm not sure he'd be considered a serial killer, since he killed different kinds of people in different ways.

But he was still pretty badass.

Two words: Dick Cheney.

Yes, I know that traitors, baby rapers, and such are in the running, but let me give my reasoning:

1) His daughter is gay, and yet he is probably one of the most anti-gay people ever. He would sell his daughter to rapists to get money and keep Republicans ruling the US.
2) He killed thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans to get oil to Halliburton. Yes, I know that it was Bush's idea, but Cheney seems like the real brains behind the operation.
3) He, along with Bush, have gone through countless actions to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Need I say more?

Click the link in my original post (his name is the link) for a summary of his rather dastardly deeds.

I didn't click the link, because I think I remember now...wasn't he that 'doctor' who tortured and killed women in his house and then disposed of their bodies in vats of acid, or whatever? I know I heard the name somewhere...

Truman or Nixon. :headbang: I hate those mass murderers.



How was Nixon a mass murder?

Two words: Dick Cheney.

Yes, I know that traitors, baby rapers, and such are in the running, but let me give my reasoning:

1) His daughter is gay, and yet he is probably one of the most anti-gay people ever. He would sell his daughter to rapists to get money and keep Republicans ruling the US.
2) He killed thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans to get oil to Halliburton. Yes, I know that it was Bush's idea, but Cheney seems like the real brains behind the operation.
3) He, along with Bush, have gone through countless actions to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Need I say more?


1)He would never do that, His daughter works for him
2)You are obviously brainwashed, Thousands of Iraqis have not died and the ones who did were killed by TERRORISTS! Halliburton has gotten NO OIL!
3)Bush is a good leader who has lowered taxes for the poor and given this country the largest economic boom in 20 years!
4)Turn off CNN and open your eyes to the truth!

I didn't click the link, because I think I remember now...wasn't he that 'doctor' who tortured and killed women in his house and then disposed of their bodies in vats of acid, or whatever? I know I heard the name somewhere...

Doctor Satan?

1)He would never do that, His daughter works for him
2)You are obviously brainwashed, Thousands of Iraqis have not died and the ones who did were killed by TERRORISTS! Halliburton has gotten NO OIL!
3)Bush is a good leader who has lowered taxes for the poor and given this country the largest economic boom in 20 years!
4)Turn off CNN and open your eyes to the truth!

Wait, wait, did you just say the economy is booming?

Uhh.....right....ok.

Wait, wait, did you just say the economy is booming?

Uhh.....right....ok.


Yes I did, Over 1 million new jobs in 4 months.

Yes I did, Over 1 million new jobs in 4 months.

While ignoring the HUGE deficit?

The economy is shit, everyone knows that. Jobs are not always an indicator of economic well being.

While ignoring the HUGE deficit?

The economy is shit, everyone knows that. Jobs are not always an indicator of economic well being.



The economy is doing great, That is a fact! All areas of the economy are doing better, and the deficit does not show how the economy is doing, It just says the government is spending more than it has.

1)He would never do that, His daughter works for him
2)You are obviously brainwashed, Thousands of Iraqis have not died and the ones who did were killed by TERRORISTS! Halliburton has gotten NO OIL!
3)Bush is a good leader who has lowered taxes for the poor and given this country the largest economic boom in 20 years!
4)Turn off CNN and open your eyes to the truth!

1) He would too do that. He would do his mother too.
2) YOU are obviously brainwashed. The number of Iraqi military personnel killed(by Americans by order of Bush and therefore Cheney) is about 6,000. The number of Iraqi civilians killed is about 15,000.
3) The biggest tax cuts are for the RICH. What economic boom? We're in a recession thanks to him. The largest economic boom in 20 years? What about Clinton?
4) I don't watch CNN. Turn off FoxNews and open your eyes to the truth!

1) He would too do that. He would do his mother too.
2) YOU are obviously brainwashed. The number of Iraqi military personnel killed(by Americans by order of Bush and therefore Cheney) is about 6,000. The number of Iraqi civilians killed is about 15,000.
3) The biggest tax cuts are for the RICH. What economic boom? We're in a recession thanks to him. The largest economic boom in 20 years? What about Clinton?
4) I don't watch CNN. Turn off FoxNews and open your eyes to the truth!



1)You have no proof of that
2)That number is a lie, You obviously made that up.
3)The tax cuts were across the board and we have had more than 1 million new jobs in 4 months, and were also in a recession at the end of Clintons run!
4)Nice come back. You sound like a CNN newscast!

Would you please just look at charts showing how the economy is doing.

You'd notice that the economy was getting better and better while Clinton was in office, and then when Bush comes in, it drops like a rock.

Hmm....

Would you please just look at charts showing how the economy is doing.

You'd notice that the economy was getting better and better while Clinton was in office, and then when Bush comes in, it drops like a rock.

Hmm....



I have looked, It shows a nice recovery and our economy was in a recession BEFORE bush took office.

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm



Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.9 percent in the first quarter of 2004,
according to revised estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real
GDP increased 4.1 percent.

I have looked, It shows a nice recovery and our economy was in a recession BEFORE bush took office.

I just consulted a graph. Here's our economy now:

Budget surplus: $100,987,653,110.00

Unemployment rate: 3.4%

Inflation rate: 1%

Interest rates: 5.7%

I just consulted a graph. Here's our economy now:

Budget surplus: $100,987,653,110.00

Unemployment rate: 3.4%

Inflation rate: 1%

Interest rates: 5.7%



What country is that? Its not America.

What country is that? Its not America.

I think it's a place Alice visited once...'Wonderland,' was it? Lol

Charles Manson

Charles Manson

Good choice.

Thanks :)
After all, whats a better crime than controlling a ghroup of fanatics, making them kill someone, having a list of celbrities you want to horribly torture and then staying alive on American Tax dollars posing a contuined drain till you die.
Its just evil.

I think it's a place Alice visited once...'Wonderland,' was it? Lol
nah, i think the unemployment was lower in wonderland, you know with all the crazy people

edit: i would more than LOVE to see the source for those numbers

1)You have no proof of that
2)That number is a lie, You obviously made that up.
3)The tax cuts were across the board and we have had more than 1 million new jobs in 4 months, and were also in a recession at the end of Clintons run!
4)Nice come back. You sound like a CNN newscast!

1) wouldnt surprise me
2) no, those numbers are thoroughly correct
3) yeah, 1 million created, over 2 million lost, over a million lost still. and oh yeah, the rise in jobs has stagnated, i think all thsoe low paying jobs already filled up
4) you sound like rush limbaugh, ignorant git

FDR or Bush.

Roy Moore

1.BUBBLE ECONOMIC BUBBLE IT GO POP BUSH GET STUCK WITH IT AND A LITTLE SOMETHING CALLED 9/11
2.I cant speak for those numbers but i justify the Iraqi war by freeing the people from Saddam and he did have echoes of Hitler. I will say ALL the news leans on talking about the number of deaths but not the number of schools we are building, the number of people who didnt have electricity , etc. My brother served in Iraq he saw the good being done...we dont
3.Im a middle-class American with the money my family got back from the tax cuts we paved a driveway...which for us was something that in normal circumstances way to expensive and the money was all pumped back in the economy(+reagan used the same system exonomy boomed under him even though he was given a recession)
4. IDC WAT YOU WATCH WHY DO YOU MAKE THIS SO PARTISAN
Plus I believe the most evil American was probably the person in charge of NAZI AMericans during World War 2
And all the leaders of our revolution were all traitors to Britian so ARnold isnt any different

1.BUBBLE ECONOMIC BUBBLE IT GO POP BUSH GET STUCK WITH IT AND A LITTLE SOMETHING CALLED 9/11
2.I cant speak for those numbers but i justify the Iraqi war by freeing the people from Saddam and he did have echoes of Hitler. I will say ALL the news leans on talking about the number of deaths but not the number of schools we are building, the number of people who didnt have electricity , etc. My brother served in Iraq he saw the good being done...we dont
3.Im a middle-class American with the money my family got back from the tax cuts we paved a driveway...which for us was something that in normal circumstances way to expensive and the money was all pumped back in the economy(+reagan used the same system exonomy boomed under him even though he was given a recession)
4. IDC WAT YOU WATCH WHY DO YOU MAKE THIS SO PARTISAN
Plus I believe the most evil American was probably the person in charge of NAZI AMericans during World War 2
And all the leaders of our revolution were all traitors to Britian so ARnold isnt any different

1) wth did you say

2) removing saddam was never even one rason for invading, if it had been everyoen here wouldve stfu by now. and if we hadnt blown up all thsoe schools we wouldnt have to rebuild them, and still a crapload of areas STILL dont have power or water, maybe if we hadnt dropped bombs on stuff..

3) economy boomed udner reagan, pssh, so did our budget, who realizes we are spending imaginary money? anyone? we are 7 TRILLION dollars into debt, and trickle down doesnt work, especially when the moeny yo uget back is going into food and gass and other essentials thats prices are RISING

4) yeah stop making it partisan

[QUOTE=Colerica]Truman? I would assume that you hate him for dropping the nuclear bombs on Japan, (our enemy), in order to the end the biggest and bloodiest war in world history, correct? Do you realize that if we had invaded the main islands of Japan, we would have suffered over one million casualities? That's not including the tens of thousands -- or even millions -- of Japanese that would have been killed by a complete invasion of the islands. While dropping the nukes killed many people, it saved far more lives than it ended.....


---
Do you know that the bombs were dropped strategically on Nagasaki (mainly) and Hiroshima because of the make up of the land thereby ensuring the most damage to human life?
Yah, they ended the war, but the decision to drop the bombs so the maximum number of people would suffer is a little......twisted in my thinking.

1.the economy does good then it does bad then does good its an endless cycle
2. stfu when u dont know wat ur sayin. We didn't target the Iraqui infastructure and the schools area talkin about are additions to one's that have rebuilt and they produce more power now than before
3.Defecit spending needs to fixxed badly they need to cut a lot of the pork and make sure the health and welfare program stuff isnt being abused but since when do liberals like Kerry care about spending money. Everyone spends tons of money we need people like MCain as far as the money stuff goes but whatever many people cant balance a budget why should the goverment

3.Defecit spending needs to fixxed badly they need to cut a lot of the pork and make sure the health and welfare program stuff isnt being abused but since when do liberals like Kerry care about spending money. Everyone spends tons of money we need people like MCain as far as the money stuff goes but whatever many people cant balance a budget why should the goverment
because its the governments job, you know since htey run this country they should get their shit together, and we need to stop spending so much on bullshit prograsm, and the iraqi war, we;'ve already spent what 87 billion on the war on iraq and afghanistan, only a few billion has been used and they were jsut granted another 25 billion, what the HELL do they need more money for? jsut syphon it out of the unused shit and sotp spending more. when we get the bullshit udner control THEN we can cut taxes and spend monye on USEFUL stuff like nationwide health care. the government doesnt need to support uninsured people, they need to jsut kick the medical industry in the ass and tell them to stop screwing people over then support nationwide health care plans.

anyway, thats that rant

Do you know that the bombs were dropped strategically on Nagasaki (mainly) and Hiroshima because of the make up of the land thereby ensuring the most damage to human life?
Yah, they ended the war, but the decision to drop the bombs so the maximum number of people would suffer is a little......twisted in my thinking.

Here's something to think about Halekai! What would you rather have, Tens of thousands of American Soldiers plus unknown millions of japanese dead in an invasion of Japan? Or would you rather have a couple hundred thousand dead in TWO atomic bombs? Frankly, I'd take the bombs. It ended the war quickly and saved millions of japanese lives.

Here's something to think about Halekai! What would you rather have, Tens of thousands of American Soldiers plus unknown millions of japanese dead in an invasion of Japan? Or would you rather have a couple hundred thousand dead in TWO atomic bombs? Frankly, I'd take the bombs. It ended the war quickly and saved millions of japanese lives.
and raise your hand if you realize nuclear radiation stays in the area for YEARS and YEARS causing birth defects and slow killing the people there

because its the governments job, you know since htey run this country they should get their shit together, and we need to stop spending so much on bullshit prograsm, and the iraqi war, we;'ve already spent what 87 billion on the war on iraq and afghanistan, only a few billion has been used and they were jsut granted another 25 billion, what the HELL do they need more money for? jsut syphon it out of the unused shit and sotp spending more. when we get the bullshit udner control THEN we can cut taxes and spend monye on USEFUL stuff like nationwide health care. the government doesnt need to support uninsured people, they need to jsut kick the medical industry in the ass and tell them to stop screwing people over then support nationwide health care plans.

anyway, thats that rant

So its the government's job to add a bunch of NEEDLESS PORK to our government budget? Why shouldn't we pay to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan? After all it was the US and our allies that invaded and took them over. We had to repair some of the infrastructure that was inadvertantly damaged by our bombs! Why do they need more money? To keep them afloat that's why! Its going to be awhile before they can sustain themselves. They've been poor for decades and now they have a chance to be a successful nation. What we need to do is eliminate the pork that congress spends. Once that is done, then maybe we wouldn't be spending more than what we take in. THEN we can use the extra money we are saving from the reduced pork and spend it on medical industry.

::Typed on Vacation::

and raise your hand if you realize nuclear radiation stays in the area for YEARS and YEARS causing birth defects and slow killing the people there

Not the early bombs. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been rebuilt and are thriving Cities today! If it occured in this era then you'll be right but not back in those days!

::Typed while on Vacation::

Most evil American ever? Abraham Lincoln.

So its the government's job to add a bunch of NEEDLESS PORK to our government budget? Why shouldn't we pay to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan? After all it was the US and our allies that invaded and took them over. We had to repair some of the infrastructure that was inadvertantly damaged by our bombs! Why do they need more money? To keep them afloat that's why! Its going to be awhile before they can sustain themselves. They've been poor for decades and now they have a chance to be a successful nation. What we need to do is eliminate the pork that congress spends. Once that is done, then maybe we wouldn't be spending more than what we take in. THEN we can use the extra money we are saving from the reduced pork and spend it on medical industry.

::Typed on Vacation::

did i even insinuate it wsa the governmetns job to add pork? i dont see how, sicne i specifically said MULTIPLE times that pointless bullshit programs supported by the government be cut and fiscal responsibility should be taken up and jmoeny should be spent on good programs.

and let me point out again sicne you OBVIOUSLY read every other word of my post instead of the whole thing. we have 87 BILLION set aside for iraq and afghansitan, we have NOT even used HALF of that 87 billion, and now we are granting ANOTHER 25 BILLION to the iraq and afghanistan actions.

and a matter of fact all i can tell is you COPIED my point

Not the early bombs. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been rebuilt and are thriving Cities today! If it occured in this era then you'll be right but not back in those days!

::Typed while on Vacation::
your kidding me? so because the nuclear bobms were made in 1940 something they dont emit nuclear radiation and nuclear radiation didnt hang around in the environment

Well to be honest I think im the most evil American because I am the Anti-Christ and i shall rule the world so you guys can just give up on whos the most evilest cause i am!! :) :sniper:

your kidding me? so because the nuclear bobms were made in 1940 something they dont emit nuclear radiation and nuclear radiation didnt hang around in the environment

Never said that did I? No I don't think I did! If it had been a later bomb, Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't be thriving centers today. Yes there is probably some radiation still around. However, there is radiation all around us. after 60 years, though, the radiation from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs are negligable compared with today's bombs.

Last post, Back to my vacation!

Never said that did I? No I don't think I did! If it had been a later bomb, Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't be thriving centers today. Yes there is probably some radiation still around. However, there is radiation all around us. after 60 years, though, the radiation from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs are negligable compared with today's bombs.

Last post, Back to my vacation!
i ddint say it was still there, i said it lasted for a while though

Here's something to think about Halekai! What would you rather have, Tens of thousands of American Soldiers plus unknown millions of japanese dead in an invasion of Japan? Or would you rather have a couple hundred thousand dead in TWO atomic bombs? Frankly, I'd take the bombs. It ended the war quickly and saved millions of japanese lives.
I agree and I think there's one more possible good reason. Although they fueled started a Cold War arms race, the Fat Man and Little Boy probably delayed the possiblity of a nuclear exchange. With those two pipsqueaks of bombs, we showed the world how terrible, inhumane, and frightening nuclear weapons are. If we didn't set them off, I think it's quite possible we would have discovered this too late, most likely with far more dangerous weapons...

Most evil American=Micheal Moore :mp5:

Most evil american? hands down, no contest, the winner is: A TIE!

Tipper Gore & James and Sarah Brady!

why?

Tipper Gore: pro - Censorship fanatic


James & Sarah Brady - Anti Gun fanatics

You mess with the 1st and 2nd admendment i consider you an enemy of the state.

ooh, whys malcolm x evil?

"When you're playing ball and they've got you trapped, you don't throw the ball away" Malcolm X

lets face it, he's not, he just fought for black rights alongside Martin Luther King, maybe he was a little too militant and overzealous, but evil? Hell no. Whats the matter with you? do you live in Missisipii, married to your cousin or something?

The nukes on Japan marked the beginning of the nuclear age and the imminent cold war. What might have been if America hadn't frozen Japanese bank accounts in America years before the war began, if America had listened to Japan trying to surrender? And what about The Americans interring thousands of Japanese parentage Americans after pearl harbour, illegally seizing their property and locking them away? only about 20% were ever reimbursed, about 20 years ago!

Now, the most evil American dude ever is maybe senator Joe Mcarthy? He coldly and consistently ruined lives and livelihoods, knowing full well what he was doing just for a bit of political clout.

How the hell is Nixon evil? He diffused the cold war, all he did was lie to the American people (bad, but evil? nope!)

Dubya Bush is evil too I guess, that or stupid to the point of hilarity

oh Nixon was evil, yeah lets violate everyones civil rights because I AM SURROUNDED BY ENIMIES AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE YOU ARE ONE OF THEM

Dubya is pretty evil but unless he delays the elections and declares himself king he isn't the most EVIL american. Don't get me wrong if some one knocked him off i would dance in the streets but not the most evil.

My ex-wife...

My ex-wife...
yeah im gonna vote for his ex-wife too

Is American domination in world affairs for real, or is it just a convenient horse to flog?
America today is behaving the same way the British or the Roman empires behaved. The Bush administration is filled with wannabe imperialists, all of who are defiant and unapologetic in their aspirations. Before Bush was elected, we understood the economics of neo-liberalism better, of which America was the dominant player.

Later it had a partner in the European Union. This economic model was impoverishing ever more people even in the west, deepening the divide between the rich and the poor. After September 11, Bush began behaving the same way as the traditional imperialist, so much so that, we have been blinded by Bush. I call it Bush Blindness.

Local elites in countries like India have been afflicted by this blindness because they play into international sentiments without addressing any real concerns.

In which case, will an “equal world” always remain a myth?
We never stopped believing in it. But from an early stage of consciousness you see the ideal of the equal world betrayed around you. In that sense, yes, the equal world is a myth. But you strive to correct it. Whether an equal world is absolutely achievable, well, it is not. But we can certainly do much better than we are doing right now.

Back to Bush Blindness. What is it? How can we confront it?
Bush thrives on the power that 9/11 gave him. He has given us a new doctrine that says everything we believed in before 9/11 is wrong. Bush gave us a new, extraordinarily retrograde language of clashes of civilisations, about good versus evil, raising our fear psychoses to a new level.

That is Bush Blindness — believing in everything that he said after 9/11 saying it is the gospel truth. Now, however, we are beginning to understand the real economic interests behind war.

In Iraq, you can see neo-liberalism on steroids. Under the garb of the Washington consensus, he has done three extraordinary things in the last 45 days — put 200 industries on auction block for privatisation, announced tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals from 45 per cent to 15 per cent, and laid off 4 lakh workers by closing several ministries by calling it “de-Baathification” (after Saddam’s ruling Baath party).

In a sense, this is the perfect time to understand the economic interests
behind war. In the guise of free trade, markets are being opened under force. The traditional way of entering new markets is stumbling, so war is becoming the new way of opening new markets.

But all the bribing, the arm-twisting and the bullying may not work, because resistance is building within developing countries. Like in India where farmers protested against Monsanto products. There is a movement happening, and it is a movement of the people.

What is this retrograde language that Bush has given us?
What they call “Reconstruction” is plain and simple robbery — the erasing of Iraq, and rebuilding it in the image of their economic textbooks. At this time, you get the media to help sell the war in the name of democracy

Who's John Walker Lindh?

The american Al-quida

Is American domination in world affairs for real, or is it just a convenient horse to flog?
America today is behaving the same way the British or the Roman empires behaved. The Bush administration is filled with wannabe imperialists, all of who are defiant and unapologetic in their aspirations. Before Bush was elected, we understood the economics of neo-liberalism better, of which America was the dominant player.

Later it had a partner in the European Union. This economic model was impoverishing ever more people even in the west, deepening the divide between the rich and the poor. After September 11, Bush began behaving the same way as the traditional imperialist, so much so that, we have been blinded by Bush. I call it Bush Blindness.

Local elites in countries like India have been afflicted by this blindness because they play into international sentiments without addressing any real concerns.

In which case, will an “equal world” always remain a myth?
We never stopped believing in it. But from an early stage of consciousness you see the ideal of the equal world betrayed around you. In that sense, yes, the equal world is a myth. But you strive to correct it. Whether an equal world is absolutely achievable, well, it is not. But we can certainly do much better than we are doing right now.

Back to Bush Blindness. What is it? How can we confront it?
Bush thrives on the power that 9/11 gave him. He has given us a new doctrine that says everything we believed in before 9/11 is wrong. Bush gave us a new, extraordinarily retrograde language of clashes of civilisations, about good versus evil, raising our fear psychoses to a new level.

That is Bush Blindness — believing in everything that he said after 9/11 saying it is the gospel truth. Now, however, we are beginning to understand the real economic interests behind war.

In Iraq, you can see neo-liberalism on steroids. Under the garb of the Washington consensus, he has done three extraordinary things in the last 45 days — put 200 industries on auction block for privatisation, announced tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals from 45 per cent to 15 per cent, and laid off 4 lakh workers by closing several ministries by calling it “de-Baathification” (after Saddam’s ruling Baath party).

In a sense, this is the perfect time to understand the economic interests
behind war. In the guise of free trade, markets are being opened under force. The traditional way of entering new markets is stumbling, so war is becoming the new way of opening new markets.

But all the bribing, the arm-twisting and the bullying may not work, because resistance is building within developing countries. Like in India where farmers protested against Monsanto products. There is a movement happening, and it is a movement of the people.

What is this retrograde language that Bush has given us?
What they call “Reconstruction” is plain and simple robbery — the erasing of Iraq, and rebuilding it in the image of their economic textbooks. At this time, you get the media to help sell the war in the name of democracy

Oh for the love of Unequa..will this absurb bullshit bout Bush or the idea of American imperialism ever cease?...Name me one country considered to be a colony of this new Imperial America that is in the same mold of the traditional sense of the former monarchs of Europe?....What Crowns has been placed on Bush's head?...what sceptre does he wield..his power is no hereditary, he can not create a dynasty for future Bush generations?..

Bush Blindness...more like willfull ignorance of the world stage coming from some of you...did Europe bitch this much when the Soviet Union had no less then 60 armored divisions ready to pounce thru the German Fulda Gap? Were we an Imperialist society under Democrat administrations or does that title only come under Republican administrations?...

Last time I looked I took no personal oath of fealty, no vassal secundus to any nobility.

He wasn't a triator (Benedict Arnold), he simply just wasn't a traitor to the Bristish Empire. He knew where his loyalties stood, do you? Being part of The British Commonwealth makes me know where my loyalties stand.

Nathan Bedford Forrest

Charles Manson. The most evil man in history.

Nathan Bedford Forrest

Nathan Beford Forrest was not evil. He was racist, but he didn't advocate the lynchings and things that the KKK started doing. He eventually lost control of them and quit. The KKK he founded was very different from the one that most people think of.

OOC: I am not a white-supremacist, please do not make any stupid comments.

He wasn't a triator (Benedict Arnold), he simply just wasn't a traitor to the Bristish Empire. He knew where his loyalties stood, do you? Being part of The British Commonwealth makes me know where my loyalties stand.
woo woo ego alert

arnold was an excellent general, good bet he figured we were screwed, which is was the british ended up getting, twice

Billy Blanks.

Nathan Beford Forrest was not evil. He was racist, but he didn't advocate the lynchings and things that the KKK started doing. He eventually lost control of them and quit. The KKK he founded was very different from the one that most people think of.

OOC: I am not a white-supremacist, please do not make any stupid comments.
I have to agree with, the KKK was started an a club, which eventualy started to play pranks on newly freed slaves. Nathan Bedford Forrest even DISBANDED it once he thought they had gotten out of hand (they had tarred and feathered a man) and only in early 1900's did it re emerge as an extremist organization.

woo woo ego alert

arnold was an excellent general, good bet he figured we were screwed, which is was the british ended up getting, twice

don't forget the fact that he was getting screwed by the US gov't. If i was a volenteer who had given up my wealthy farm to fight in a war and then didn't get paid i would turn over a fort too. Esp. if i was being lead by an incomptent like George washington. Poloticians should never lead armies leave that to warriors.

ooh, whys malcolm x evil?

"When you're playing ball and they've got you trapped, you don't throw the ball away" Malcolm X

lets face it, he's not, he just fought for black rights alongside Martin Luther King, maybe he was a little too militant and overzealous, but evil? Hell no. Whats the matter with you? do you live in Missisipii, married to your cousin or something?

The nukes on Japan marked the beginning of the nuclear age and the imminent cold war. What might have been if America hadn't frozen Japanese bank accounts in America years before the war began, if America had listened to Japan trying to surrender? And what about The Americans interring thousands of Japanese parentage Americans after pearl harbour, illegally seizing their property and locking them away? only about 20% were ever reimbursed, about 20 years ago!

Now, the most evil American dude ever is maybe senator Joe Mcarthy? He coldly and consistently ruined lives and livelihoods, knowing full well what he was doing just for a bit of political clout.

How the hell is Nixon evil? He diffused the cold war, all he did was lie to the American people (bad, but evil? nope!)

Dubya Bush is evil too I guess, that or stupid to the point of hilarity

Malcolm X was racist as hell. ALL racist people are evil in my book, regardless of what race they are and who they're racist against.

McCarthy? Name one life he ruined. One. Every person he accused of communism either was a communist, or at the very least was pro-communist or posed a threat to U.S. security. And those he did allegedly 'ruin,' may have had their reputations damaged a little, but not for long. The only one who was really 'ruined' was McCarthy. And if McCarthy was such an evil man, why was he so popular? He was listed fourth on a 1954 Gallup Poll's list of most admired men. I'll bet not one critic of McCarthy in a million has ever heard any of his speeches or read any of his writings. Example: Almost everyone in the media accused him of 'character assassination' for his speech about George Marshall. Yet, everyone who actually read the speech, whether they agreed with it or not, knew that was absurd. McCarthy drew the evidence for that Marshall speech from at least twenty sources, all of which were friendly to Marshall, with the possibility of one (The Hinge of Fate, by Winston Churchill). Owen Lattimore, Gustavo Duran, Haldore Hanson, John Carter Vincent, Mary Jane Keeney, Annie Lee Moss, Irving Peress...all communists. Read the following books for more details: McCarthy and His Enemies, by William Buckley and Brent Bozell; McCarthy, by Roy Cohn; The Assassination of Joe McCarthy, by Medford Evans; The Lattimore Story, by John Flynn; Who Promoted Peress?, by Lionel Lokos; three books by McCarthy himself - Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy 1950-1951, McCarthyism: The Fight for America, and America's Retreat From Victory; and a collection of tributes to McCarthy entitled Memorial Addresses Delivered in Congress. And as for McCarthy doing it just for political clout, that, too, is absurd. He knew very well that he was risking his entire political career doing what he was doing, and he was one of the very few men in the country brave enough to tell the truth. Also, he had been speaking out against communism long before his famous 1950 speech. When he first ran for the Senate in 1946, during an interview he even said his goal was "to stop the spread of communism."

As for Nixon, the son of a b**** betrayed so many of our allies (Taiwan, South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia), drastically undermined national security (by stepping up and accelerating the Johnson Administration's treasonous aid and trade to the Evil Empire; by signing SALT I; and by gutting the hell out of itnernal security committees and subcommittees at home), picked a Soviet agent to be his secretary of state (read Henry Kissinger: Soviet Agent for more details), etc...

their is no "most evil american" the most evil group living in america would have to be the early settlers and pioneers. they had this "everything we see is ours and we don't care how much the natives help us. ACHOO!" and disease spreads amongst the natives. guns are brought in, and the natives get kicked off of their land. in order to survive, natives attack b/c the "americans" won't allow them all of the same priviliges, natives are then protrayed as evil savages; and still are today. in "american" army concentration camps, natives are starved or fed rancid meat. to save bullets, soldiers bash in the heads of babies with their boots.

another evil group is the corporate farmers. the animals are abused, and horomones are pumped into them. animal feces are dumped into large pools, which over-flow into the drinking water of whatever poor "ghetto" neighborhood it is in. instead of humanely killing animals, they bash their heads in. the horomones also harm the consumers. little three year old girls are beginning to show signs of puberty (i.e. pubic hair and the formation of breasts) they are slowly killing america. and the vegetable farmers are also using horomones and other dangerous chemicals. we are running out of petroleum in the ground to keep the plants growing b/c the land is exhausted. now we need more petroleum, and it's either dig it up in preserved woodlands in alska, or take over iraq. all of you ppl against the invasion need to realize that buying mass produced produce is helping to fuel these invasions. if more ppl grew their own food, bough organic, or went to a farmer's market for their fruits and veggies and either became vegans/veggies or only ate organic meat, everything would be much better b/c there would no longer be a need for mass producing our food.

so in conclusion, i guess i am stating that the american society is the most evil. i am unfortunately a part of this society, but i do my best to go against it without getting thrown in jail. there are many more things i could talk abt., like the horrible body image hollywood gives girls, but i will cease and decist.

On this issue of the bombs my feeling (and understanding of the situation, which may be wrong) is this:

Truman wasn't entirely aware of the consequences of the bomb. Sure he knew it would kill a lot of people, but he didn't realise that it would kill people the way it did. So I don't think he deserves to be tagged as evil.

On the other hand, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were deliberately left alone so the effects of the bomb could be studied on an undamaged target. The selection of the targets was, in my opinion, unnecessarily cruel. I don't know exactly where this decision came from, but I'm sure it was around when FDR was in power.

The Japanese were looking for a face saving way out of the war for a long time before the bomb. Conventional bombings were killing more than enough civillians to have the same effect as the atomic bombs. Also, their decision to surrender was heavily influenced by the Soviet Union's entrance into the war. I don't think that the bombings really saved the US from losing heaps of troops, because I think the Japanese were already aware of the need to end the war. Maybe, however, the bombs did expedite the coming of the end.

But I will say this for using the bombs. The fact that they were used probably is the reason we haven't seen them used against people again. It made everyone aware of their terrifying power, probably stopped the Soviet Union from just rolling on and made the world powers sensible to the reality of MAD and probably prevented further use in warfare later.

As for the poster who said that the Japanese got 'less than they deserved', that's a very unfair statement. The average citizen of Nagasaki didn't deserve the pain and suffering the bombs inflicted. They weren't responsible for what the Japanese army was doing on mainland Asia, or for the war in general. That's the kind of thinking that terrorists use to justify killing innocents, and I think it's demented.

Anyway, in summary I guess I feel that perhaps the bombs can be justified from a pragmatic stand point, but that doesn't make them good, but more like a somewhat necessary evil. I feel bad about their use, but I won't deny that they probably did save a lot of lives further down the track. I guess they were terrible, but they taught us a valuable lesson. I'm undecided as to whether it was worth the cost.

don't forget the fact that he was getting screwed by the US gov't. If i was a volenteer who had given up my wealthy farm to fight in a war and then didn't get paid i would turn over a fort too. Esp. if i was being lead by an incomptent like George washington. Poloticians should never lead armies leave that to warriors.
lmao, incompetent george washington? who was a decorated british military officer? george washington. who was teh head of the underpaid, undermanned, under armed american army? george washington. who schooled the british? the american army

washington was NEVER a politician, he was a warrior, he never wouldve been prsident if he couldve avoided it.

your jsut mad cuz the british got schooled, TWICE, by the americans.

I'd say the most evil groups in America are the Klueless Klutz Klan, the Black Panthers, the Communist Party USA, and the American Communist Liars' Union (ACLU).

NOTE: Everyone is welcome- hell, encouraged- to disagree with me, but PLEASE do it without flaming!

I'd say the most evil groups in America are the Klueless Klutz Klan, the Black Panthers, the Communist Party USA, and the American Communist Liars' Union (ACLU).

NOTE: Everyone is welcome- hell, encouraged- to disagree with me, but PLEASE do it without flaming!

I'll agree with that. I'd also add the most mis-guided evil group would be the American Nazi Party.

Timothy James McVeigh

I'd say the most evil groups in America are the Klueless Klutz Klan, the Black Panthers, the Communist Party USA, and the American Communist Liars' Union (ACLU).

NOTE: Everyone is welcome- hell, encouraged- to disagree with me, but PLEASE do it without flaming!

Wow. I agree with you even more now!

McCarthy? Name one life he ruined. One. Every person he accused of communism either was a communist, or at the very least was pro-communist or posed a threat to U.S. security. And those he did allegedly 'ruin,' may have had their reputations damaged a little, but not for long. The only one who was really 'ruined' was McCarthy. And if McCarthy was such an evil man, why was he so popular? He was listed fourth on a 1954 Gallup Poll's list of most admired men. I'll bet not one critic of McCarthy in a million has ever heard any of his speeches or read any of his writings. Example: Almost everyone in the media accused him of 'character assassination' for his speech about George Marshall. Yet, everyone who actually read the speech, whether they agreed with it or not, knew that was absurd. McCarthy drew the evidence for that Marshall speech from at least twenty sources, all of which were friendly to Marshall, with the possibility of one (The Hinge of Fate, by Winston Churchill). Owen Lattimore, Gustavo Duran, Haldore Hanson, John Carter Vincent, Mary Jane Keeney, Annie Lee Moss, Irving Peress...all communists. Read the following books for more details: McCarthy and His Enemies, by William Buckley and Brent Bozell; McCarthy, by Roy Cohn; The Assassination of Joe McCarthy, by Medford Evans; The Lattimore Story, by John Flynn; Who Promoted Peress?, by Lionel Lokos; three books by McCarthy himself - Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy 1950-1951, McCarthyism: The Fight for America, and America's Retreat From Victory; and a collection of tributes to McCarthy entitled Memorial Addresses Delivered in Congress. And as for McCarthy doing it just for political clout, that, too, is absurd. He knew very well that he was risking his entire political career doing what he was doing, and he was one of the very few men in the country brave enough to tell the truth. Also, he had been speaking out against communism long before his famous 1950 speech. When he first ran for the Senate in 1946, during an interview he even said his goal was "to stop the spread of communism."

*dies laughing
ahahaha, mccarthy never ruined anyones lfie and everyoen was pro commie or commie

mccarthy never uncovered a single damned communist. he was a closet homosexual who was run from office when it was found out, the only damn commie mccarthy found was those lurking in his shadows that he never saw.

all mccarthy did was perpetuate the ludicrous idea any one that speaks out against the government was a filthy anti-american commie, he ruined the careers and lives of dozens of actors and actresses, all of whom jsut disagreed with the dipshit he was. when the scare died down and everyoen realized he was full of shit they ran him out of office.

jsut like now, the adminsitration is trying to scare people and keep them subservient by saying "terrorism is outthere" people arnt believing the bullshit anymore and people are gonan get booted out of office.

and i know all the crap about mccarthy becausei spent a sunday afternoon researching him and the red scare

*dies laughing
ahahaha, mccarthy never ruined anyones lfie and everyoen was pro commie or commie

mccarthy never uncovered a single damned communist. he was a closet homosexual who was run from office when it was found out, the only damn commie mccarthy found was those lurking in his shadows that he never saw.

all mccarthy did was perpetuate the ludicrous idea any one that speaks out against the government was a filthy anti-american commie, he ruined the careers and lives of dozens of actors and actresses, all of whom jsut disagreed with the dipshit he was. when the scare died down and everyoen realized he was full of shit they ran him out of office.

jsut like now, the adminsitration is trying to scare people and keep them subservient by saying "terrorism is outthere" people arnt believing the bullshit anymore and people are gonan get booted out of office.

and i know all the crap about mccarthy becausei spent a sunday afternoon researching him and the red scare

He uncovered lots of communists, including the ones I just named. And stop the flaming. Name ONE actor or actress he ruined.

Secondly, watch the sarcasm and the language. Third, he was not a 'closet homosexual.' He had a wife and he was heterosexual.

and i know all the crap about mccarthy becausei spent a sunday afternoon researching him and the red scare

Wow. A whole afternoon? So when do you get your PHD?

Wow. A whole afternoon? So when do you get your PHD?

(Laughs) Good one, Crossman, but please don't sink to his level.

(Laughs) Good one, Crossman, but please don't sink to his level.

Okay... sorry. I couldn't resist. It was just there...

Charles Manson. The most evil and most ambitius *he wanted to be dictator of the US* American ever.

Another evil American: Dwight Eisenhower. I'll give reasons why:

1)The merciless bombing of Dresden which massacred over 100,000 Germans;

2)Forcing Patton to withdraw West and letting the Soviets take Eastern Europe;

3)His support of Operation Keelhaul;

4)His refusal to support the French at Dien Bien Phu;

5)Imposing brutal dictator Ngo Dinh Diem on the South Vietnamese people AND at the same time doing everything he could to destroy anticommunism in South Vietnam;

6)Doing nothing about communist infiltration of the U.S. government;

7)Betraying the Hungarian Freedom Fighters;

8)Creating the Department of Health Education and Welfare;

9)Betraying Cuba

I'll go with Truman for selling Germany out to the Soviets, for his crap with the UN, for essentially paving the way for the Soviets to get the bomb, and for his utter liberalism.

err

And yes thanks to Roach-busters, selling out China too as I totally omitted that. Yes Truman, Containment REALLY was a great f'ing policy. It worked so good that not only did new nations fall to communism left and right but the BIGGEST ONE IN THE WORLD (population wise) FELL TOO!!! Way to go Truman! It is an honor you do not deserve to have a carrier named after you. The Teddy would kick your butt anyday!

I'll go with Truman for selling Germany out to the Soviets, for his crap with the UN, for essentially paving the way for the Soviets to get the bomb, and for his utter liberalism.

err

I agree entirely!

And don't forget, selling out China, firing General MacArthur, and refusing to let us win the Korean War.

I agree entirely!

I like the statement you had earlier about "I'd say the most evil groups in America are the Klueless Klutz Klan, the Black Panthers, the Communist Party USA, and the American Communist Liars' Union (ACLU)."

It made me want to post. You have the right idea good sir. I like the thing of the ACLU too, I call them the un-American Communist & Liberal Union.

Well.. some (all?) of these have probably been mentioned at one point or another, so bear with. and this is in no particular order.

First off, the cliche-yet-true Bush II and Bush I.
Manson and Dahmer are two that spring to mind.

Philip Knight
Ronald Reagan

Hell, most any president since... I don't know when, probably since Truman.

Wow. A whole afternoon? So when do you get your PHD?
when you and roach get yours?

On this issue of the bombs my feeling (and understanding of the situation, which may be wrong) is this:

Truman wasn't entirely aware of the consequences of the bomb. Sure he knew it would kill a lot of people, but he didn't realise that it would kill people the way it did. So I don't think he deserves to be tagged as evil.

He understood it would kill a lot of people and destroy a city, but it is correct he was not aware of the effects radiation would have.

On the other hand, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were deliberately left alone so the effects of the bomb could be studied on an undamaged target. The selection of the targets was, in my opinion, unnecessarily cruel. I don't know exactly where this decision came from, but I'm sure it was around when FDR was in power.

Actually only Hiroshima was, Nagasaki was simply never bombed by Lemay before the Strategic Bombing Command made it a restricted bombing area.

The Japanese were looking for a face saving way out of the war for a long time before the bomb. Conventional bombings were killing more than enough civillians to have the same effect as the atomic bombs. Also, their decision to surrender was heavily influenced by the Soviet Union's entrance into the war. I don't think that the bombings really saved the US from losing heaps of troops, because I think the Japanese were already aware of the need to end the war. Maybe, however, the bombs did expedite the coming of the end.

Only a small number of them were, the vast majority of the Army and Navy were preparing for Ketsu-Go, or the last great battle on the Home Islands. And those that weren't for Ketsu-Go by and large did not speak on the matter for fear of reprisal. The decision to surrender had little to do with the Soviet offensive in Manchuria, the Kwantung Army was already a shadow of itself, and becuase of US mines and Submarines, not to mention Carrier planes, no troops could be moved to support the Home Islands. What the Soviet invasion did too was bring an end to the Prime Minister's constant tries to get the Soviets to intervene diplomatically on Japan's behalf, something that probably wouldn't have happened even without Soviet invasion.

If you don't think the bombs saved heaps of troops look at any plans for Operation Olympic, then look at the Japanese deployments as they would be around October. The American Force would not maintain the at least 3-1 superiority they would like for an invasion, and towards the middle of August military planners using new intelligence which pointed out Kyushu was far more heaviy defended than was originally thought, were preparing to back out their support for Olympic. Admiral Nimitz was the most prominent one. Not to mention the great typhoon that struck after the war, which would've hit Okinawa (The main staging area for Olympic) just as US troops were preparing to embark. It did tremendous damage to the ships in the harbor and laid waste to military bases all along he island, had this been at war on the eve of invasion it would have been disastrous.

And you are correct, the firebombing of Japan caused far more casualties then both Atomic Bombs. The first firebombing of Tokyo in March alone caused nearly as much as both cities combined.



Anyway, in summary I guess I feel that perhaps the bombs can be justified from a pragmatic stand point, but that doesn't make them good, but more like a somewhat necessary evil. I feel bad about their use, but I won't deny that they probably did save a lot of lives further down the track. I guess they were terrible, but they taught us a valuable lesson. I'm undecided as to whether it was worth the cost.

A very wise and thoughtful opinion that I respect I might add. It differs from mine in the undecided view, but it also let's you see from a less biased perspective then I would if evidence came out the bombs were unneccesary.

Hmm. First I've heard of this Theodore Bilbo idiot. He definately tops my list. But you know, Thomas Jefferson. He has children by Sally Hemmings, then expects them to be his slaves. Well. Oh, yeah. Land of the free, indeed. And all the people who:
1. Sent the Japanese-Americans to internment camps
2. Slaughtered the native peoples and drove them from THEIR land
3. Participated in the slave trade

I'll go with Truman for selling Germany out to the Soviets,

Yea, the way he backed down when they blockaded Berlin..... oh wait.

for his crap with the UN,

What like stopping the takeover by communists of the Korean Peninsula?


for essentially paving the way for the Soviets to get the bomb, and for his utter liberalism.

That was in the works way before Truman, he was told Los Alamos was the most secure base in the world, what could he have done, nuked the Soviets?



And yes thanks to Roach-busters, selling out China too as I totally omitted that. Yes Truman, Containment REALLY was a great f'ing policy. It worked so good that not only did new nations fall to communism left and right but the BIGGEST ONE IN THE WORLD (population wise) FELL TOO!!! Way to go Truman! It is an honor you do not deserve to have a carrier named after you. The Teddy would kick your butt anyday!

What could he have done to help anyway, the KMT deserved to fall for it's ineptitude. They had a superiority in numbers and equipment and still got their asses kicked. Not to mention the fact that the KMT is not much better then the Communists, if you think the KMT was democratic you are way off mark, they're more comparable to fascism. Martial law never even ended on Taiwan until the last decade, and reforms have only started since the KMT party lost power.

Yea, the way he backed down when they blockaded Berlin..... oh wait.

Talking about the conferences, Yalta, etc. when they essentially divied up Germany and gave the Soviets a part. So naive to trust Stalin!

i will vote of thsi roach busters radical right winger for 2nd msot evil american, right below all the crazy people

Talking about the conferences, Yalta, etc. when they essentially divied up Germany and gave the Soviets a part. So naive to trust Stalin!

What else could he have done, perhaps make a tougher stand on Stalins promise to set Eastern Europe free, but considering how the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting with Germany, and faced casualties that make the Western losses look like afterthoughts, who would be portrayed as the bad guy if Truman did not allow the Soviets occupation duties, and he allowed the French a zone (Not French bashing, but to give the French a zone and not the Soviets illustrates my point).

Just curious... anybody think we should have dropped pork in the middle east instead of bombs?

Just curious... anybody think we should have dropped pork in the middle east instead of bombs?
oh yeah, that wouldve rocked

"Bacon bombs away.."

*al Jazeera*

*random guy*: "That's right suddenly a honey ham fell through our roof right into the middle of our bedroom, Allah help us."

I like the statement you had earlier about "I'd say the most evil groups in America are the Klueless Klutz Klan, the Black Panthers, the Communist Party USA, and the American Communist Liars' Union (ACLU)."

It made me want to post. You have the right idea good sir. I like the thing of the ACLU too, I call them the un-American Communist & Liberal Union.

I think it was Alan Stang who made up 'American Communist Liars' Union.' I like your name, too, lol!

when you and roach get yours?

Roach at least seems to have spent more than a single sunday afternoon looking into the subject.

But Nixon didn't start the Vietnam war, he tried ending it and helped us from going to war with China.

i will vote of thsi roach busters radical right winger for 2nd msot evil american, right below all the crazy people

Translate that into English, please.

Roach at least seems to have spent more than a single sunday afternoon looking into the subject.

Indeed. Thanks for your support, Crossman. Crossman for President!

the most evil american EVER has to be Timothy McVeigh. OKC bombing was nothing to laugh at.
( )
( )
( )
( ________)
l l
l l
l l

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

the most evil american EVER has to be Timothy McVeigh. OKC bombing was nothing to laugh at.
( )
( )
( )
( ________)
l l
l l
l l

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Yeah, the dude was evil, all right...hey, by the way, how'd you post those snipers and mp5s?

A very wise and thoughtful opinion that I respect I might add. It differs from mine in the undecided view, but it also let's you see from a less biased perspective then I would if evidence came out the bombs were unneccesary.
Well, ultimately the only reason I posted was because of Ashmoria's opinion that the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki deserved the bombing (it got me a bit upset).

I guess I can pose a hypothetical to make my position clear about the use of the bombs: if you were the president of the US and had the decision (as well as all the benefits of our current hindsight), would you order them to be dropped? And moreover, would you order them to be dropped where they were dropped historically?

I personally would probably have at least one of them dropped, but not where they were dropped historically. But I think I'd probably feel as guilty as heck about it, but that's why I have no abitions to become a world leader. ;)

As to the subject of the thread. Some people seem overy ready to condemn certain leaders who made bad decisions that killed a lot of people as 'evil', but in a lot of instances like that, I believe they were probably making what they thought was the best decision available to them. Often that turned out to be wrong, but that doesn't make them evil.

For example, the allies honestly believed that bombing civillians in Germany would help acellerate the war's finish. In otherwords, what they thought they were doing was ultimately saving other people's lives. Some posters seem to have the impression that the people making the decisions were doing it to get their jollies. It's not like Stalin who actually thought it was funny and entertaining that his troops were raping their way through Eastern Europe, and told commanders to not prevent it.

OK, maybe it's a bit too grey to be sure, but I don't think they deserve to be considered the most evil. In the worst light I'd say they made evil choices (but not the most evil ones); in a moderate light I'd say they made bad judgements from time to time, were more callous than they needed to be; and in the best light, well, they did what was necessary.

I ultimately argue this way because I think, if leader X hadn't have been in position Y, but instead were in an average person's position, would they be any better or worse than the average? And I think not. Now people like Charles Manson were pretty much in an ordinary situation, and look at what they were like. Imagine if Charles Manson was the ruler of the US, would he have been better or worse than say, Eisenhower or Truman?

Well, ultimately the only reason I posted was because of Ashmoria's opinion that the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki deserved the bombing (it got me a bit upset).

I guess I can pose a hypothetical to make my position clear about the use of the bombs: if you were the president of the US and had the decision (as well as all the benefits of our current hindsight), would you order them to be dropped? And moreover, would you order them to be dropped where they were dropped historically?

I personally would probably have at least one of them dropped, but not where they were dropped historically. But I think I'd probably feel as guilty as heck about it, but that's why I have no abitions to become a world leader. ;)

As to the subject of the thread. Some people seem overy ready to condemn certain leaders who made bad decisions that killed a lot of people as 'evil', but in a lot of instances like that, I believe they were probably making what they thought was the best decision available to them. Often that turned out to be wrong, but that doesn't make them evil.

For example, the allies honestly believed that bombing civillians in Germany would help acellerate the war's finish. In otherwords, what they thought they were doing was ultimately saving other people's lives. Some posters seem to have the impression that the people making the decisions were doing it to get their jollies. It's not like Stalin who actually thought it was funny and entertaining that his troops were raping their way through Eastern Europe, and told commanders to not prevent it.

OK, maybe it's a bit too grey to be sure, but I don't think they deserve to be considered the most evil. In the worst light I'd say they made evil choices (but not the most evil ones); in a moderate light I'd say they made bad judgements from time to time, were more callous than they needed to be; and in the best light, well, they did what was necessary.

I ultimately argue this way because I think, if leader X hadn't have been in position Y, but instead were in an average person's position, would they be any better or worse than the average? And I think not. Now people like Charles Manson were pretty much in an ordinary situation, and look at what they were like. Imagine if Charles Manson was the ruler of the US, would he have been better or worse than say, Eisenhower or Truman?

You obviously put a lot of thought into your post, and you make some very excellent points.

You obviously put a lot of thought into your post, and you make some very excellent points.
Thanks, that makes it all worthwhile. :)

I think the most evil american ever is Martha Steward. She makes you think she wuz cooking....she was reallt kgb intelligence.

Thanks, that makes it all worthwhile. :)

You're welcome...by the way, I like your name!

Well.. some (all?) of these have probably been mentioned at one point or another, so bear with. and this is in no particular order.

First off, the cliche-yet-true Bush II and Bush I.

(Speaking on account of the newer one) Ruugh, another Anti-Bush comment. I'll admit; I hate him myself. He's too reckless and he speaks English poorly. Even so, I believe a war on Iraq was necessary; the danger of weapons of mass destruction was great at the time, and we did succeed in bringing down Saddam Hussein, who also happens to be a MADMAN and is responsible for the death and torture of many Iraqis, as well as sparking numerous wars with Iran. Sometimes I think people WANT him back in.
As for his English, I think he could drastically improve, but so could every other American. Hell, I haven't heard anyone speak proper English in years. Do you know how awful the average American is at language skills? You people make me sick. I've heard ridiculous pronunciations of words like "Mirror" and "February" and "Librarian" and "Advertisement," and even worse spelling of words like "Colour" and "Neighbour." I'm honestly a bit ashamed of even Canadian English (superior to American English in many ways), and not just the stereotype of "Eh." You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

Speaking on account of Bush Sr., I don't know much about him, but I believe he also worked to help the situation of the Iraqis, and I understand how much of a pain it must be to see Saddam punished for the errors of his ways. I sincerely apologize.

As well, speaking of "Evil," what makes a person "Evil?" Surely, no one truly believes they are evil, unless they are madmen. Adolf Hitler was a crusader for his peoples, regardless of the fact he was heinously racist. HE believed he was doing a favour; a religion that apparently had so much more money than the rest of the country, which was in a depression; most of the entire country had agreed. Even someone who looks out for his own needs and not for others is not really evil, but simply, in their eyes, "self-sufficient," and even in ours, they are simply aiding themselves without taking a personal interest in hurting others. Joseph Stalin didn't kill/torture/imprison people because he thought it was fun (though he might have thought so; I might want to do research on this one); it was because they knew too much, or they disagreed with his ways. They posed a threat to him. Such is the life of a fascist.

(Speaking on account of the newer one) Ruugh, another Anti-Bush comment. I'll admit; I hate him myself. He's too reckless and he speaks English poorly. Even so, I believe a war on Iraq was necessary; the danger of weapons of mass destruction was great at the time, and we did succeed in bringing down Saddam Hussein, who also happens to be a MADMAN and is responsible for the death and torture of many Iraqis, as well as sparking numerous wars with Iran. Sometimes I think people WANT him back in.
As for his English, I think he could drastically improve, but so could every other American. Hell, I haven't heard anyone speak proper English in years. Do you know how awful the average American is at language skills? You people make me sick. I've heard ridiculous pronunciations of words like "Mirror" and "February" and "Librarian" and "Advertisement," and even worse spelling of words like "Colour" and "Neighbour." I'm honestly a bit ashamed of even Canadian English (superior to American English in many ways), and not just the stereotype of "Eh." You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

Speaking on account of Bush Sr., I don't know much about him, but I believe he also worked to help the situation of the Iraqis, and I understand how much of a pain it must be to see Saddam punished for the errors of his ways. I sincerely apologize.

As well, speaking of "Evil," what makes a person "Evil?" Surely, no one truly believes they are evil, unless they are madmen. Adolf Hitler was a crusader for his peoples, regardless of the fact he was heinously racist. HE believed he was doing a favour; a religion that apparently had so much more money than the rest of the country, which was in a depression; most of the entire country had agreed. Even someone who looks out for his own needs and not for others is not really evil, but simply, in their eyes, "self-sufficient," and even in ours, they are simply aiding themselves without taking a personal interest in hurting others. Joseph Stalin didn't kill/torture/imprison people because he thought it was fun (though he might have thought so; I might want to do research on this one); it was because they knew too much, or they disagreed with his ways. They posed a threat to him. Such is the life of a fascist.

Good points.

i'd just like to add my 2 cents that if we had just said "we're going to iraq to kick saddham's ass because he has been committing crimes agaisnt humanity and violating UN sanctions" everyone would've shut up by now. but we went in udner the guise of the war on terrorism talkngi about stock piles of ready to use WMDs

i'd just like to add my 2 cents that if we had just said "we're going to iraq to kick saddham's ass because he has been committing crimes agaisnt humanity and violating UN sanctions" everyone would've shut up by now. but we went in udner the guise of the war on terrorism talkngi about stock piles of ready to use WMDs

Good point.

But in America we spell color and neighbor without the u's.

Lincoln!

But in America we spell color and neighbor without the u's.
Yeah. I know. That's nothing to be proud of, though.

I believe the complete ridicule of the English language was a passive way of rebellion against the British; if you spelled everything wrong, you'd be different. You should thank Bush for keeping the spirit of rebellion alive.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. No contest!

i would love to hear everyones problem with the new deal

I think it was great to get out of the Great Depression but I dont think it really needs to be instituted now.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. No contest!

I agree.

The most evil American? I'd have to say either Carlos Miranda, or Charles Manson.

The most evil American? I'd have to say either Carlos Miranda, or Charles Manson.

Are you talking about the guy for whom the Miranda Law was named? I thought his first name was 'Ernesto.' Oh well, I could be (hell, I probably AM) wrong...

Fred Phelps, Sr. He may not be the MOST evil, but I hate his guts all the same. Do a google search on him and look for sermons by him. It'll take you to his damned homepage.

Fred Phelps, Sr. He may not be the MOST evil, but I hate his guts all the same. Do a google search on him and look for sermons by him. It'll take you to his damned homepage.

The name doesn't ring a bell. I'll Google him, though.

I agree.

I still think it's Theodore Bilbo, though.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. No contest!


Actually there are new theories put out by economists that the New Deal policies may have prolonged the Great Depression. I don't prescribe to those theories but I'm also not an economist.

Are you talking about the guy for whom the Miranda Law was named? I thought his first name was 'Ernesto.' Oh well, I could be (hell, I probably AM) wrong...
I think it was. I'm not saying, btw, that cops shouldn't read the Miranda rights. However, he beat an old lady to death, and the Supreme Court let him off on a technicality. That technicality? He didn't know that what he said when he was arrested could be used against him.
Again, there's nothing wrong with the Miranda rights. But isn't it common sense to assume that anything you say when arrested could be used against you?

Actually there are new theories put out by economists that the New Deal policies may have prolonged the Great Depression. I don't prescribe to those theories but I'm also not an economist.

I hear them a lot, too. One source is 'FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression' by Jim Powell. However, like TSAS, I'm not an economist, so...

I think it was. I'm not saying, btw, that cops shouldn't read the Miranda rights. However, he beat an old lady to death, and the Supreme Court let him off on a technicality. That technicality? He didn't know that what he said when he was arrested could be used against him.
Again, there's nothing wrong with the Miranda rights. But isn't it common sense to assume that anything you say when arrested could be used against you?

Beat an old lady to death? Sheesh, what a pr**k! Didn't he (also) kidnap someone?

Beat an old lady to death? Sheesh, what a pr**k! Didn't he (also) kidnap someone?
Yeah, that too. It's amazing what some in society can get away with.

Now, this won't make any Americans happy, and perhaps its easy for me to say being a non american, but I do believe that neither Mcvey or Manson were evil as such. the state made both of them. Mcveigh was aggreved solely by the governments awful siege at Waco, and Manson had a prostitute mother, went into a life of crime and spent most of his child and adolescent years in prison, which is no place for a young man to be. Not to say that he wasn't slightly crazed to start with, but still, you have to wonder what this stuff did to him...

and isin't it the most meaningful of all that I can't name anyone hurt by Mccartney? I guess he really can destroy peoples name. Hell, a ten year old girl was questioned about being a communist by his people, what about his blacklists? what about his public humiliation? what about the fact that his son now campaigns to censor, and to try to shut down the WWE amongst other things? (thats the wwf's new name, old timers!)

Yeah, that too. It's amazing what some in society can get away with.

Ugh, what a sick b******!

I must say George W. Bush. He started a war in Iraq, and guess who earns loads of money on this war? Bushmeister himself, yes... Capitalists... :rolleyes:

I find it amazing that people are opinting to people like Bush, Nixon, LBJ, Benedict Arnold. None of those are even close to evil. They may be corrupt or stupid, but they're not evil. Truly evil people are peple like Timothy Mcveigh and Charles Manson. Anyone who wants to argue with me, go here (http://www.crimelibrary.com/manson/mansonmain.htm) and read the story of Charles Manson first. The man was thoroughly evil.

you get sniper by clicking on the icons to the right of the text box in your reply section. :headbang: :headbang: :sniper:

I don't see any...(I was only able to see them when I was a 'guest')

[IMG]http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=55356&stc=1[IMG]

charles manson was evil, he was a total wack job

I find it amazing that people are opinting to people like Bush, Nixon, LBJ, Benedict Arnold. None of those are even close to evil. They may be corrupt or stupid, but they're not evil. Truly evil people are peple like Timothy Mcveigh and Charles Manson. Anyone who wants to argue with me, go here (http://www.crimelibrary.com/manson/mansonmain.htm) and read the story of Charles Manson first. The man was thoroughly evil.

Charles Manson is not a threath to me. But Bush is the most powerful man on earth, and has more biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons than the rest of the world all together. To give a stupid capitalist a bunch of weapons of mass destruction is REALLY scary, and I feel threathened by it. Now, Charles Manson may be a psychotic serialkiller, but he doesn't have The Button, if you know what I mean.

Charles Manson is not a threath to me. But Bush is the most powerful man on earth, and has more biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons than the rest of the world all together. To give a stupid capitalist a bunch of weapons of mass destruction is REALLY scary, and I feel threathened by it. Now, Charles Manson may be a psychotic serialkiller, but he doesn't have The Button, if you know what I mean.

You do have a point there.

Charles Manson is not a threath to me. But Bush is the most powerful man on earth, and has more biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons than the rest of the world all together. To give a stupid capitalist a bunch of weapons of mass destruction is REALLY scary, and I feel threathened by it. Now, Charles Manson may be a psychotic serialkiller, but he doesn't have The Button, if you know what I mean.

A: We're talking about the most evil American ever, not the most potentially dangerous.
B: Bush isn't going to push "The Button", Manson would do it in a heartbeat, and then laugh and make up a song and dance to do on all the mutilated bodies. He would fire missiles to spell "f*ck you!" on some country.

[IMG]http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=55357&stc=1[IMG]

Now you will see it to the right of the screen.

Theodore Bilbo (my opinion)

NOTE: Yeah, I know I posted this before, but my old post got deleted, so I'm re-doing it...

before I start my rant, I would just like to ask you where you are from?



Theodore Bilbo was an elected politician. Because of the fact that he is held accountable to his constituency, he must give the people what the people want if he wants to keep his job. At the time Gov. and later Sen. Bilbo represented Mississippi, the state was suffering harshly from the Great Depression. The whites of Mississippi saw the civil rights movement as a threat to take away the little they had. In order to keep his job, Bilbo gave the people what they wanted. You really have to understand the mindset of Bilbo's constituency before you judge his actions.

An elected official is only as good/evil/smart/uninformed as the people he represents.


One of my fraternity brothers and great friends at the University of Mississippi is the great-great nephew of Gov. Bilbo, so I take great offense to Gov. Bilbo being the most evil American ever, when there are plently of Americans like Jimmy Hoffa, John Gotti, Huey P. Newton, Bobby Seale, Timothy McVeigh, and Jeffrey Dahmer to pick from.

Not a single person in themselves is truly evil i believe. A person is not born evil they become filled with evil as they make choices in life. Some people say people are filled with demons are satan or spirits whatever it is noone is actually evil in themselves.

before I start my rant, I would just like to ask you where you are from?



Theodore Bilbo was an elected politician. Because of the fact that he is held accountable to his constituency, he must give the people what the people want if he wants to keep his job. At the time Gov. and later Sen. Bilbo represented Mississippi, the state was suffering harshly from the Great Depression. The whites of Mississippi saw the civil rights movement as a threat to take away the little they had. In order to keep his job, Bilbo gave the people what they wanted. You really have to understand the mindset of Bilbo's constituency before you judge his actions.

An elected official is only as good/evil/smart/uninformed as the people he represents.


One of my fraternity brothers and great friends at the University of Mississippi is the great-great nephew of Gov. Bilbo, so I take great offense to Gov. Bilbo being the most evil American ever, when there are plently of Americans like Jimmy Hoffa, John Gotti, Huey P. Newton, Bobby Seale, Timothy McVeigh, and Jeffrey Dahmer to pick from.

Sorry to offend you. You do have a good point, though. And yes, I consider Seale and Newton EXTREMELY evil.

BURRRRRRRRRRRRRRP! Abe Lincoln.

Changed my mind. Yasser Arafat is the most evil dude ever. Seriously!

Changed my mind. Yasser Arafat is the most evil dude ever. Seriously!
maybe so, but he is not American.

Oops, my bad!

Sigh, What makes me sad is how everything is so polarized in here. I honestly hope that those who suggest that Lincoln and FDR are the most evil Americans are being facetious.
While not a communist myself, I have to ask what is so evil about a communist philosophy? I'm not saying communism as practiced in oppressive dictatorial countries, I'm saying the basic philosophy of communism. Also, how many who condemn it have actually read Marx? It's like calling the Bible hogwash without reading it, or saying evolution is crap without actually reading textbooks on it.
I fear and distrust anyone who takes a hard stance without reason backing them up. I cringe at people who never revise their opinions. That's not "steadfastness" that's idiocy.
When you get down to it, progress really only ever happens when an individual realizes they've been wrong about something that they previously thought of as truth, and then goes about doing something about it.

Think about it.

Sigh, What makes me sad is how everything is so polarized in here. I honestly hope that those who suggest that Lincoln and FDR are the most evil Americans are being facetious.
While not a communist myself, I have to ask what is so evil about a communist philosophy? I'm not saying communism as practiced in oppressive dictatorial countries, I'm saying the basic philosophy of communism. Also, how many who condemn it have actually read Marx? It's like calling the Bible hogwash without reading it, or saying evolution is crap without actually reading textbooks on it.
I fear and distrust anyone who takes a hard stance without reason backing them up. I cringe at people who never revise their opinions. That's not "steadfastness" that's idiocy.
When you get down to it, progress really only ever happens when an individual realizes they've been wrong about something that they previously thought of as truth, and then goes about doing something about it.

Think about it.

You make some excellent points, my friend. In answer to your question, though, I read both the Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, and I'm virulently anticommunist.

Sigh, What makes me sad is how everything is so polarized in here. I honestly hope that those who suggest that Lincoln and FDR are the most evil Americans are being facetious.
While not a communist myself, I have to ask what is so evil about a communist philosophy? I'm not saying communism as practiced in oppressive dictatorial countries, I'm saying the basic philosophy of communism. Also, how many who condemn it have actually read Marx? It's like calling the Bible hogwash without reading it, or saying evolution is crap without actually reading textbooks on it.
I fear and distrust anyone who takes a hard stance without reason backing them up. I cringe at people who never revise their opinions. That's not "steadfastness" that's idiocy.
When you get down to it, progress really only ever happens when an individual realizes they've been wrong about something that they previously thought of as truth, and then goes about doing something about it.

Think about it.
As a theory, communism doesn't sound the least bit as bad, unless one is in a lofty position in society. However, as a practice, it simply cannot work.

Rev. Fred Phelps (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Rev._Fred_Phelps)

Rev. Fred Phelps (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Rev._Fred_Phelps)

Who?

Oh yeah, I retract my previous answer. I think the most evil American ever was Edward Mandell House.

I like the statement you had earlier about "I'd say the most evil groups in America are the Klueless Klutz Klan, the Black Panthers, the Communist Party USA, and the American Communist Liars' Union (ACLU)."

It made me want to post. You have the right idea good sir. I like the thing of the ACLU too, I call them the un-American Communist & Liberal Union.

You consider the American Communist Party to be as evil as the KKK!? Now, I know quite well the things Communists in other areas of the world did, but we're talking strictly about the ones in America here. How many people did the Communists in America kill? How many buildings did they burn down? How many minorites did they intimidate? Just answer me that.

Charles Manson is not a threath to me. But Bush is the most powerful man on earth, and has more biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons than the rest of the world all together.
So has every other president of the US for the last how many years? How is Bush any different than them? Look, I'm no Bush supporter, but the amount of double standards concerning him on this board is starting to make me sick.

Now, finally moving on to the original question: As someone else has mentioned, we don't know the names of those who are most evil; they do their sick deeds in secret. Certainly there are many in the public eye who have done considerable evil, such as the often mentioned Charles Manson.

I would say that the man who raped and murdered that six-year-old girl in California and left her body in a ditch should be on this list, however, along with the guy who bombed the building at the 1996 Olympic Games (can't remember either of their names...).

[QUOTE=Proletariat Comrades]You consider the American Communist Party to be as evil as the KKK!? Now, I know quite well the things Communists in other areas of the world did, but we're talking strictly about the ones in America here. How many people did the Communists in America kill? How many buildings did they burn down? How many minorites did they intimidate? Just answer me that.

Good point.

Good point.

Well, thanks, R-B. I try to make it my job to smoke out discrepancies.

Now, didn't you write a post in defense of McCarthy? While not evil per se, I think he was pretty bad.

Some of the people "Tailgunner Joe" went after were indeed communists (at one point in their lives); some were not, and had only been in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is what I believe about their situation; you are free to disagree.

Anyway, the main problem I have with McCarthy is not, then, that he went after those who weren't communist. What's wrong in my eyes is that he prosecuted anyone at all. People in this country should have the freedom to be whoever and whatever they want to be; that's one of the highest ideals that America supposedly stands for. If they want to be communist, then, why should we prevent them from doing so? In creating the House Un-American Activites Committee, McCarthy was the true un-American.

Communism is nothing but a theory. For it to work completely, there would have to be no such thing as greed and since it is inately human, sorry it's a fools-wish to think that true communism could work in the real world. All you get is simple totalitarian rule with a communist ideology, which, as we saw with Mother Russia, doesn't work so good when the $ you have coming in isn't enough to feed your people.

Well, thanks, R-B. I try to make it my job to smoke out discrepancies.

Now, didn't you write a post in defense of McCarthy? While not evil per se, I think he was pretty bad.

Some of the people "Tailgunner Joe" went after were indeed communists (at one point in their lives); some were not, and had only been in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is what I believe about their situation; you are free to disagree.

Anyway, the main problem I have with McCarthy is not, then, that he went after those who weren't communist. What's wrong in my eyes is that he prosecuted anyone at all. People in this country should have the freedom to be whoever and whatever they want to be; that's one of the highest ideals that America supposedly stands for. If they want to be communist, then, why should we prevent them from doing so? In creating the House Un-American Activites Committee, McCarthy was the true un-American.

I did. And McCarthy didn't create the HUAC, it was created in the late 30's-early 40's, with Martin Dies as its first chairman.

I did. And McCarthy didn't create the HUAC, it was created in the late 30's-early 40's, with Martin Dies as its first chairman.

I had been wondering as I composed that post whether he actually created it or not; I decided to make a guess based on what I knew. It was wrong, and I apologize. However, that's almost beside the point; while McCarthy didn't create it, he certainly made use of it, and I strongly disagree with the way he did so, for the reasons I posted above.

I don't think he did use it. He was a member of the Senate, not the House.

jerks in high school. hang them all! :gundge:

I had been wondering as I composed that post whether he actually created it or not; I decided to make a guess based on what I knew. It was wrong, and I apologize. However, that's almost beside the point; while McCarthy didn't create it, he certainly made use of it, and I strongly disagree with the way he did so, for the reasons I posted above.

Dude, you don't have to apologize! I'm wrong a lot, too! Everyone makes mistakes.

I don't think he did use it. He was a member of the Senate, not the House.

He didn't use it at all? News to me...

and raise your hand if you realize nuclear radiation stays in the area for YEARS and YEARS causing birth defects and slow killing the people there

Exactly.

Referring to what Formal Dances said..it's a tough call and one I would not want to make. I think that's why men make war...women have a lot harder time imagining killing another women's children. Even on this game I wonder why people want to stage wars....have any of you experienced the horror of war? It would probably change a lot of people's opinions right quick.
Anyway...I've been living in Japan for the past 6 years and they pretty much won't even TALK about their role in World War II...they think it's 'shameful'.
The point about ending the war and saving more lives than would have been lost is a good one...and can be argued back and forth from all different sides for ages...I just think it was wrong to have picked two cities--and especially Nagasaki because it's set in a bowl--to 'see' how much destruction they could cause. They could have chosen less populated areas. They could have bombed military compounds..but no. They consciously chose to bomb cities where Moms and kids and the elderly lived.

Aaron Burr was pretty bad...

Sigh, What makes me sad is how everything is so polarized in here. I honestly hope that those who suggest that Lincoln and FDR are the most evil Americans are being facetious.
While not a communist myself, I have to ask what is so evil about a communist philosophy? I'm not saying communism as practiced in oppressive dictatorial countries, I'm saying the basic philosophy of communism. Also, how many who condemn it have actually read Marx? It's like calling the Bible hogwash without reading it, or saying evolution is crap without actually reading textbooks on it.
I fear and distrust anyone who takes a hard stance without reason backing them up. I cringe at people who never revise their opinions. That's not "steadfastness" that's idiocy.
When you get down to it, progress really only ever happens when an individual realizes they've been wrong about something that they previously thought of as truth, and then goes about doing something about it.

Think about it.


I was interested in the basic principles of Communism myself. Unfortunately, there are too many drawbacks to it; it requires a government to control the citizens, which is easily corrupted by the force of power. Power corrupts, no joke. Furthermore, it favours the group over the individual, (We are the borg.) and as such, defies one of the greatest principles of Capitalism (well, it's not really a principle. But it might as well be a principle); Humans are naturally selfish. We'll do whatever we want to be above all else. It's sad to say this, and many people will deny it, but we will, and we do. Given power, any of us would corrupt.

Just soes ya know.

Everyone on this post who don't like George W. Bush!

Whether dropping the bomb was justified or not, or necessary or not, will always be open to debate. However, many sources acknowledge that the Japanese had been trying to surrender for at least a year.

Well the one article I read said that is true. However, they had no diplimatic relations with any of the allies save one. The USSR. The article said they sent word and the Russians "forgot" to pass it on.

Supposedly this info came from some of the records that are opened up.

Never verified myself but it sounds interesting.

The question of surrender I belive were all made with conditions and the Allies wanted an unconditional surrender.....

Lot's of choices, unfortunately.

First you have the murderers, the most tangibly evil: Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Richard Speck, Timothy McVeigh, Jeffery Dahmer, etc.

You have also have the government officials who grossly abused their power: Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, Joseph McCarthy, and others.

Corporate criminals who rip off investors and taxpayers, ruin the environment, and market unsafe products: Ken Lay, and that guy who made lawn darts.

I don't know. There are so many to choose from. I'm quite thankful that this country has never had a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro or any of the "classic" evil men (it's always men), that history has produced. But if we ever have someone who ranks even in the top 100 of evil bastards, we are seriously screwed.

Barney The Dinosaur. He made purple the colour of evil for me. :D

Truman? I would assume that you hate him for dropping the nuclear bombs on Japan, (our enemy), in order to the end the biggest and bloodiest war in world history, correct? Do you realize that if we had invaded the main islands of Japan, we would have suffered over one million casualities? That's not including the tens of thousands -- or even millions -- of Japanese that would have been killed by a complete invasion of the islands. While dropping the nukes killed many people, it saved far more lives than it ended.....

***

Is this thread dedicated strictly to the most evil Americans?

Me!

Lets try to get this lie out of the world.

First of there is a meeting between Japanese and Soviet diplomats on July 12 of 1945, where the Japanese tried to find out how they could end the war and the Soviets made clear about their intentions on taking Machuria. When the Soviet Union prepared for the operation the US dropped the bomb to scare the Soviets(2 days before they attacked). It was a Cold war move, nothing more.

1. The Japanese government wanted to surrender; its leaders, military as well as civilian, rationally understood that the war was lost. But they had a determined attachment (irrational?) to the emperor. Japan would have surrendered, very possibly as early as June 1945, had its ruling establishment received guarantees of the emperor's personal safety and continuance on the throne. This should have been the first step in an American surrender strategy.
There never was a first step. The possible coup by Hideki Tojo is an excuse. even if there were plans for such a coup, America should have tried to reach a peacful agreement and only have acted with weapons if these peaceful negotiations failed.
2. Any remaining Japanese reluctance to quit the war would have been quickly overcome by the second step, entry of the Soviet Union in August 1945.
And they knew it was coming, they knew on 12 July
3. American failure to accept and implement this "two-step logic" for an expeditious end to World War II was largely a result of the emerging Cold War and especially American concern over Soviet ambitions in Eastern Europe and northeast Asia.

4. The American public would have accepted some modification of the unconditional surrender policy in order to avoid prolongation of the war. The Washington Post and Time magazine advocated its abandonment; so did some United States senators. Many military leaders and diplomats-British as well as Americanconcurred.
.
5. President Harry S. Truman seemed inclined to give assurances on the emperor, then pulled back. He did so out of concern with Soviet behavior and with increasingly firm knowledge that the United States would soon have atomic weapons available. Coming to believe that the bomb would be decisive and anxious to keep the Soviet Union out of Manchuria, he dropped modification of unconditional surrender; moreover, he sought to prevent a Soviet declaration of war against Japan by encouraging China not to yield to Soviet demands beyond those granted at Yalta. In so doing, he acted primarily at the urging of James F. Byrnes, the archvillain in the plot.

6. Truman also refused to move on Japanese peace feelers, apparently in the belief that it was necessary to prevent a Japanese surrender before the bomb could be demonstrated to the world, and especially to the Soviet Union. The result was the needless destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and many allied casualties that need not have happened.
What i wrote, only better
7. In subsequent years, the American decision makers of 1945 devoted considerable energy to the construction of a misleading "myth" that attempted to vindicate the use of the bomb by denying Japanese efforts at peace and by asserting grossly inflated estimates of American casualties that would have been sustained in an invasion of Japan.
Thats why i'm typing this
If the United States had given Japan conditional surrender terms, including retention of the emperor, at the war's outset [!], Japan would probably have surrendered sometime in the spring or early summer of 1945, if not sooner. . . . As it was, the dropping of the atomic bombs only hastened the surrender of an already defeated enemy.
Just to make sure you understand what i'm trying to tell you.

Lets try to get this lie out of the world.

First of there is a meeting between Japanese and Soviet diplomats on July 12 of 1945, where the Japanese tried to find out how they could end the war and the Soviets made clear about their intentions on taking Machuria. When the Soviet Union prepared for the operation the US dropped the bomb to scare the Soviets(2 days before they attacked). It was a Cold war move, nothing more.


There never was a first step. The possible coup by Hideki Tojo is an excuse. even if there were plans for such a coup, America should have tried to reach a peacful agreement and only have acted with weapons if these peaceful negotiations failed.

And they knew it was coming, they knew on 12 July

.

What i wrote, only better

Thats why i'm typing this

Just to make sure you understand what i'm trying to tell you.

hindsight is 20 20

1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defaultia
1) He would too do that. He would do his mother too.
2) YOU are obviously brainwashed. The number of Iraqi military personnel killed(by Americans by order of Bush and therefore Cheney) is about 6,000. The number of Iraqi civilians killed is about 15,000.
3) The biggest tax cuts are for the RICH. What economic boom? We're in a recession thanks to him. The largest economic boom in 20 years? What about Clinton?
4) I don't watch CNN. Turn off FoxNews and open your eyes to the truth!




1)You have no proof of that
2)That number is a lie, You obviously made that up.
3)The tax cuts were across the board and we have had more than 1 million new jobs in 4 months, and were also in a recession at the end of Clintons run!
4)Nice come back. You sound like a CNN newscast!

Iraq's civilians bodycount:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

So far about 12 000 civilians has died in Iraq due american invasion.

Iraq's civilians bodycount:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

So far about 12 000 civilians has died in Iraq due american invasion.

I wouldn't even trust that number as that site is bias as well. How many civilians were killed by the Fedeyeen when they used them as shields during the invasion. That is what I want to know and in addition, how many were killed as a result of just sheer accidents that couldn't be helped. I bet the number of civilians killed by human error rather than human shield or accidents is vastly less.

I wouldn't even trust that number as that site is bias as well. How many civilians were killed by the Fedeyeen when they used them as shields during the invasion. That is what I want to know and in addition, how many were killed as a result of just sheer accidents that couldn't be helped. I bet the number of civilians killed by human error rather than human shield or accidents is vastly less.
the last i checked the OFFICIAL count, from the people designated to count this stuff and make sure the pubolic doesnt find out for fear the populace mgiht get mad, is over 10,000

and you mean sheer accidents like dropping bombs on civilian areas? ooh ooh, or accidents caused by "precision strikes" with missiles fired from copters into residential buildings?

IT DOESNT MATTER HOW THE CIVILIANS ARE DIEING, THE FACT STANDS WE ARE KILLING THEM

Iraq's civilians bodycount:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

So far about 12 000 civilians has died in Iraq due american invasion.

Well, that's what them jerkos get for bein' terrorists and for electing a terrorist butthole to be their presdent! Seriously. :sniper:

The most evil American ever? How to decide!

1. Steve Bartman
2. Jefferson Davis

While maybe not the most evil American, Michael Moore deserves to be on the list. That idiotic hippocrit. (Yes, I probably misspelled that.)

While maybe not the most evil American, Michael Moore deserves to be on the list. That idiotic hippocrit. (Yes, I probably misspelled that.)


yup three spaces behind GWB (liar, murder, fanatic) two behind Ossama and one behind Rupert Murdoch

yup three spaces behind GWB (liar, murder, fanatic) two behind Ossama and one behind Rupert Murdoch

Ooookaaay.... yeah, Osama isn't an American. We're talking about Americans.

And please stop with the GW's a murderer nonsense. All he's done is give orders, just like every other president.

1. Steve Bartman


Who?

hmm... after much thought, I've decided that I can't really decide. I mean, we don't really have a Marquis de Sade or anything. I can see arguments for many many sides, but then again, what is evil?

What about the hypocrisy of Pilgrims fleeing for religious freedom and then persecuting people?

If racism's your "cup of evil tea," what about Woodrow Wilson? He was a white supremacist and only gave women the vote because the public wanted it.

Point of the matter is - yes, we've had our share of good guys, but every one of them has (at least) one fatal flaw. But even though Thomas Jefferson had many many illigitimate black childrend, he still did some good. I'm not anti-Wilson, but it really rounds out their personalities. The fact of the matter is these people are people and we can't dehumanize them in heroification.

Anyways... I'd have to say my vote goes for Andrew Jackson. Three words: Trail of Tears.

Andrew Jackson
All those associated with the Removal Act of 1830
Lemme see here,
Thomas West De la Warr(though not yet an American, he was colonist)
Col Chivington
Captain John Mason
...I could continue but I think you see the pattern I am on.

Ooh! Ooh! The Green Party! XD

Actually, the Green Party is far from evil....yeah. I'd say Nixon.

I'm surprised at people's choices. I too would like to know why some people are naming "Honest Abe." Yes, he wasn't perfect (my favorite thing was liberating the slaves in the states that no longer considered themselves part of the same country), but I don't know about evil.

Then again, if he hadn't been assassinated, would he be so popular?

I think not. It's easier to heroize a guy when you feel bad for him.

And I must agree with a previous comment that this is the United States we're talking about. Why can't some people believe in the theory of communism? I know it doesn't really work, but does that mean we shouldn't try to help people? It's like knowing you'll never be perfect at something so you give up. Trying would be more productive.

hmm... after much thought, I've decided that I can't really decide. I mean, we don't really have a Marquis de Sade or anything. I can see arguments for many many sides, but then again, what is evil?

What about the hypocrisy of Pilgrims fleeing for religious freedom and then persecuting people?

If racism's your "cup of evil tea," what about Woodrow Wilson? He was a white supremacist and only gave women the vote because the public wanted it.

Point of the matter is - yes, we've had our share of good guys, but every one of them has (at least) one fatal flaw. But even though Thomas Jefferson had many many illigitimate black childrend, he still did some good. I'm not anti-Wilson, but it really rounds out their personalities. The fact of the matter is these people are people and we can't dehumanize them in heroification.

Anyways... I'd have to say my vote goes for Andrew Jackson. Three words: Trail of Tears.

Wilson's definitely high on my list of evil Americans. As is his 'second self,' Edward Mandell House.

Well, that's what them jerkos get for bein' terrorists and for electing a terrorist butthole to be their presdent! Seriously. :sniper:

OMG, you got to be kidding... You say every Iraqian is terrorist? And btw. why did US let Saddam be president after Gulf War??? Why, after 12 years they decide "Oh, he's bad, we have to get rid of him!"??

And btw. why did US let Saddam be president after Gulf War??? Why, after 12 years they decide "Oh, he's bad, we have to get rid of him!"??

Because back then, we gave a crap about what the UN said. So it was the UN that let him stay president of Iraq. It took twelves years because Clinton didn't have the guts to do it. Or least it wasn't on his mind at the time. He was a little "preoccupied" in the office... Then Bush came along told the UN to go screw itself and finished the job that should ahve been done when his dad was president.

FDR - for hijacking the United States and putting it on the fast-track to socialism.

Thanks :)
After all, whats a better crime than controlling a ghroup of fanatics, making them kill someone, having a list of celbrities you want to horribly torture and then staying alive on American Tax dollars posing a contuined drain till you die.
Its just evil.

And all this in the hopes of starting an interracial war in the US. Yeah, I have to say Manson too.

All of em...*mutters* (not really :) )
lol
I'm from britain so i dunno...mebbe the Grand High Wizard or whatever of the KKK, someone like that...

FDR - for hijacking the United States and putting it on the fast-track to socialism.

Hurrah for socialism! Let me just make this clear before anyone complains, NOT communism.
lol what was the USA like before that... Depression, poverty etc

some names for this debate

Lyndon Banes Johnson for starting the Vietnam war and sending thousands of working class American men to be slaughtered by a superior enemy.

The guy who was project manager for the Hoover Dam(sorry can't remeber his name) for knowingly killing his workers due to poor health and safety standards. Letting them be gassed by carbon monoxide in the tunnels, burying themselfs in the concrete or blowing themselfs up with shody explosives. And all this so he can beat a deadline, get a big fat bonus and make a name for himself.

and how about Paul Revere, Samuel Adams, Ben Franklin and all the other conspiritors in the War of Independece who started the Damn country in the first place?

George W Bush isn't the most evil person ever. He's an idiot and he believes anything that Cheney says.

go to www.dearmary.com and watch how Cheney sold out his own daughter.