NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think was the biggest, baddest, and most infamous dictator of them all?

Colodia!

Roosevelt! He was in power forever, he defeated the Nazis and he tried to pack the Supreme Court. Also he gave us lots of good things like Social Security, Unemployment benefits, minimum wage and legal trade unions.

You actually think Hirohito was a dictator? You poor, poor person. The Japanese Tennō (Emperor) has been, throughout most of Japanese history, merely a figurehead with very little power. He can't even get his own food, he must rely on donations from others. There have been times when he has achieved great power, but still never reached the level of a dictator. The shōgun (barbarian-subduing-generalissimo) that Japan sometimes had was sometimes a dictator, but it really matters which one you are referring to. Like during Sengoku Jidai, where the shōgun had little to no power. And sometimes, like right before the Bakumatsu (Meiji Revolution), the shōgun was a mere figurehead in his own right, and the bakufu had all the power.

Colodia!

Please my dictatorship will kick your dictatorships ass!

All Heil Right-Wing America!!
:D (j/k of course...)

Caligula of Rome.

I bought a book "The Most Evil Men and Woman in History" over Thanksgiving break and after reading through most of it, I realise that Caligula was insane and had no right to have taken 1 step in the Imperial Palace of Rome. Atleast Hitler or Stalin knew what the hell was going on.

Roosevelt! He was in power forever, he defeated the Nazis and he tried to pack the Supreme Court. Also he gave us lots of good things like Social Security, Unemployment benefits, minimum wage and legal trade unions.
Oh yeah I almost forgot Rosevelt sucessfully pursued a WMD program unlike many modern day dicators.

I think out of those choices, Kim Jong-Il is probably the biggest dictator.

I can't believe that a smartass hasn't said Bush yet.

Gotta go with Stalin.

I can't believe that a smartass hasn't said Bush yet.

You know you just jinxed the thread, right?

You actually think Hirohito was a dictator? You poor, poor person. The Japanese Tennō (Emperor) has been, throughout most of Japanese history, merely a figurehead with very little power. He can't even get his own food, he must rely on donations from others. There have been times when he has achieved great power, but still never reached the level of a dictator. The shōgun (barbarian-subduing-generalissimo) that Japan sometimes had was sometimes a dictator, but it really matters which one you are referring to. Like during Sengoku Jidai, where the shōgun had little to no power. And sometimes, like right before the Bakumatsu (Meiji Revolution), the shōgun was a mere figurehead in his own right, and the bakufu had all the power.

I just needed to put in one answer so he poped into my head and I just figured why the hell not....

I just needed to put in one answer so he poped into my head and I just figured why the hell not....

Hideki Tojo might have been a better option for WWII-era Japan.

I just needed to put in one answer so he poped into my head and I just figured why the hell not....
That's fine. I'm sure many people don't realise just how powerless Hirohito really was. I just had to clarify that. In a condescending way. Because I'm arrogant. ;)

I chose Mao based mainly on body count and the fact that he liked to turn his own people against each other just to stay in power.

Oh yes, I forgot to address the issue. I voted for Hitler, because he committed genocide against the Gypsies. The only other genocide I'm aware of, which I deem worse, is the U.S. exterminating Native Americans (or Aboriginal Americans if you want to be PC). I think that was terrible. I think that there have been other genocides in recorded history, I think in Africa, but I don't know much about that. And Africa is screwed up in so many ways...not to mention the fact that they're destroying untold numbers of useful organisms daily in the rainforests of Africa. So I guess Africans are guilty of unintentional xenocide.

Stalin...no doubt...no question...

and anyone who posted the name of an American is a dumbass

Temujin.

Stalin managed to convince his peasents to pwn Hitlers solid crew he had running around the place killing people. So he beats Hitler anyway.

I chose Mao based mainly on body count and the fact that he liked to turn his own people against each other just to stay in power.

Lol. U summed up my answer. :D

Mao's the biggest baddest badass to me.

The funniest story by my uncle who lived during Mao's ruling. (I don't know how many ACTUALLY died). He said, everybody has 1 bowl of rice a day in China. Then there was one year, Mao said that everybody could have 2 bowls of rice a day. The next year.. A million people died of hunger. :D

I can't believe that a smartass hasn't said Bush yet.



................................... Bush

Pol Pot. Evil

I went with Stalin. He killed Millions of people in Communist purges and forced famines.

Idiot thread.

I believe Mao was the biggest. Hitler was a short-arse - I can't see why so many people voted for him.

Idiot thread.

I rest my case.

This is a trick question right?

...

You left out the 'Myrth' option, you foolish mortal

Idiot thread.

Yes, and apparently the idea was so dumb that we needed two of these threads. My response is the same for both - What is this, American Bandstand for tyrants? "Well Dick, I kinda liked Hitler, because he really knew how to organize a genocide, but for raw killing entertainment I have to go with Stalin."

I rest my case.

What? Hey come on that doesn't count. I did this after you made that earlier accusation man!

I chose Stalin, although Mao Zedong comes a close second...Mao wasn't as hardcore as Stalin...only in the Cultural Revolution did he really crack down to killing people.
I was also tempted to pick George Bush for ruling over the world's most powerful country for four years without popular support, and illegally invading Iraq, killing tens/hundreds of thousands of inoccent civilians...Stalin would be proud! As would Sadam, if they weren't his his people and his country.

To those who slate this thread: Of course all of these guys are bad people, but discussion of them does not in any way condone their actions!

What? Hey come on that doesn't count. I did this after you made that earlier accusation man!

I think I'll just sit here and be smug for a while. By the way, my thread was a pisstake, in case you never looked at it.

Some of the British Royals - especially through the time of colonialism and Imperial Britain - have been quite some ([mass] murdering) bastards.

Some of the British Royals - especially through the time of colonialism and Imperial Britain - have been quite some ([mass] murdering) bastards.

They weren't dictators.

Fidel... I think.... They all pretend to be taller than they really are anyway

Fidel... I think.... They all pretend to be taller than they really are anyway

No, I beat you to that joke. Plus you confused biggest with tallest.

They weren't dictators.

Dictator - absolutistic monarch. Where´s the difference?

Dictator - absolutistic monarch. Where´s the difference?
You said "especially through the time of colonialism and Imperial Britain". Britain wasn't an absolute monarchy then.

You said "especially through the time of colonialism and Imperial Britain". Britain wasn't an absolute monarchy then.

Yeah, but damn clsoe to it. Enough for me to qualify them as dictators. But I guess Stalin beats them all :)

I think I'll just sit here and be smug for a while. By the way, my thread was a pisstake, in case you never looked at it.

Hmm?

Yeah, but damn clsoe to it. Enough for me to qualify them as dictators. But I guess Stalin beats them all :)

Yep. Nothing Britain did in colonial times comes anywhere near the nutjob dictators you had in the 20th century.

No, I beat you to that joke. Plus you confused biggest with tallest.
Well... I'm too lazy to read back so puh :p

Hmm?

Chewing a toffee?

Well... I'm too lazy to read back so puh :p

Well you smell of wee, so ner.

Some of the British Royals - especially through the time of colonialism and Imperial Britain - have been quite some ([mass] murdering) bastards.

The British Royal family hasn't fitted the 'dictator' model for many centuries now...if they ever did. Parliament made sure of that to an extent.

And none of the British monarchs can be compared to the list above...they didn't deliberately issue orders with the idea of purposefully exterminating a section of their own society...nor that of any others.
Yes, they were imperialist and rarely humanitarian, but never dictatorial.
Bush has more power than many British monarches ever had.

And if you look at the 'American Presidential Family', their record in the 20th century is far worse than many of the above...ethnic cleansing of the Amerindians, bombing civilian populations in over 40 countries...all in the name of 'freedom'...my arse!

Chewing a toffee?

Yes, and dwelling on what kind of wanker starts this sort of thread.

Yes, and dwelling on what kind of wanker starts this sort of thread.
You live on somebody?

You live on somebody?

Yes he's Korean and his name is Ki-Ssmy-Ass.

Yes he's Korean and his name is Ki-Ssmy-Ass.
Isn't he the guy from Uranus?

Isn't he the guy from Uranus?

No he's the one up yours.

What about the Khemer Rouge or Po Pot? Cambodia hello?

What about the Khemer Rouge or Po Pot? Cambodia hello?

ehh....those countrys are too small and insignificant :D

Well it seems Josepf is winning now. Good ole uncle joe if you look at him the wrong way well......you wont live to see the next day(and that rhymed too!)

First to vote for Kim Jong-Il, I'm suprised... he was testing nuclear weapons while Bush announced plans to attack Iraq because they "might have WMDs". He's also been starving his people so he can afford to watch Hollywood movies and make a massive weapons stockpile... completely uninvadable now, USA's afraid to touch him.

I can't believe that no one's voted for Kim Jong Il yet (not that I did-I voted for Hitler). The guy's definately not nice (or nice looking), and lets his people starve while indulging himself and other high-ranking communists. Not a good leader.

Anyways, I said Hitler because-well, do I really need to explain myself on this one? I mean, Hitler=Evil, Stalin to an almost equal degree (because it was less publicized). They're practically synonyms. I am convinced that Hitler was a human representation of Satan.

First vote for Kim Jong-Il, I'm surprised...

Just saw that when I posted. Oops. Good for you.

President Saddam Hussein is not a dictator!

I can't believe that no one's voted for Kim Jong Il yet (not that I did-I voted for Hitler). The guy's definately not nice (or nice looking), and lets his people starve while indulging himself and other high-ranking communists. Not a good leader.

Anyways, I said Hitler because-well, do I really need to explain myself on this one? I mean, Hitler=Evil, Stalin to an almost equal degree (because it was less publicized). They're practically synonyms. I am convinced that Hitler was a human representation of Satan.

Stalin was 4 times worse, and he put 20 million innocent christians in siberian concentration camps(all of them died of cold and starvation) and starved 8 million Ukrainians to death all while burning down churches(so I think he is much more of the anti-christ here...) In any case in reality Hitler was less evil then Stalin its just that because of the war and the circumstances the media pretty much blew him out of proportion(meaning they made him much more evil and sick then he actually was while taking the attention away from Stalin)

Stalin was 4 times worse, and he put 20 million innocent christians in siberian concentration camps(all of them died of cold and starvation) and starved 8 million Ukrainians to death all while burning down churches(so I think he is much more of the anti-christ here...) In any case in reality Hitler was less evil then Stalin its just that because of the war and the circumstances the media pretty much blew him out of proportion(meaning they made him much more evil and sick then he actually was while taking the attention away from Stalin)

Oh. So Stalin killed about 28 million people, and Hitler, if I remember right, about 8. I guess that does make Stalin worse if you look at statistics alone. Still, though, Hitler was VERY bad, and killed the Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, cripples, etc. just because of what they were and for no other reason, whereas Stalin killed them more out of his deep-seated personal feelings of insecurity.

Hitler killed out of pure hatred and an imagined supremacy of "Aryans" over other human beings. Stalin killed those he thought to be a threat to him and his power, even though they may not have been, because his power warped his perspective on things. That's not to say that Stalin wasn't brutal-he was, terribly so, he just had different reasons for being the way he was than Hitler did.

Stalin was afraid of someone coming along and desroying all the power he'd built up for himself. Hitler acted more on what I percieve to be his Satanic indwelling, murdering millions of innocent people for no reason other than the unshakable and unreasonable hatred he held for them.

So, even though Stalin had more blood on his hands, I still think Hitler is worse because of the different motives they had behind the killing.

I voted for Chairman Mao, based on the biggest part of the criteria. I mean, seriously, did you see the size of the guy when he died? He was huge.

You are all idiots!

Yes, and apparently the idea was so dumb that we needed two of these threads. My response is the same for both - What is this, American Bandstand for tyrants? "Well Dick, I kinda liked Hitler, because he really knew how to organize a genocide, but for raw killing entertainment I have to go with Stalin."
Well, if that's how you want to play it, here I go again:
Well, that's ethnic cleansing for you... NOW ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?!

No, I beat you to that joke. Plus you confused biggest with tallest.

Actually, I did it first, except mine sucked and no one got it.

Pol Pot. Evil
Agreed.
Why do most dictators have dodgy moustaches?

I guess Stalin would get my vote too.
Why?
First, all the killing stuff. Stalin's such a badass that not only did he scare the crap outa Hitler, but also the Allies.
And besides, do you know Stalin's job before he ruled the USSR? He was a seceratary in the Communist Party. That's right, a seceratary! And he CHOSE to be that. What a nerd he his.

Stalin is living proof of why not to mess with a nerd.

Well Stalin and Hitler are high on my list, as is Mao, but I think it's kinda unusual that Lenin's never included in these things. He was, after all, installed after an extremely bloody coup and the execution of (most of) the liberal government that had actually promoted the abdication of the Tsar; he lay the foundations for the ideology that Stalin only took further - all in all not a pleasent bloke.

Bush the bushwacker. And why is Hitlers first name written with ph at the end?

Well Stalin and Hitler are high on my list, as is Mao, but I think it's kinda unusual that Lenin's never included in these things. He was, after all, installed after an extremely bloody coup and the execution of (most of) the liberal government that had actually promoted the abdication of the Tsar; he lay the foundations for the ideology that Stalin only took further - all in all not a pleasent bloke.

Why? Because Lenin was a communist idealist, not a bloody dictator. He held firm to the Marxist belief that in communist society, all people, from the pesants to the government, should be equal. He didn't persecute people, he vouched for their rights.

When you look at it in purest form, communism isn't really that bad-everyone has an equal voice, the government is just, and the people are happy. There are no classes, and the wealth of the nation is spread equally among the people. Unfortuantly, it is also very succeptable to corruption. Humans, with their natural thirst for power, take advantage of this and twist the ideals so that they are self-serving and deprive the people of their rights. This is what happened when Stalin backstabbed, bribed, and unethically came to power.

Lenin actually feared what would happen if Stalin came to power. He didn't want it to happen, and tried to stop Stalin, but to no avail.

If he hadn't died so soon after it was founded, the Soviet Union may not have gotten screwed up so much.

Not that I like communism-I'd much rather live in a capitalistic democracy than in a communist state. I just wanted to point out to you that Lenin wasn't that bad of a person. As to the bloody coup-it was bound to happen, and there was nothing Lenin could do to stop it. The people were rioting already because of famine and economic turmoil. The Soviet flag was just a common rallying point. Murdering the Royal Family, though, that was a mistake...

Bush the bushwacker. And why is Hitlers first name written with ph at the end?

The proper German way of saying it is Adolph, everyone else says Adolf for some reason...

The proper German way of saying it is Adolph, everyone else says Adolf for some reason...
As a German I can say I never saw Adolf's name with ph anywhere untill I came to NS.

In terms of death and destruction Mao tse Dong > Everybody

In terms of death and destruction Mao tse Dong > Everybody

An interesting fact about Mao is that he rarely cleaned himself and almost never brushed his teeth(must have smelled REALLY badly)

Im the only one who voted for Benito Mussolini. His interpretation of how dictatorship societys should be run grants him at least a vote,though when he himself tried to execute it he didnt do too well.

Im the only one who voted for Benito Mussolini. His interpretation of how dictatorship societys should be run grants him at least a vote,though when he himself tried to execute it he didnt do too well.
Ah yes - Mussolini, inventor of facism

The English monarchy was never genocidal?

Jesus Christ man, does Bloody Mary mean nothing to you? Going out of her way to try and completely wipe out a religion that was, for all intents and purposes, the exact same as hers? Trying to kill her own sister?

I could go on...

The English monarchy was never genocidal?

Jesus Christ man, does Bloody Mary mean nothing to you? Going out of her way to try and completely wipe out a religion that was, for all intents and purposes, the exact same as hers? Trying to kill her own sister?

I could go on...

You mean the Protestant religon?

defeinety neck and neck for Stalin and Mao, i think Stalin just slighty wins for kill count, but Mao has to win for evilness, inspring a generation to turn on there parents, wow! The man could do his job.

So called Communists have killed more then Fascists, Imperialists, and Nazis combined(and they claim to care about people the most)

Im surprised Pol Pot isnt even on the list....

History was my worst subject so could some of you help me out with this- was Stalin worse as far as cruelty than Hitler? explain just a little please

Alexander the Great.

His use of propaganda paved the way for future dictators.

I pre-emptively chose myself.

Alexander the Great.

His use of propaganda paved the way for future dictators.


Sargon the Great, his use of martial rule, and his policies paved the way for all Dictatorships after him.

FYI - Sargon lived quite a while before Alaxander.

EDIT: Sargon had power around 2350 BCE, Alaxander was born when, 300 something BCE?

Actually, I did it first, except mine sucked and no one got it.

I apologise. But yes, I see what you mean about it being a bit too subtle.

Hmmm, of all those? I'd choose Mao. Stalin beats him in butchery, but mao clearly has the "crazy as fuck" edge.

Oh yes, I forgot to address the issue. I voted for Hitler, because he committed genocide against the Gypsies. The only other genocide I'm aware of, which I deem worse, is the U.S. exterminating Native Americans (or Aboriginal Americans if you want to be PC). I think that was terrible. I think that there have been other genocides in recorded history, I think in Africa, but I don't know much about that. And Africa is screwed up in so many ways...not to mention the fact that they're destroying untold numbers of useful organisms daily in the rainforests of Africa. So I guess Africans are guilty of unintentional xenocide.

There are many genocides though history. I would say that Hitler's genocide was worse, because he didn't allow the people to have any defense at all. I by no means condone the acts agains the Native Americans, but they had arms, and fought (and won) many battles. Both acts are horrible, but a person having no hope at all is worse than a person having some.

And besides, do you know Stalin's job before he ruled the USSR? He was a seceratary in the Communist Party. That's right, a seceratary! And he CHOSE to be that. What a nerd he his.

Actually, Stalin was not "just a secretary" as you stated. Quite the opposite in fact. He was General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The General Secretary was the leading secretary in the "Secretariat", the 4 member body in charge of the party apparatus. Not to mention the basic chairman of Politburo (the leading body of the Party). The General Secretary was the unnofficial leader of the Party, since Lenin's death.

This and the fact that Stalin was Prime Minister of the Council of Ministers, put him in the leading government position, as head of government and the party, NOT "just a secretary".

Anyway, as for my vote, I voted for Stalin. He was a true dictator: making and breaking alliances, purging all opponents, and smashing all outward and inward resistance.

[And on the Stalin vs. Hitler Question] Hitler was just an overrated, second rate dictator, who was in reality nothing but a falure at everything, not to mention a man with psychotic murderer tendencies. Stalin was the greatest dictator of our age! At least he economically rebuilt a nation and created a system that lasted.

Germany: Lasted less than 15 years (and not even a year after Hitler), and definatly never a superpower after 1918.

Soviet Union: A global superpower that lasted nearly 80 years (and 39 of those were after Stalin).

Besides, Stalin KILLED Party opponents, he didn't trust others (like Hitler), and send them to namby pamby labor camps (yes, I am aware of the gulags, but he didn't send major opponents to them).

Bush has more power than many British monarches ever had.
If we're going to make vauge satements, Bush also has more brain power than many British monarchs ever had, but that doesn't make him smart. Just because he's got more power, that doesn't make him bad. Augustus had absolute power, but he was a great ruler.

And if you look at the 'American Presidential Family', their record in the 20th century is far worse than many of the above...ethnic cleansing of the Amerindians, bombing civilian populations in over 40 countries...all in the name of 'freedom'...my arse!
The genocide of the Native Americans was mostly over before the 20th century. As for bombing civilians, intentional bombing of civilian populations was a standard wartime practices for ALL nations, even during WWII.

As for the name of 'freedom' - our own freedom is the most precious to us, and so it is therefore what we'll protect the most. We want freedom for all, but if freedom for some is the only option, we want to be that some, as do all people.

If you want a truly evil nation in the 20th Century, look at Germany. In WWI, they used gas weapons, even though they often came back and hit thier own troups. In WWII, they systematically killed millions Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals simply for being different. America hasn't been perfect, but no one has, and if you want to curse a nation, then curse the worst.

the greatest dictator of them all is...

the dollar.


(and sorry if it's been written already, can't be bothered to go through 100+ messages at half past midnight)

I chose Hitler. This is because he used the power of his nation to do nothing but destroy nations, religions, and people. His actions resulted in a total death toll of somewhere around 50 million people, including 6 million jews, 20 million soviet citizens, and other millions of allied and axis soldiers. However, in a way, you can't judge a dictators evil by body count. Anyone here ever seen the movie "Salvador"? Or "The killing fields"?. After watching the movie salvador, i really had an urge to go back in time and smack around the dictator of el salvador and Ronald reagan, who gave out military aid to carry that country to carry out its atrocities. Then there is pol pot, the numerous somali warlords, the crap that is going on in Sudan, etc, etc.

And about communism. People like Kim jong il, stalin, Mao, etc, are not TRUE communists. Communism was pretty much against everything that those people all did or are doing. I hate it when people say that communism is "evil" and such. I agree that it is easily corrupted, but if it is ever done correctly, then you will see what true communism is.

Thats just my two cents.

Well when you really think about it, Stalin and Hitler have to come in first together. They both came into power in Nations that were relatively weak at the time of their succession, and turned their nations into superpowers. Of course, Stalin was on the Winning side of the war, and kept on being evil a few years after Hitler kicked the bucket, but i'd say those two are the biggest and most imfamous in history.

First to vote for Kim Jong-Il, I'm suprised... he was testing nuclear weapons while Bush announced plans to attack Iraq because they "might have WMDs". He's also been starving his people so he can afford to watch Hollywood movies and make a massive weapons stockpile... completely uninvadable now, USA's afraid to touch him.
Why does America have to do all of the world's dirty work? The rest of the world has thier own militaries. Iraq is far more anti-American than is N. Korea.

Also, it's been shown that Saddam had the resources in place to restart his WMD program once sanctions ended, funded by oil-for-blood, I mean oil-for-food money.

If we would have let him be, and he invaded Kuwait again, people would still condemn us. We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. We took out what we saw as a bigger threat to US. We looked out for ourselves, just like other nations always do. Nations look out for themselves.

While Mao Tse-Tung was the deadliest, the one that has shaped the world the most today is Naopleon Bonaparte. In some way, shape, or form, almost all modern conflicts can be traced back to him.

Draco (ancient greece)
He's the only GOOD dictator.

[And on the Stalin vs. Hitler Question] Hitler was just an overrated, second rate dictator, who was in reality nothing but a falure at everything, not to mention a man with psychotic murderer tendencies. Stalin was the greatest dictator of our age! At least he economically rebuilt a nation and created a system that lasted.

Germany: Lasted less than 15 years (and not even a year after Hitler), and definatly never a superpower after 1918.

Soviet Union: A global superpower that lasted nearly 80 years (and 39 of those were after Stalin).

Besides, Stalin KILLED Party opponents, he didn't trust others (like Hitler), and send them to namby pamby labor camps (yes, I am aware of the gulags, but he didn't send major opponents to them).

I'll agree with you on the part about Hitler being psychotic, but I still think Hitler was worse as a dictator. I'll also agree with you that Hitler created a system that couldn't possibly last-it's need for certain people to be better in some way than others would have inevitably caused its own self-destruction, even if Hitler had lived and the Axis won the war. An empire built on a pile of bodies is not stable and cannot last.

I disagree with you when you say that Stalin created a system that lasted. 39 years is nothing compared with democratic societies such as Great Britain (and don't any of you morons yell at me about the monarchy-I'm talking about Parliament), or even the United States, still a baby compared with other nations.

The Soviet system of secrets, lies, and oppression created a ticking time bomb that could implode at any moment. People don't like to be oppressed and kept in the dark, and when they eventually rose up, the Soviet system fell. Stalin was a major player in creating this system of deceit and concealment. So, while the process of self-destruction was certainly much more long and drawn-out than that of the Third Reich, the same end was inevitable.

And the concentration camps weren't "Namby Pamby" for God's sake! Have you ever seen pictures from the liberations of Auschwitz (sp?) or Buchenwald? Watch "Schindler's List", and then get back to me.

Now, as stated earlier, I believe Hitler to be worse than Stalin because of the motives behind the abhorrant acts. Hitler did it purely out of hate, but Stalin had other motives, such as a need to keep his power base intact, for murdering millions of his own people. I'm not saying what Stalin did was justified in any way, I'm just saying that I believe that anyone who kills another person simply because of the blood that runs through their veins is in my mind a worse (not by much, though) person than one who kills for a very slightly more letgitamate reason. Hate is worse than insecurity, in my view.

Hideki Tojo might have been a better option for WWII-era Japan.

yeah

Hmmm...I find it interesting that no-one has posted Napoleon. Especially considering the fact that for many he is considered the first modern dictator.

If we would have let him be, and he invaded Kuwait again, people would still condemn us. We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

Such is the curse of power.

Such is the curse of power.
Wise words from a fellow Ohioan I see...

Hmmm...I find it interesting that no-one has posted Napoleon. Especially considering the fact that for many he is considered the first modern dictator.

First, but not nessicarily the greatest.

Adolf Hitler by a long shot.........if you count World War II as being Hitler's fault (which, for the most part, it is), Hitler is responsible for the deaths of sixty million plus people.....

Not to incite a flame war, but oddly missing from the list is Tyrant Lincoln, but that's no surprise.....but he gets labelled a "great man" and "savior of our nation" even though he is responsible for the deaths of 625,000 Americans and shredded the Constitution........

[Awaits to be flamed]

Ah.

I voted for Stalin, because of body counts. I don't care if a person was more evil than all the others combined, if he only kills one guy. Well, I do care, but I mean that inthat it makes him evil, but I would consider the guy who lives by a river of blood worse than the one with blood just on his hands, as dispicable as it is.

Hitler was also rather evil, but he was a wartime enemy, and so we were all told to hate him, but Stalin was an ally, so we didn't blindly hate him quite as much.

Hitler made the Jews and others scapegoats, but I don't think that he blindly hated them as much as one might suspect. I think it was popular to hate the scapegoats, especially if they were sucessful when others weren't in their buissnesses. If I was jobless, and someone told repeatedly told me it was because the guy down the street running a similar buissness was sucessful, I know I'd be upset. The difference is that the guy down the street was always whoever was Jewish. I think others in Hitler's regime took his talking points too far.

Not that Hitler didn't hate Jews, I just don't think that he intended to go that far.

Not to incite a flame war, but oddly missing from the list is Tyrant Lincoln, but that's no surprise.....but he gets labelled a "great man" and "savior of our nation" even though he is responsible for the deaths of 625,000 Americans and shredded the Constitution........

[Awaits to be flamed]
I wouldn't say oddly. First, we aren't going back that far in History. Second, his shredding of the American Constitution was later legitimized by Congress.

Not to mention most people think that what he did was right. And he was elected (twice) by popular choice, and today we like is ideas, so we look at him as good.

We don't call good people evil dictators.

For sheer swankiness, I would have to say Hitler.

Adolf Hitler by a long shot.........if you count World War II as being Hitler's fault (which, for the most part, it is), Hitler is responsible for the deaths of sixty million plus people.....

Not to incite a flame war, but oddly missing from the list is Tyrant Lincoln, but that's no surprise.....but he gets labelled a "great man" and "savior of our nation" even though he is responsible for the deaths of 625,000 Americans and shredded the Constitution........

[Awaits to be flamed]

Yup, may as well have put yourself in a pan and thrown youself in the oven. You're just asking to be burned.

Considering what Lincoln did for the good of the nation greatly outweighs any restrictions on personal freedoms he may have imposed during the Civil War, I'd have to say that he's not on my list of dictators.

He's also not a tyrant because when the war was over and the threat subsided, he gave the people their freedoms back instead of using it to his own advantage and seizing total dictatorial power.

The word of an American President is never law (except for rare occasions in wartime when he can proclaim executive decrees, but that just complicates things, and Congress or the Supreme Court can deem them unconstitutional if they want to anyways)-any bill must pass through Congress and be ratified by the Supreme Court. There are enough checks on the executives' power that dictatorship will hopefully never be a problem that the American people have to deal with.

I wouldn't say oddly. First, we aren't going back that far in History.

How far back do you want to go then? Just the 20th Century? You have people here talking about Caligula and Nero, for Puppy's sake.....

Second, his shredding of the American Constitution was later legitimized by Congress.

Does that make it right or just?


Not to mention most people think that what he did was right.

Does that make it right or just? People think a lot of ignorant, uninformed things....

And he was elected (twice) by popular choice,

Adolf Hitler was elected. Saddam Hussein was elected. Does that make any difference in regards to how big of tyrants they were?

and today we like is ideas, so we look at him as good.

I'm glad I'm not part of this "we" you refer to.....

We don't call good people evil dictators.

This may be true. But it's a damn far-cry to say that Abraham Lincoln was good.....

Yup, may as well have put yourself in a pan and thrown youself in the oven. You're just asking to be burned.

We shall see.....


Considering what Lincoln did for the good of the nation greatly outweighs any restrictions on personal freedoms he may have imposed during the Civil War, I'd have to say that he's not on my list of dictators.

What good did he do for this nation? Illegally suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, which led to the unlawful arrests of 14,000+ Americans? Is that good for the nation? How about illegally forcing a soveirgn nation -- the Confederate States of America -- back into the Union, at the price of 625,000 Americans? Is that good for the nation?


He's also not a tyrant because when the war was over and the threat subsided, he gave the people their freedoms back instead of using it to his own advantage and seizing total dictatorial power.

He lost his dictatorial powers when Johnny Booth's bullet struck him in the head. He didn't have time to expand his dictatorial powers because he was assassinated. However, he rose to dictator by devstating the Constitution during his reign as the American Caesar.....

The word of an American President is never law (except for rare occasions in wartime when he can proclaim executive decrees, but that just complicates things, and Congress or the Supreme Court can deem them unconstitutional if they want to anyways)-any bill must pass through Congress and be ratified by the Supreme Court. There are enough checks on the executives' power that dictatorship will hopefully never be a problem that the American people have to deal with.

You think too optimistically. The Great Republic of America will, most unfortunately, fall some day. I pray to the Lord that I never live to see that day. However, I'm a realist and have a strong knowledge of history. It will happen, I can almost gaurentee it. I don't know when. I don't know how. I don't even know why, but it will happen some day. Our republic can't last forever. We've lost so much freedom already and we're not even three hundred years old.....

I chose Hitler. This is because he used the power of his nation to do nothing but destroy nations, religions, and people. His actions resulted in a total death toll of somewhere around 50 million people, including 6 million jews, 20 million soviet citizens, and other millions of allied and axis soldiers. However, in a way, you can't judge a dictators evil by body count. Anyone here ever seen the movie "Salvador"? Or "The killing fields"?. After watching the movie salvador, i really had an urge to go back in time and smack around the dictator of el salvador and Ronald reagan, who gave out military aid to carry that country to carry out its atrocities. Then there is pol pot, the numerous somali warlords, the crap that is going on in Sudan, etc, etc.

And about communism. People like Kim jong il, stalin, Mao, etc, are not TRUE communists. Communism was pretty much against everything that those people all did or are doing. I hate it when people say that communism is "evil" and such. I agree that it is easily corrupted, but if it is ever done correctly, then you will see what true communism is.

Thats just my two cents.

a large percentage of those 20 million russian soldiers were shot by soviet commisars for retreating(soviet leadership was much much worse then the german leadership) this is what the russian soldiers should have done:

soviet leadership and stalin :sniper:

What good did he do for this nation? Illegally suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, which led to the unlawful arrests of 14,000+ Americans? Is that good for the nation? How about illegally forcing a soveirgn nation -- the Confederate States of America -- back into the Union, at the price of 625,000 Americans? Is that good for the nation?

He decreed Habas Corpus unnessicary? Didn't know that. But still, it's not like he went around ordering specific people to be put in jail. If anything, that executive order was to allow a trial for what's-his-name (the Confederate President), as the Union obviosly wasn't going to get their hands on him.

True, there is a clause in the Constitution that states that the people can rebel against the goverment if they feel it is wrong and needs to be changed. I'll give you that. But you have to consider the differences between idealistic society and actual life. The government of this country was not about to permit half (at the time) of it's geographical land area to be taken from it. I'll also agree with you when you earlier stated that just because the majority thinks it's OK dosen't mean it's OK. Look at Germany and Hitler.

But, looking at it from retrospective, I think you'll agree with me in saying that the United States is a lot better off with the south than without it. We wouldn't be where we are today without them.



He lost his dictatorial powers when Johnny Booth's bullet struck him in the head. He didn't have time to expand his dictatorial powers because he was assassinated. However, he rose to dictator by devstating the Constitution during his reign as the American Caesar.....

Even if he had lived, Congress wouldn't have let him expand power. They would have impeached him and ejected him from office if he'd tried to assume absolute power. The Buerocrats (sp?) like to be in control, and will never give up their power willingly.

And he didn't devastate the Constitution-people still had the freedom of speech, the press, the right to assemble peacefully, etc. Though protestors of the war in the North may have been frowned upon and drowned out by all the patriotism and support, they were still allowed to voice their opinions.



You think too optimistically. The Great Republic of America will, most unfortunately, fall some day. I pray to the Lord that I never live to see that day. However, I'm a realist and have a strong knowledge of history. It will happen, I can almost gaurentee it. I don't know when. I don't know how. I don't even know why, but it will happen some day. Our republic can't last forever. We've lost so much freedom already and we're not even three hundred years old....

Well of course it's all going to come tumbling down sometime in the future-the very far future. I equate the United States to a modern day Rome. We're the only superpower on the planet, we have far-reaching influence, and we have a rock-steady form of government that's designed to last. We have a great military, and will crush anyone who stands in our way (either with our military or with our foreign policy) without just cause. We'll be around for a long time, and will degrade slowly, until at some point the world enters another dark age.

But, we'll all be long dead and our tombstones will have desintegrated by that time, because democracy is more stable than monarchy, so we have nothing to worry about right now.

the biggest dictator of all time?

its gotta be idi amin

the guy was HUGE.... 250 at LEAST, probably 300 lbs. no one else comes close!

Adolf Hitler by a long shot.........if you count World War II as being Hitler's fault (which, for the most part, it is), Hitler is responsible for the deaths of sixty million plus people.....

Not to incite a flame war, but oddly missing from the list is Tyrant Lincoln, but that's no surprise.....but he gets labelled a "great man" and "savior of our nation" even though he is responsible for the deaths of 625,000 Americans and shredded the Constitution........

[Awaits to be flamed]

I agree with you that Lincoln was a dicatator but I wouldn't call him a tyrant but only because he freed the slaves. You think Guantanamo is bad? Lincoln invented the whole American concept of the enemy combatant doctrine. I think it was the case of "Ex Parte Milligan" which was where he tried to try some poor bastard before a military tribuanal and have him executed even though he was just a common criminal from the north and had nothing to do with the war. The south should have been able to split off as well, it is total crap that you can't quit america. What is America the mob? You can join up but not quit? Oh well I don't feel too bad from the South because they were slave owning bastards who needed a good slap down but I don't agree with the principle that you can't quit something you voluntarily joined in the first place.

George W. Bush! but Lincoln comes close. Why? Tey were the only two Presidents to suspend peoples rights.

Lincoln-Habeus Corpus
Bush-ammendment rights

If you dont know what Habeus Corpus or the ammendment right that Bush suspended was you will be shot in the next 24 hours.

I agree with you that Lincoln was a dicatator but I wouldn't call him a tyrant but only because he freed the slaves. You think Guantanamo is bad? Lincoln invented the whole American concept of the enemy combatant doctrine. I think it was the case of "Ex Parte Milligan" which was where he tried to try some poor bastard before a military tribuanal and have him executed even though he was just a common criminal from the north and had nothing to do with the war. The south should have been able to split off as well, it is total crap that you can't quit america. What is America the mob? You can join up but not quit? Oh well I don't feel too bad from the South because they were slave owning bastards who needed a good slap down but I don't agree with the principle that you can't quit something you voluntarily joined in the first place.

I honestly didnt read your post or the person you were quotings post, seriously, I only voted other, didnt read anything, than posted, kind of a coincidence huh?

George W. Bush! but Lincoln comes close. Why? THey were the only two Presidents to suspend peoples rights.
What about Roosevelt? The internment of Japanese Americans in WW2?
Or Adams, with the Alien and Sedition act, basically made it a crime to criticize the government, he even had a congressman indicted under it. Oh and just about every other president has taken away at least a right or two.

What about Roosevelt? The internment of Japanese Americans in WW2?
Or Adams, with the Alien and Sedition act, basically made it a crime to criticize the government, he even had a congressman indicted under it. Oh and just about every other president has taken away at least a right or two.

I dont think any other president suspended rights that were in our bill of rights except for Linoln and Bush, the rights you listed are not from the Bill of Rights.

He decreed Habas Corpus unnessicary?

Abraham Lincoln (and his underlings, namely Edwin Stanton) declared that the Writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended on numerous occassions during the war.


"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

This is a power granted to the Congress, not the President. Moreover, it clearly states that Habeas Corpus may only be suspended during a time of rebellion or invasion. Seeing as secession is not rebellion (they are two different concepts) and the CSA had not invaded the Union at the time, Lincoln's administration did so illegally. While the Congress later backed him up on his decision(s) to suspend Habeas Corpus, it was an illegal move for him to do so.....


Didn't know that.

Now you do...:)...and, as GI Joe said many a time, "Knowing is half the battle." Which begs the question: Do those that "know," only have to fight half as hard?

But still, it's not like he went around ordering specific people to be put in jail. If anything, that executive order was to allow a trial for what's-his-name (the Confederate President), as the Union obviosly wasn't going to get their hands on him.

Jefferson Davis was never put on trial. He was held for a handful of days after his capture and was released. The suspension of Habeas Corpus first came when a crowd of secesh sympathizers tried to prevent Union soldiers from boarding trains in Maryland. A large number of the secesh sympathizers, after a brawl with the police, were arrested without charge, held indefinitely, and denied any access to a lawyer.

Clement Vallendigham, a US Senator and open opponent of Lincoln's abuses of power, was arrested and exiled from America, simply for his vocal opposition to the President's questionable actions.....


True, there is a clause in the Constitution that states that the people can rebel against the goverment if they feel it is wrong and needs to be changed.

That would be the Declaration of Independance. Thomas Jefferson wrote, quote, "....that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


I'll give you that. But you have to consider the differences between idealistic society and actual life. The government of this country was not about to permit half (at the time) of it's geographical land area to be taken from it.

The population of America during the Civil War was as follows:

Union -- 26.2 million
Confederate -- 8.1 million (four million of whom were slaves)
Combined -- 34.3 million (four million of whom were slaves)

The nation was divided from the time we were born. The Civil War is a result of the Federalists versus the Anti-Federalists, or more particularly, Federal rights versus States' rights.


I'll also agree with you when you earlier stated that just because the majority thinks it's OK dosen't mean it's OK. Look at Germany and Hitler.

This is true......


But, looking at it from retrospective, I think you'll agree with me in saying that the United States is a lot better off with the south than without it. We wouldn't be where we are today without them.

While I'm an ardent opponent of Abraham Lincoln's violations of the Constitution and I'm an open secesh sympathizer, I do agree with you that America is off today that the Confederacy lost. Consider this:

The Battle of Antietam is considered a turning-point in the War Between the States because it is what kept Britain and France from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy. (Gettysburg laterd finished the deal and ended any hope of official foreign aid, but nonetheless, Antietam is the chop-block, if you will, to the CSA's call for foriegn military help). Had the CSA won Antietam, there is a great chance that Britian and France would have formally recognized the nation and aided her militarily. Britian was still bitter about losing America in our Revolution and members of Parliament were open about their wishes to re-united the "Old Empire." Had Britian sent troops to the Civil War, the Union wouldn't have been able to hold off the Red and Gray Coats at the same time. They would have been forced to surrender or reach a settlement of some kind. Britian could have siezed control of our capital, eliminated the USA as a nation, and then turned on the South and conquer them, too. Thusly, we could be sitting here, discussing this while saying "God Save the Queen" and eating fish and chips. :) (Alternate looks at history are fun)


Even if he had lived, Congress wouldn't have let him expand power. They would have impeached him and ejected him from office if he'd tried to assume absolute power. The Buerocrats (sp?) like to be in control, and will never give up their power willingly.

Congress was controlled by the radical Republicans (Lincoln's ilk). These are the people who had allowed Lincoln to expand his power all throughout the war. What would have changed their mind after it was over?


And he didn't devastate the Constitution-people still had the freedom of speech, the press, the right to assemble peacefully, etc. Though protestors of the war in the North may have been frowned upon and drowned out by all the patriotism and support, they were still allowed to voice their opinions.


Despite the fact that it is historical fiction, I strongly suggest that you pick up a copy of John Jakes' On Secret Service. This rippin' good look in the foundation of the US Secret Service goes into great detail about the results of the suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. (Moreover, it's a great story....I reccommend it -- and Jakes' North and South trilogy to all who are interested in the Civil War....)


Well of course it's all going to come tumbling down sometime in the future-the very far future.

You are far more optimistic than I, my friend....


I equate the United States to a modern day Rome. We're the only superpower on the planet, we have far-reaching influence, and we have a rock-steady form of government that's designed to last. We have a great military, and will crush anyone who stands in our way (either with our military or with our foreign policy) without just cause. We'll be around for a long time, and will degrade slowly, until at some point the world enters another dark age.


I, too, see America this way. The United States, despite what others may say, is the only superpower left on the planet. When we're going to lose our republic and fade to a dictatorship, I don't know.....but I'm confident that it will happen.....


But, we'll all be long dead and our tombstones will have desintegrated by that time, because democracy is more stable than monarchy, so we have nothing to worry about right now.

By all the stars in the sky, I hope you are correct in your prediction. I'm a realist: Once America becomes a dictatorship, there is little stopping that dictator from using the full power of the US military -- the most powerful in the world -- to conquer the rest of the world. Should that ever happen, to quote Starbuck from Melville's classic, "God keep us all."

I agree with you that Lincoln was a dicatator but I wouldn't call him a tyrant but only because he freed the slaves. You think Guantanamo is bad? Lincoln invented the whole American concept of the enemy combatant doctrine. I think it was the case of "Ex Parte Milligan" which was where he tried to try some poor bastard before a military tribuanal and have him executed even though he was just a common criminal from the north and had nothing to do with the war. The south should have been able to split off as well, it is total crap that you can't quit america. What is America the mob? You can join up but not quit? Oh well I don't feel too bad from the South because they were slave owning bastards who needed a good slap down but I don't agree with the principle that you can't quit something you voluntarily joined in the first place.

We agree....I don't agree that the South should have been "put down" because I'm a strong advocate of secession, though....

To clear up stuff with those who don't know me (all of you peoples): I am not a racist nor will I ever be a racist. One of my best friends is black (keep in mind that I live in the middle of f'n nowhere and seeing a black person up here is like finding a gold coin in stack of chocolate chip cookies -- it just don't happen very often). I'll say this: slavery was and remains an evil institution. It should never be practiced by anyone, anywhere.

I support the South's right to secede because they had the Constitutional right (as promised to all states in the 9th and 10th Amendments) to secede. They retained their soveirgnty when they signed the Constitution and they retained the Constitutional right to walk away when ever they chose to, for whatever reason they wanted.

To force the states back into the Union is akin to preventing a Boy Scout from quitting his organization. It would like your parents beating the tar out of you and dragging you back into their house when you wanted to leave. It's just plain wrong.

We agree....I don't agree that the South should have been "put down" because I'm a strong advocate of secession, though....

To clear up stuff with those who don't know me (all of you peoples): I am not a racist nor will I ever be a racist. One of my best friends is black (keep in mind that I live in the middle of f'n nowhere and seeing a black person up here is like finding a gold coin in stack of chocolate chip cookies -- it just don't happen very often). I'll say this: slavery was and remains an evil institution. It should never be practiced by anyone, anywhere.

I support the South's right to secede because they had the Constitutional right (as promised to all states in the 9th and 10th Amendments) to secede. They retained their soveirgnty when they signed the Constitution and they retained the Constitutional right to walk away when ever they chose to, for whatever reason they wanted.

To force the states back into the Union is akin to preventing a Boy Scout from quitting his organization. It would like your parents beating the tar out of you and dragging you back into their house when you wanted to leave. It's just plain wrong.

I said "slap down" not "put down" ( to me there is a subtle difference). I just meant they needed a little ass kicking to get them to free the slaves. Just like how we slapped down the Nazis but we didn't annex germany.

I said "slap down" not "put down" ( to me there is a subtle difference). I just meant they needed a little ass kicking to get them to free the slaves. Just like how we slapped down the Nazis but we didn't annex germany.

Ah, I see....my mistake then...... ;)

I said "slap down" not "put down" ( to me there is a subtle difference). I just meant they needed a little ass kicking to get them to free the slaves. Just like how we slapped down the Nazis but we didn't annex germany.

The soviets annexed east germany and the western allies pretty much controlled the new german government in western germany and had a military presence there as well so actually it pretty much was sort of annexed.

I chose Stalin, although Mao Zedong comes a close second...Mao wasn't as hardcore as Stalin...only in the Cultural Revolution did he really crack down to killing people.
I was also tempted to pick George Bush for ruling over the world's most powerful country for four years without popular support, and illegally invading Iraq, killing tens/hundreds of thousands of inoccent civilians...Stalin would be proud! As would Sadam, if they weren't his his people and his country.

To those who slate this thread: Of course all of these guys are bad people, but discussion of them does not in any way condone their actions!
Here's a lesson for you:

A. Our country uses the Electoral College. You can't try to change the rules after 2000 and apply them to 2000; anyone that wanted to do that is advocating tyranny. The people had four years between then and now to change it, but they didn't. Bush was in power rightly, and the people affirmed it when he won the popular and electoral vote just a month or so ago.

B. 'Illegal' is a relative term. Illegal by whose standards? The United Nations? Newsflash: international bodies only have authority where nations consent to be governed by them. The world is made up of independent nations, not subordinate realms of the United Nations, which is still fringe in many ways. I didn't see the U.N. whining when Saddam was slaughtering people, but go in to stop them (as the U.N. advocated for we, the U.S., to do in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War) makes it illegal on our parts? Why is that? Perhaps U.N. corruption? So, how does the U.N. govern without consent? it sends member nations in to fight ear over it. That sounds an awful lot like using war to impose will, doesn't it? I guess that the U.N. isn't so benevolent after all.
People die in war; that's a sad fact. Sometimes, that includes civilians. It is not as if they are being deliberately targeted or being shot at for fun. Why don't you talk to the widows and widowers, orphans and such, of Saddam's hundreds of thousands of victims? See what they think about your opinion.

Please, Julious Ceasar, first Dictator and Emporer of Rome. He ruled a massive empire and was definalty the most badassed dictator to ever rule. In a close second is Stalin and right after him Hitler. Hussain and Musalini were a joke as tehy just didn't DO anything of real note when compared to the big three.

Please, Julious Ceasar, first Dictator and Emporer of Rome. He ruled a massive empire and was definalty the most badassed dictator to ever rule. In a close second is Stalin and right after him Hitler. Hussain and Musalini were a joke as tehy just didn't DO anything of real note when compared to the big three.

Technically, 'ole Julius never lived to be the 'true' Emperor as he was assassinated on the Ides of March before he could become 'true' Emperor of Rome.....

Me!

Phillip II of Spain. The Habsburgs were pretty badass overall, and Phillip II was apeshit for Catholicism. He's definitely the biggest dictator in my opinion, but this is all arguable.

I am new here, by the way.

OK. I'll concede that Lincoln was a radical Republican (I'm a Republican too, but more moderate) who sacrificed some of the freedoms of his people during a time of national crisis. It is debatable as to weather or not this is an acceptable practice. Some will say that dissention is the highest form of patriotism, while others will say that in order to keep democracy intact, certain rights and privilidges must be sacrificed. Stablility is a must.

Lincoln saw the 1860's as a time of national crisis. In order to save the Union, he saw that whatever measures needed to be taken to keep the fragile fabric togeather were. There may have been other ways of doing it, but because he was a conservative, he did it that way.

It is in the past, and the vast majority of the American people are happy that it worked out the way it did. Now, I will agree with you in saying that if they have a really good reason (and I mean an exceptional, once in a nations' history reason) to secede, then it should be granted. But the south wanted to secede because they were afraid their "right" to own other people would be taken away from them, as well as a few other socio-economic reasons. This is not a good reason, and I'll think you'll agree with me. OK, so theres a law that says they can, but if they can't back up their request with valid reasons, why should we have let them leave?

The past is the past, and despite the wailings that Bush and the Patriot Act are turning America into a dictatorship, I don't think were going to stoop that low for a long time, if ever.

Now, I personally hate American history-I find it somewhat boring. I'd much rather talk about other people in other places. We Americans hog the spotlight enough these days-let's do everyone a favor-move on and possibly talk about Hitler and Stalin again, or whatever other dictator is on the list above.

It was fun, but I'm done. Sorry if that sounds a little harsh, but I'm just tired of it. I did enjoy talking about it, though.

I'm gonna say Hitler because he was the most infamous, but I'm also leaning toward Mao because he killed more people than Hitler or Stalin, killed his own people, burned down the chinese forests, brainwashed the people...etc...
(btw saying any of the American presidents were dictators is absolute utter crap. All of the presidents were elected legally by the rules set by the Constitution of the United States of America. Saying Lincoln is a dictator for his role in the American civil war is ridiculous, Lincoln did what he had to do to keep the south from breaking off and forming a new country. Saying FDR was a dictator is equally ridiculous because the United States made no efforts to involve ourselves in the war with Germany and Italy, they declared war on us. Bush has only made restrictions on civil freedoms to make sure that we aren't attacked my terrorists.)

My wrestling coach.

We all hail whenever he enters the room! :)

My wrestling coach.

We all hail whenever he enters the room! :)

hah! me too....crazy gym teaching bastards :D

this would have made
another good public poll.

The Empire of Presidency!

Stalin. Biggest dictator of all time. Worse than Hitler, worse than any on the list.

I voted for Il Duce. He was the father of fascism and brought order, peace, and pride to the italians. His only mistake was getting in WWII.

I'm gonna say Hitler because he was the most infamous, but I'm also leaning toward Mao because he killed more people than Hitler or Stalin, killed his own people, burned down the chinese forests, brainwashed the people...etc...
(btw saying any of the American presidents were dictators is absolute utter crap. All of the presidents were elected legally by the rules set by the Constitution of the United States of America. Saying Lincoln is a dictator for his role in the American civil war is ridiculous, Lincoln did what he had to do to keep the south from breaking off and forming a new country. Saying FDR was a dictator is equally ridiculous because the United States made no efforts to involve ourselves in the war with Germany and Italy, they declared war on us. Bush has only made restrictions on civil freedoms to make sure that we aren't attacked my terrorists.)

And that's what made him a dictator........

I voted for Il Duce. He was the father of fascism and brought order, peace, and pride to the italians. His only mistake was getting in WWII.

And you think that fascism is a good thing?

And you think that fascism is a good thing?

A benevolent and good-willed fascist nation is much better then a weak and corrupt democracy(besides ever read Starship Troopers?)

A benevolent and good-willed fascist nation is much better then a weak and corrupt democracy(besides ever read Starship Troopers?)

Fascism is not a strong form of government. Sure, it may rule with an iron fist, but the fact that it is controlled by one person or a very small group of people makes it extrememly vulnerable to corruption.

Mussolini was not a pious man in any sense of the word. He backstabbed and manipulated his way into office (like most dictators), and once there, outlawed any other political parties so the people would have no choice but him.

When he signed the Axis pact with Hitler and Hirohito, he vowed to fight in the name of malevolence and hate. Italian Jews, however few of them there were, were trucked off to concentration camps in Germany and other Axis-dominated countries. I wouldn't call that benevolence, quite the opposite in fact.

Democracy is not an inherantly unstable and corrupt form of government. In representational democracies, you get a little bit of corruption, but not enough to jeprodize the well-being of the nation. After all, if the people found out, they'd just elect someone else. We don't like to be manipulated behind our backs.

The fact is, when the people rule themselves, they usually do what's best for themselves as a whole (read:voting). In a fascist state, you have one strongman and one party in control. Corruption is rampant, because the government is more interested in serving itself than the needs of its people. After all, what do they have to loose? Of course, they do it in very subversive, almost unnoticeable ways, but it nevertheless damages the country further down the road.

When the people rule themselves, they do what is best for them (or at least what they think is best). It's practically guranteed.

With fascism, however, you have one man running the show. One man who, however well-intentioned he may have started out being, is slowly consumed and corrupted by the power he commands. He inevitably becomes self-serving, and does what is best for him and his party so that they will stay in power.

Italy today is way better than it ever was under Mussolini. The government is more stable, and the people rule themselves.

My grandfather was in the dog corps in WWII. He was there for the liberation of Milan. I have seen the photos of Mussolini and his mistess hanging by their heels from that gutted gas station. And I have to say that they deserved it.

I dont think he meant fascist italy, just a benevolent fascist state in theory.

I dont think he meant fascist italy, just a benevolent fascist state in theory.

Possibly, but a lot of what I just said still holds true.

I voted Stalin...you just gotta love a guy that sends children to clear landmines :D

And that's what made him a dictator........
dic·ta·tor
n.
1. An absolute ruler.
2. A tyrant; a despot.
3. An ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency.
4. One who dictates: These initials are those of the dictator of the letter.

According to dictionary.com Lincoln couldn't possible be a dictator because he wasn't an absolute ruler because he had Congress to keep him in check, he wasn't tyrannical, or despotical (if thats a word) #3 is possible, if you take out the roman part, but still. In a modern sense of the word Lincoln was hardly a dictator

I voted Stalin...you just gotta love a guy that sends children to clear landmines :D

LOL!.....terrible and yet funny as hell ;)

A benevolent and good-willed fascist nation is much better then a weak and corrupt democracy(besides ever read Starship Troopers?)

The novel with the Filipino as the central character?

"Society is intrinsically responsible for the status quo," says Derrida; however, according to de Selby, it is not so much society that is intrinsically responsible for the status quo, but rather the genre of society. The primary theme of the works of Rushdie is the collapse, and eventually the meaninglessness, of predialectic class. However, Lyotard uses the term 'the constructivist paradigm of narrative' to denote not discourse, but neodiscourse.

If one examines conceptual subcultural theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept feminism or conclude that the collective is capable of truth, given that Baudrillard's essay on conceptual subcultural theory is invalid. Debord promotes the use of dialectic materialism to challenge class divisions. But several appropriations concerning the failure of subdialectic sexual identity may be revealed.

(Don't know if I posted yet or not, but...)

Ho Chi Minh

'Nuff said.

The novel with the Filipino as the central character?


Fascism doesnt mean racism. It means strict obedience to the state (regardless of what you are)

Fascism doesnt mean racism. It means strict obedience to the state (regardless of what you are)

I never said it did: but when a book like Starship Troopers is raised in a discussion by someone with a motto such as "Racial Purity and Apartheid", then I think asking questions regarding race and attitudes towards it is valid.

I never said it did: but when a book like Starship Troopers is raised in a discussion by someone with a motto such as "Racial Purity and Apartheid", then I think asking questions regarding race and attitudes towards it is valid.

touche BWO touche....

777 forever

(Don't know if I posted yet or not, but...)

Ho Chi Minh

'Nuff said.

Is that supposed to be a link because it doesnt work.

Fidel has done the best so far.....he is alive after umpteen years of dictatorship...hasn't ben assassinnated....hasn't ben pushed out of power by a revolt...hasn't bakced down....and he is older than dirt...that should grant him some respect...

For the last time, HITLER WAS NOT A SOCIALIST!

For the last time, HITLER WAS NOT A SOCIALIST!

He claimed to be a socialist by putting it in the name of his party. He wasn't really a socialist though.