NationStates Jolt Archive

Voted George W. Bush to be one of or the world's worst dictator (still makes me laugh), look at what's going on in Myanmar, THAT is one of the world's worst dictatorships. If you thought FEMA was bad...

Voted George W. Bush to be one of or the world's worst dictator (still makes me laugh),

Where did we do that?


look at what's going on in Myanmar, THAT is one of the world's worst dictatorships. If you thought FEMA was bad...
What is the point of this?

Where did we do that?
Pretty much every 'Who is the worst dictator' topic that includes Bush as an option.


What is the point of this?

Trolling.

Pretty much every 'Who is the worst dictator' topic that includes Bush as an option.

And everyone forgets Mussolini...

well since you asked starting poll now.

Voted George W. Bush to be one of or the world's worst dictator (still makes me laugh), look at what's going on in Myanmar, THAT is one of the world's worst dictatorships. If you thought FEMA was bad...

Still, Bush isn't good.

Stop feeding the troll. Bush isn't a dictator. He has term limits. Or did you miss the whole Obama/Clinton "thing" in the news lately?

1. Omar al-Bashir Sudan
2. Kim Jong Il North Korea
3. Than Shwe Myanmar
4. Robert Mugabe Zimbabwe
5. Islam Karimov Uzbekistan
6. Hu Jintao China
7. King Abdullah Saudi Arabia
8. Saparmurat Niyazov Turkmenistan = Teodoro Obiang Nguema Equatorial Guinea Good catch bulgia
9. Seyed Ali Khamane’i Iran
10. George W. Bush USA/Texas

10. George W. Bush USA/Texas

Another person who apparently has missed the whole "Obama/Clinton" primary battle...for, you know, the presidency. Bush is not a dictator, but you, greed and death, are a troll.

Next.

Robert Mugabe, definitely.
Oh and Bush=bad president, but bush=\= a dictator

Another person who apparently has missed the whole "Obama/Clinton" primary battle...for, you know, the presidency. Bush is not a dictator, but you, greed and death, are a troll.

Next.

Bush was put in by request.

or did you miss the whole Obama/Clinton "thing" in the news lately?

have to say yes as it not really news here

Bush was put in by request.

I really couldn't give a damn. It makes you look foolish, petty, and politically inept, and on top of that it's trolling.

Pretty much every 'Who is the worst dictator' topic that includes Bush as an option.




Trolling.

doesn't seem to be getting picked as a option in the poll.
making your statement incorrect.

have to say yes as it not really news here

News or not, basic political knowledge would tell you that bush is not a dictator, and to say he is makes the OP seem idiotic.

I really couldn't give a damn. It makes you look foolish, petty, and politically inept, and on top of that it's trolling.

hmmm perhaps you didn't read the other thread. then you might realize i am conducting this poll sole for the purpose of showing him to be wrong, and that while NSG has a dislike for bush few view him as a dictator.

doesn't seem to be getting picked as a option in the poll.

You werent here for the 'worst dictator' fad. As somebody with a pre-2007 registration date.

Still, Bush isn't good.

No no, there can only be ONE bad leader and the OP has spoken. You clearly need to reevaluate your views about Bush so they fall in line with this new fact.

You werent here for the 'worst dictator' fad. As somebody with a pre-2007 registration date.

give ti some time marshal law might be declared before the election

hmmm perhaps you didn't read the other thread. then you might realize i am conducting this poll sole for the purpose of showing him to be wrong, and that while NSG has a dislike for bush few view him as a dictator.

So you included Bush in a list of dictators, therefore saying that he is one, to prove that he isn't?

...uh huh...

And I'd hope that NO ONE in NSG would view Bush as a dictator, because as my junior high brother would say, "That's retarded." He's not a dictator, he's a president. He was elected. He will leave office. He has checks and balances.

Kim jong il is a dispicalble dictator the worst ever.

Famine has ravaged his hardline state, People are banned from travelling to the outside or are allowed contact with foriegners.
The children in the north korean mass games practive for 15 hours a day and arent given any water so they dont need to go to the toilet. sometimes they piss themselves and they are still forced to practive with wet clothes.
the cult of personality around the kim's is so rediculous its makes him apear godlike. he is supose to work for the people but instead has built statues and palaces for himself.
Plus he is extremely dangerous his regime has nuclear weapons.
He is in his late 60's so and has ruled since his fathers death in 1994 so he might have plenty more years ahead of him incharge of his country. though i heard he is really sick at the moment with heart conditions and stuff so maybe he will die soon. but the North Korean regime is the most reclusive and secretive and the most bizare where university books can only be held for 15 years before they are taken out so then the party can make changes to it.....

So you included Bush in a list of dictators, therefore saying that he is one, to prove that he isn't?

...uh huh...

And I'd hope that NO ONE in NSG would view Bush as a dictator, because as my junior high brother would say, "That's retarded." He's not a dictator, he's a president. He was elected. He will leave office. He has checks and balances.

i an proving that the gentleman in the other thread is incorrect and that the majority of nsg would not vote him worst dictator.

To vote that G.W Bush was worst dictator would suggest they would rather live under the rule of kim jong il or Robert Mugabe then under G.W Bush!?
doesnt make anysense. I would rather live under G.W Bush then kim jong il or robert mugabe!

To vote that G.W Bush was worst dictator would suggest they would rather live under the rule of kim jong il or Robert Mugabe then under G.W Bush!?
doesnt make anysense. I would rather live under G.W Bush then kim jong il or robert mugabe!

dang it now two people have picked it just because.

give ti some time marshal law might be declared before the election

Might does not mean he is a dictator. Hitler wasn't a dictator in 1918, merely because he might be in the future.

Might does not mean he is a dictator. Hitler wasn't a dictator in 1918, merely because he might be in the future.

I would still shoot Hitler if i could go back to 1918.

Another person who apparently has missed the whole "Obama/Clinton" primary battle...for, you know, the presidency. Bush is not a dictator, but you, greed and death, are a troll.

Next.

Intersting that you seem to define Bush as NOT being a dictator by the fact that he was voted into office, but then again so was Mugabe.

You may then argue that Mugabe stole an election, but then again you can argue that Bush stole the presidency in Florida.

Niyazov. He's terrible, he just sits around, decaying. Honestly, anyone could swear he's dead!





(By the way, incase that was too subtle, Niyazov died in 2006! That makes him something other than current!)

Are dictatorships that wrong? Why is it so bad that one man has power over an entire country? Is it really immoral to start a cult around yourself and brainwash others to worship you? Maybe you people people should stop slandering the names and reputations of dictatorships everywhere, with your Liberal, Western, Democratic biases. Intolerant bastards...









:D

I'm gonna go with Kim Jong il.

I'm gonna go with Kim Jong il.

seconded

Niyazov. He's terrible, he just sits around, decaying. Honestly, anyone could swear he's dead!





(By the way, incase that was too subtle, Niyazov died in 2006! That makes him something other than current!)

lol good catch. couldn't fix the poll but I made adjustments.

News or not, basic political knowledge would tell you that bush is not a dictator, and to say he is makes the OP seem idiotic.

he no where near bring a dictator

He was a world class nut job, though. I'm sure that most Turkmenistanis aren't sad to see the back of him, but it does make the news out of Mid Asia a lot less interesting.

I'm gonna go with Kim Jong il.

"Kim Jong Il is the Amy Weinhouse of dictators."

No idea if I spelt that name correctly.

He was a world class nut job, though. I'm sure that most Turkmenistanis aren't sad to see the back of him, but it does make the news out of Mid Asia a lot less interesting.

I don't follow central Asia like I do the far east or the mid east.

"Kim Jong Il is the Amy Weinhouse of dictators."

No idea if I spelt that name correctly.

Kim Jong il won't go to rehab?

Voted George W. Bush to be one of or the world's worst dictator (still makes me laugh), look at what's going on in Myanmar, THAT is one of the world's worst dictatorships. If you thought FEMA was bad...

(While I agree that Bush isn't a dictator) I hope that you aren't arguing that Myanmar is ruled by a dictator because it is leaving their population to fend for themselves after a natural disaster! Because if you are then Bush IS a dictator - New Orleans...

Kim Jong il won't go to rehab? Who tried to make him go?

You need to watch more Root of All Evil.. also... I have to cast my vote for Tila Tequilla.

What about Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus?

Bush is, IMHO, the worst president this country has ever had, but I don't see him refusing to leave office so he doesn't count as a dictator, his bad joke to that effect a few years ago notwithstanding.

What about Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus?

i only have 10 poll options. if i could have added more i would have.

i only have 10 poll options. if i could have added more i would have.

You forgot to add the real worst dictator... ever.... God. I mean, can you believe that guy? Seriouslt... Worst. Dictator. Ever.

What about Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus?

pfft...he's just another generic wannabe dictator. He doesn't have the cojones to go toe-to-to with legends like Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe, King Abdullah, Hu Jintao or Omar al-Bashir.

Oh yeah Belarus, I totally went there. WTF are you gonna do about it?

You forgot to add the real worst dictator... ever.... God. I mean, can you believe that guy? Seriouslt... Worst. Dictator. Ever.

current man current. I think he got deposed around the enlightenment.

current man current. I think he got deposed around the enlightenment.

Hey, as long as Catholocism, Christianity, and Judaeism are alive and well God is still being a dictator. It's so definetly current

Besides you can't spell dictator witout O and D. And you can't spell God without O and D either. Coincidence? I think not!

You forgot to add the real worst dictator... ever.... God. I mean, can you believe that guy? Seriouslt... Worst. Dictator. Ever.

Victor von Doom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Doom)?

Anyone who would classify Hu Jintao as a dictator obviously knows little about the Chinese dictatorship, yes China as a 'state and organizational apparatus' is oppressive, but Hu Jintao is not individually a dictator in that he wields arbitrary personal power attached specifically to his person. The power in Chinese politics is systematic and attached to a vast bureaucratic apparatus.

It would be good if people could define succinctly between different government systems without being emotional or using certain terms which I consider descriptive as buzzwords, especially 'dictatorship'. The Greeks for example used the word 'tyranny' in a very specific way, which was different than monarchy, democracy, oligarchy etc.

Victor von Doom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Doom)?

Please. Darkseid would totally kick his ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkseid

Why isnt Xenu in this poll?

11. Religion.

11. Religion.

Did somebody just jerk my knee?

Please. Darkseid would totally kick his ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkseid

Megatron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatron)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7f/Megatron.jpg/240px-Megatron.jpg

Anyone who would classify Hu Jintao as a dictator obviously knows little about the Chinese dictatorship, yes China as a 'state and organizational apparatus' is oppressive, but Hu Jintao is not individually a dictator in that he wields arbitrary personal power attached specifically to his person. The power in Chinese politics is systematic and attached to a vast bureaucratic apparatus.

It would be good if people could define succinctly between different government systems without being emotional or using certain terms which I consider descriptive as buzzwords, especially 'dictatorship'. The Greeks for example used the word 'tyranny' in a very specific way, which was different than monarchy, democracy, oligarchy etc.

I just put him as a option because if I put bush as an option i didn't want the Chinese to be insulted by being left out.

Who is the worst dictator? Some poor person in an isolated region of China, Siberia or Sub-Saharan Africa. A person there wouldn't even be able to dictate when they get to eat.

Al-Bashir is a complete disgrace. Probably the worst.

I voted GW Bush because, even if inside of USA isn't as bad as the other options, at the scale of the world, he's the one doing the most wrong (invasion wars, support of dictators, trying to remove by force democratic presidents in latin america, imposing neoliberalism to poor countries, ...).

As for those who claim he's not a dictator, how else can you call someone who stole elections, and who then arrest people without judgement and has them tortured in secret bases ?

I don't like George Bush either, but for those of you who voted him worst dictator in the world: that's retarded and out of touch with reality. You are just as much of the problem as the people who you hate so much for voting for George Bush in the first place.

IAs for those who claim he's not a dictator, how else can you call someone who stole elections, and who then arrest people without judgement and has them tortured in secret bases ?

The head of a flawed system. That's what you call him. To call him a dictator is just stupid. It goes against the definition of a dictator.

He didn't steal elections. Both the Democratic and Republican parties fought over Florida, trying to exploit the flaws in its elections in order to come out on top. The Republicans won. Bush didn't steal anything. He, in fact, didn't do anything personally. It was the Republican party. And trust me, the Democrats tried just as hard to do the same thing. They just lost.

...and if you seriously thing that America is the only democratic nations who "arrests people without judgment and has them tortured in secret bases" you're living in a fantasy world. Just because there aren't links to it on CNN.com, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I'm not saying either is right...but grow up and open your eyes. This is the world we live in.

If a government uses torture or wins a dodgy election that does not make the head of that government a dictator. The term dictator implies sole power vested in one leader. I don't know if the 'GW is a dictator omg' crowd have noticed, but there's this little thing called the United States Congress which also wields power in the Unites States and just so happens at this time to be ideologically opposed to the President.

It can also be argued that this also means that Hu Jintao is not a dictator - this is quite accurate as he does not wield sole power and the communist party often controls his actions rather than Hu Jintao controlling the party.

I voted Bush to skew the polls, and as a result make the OP's argument fail. Does that make me a dictator?

Anyways, real vote=Mugabe

If a government uses torture or wins a dodgy election that does not make the head of that government a dictator. The term dictator implies sole power vested in one leader. I don't know if the 'GW is a dictator omg' crowd have noticed, but there's this little thing called the United States Congress which also wields power in the Unites States and just so happens at this time to be ideologically opposed to the President.

It can also be argued that this also means that Hu Jintao is not a dictator - this is quite accurate as he does not wield sole power and the communist party often controls his actions rather than Hu Jintao controlling the party.

QFT thank you. The more people who see reason and have passed history class, the better.

QFT thank you. The more people who see reason and have passed history class, the better.

You'd think a simple English class would be enough to realise that a dictator is not defined as 'a political leader you disagree with'.

You'd think a simple English class would be enough to realise that a dictator is not defined as 'a political leader you disagree with'.

;) You'd think...but then again...this is NSG

Oh, come on, everybody, Bush certainly isn't a dictator.

He's a retard, a mass-murderer, the ruin of his country and quite possibly of the world, he stands for everything that's bad, he has fantasies about God telling him to invade other countries, he is insane, he's a moron, he'd LOVE to be a dictator, he doesn't believe in diplomacy because he's too stupid to speak, he's just about the worst president any country could have, and he's quite easily one of the worst excuses for human beings currently inhabiting God's green Earth.

But a dictator, he isn't.

He's living proof that there are worse things to be than even a dictator, though.

Now, I might be wrong (which I am frequently) but I think the whole "Bush is a dictator" thing was not serious. Possibly. Maybe they just started it as, I don't know, a joke, and only kept arguing for it because it was funny when people got mad over a joke.

I like Italics.

Now, I might be wrong (which I am frequently)

You are.

This has been going on for the last 5 years.

Well, I was talking about the person who started this thread....
But if you say so, I guess you're probably right.

He's living proof that there are worse things to be than even a dictator, though.

How is he worse than any dictator?

Oh, come on, everybody, Bush certainly isn't a dictator.

He's a retard, a mass-murderer, the ruin of his country and quite possibly of the world, he stands for everything that's bad, he has fantasies about God telling him to invade other countries, he is insane, he's a moron, he'd LOVE to be a dictator, he doesn't believe in diplomacy because he's too stupid to speak, he's just about the worst president any country could have, and he's quite easily one of the worst excuses for human beings currently inhabiting God's green Earth.

But a dictator, he isn't.

He's living proof that there are worse things to be than even a dictator, though.
QFT I say.

Anyway, mine would be emmm Kim Yong Il really. I've watched CNN, there they showed a NK newspaper: North Korea shines under the leadership of our great commander. And what's happening right now: they're going in 1 of the worst famines in NK ever. Just...*sigh*, can't say much about it really.

Bush was put in by request.

This was the OP of the poll.

How is he worse than any dictator?

The sheer number of people whose unfair deaths he's responsible for, for instance. If a dictator killed less than he did, caused less suffering than he did, by definition Bush's worse than that dictator.

The sheer number of people whose unfair deaths he's responsible for, for instance. If a dictator killed less than he did, caused less suffering than he did, by definition Bush's worse than that dictator.

But with a dictator you don't when their reign is going to end...

From the beginning, everyone knew Dubya had 8 years at the most, and at this point it's down to under 8 months.

But with a dictator you don't when their reign is going to end...

From the beginning, everyone knew Dubya had 8 years at the most, and at this point it's down to under 8 months.

True. However, several dictatorships lasted less than 8 years.

True. However, several dictatorships lasted less than 8 years.

But could have lasted longer...
There is no possibility of Dubya being in office for more than 8.

But could have lasted longer...
There is no possibility of Dubya being in office for more than 8.

Which means they have the POTENTIAL to be worse than him, but unless that materializes, they didn't yet BECOME worse.

Anyone who would classify Hu Jintao as a dictator obviously knows little about the Chinese dictatorship

Uh huh.

It would be good if people could define succinctly between different government systems without being emotional or using certain terms which I consider descriptive as buzzwords, especially 'dictatorship'.

I know, I'm so sick of people just crowding their arguments with emotionally- charged but meaning-empty buzzwords like "dictatorship", "fascism", "reactionary", "bourgeois", "counter-revolutionary"... that's just so weak.

The Greeks for example used the word 'tyranny' in a very specific way, which was different than monarchy, democracy, oligarchy etc.

We use it in a specific way that's different from monarchy, democracy and oligarchy, too. Specifically, "Do what I say or--wait, sorry, that was actually just a one-option poll."

How is Il worse than Mugabe?

Oh, come on, everybody, Bush certainly isn't a dictator.

He's living proof that there are worse things to be than even a dictator, though.

A dictator isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a position of overwhelming (internal) power. A dictatorship does reduce the fail safes on power, allowing a much greater chance of a bad ruler/administrator than in some other systems.

A dictator isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a position of overwhelming (internal) power. A dictatorship does reduce the fail safes on power, allowing a much greater chance of a bad ruler/administrator than in some other systems.

The lack of the right to question is, in and of itself, bad...

Are dictatorships that wrong? Why is it so bad that one man has power over an entire country? Is it really immoral to start a cult around yourself and brainwash others to worship you? Maybe you people people should stop slandering the names and reputations of dictatorships everywhere, with your Liberal, Western, Democratic biases. Intolerant bastards...:D

Funny...but true. To believe there is something wrong with dictatorships is to say there is something wrong with the people that consistently abide them to exist. Beginning with the individuals which are directly under the reign of a dictator. While they allow it, they embrace it. Then there are those which acknowledge the dictatorship from an external position. While they allow it, they embrace it.

Sorry, but dictatorships in one form or another have gone hand in hand with the people for as long as anyone can truly tell. Anyone which will imply or flat out state that they think dictators are bad might do the world well by examining why they say one thing but act contrarily.

Of course, then you might have a conflict of conscience, as maybe you might like to export democracy or some such thing.

I think the greatest thing a dictator gives to the world, is enabling the people to demonstrate how truly hypocritical they are.

And everyone forgets Mussolini...

Ok glad I'm not the only one who knows about Mussolini.

BTW: Voted Omar because of genocide.

The sheer number of people whose unfair deaths he's responsible for, for instance. If a dictator killed less than he did, caused less suffering than he did, by definition Bush's worse than that dictator.

Ahh, sharing the blood by association. Granted it is valid. So, how clean are your hands then?

Its amazing that 11 people here are that incredibly stupid, obviously they have no idea what or who a dictator is. As far as all time, Stalin has to be the worse, at least in Nazi Germany if you followed their warped rules and weren't an undesirable you were likely to be safe, Stalin had 20 million killed of his own people killed.

A dictator isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a position of overwhelming (internal) power. A dictatorship does reduce the fail safes on power, allowing a much greater chance of a bad ruler/administrator than in some other systems.
And Bush doesn't have overwhelming internal power by any stretch of the imagination.

This was the OP of the poll.Actually I never put in a poll.

I voted GW Bush because, even if inside of USA isn't as bad as the other options, at the scale of the world, he's the one doing the most wrong (invasion wars, support of dictators, trying to remove by force democratic presidents in latin america, imposing neoliberalism to poor countries, ...).
To be brutally honest, the US has done this for 200 years, get used to it.


As for those who claim he's not a dictator, how else can you call someone who stole elections, and who then arrest people without judgement and has them tortured in secret bases ?
Please, rumored CIA bases have existed for years. And steal an election? Blame congress for that one buddy.

Bush is, IMHO, the worst president this country has ever had, but I don't see him refusing to leave office so he doesn't count as a dictator, his bad joke to that effect a few years ago notwithstanding.
Bush is certainly not the worst president we have ever had:

1. James Buchanan
- Let the nation get to Civil War, generally incompetent and indecisive

2. Andrew Johnson
- Opposed reconstruction and much of the 14th amendment

3. Calvin Coolidge
- While Hoover takes the blame for the Depression, Coolidge's refusal to give farmers and aid (They never made much money anyway) accelerated the country to depression

4. Warren Harding
- Gave government jobs to crooked friends and squandered treasury monies

5. US Grant
- Good intentions, poor leader allowed corruption to flourish

And the worst dictator in US history was by no question Lincoln, whether his actions were justified or not, his deportation of Clement Vallandigham is probably the worst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Vallandigham

And the worst dictator in US history was by no question Lincoln, whether his actions were justified or not, his deportation of Clement Vallandigham is probably the worst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Vallandigham

Oh please. I agreed with you up until there. Lincoln was one of the BEST presidents in American history. Clement Vallandigham doesn't matter. Holding the Union together and freeing slaves does.

Oh please. I agreed with you up until there. Lincoln was one of the BEST presidents in American history. Clement Vallandigham doesn't matter. Holding the Union together and freeing slaves does.
I'm just saying. I agree that some of those things had to be done, but he did abuse his wartime powers. I'm slightly biased as a southerner on this topic.

I'm just saying. I agree that some of those things had to be done, but he did abuse his wartime powers. I'm slightly biased as a southerner on this topic.

Still bitter about the loss, eh? ;)

Still bitter about the loss, eh? ;)
Quite actually, I would sign up today if war started again. *Awaits berating*

Quite actually, I would sign up today if war started again. *Awaits berating*

*berates Midlauthia*

And everyone forgets Mussolini...

and Saddam.

Quite actually, I would sign up today if war started again. *Awaits berating*

Now is that because you are upset with the federal government because of Bush, strongly believe in States' rights and dislike the Constitution, or simply love muddin', fried chicken, cut off jean shorts, and talking slowly a bit too much? ;)

And everyone forgets Mussolini...
Mussolini was actually pretty good as "the worst dictators ever" go. The body count of his regime was extremely low, and he was dragged into a war by treaty obligations which he could do nothing to go against (the Italian army was the worst in Europe, and Hitler was already in the south of France by the time Mussolini knew much about it).

So...A) why is Bush even on the list? B) Why are people voting for him? I mean, I hate his administration as much as the next guy but...fucking seriously.

Anyways, voted Kimmy.

So...A) why is Bush even on the list? B) Why are people voting for him? I mean, I hate his administration as much as the next guy but...fucking seriously.

Anyways, voted Kimmy.

Well, one person did it as a joke...

The others I assume did it because they don't know the difference between a dictator and a bad leader.

Well, one person did it as a joke...

The others I assume did it because they don't know the difference between a dictator and a bad leader.

I see I see, ah well. Some people would probably argue he is a dictator.:headbang:

Oh please. I agreed with you up until there. Lincoln was one of the BEST presidents in American history. Clement Vallandigham doesn't matter. Holding the Union together and freeing slaves does.

Even bush hasn't put American citizens to trial by military tribunal.

Kim Jong Il. That´s one sick mo´fo.

Their are only two government types, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the bourgeois, though they may vary in content the State can only serve ONE CLASS.

State can only serve ONE CLASS.

Okay, so I hereby declare that the State can only serve class 5-B, from Westminster High School.

That's right, all the functions of the state are now to cater to about forty five-graders.

That's right, all the functions of the state are now to cater to about forty five-graders.

So would that be better or worse than what we have now?

I admit myself unsure.

So would that be better or worse than what we have now?

Yes.

And the worst dictator in US history was by no question Lincoln, whether his actions were justified or not, his deportation of Clement Vallandigham is probably the worst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Vallandigham

Bush has done practically the same thing with his war on terrorism and has done it to far more people then just a single individual. And of course, Lincoln offered both a trial and an opportunity at release.

Bush is by far one of the worst presidents in history. I can't say he's the absolute worst but he is certainly up there on the scale of things. Not a dictator by any stretch... though he might go off and try to become one after this.


I still say God is the absolute worst dictator of all time. But of course that's only if you believe in God. If you don't believe God then I would have to say the worst dictator is... I really couldn't tell you. I never cared enough to actually be concerned with the rulers of other countries, I'm not even especially concerned with the rulers of my own. Mildly since Bush was elected and how majorily he's screwed up thereafter, even before his election he did a splendid job of making a fool of himself though.

And no I didn't vote for Bush, I didn't vote at all.. One idiot or another really.

I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not be held accountable for their actions.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MnWveedO42Q


my answer to your lack of voting.

Well, I was talking about the person who started this thread....
But if you say so, I guess you're probably right.

Based on what, exactly?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MnWveedO42Q


my answer to your lack of voting.

That makes me want to vote less and only goes to further my point.

But could have lasted longer...
There is no possibility of Dubya being in office for more than 8.

The possibility of Bush being in office for more than eight years is slim bordering on infinitesimal, it is however not impossible. Declaring a state of national emergency and delaying elections are one way he could hold onto office if he chooses. I don't find this likely except when I'm very drunk and pessimistic but it is possible.

A dictator isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a position of overwhelming (internal) power.

And that's not a bad thing at all. :rolleyes:

Oh please. I agreed with you up until there. Lincoln was one of the BEST presidents in American history. Clement Vallandigham doesn't matter. Holding the Union together and freeing slaves does.

Suspending the right of habeas corpus matters as well. That kicks him back to the other side of the list. Especially since freeing the slaves was done more as a matter of political convenience than out of the goodness of his soul. As for "holding the Union together", one could re-word that as "denying the right of a states citizens to secede from the union". While I strongly disagree with slavery I also disagree with forcing states to remain in the union against the will of their citizens.

Well, one person did it as a joke...

The others I assume did it because they don't know the difference between a dictator and a bad leader.

Or they thought SB complaining that Bushes inclusion on the list was "trolling" was funny . . .

That makes me want to vote less and only goes to further my point.

if your taking south park seriously, you fail the internet.

if your taking south park seriously, you fail the internet.

I hardly take anything seriously. But when eight yearl old cartoon characters can see the flaw in our system something is wrong.

Perhaps I should have added lol to my last statement. But I thought the blandness of the words would imply their own sense of humor.

I hardly take anything seriously. But when eight yearl old cartoon characters can see the flaw in our system something is wrong.

Perhaps I should have added lol to my last statement. But I thought the blandness of the words would imply their own sense of humor.

stop trying to cover it up.
You have already failed the internet.
you will now be fined each time you get on the internet until you win the internet.

stop trying to cover it up.
You have already failed the internet.
you will now be fined each time you get on the internet until you win the internet.

Not taking south Park seriously means you fail the internet. When matt and trey lambast a political system they do it in such a way that it is funny as hell and more often than not more serious than most other political satire.

I thoroughly despise George W. Bush, but to describe him as a dictator, and to actually suggest that he is a "worst dictator" than Shwe, Kim or Abdullah is fundamentally stupid. Bush, even though he has a lot of blood on his hands, is by far the least dictatorial of the nine people on the poll who are actually alive.

Most people are ignorant, and will pick as "worst dictator" the one who gets the most media attention. Which explains why more people have voted Mugabe than Abdullah or Shwe. If you had put Choummaly Sayasone, Nguyen Minh Triet, Teodoro Obiang Mbasogo, Hassanal Bolkiah or Isaias Afewerki in your poll, I'm sure few people would have known who they are.

Those who get media attention in the West are those that Western governments don't like, and who don't like Western governments. Mugabe and Kim are provocatively anti-Western, whereas Karimov, Hu and Abdullah are generally friends of the West. Consequently, their regimes are less criticised by Western leaders, and they get less attention in the Western press.

I still find it amusing that Rice's list of "outposts of tyranny" excluded Saudi Arabia, despite including a country such as Zimbabwe. The fact that it excluded Brunei and Eritrea, for example, does not mean the governments of those countries are not tyrannical; it simply means that they're not considered significant by the Bush administration. I remember Bush addressing the UN and saying he wanted freedom for people in a very select list of countries -such as Iran- while "strangely" omitting Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan, run by his dictator pals.

Anyway, I've voted Shwe. And no, not just because Myanmar is in the news; I've always considered Shwe to be one of the world's very worst dictators.

How is Il worse than Mugabe?

His family name is Kim, not Il. Il is part of his given name, which is Jong-il.

You'd think that Kim Jong-il being the son of Kim Il-sung would help people realise what their family name is...

Kim is a "worse dictator" than Mugabe by most criteria. Which are so blatantly obvious that I can't be bothered to detail them.

There are many dictators more repressive than Mugabe, despite the latter being a thoroughly unpleasant fellow.

Anyway, mine would be emmm Kim Yong Il really. I've watched CNN, there they showed a NK newspaper: North Korea shines under the leadership of our great commander. And what's happening right now: they're going in 1 of the worst famines in NK ever. Just...*sigh*, can't say much about it really.

If you're interested in a daily dose of North Korean propaganda "news", try KCNA (http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm).

The possibility of Bush being in office for more than eight years is slim bordering on infinitesimal, it is however not impossible. Declaring a state of national emergency and delaying elections are one way he could hold onto office if he chooses. I don't find this likely except when I'm very drunk and pessimistic but it is possible.

it happened. Bush just declared nationwide martial law dissolved congress, and suspended all elections. they reported briefly on CNN then the transmission went blank and when it came back on that one guy for Fox news was doing CNN's reports.

anyways I am leading the resistance contact me at
1-972.563.6452
ask for Napoleon.

And that's not a bad thing at all. :rolleyes:

It's not, as it is not the power that matters, it is how it is used.

The major problem with a dictatorship is that it, as part of it's nature, cannot have a brake on power, allowing a greater probability of an inefficient or corrupt leader to rise to the position.

A dictatorship isn't the best choice because of that.

I hate bush but he not a dictator whatever you say now mugabe(:sniper:)

He successfullly ruined the most promising african country within a decade thats an achievement.

give ti some time marshal law might be declared before the election

Marshal law? Is that where Matt Dillon and Wyatt Earp take over the government?

I voted for Kim, myself.

stop trying to cover it up.
You have already failed the internet.
you will now be fined each time you get on the internet until you win the internet.

You fail at dry humor. Dry humor requires a delivery in such a manner that implies nothing at all. I mean come on. It's funny for it's lack of intonation

Not taking south Park seriously means you fail the internet. When matt and trey lambast a political system they do it in such a way that it is funny as hell and more often than not more serious than most other political satire.

I agree. I honestly believe even an eight year-old could realize that most of the time our options are a Turd Sandwhich or a Douchebag. Which just goes to show you how fucked up our system is.

Voting for president: Great idea

Such votes being restricted to Douchebags and Turd Sandwhiches: Terrible.

You fail at dry humor. Dry humor requires a delivery in such a manner that implies nothing at all. I mean come on. It's funny for it's lack of intonation



I agree. I honestly believe even an eight year-old could realize that most of the time our options are a Turd Sandwhich or a Douchebag. Which just goes to show you how fucked up our system is.

Voting for president: Great idea

Such votes being restricted to Douchebags and Turd Sandwhiches: Terrible.

thats only in your mind use the write in candidate option vote for anyone you want.

thats only in your mind use the write in candidate option vote for anyone you want.

But then I would have to register to vote. Besides, I think we should re-evaluate the voting process. We should make all the canidates sign up for a Nationstate and vote for the one who does the best at running theirs!

But then I would have to register to vote. Besides, I think we should re-evaluate the voting process. We should make all the canidates sign up for a Nationstate and vote for the one who does the best at running theirs!

the real reason is seen, you are too lazy to vote.

Lil Kim.