Worst Americans Options

[*kryogenix*]

Who do you believe are the worst Americans of all time?

Be prepared to defend your choices! I'm expecting a lot of "George W. Bush for being a stupid dum dum head," so make sure you can stay and defend your choices.

This is not a concrete list (actually, I'm going to pick some controversial figures for the sake of debate) but here, in no particular order:

FDR- For pretty much becoming a dictator during WWII, not to mention mishandling it.
Nathan Bedford Forrest- For starting the KKK.
Joe McCarthy- For his overzealous crusade against Communism.
U.S. Grant- For being a terribly ineffective president, especially after the Civil War.
Robert McNamara- For mishandling the Vietnam War.
Malcolm X- For undoing what MLK JR III did by supporting violent miltantism.

I can't think of any more bad Americans at the moment, but I'll let you guys have a go.

[illumineering]

Are you wanting us to focus on individuals as opposed to groups/organizations such as the KKK or Aryan Nation?

[*kryogenix*]

Are you wanting us to focus on individuals as opposed to groups/organizations such as the KKK or Aryan Nation?

Individual people.

[*RiC3xBoy*]

I think Nathan Bedford Forrest is. Racism seems to be one crucial problems this country has(along with others). If the KKK were never to be formed, I believe there would be mroe unity.

[hi-C]

Malcolm X- For undoing what MLK JR III did by supporting violent miltantism.

See, I'd agree with you, to a certain extent. Towards the end of his life, around the time he took his Hajj, he his beliefs changed a lot. He was no longer an angry Black boy, he was a mature Black man.

[Ington]

Michael Moore. He pretty much shaped modern liberalism into a philosophy of anti-American hate.

[aznxdreamer]

im not sure what to think about michael moore.

[*kryogenix*]

Michael Moore. He pretty much shaped modern liberalism into a philosophy of anti-American hate.

Hmm. I dislike Michael Moore but he didn't make my list for a reason. He doesn't have as much power as the people on my list had. Although, his documentary was pretty influential to some people. But still, misleading people didn't directly lead to deaths (I hope).

See, I'd agree with you, to a certain extent.  Towards the end of his life, around the time he took his Hajj, he his beliefs changed a lot.  He was no longer an angry Black boy, he was a mature Black man.

I understand his belief in Islam changed him. But he didn't really undo what he started. Same thing with Nathan Bedford Forrest. When he got older, he tried to disband the KKK, but the genie was already out of the bottle.

[aznxdreamer]

acutally, i like michael moore. he's very opinionated.

[*mipadi*]

But still, misleading people didn't directly lead to deaths (I hope).

Unlike *cough* George Bush *cough*.

[illumineering]

Michael Moore. He pretty much shaped modern liberalism into a philosophy of anti-American hate.

Call me slow, but I think foreign policy and the current "War on Terror" do more to create hatred than a documentary film. Care to offer anything to substantiate your opinion?

I find it rather interesting that you are choosing a person who expresses a political perspective over the likes of Aldrich Ames, Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson, Tim McVeigh or even Lee Harvey Oswald.

[sadolakced acid]

we never hear about the worst americans.

i'm going to say abraham lincoln and andrew jackson.

both men disregarded civil liberties.

[*kryogenix*]

Unlike *cough* George Bush *cough*.

I worded it that way to get these responses.

How much of this is his fault? Usually when the intelligence agencies of the United States, Britain and Russia tell you that Saddam has WMDs, you'd take them seriously.

As far as I know, invading Iraq was not done in bad intention or irresponsibility. Bush thought that he was doing the right thing (as did mostly everyone in the house).

McCarthy, arguably, was doing the right thing by attempting to reveal communists, but he was doing it just to make himself look good at the expense of others.

Moore knows he's misleading people, but doesn't feel like he's doing anything wrong because most of what he says are not outright lies.

But the person I think who is the true villian of modern liberalism is Howard Dean. Unlike Moore, he actually has power. He called the Republican party a party of white Christians, even though he himself (and pretty much the majority of the US) is white Christian.

[illumineering]

Chief Justice Roger Taney for his decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford.

[*mipadi*]

As far as I know, invading Iraq was not done in bad intention or irresponsibility. Bush thought that he was doing the right thing (as did mostly everyone in the house).

Ah, but merely thinking one is doing the right thing does not make it just. Michael Moore probably thinks he is doing the right thing, too, but as you pointed out, he's still...well, an a-hole, to be frank. But if you think Michael Moore is bad for misleading the American public, certainly Bush should be held accountable as well. He misled the American public about Iraq's WMD programs, even though many intelligence officials and members of his own administration warned that the intelligence was faulty.

Even if you let him get away with that, certainly his abuses of American civil rights (especially with the reason NSA wiretapping scandal) put him up at least into the realm of worst presidents. He's done more to hinder the American way of life than the terrorists ever have, as well as hindering our reputation abroad. I'm disgusted when I open the newspaper and not only see articles of the illegal detention and torture of "enemy combatants," but listening to Bush condone and actually encourage such abuses. I'm disgusted when I read that Bush continually circumvents the Senate, judicial system, and American law in order to achieve his own ends.

The reason I can agree with Michael Moore being an idiot is because he has done a lot to hinder his cause. Fahrenheit 9/11 bared some ugly truths about our government and our war on terror--many truths were presented in the film, but Michael Moore exaggerated enough truths or misled some American audiences enough that he's opened up the entire documentary to be labeled as propaganda. Unfortunately, he's made it easy for conservatives to right it off as junk; but what is hard for a lot of conservatives to admit is that there is some truth to many of Moore's statements.

[*not_your_average*]

the worst americans:
woodrow wilson: he refused to give women the right to vote for an extremely long time. many look at him as a champion of women's rights. bull. the only reason he gave in to the nineteenth amendment is because his approval ratings were going down the drain and FDR was starting to gain popularity.

george w. bush: the exact same reasons as michael. i really do agree with him wholeheartedly. gold stars for mipadi!

michael moore: okay, i'll admit, i liked fahrenheit 9/11. however, he has taken liberalism to the extreme and made every single liberal in the US look like a bunch of conspiracy nuts planning to assassinate the president.

[Dragonfly_babe]

EEK! I feel dumb reading this because I don't know some of the stuff u guys r talking about but I don't like bush because he's just a puppet not using his own words or speeches and feeding the public garbage!

[ComradeRed]

I agree, except:

Nathan Bedford Forrest- For starting the KKK.

Nathan Bedford gets a lot of crap that he probably doesn't deserve. For one, when he "started" the KKK all it did was ride around town and play pranks. It was basically a social club for Tennessee elite. When the KKK became militant and started lynching black people, Forrest not only resigned but he publicly denounced it. Blaming Forrest for the KKK's militancy is like blaming Marx for the Gulags.

U.S. Grant- For being a terribly ineffective president, especially after the Civil War.

We've had a LOT worse than Grant.

I can't think of any more bad Americans at the moment, but I'll let you guys have a go.

Oh come on, out of hundreds of millions of Americans, five is all you can think of?

[Mulder]

Woodrow Wilson - for denying woman's suffrage for so long.

Franklin Pierce - for being inactive in a time of great turmoil between the North and the South.

Thomas Jefferson -.. well, hes up there. he was a hypocrite. he proclaimed that all men were created equal and continued to own slaves.

Benedict Arnold - he was a traitor.

Andrew Jackson - for his cruel treatment of Native Americans (the trail of tears), as well as sometimes disregarding laws to pursue his own personal goals.

[ComradeRed]

Franklin Pierce gets too much crap too; by the 1850s, inaction was probably the best that anyone could have done. It's like the Cold War--you want a leader who will try to preserve the Status Quo, not someone who will take an aggressive, activist stance and lead to nuclear war (the election of 1964). Lincoln ran an activist campaign and guess what? Civil War broke out.

[Mulder]

Franklin Pierce gets too much crap too; by the 1850s, inaction was probably the best that anyone could have done. It's like the Cold War--you want a leader who will try to preserve the Status Quo, not someone who will take an aggressive, activist stance and lead to nuclear war (the election of 1964). Lincoln ran an activist campaign and guess what? Civil War broke out.

the civil war was inevitable. if there had been no civil war than the country would have divided into 2 separate nations. the south was being too demanding. someone had to take an agressive stance on the matter.

[Comptine]

I strongly disagree with your opinion that FDR was one of the worst Americans. True, his internment of the Japanese Americans was terrible but so is Bush's violation of human rights. FDR did the best one could during such a large scale war. He made mistakes but he didn't mishandle at all. Mishandling is Johnson or Nixon. FDR was able to help the country through a Derpression along with a World War on two fronts. If you think he was a tyrant because of his four terms, then you don't understand the mentality of a country during war. They want security and stability. They would not risk it by changing leaders, changing methods and ideals. Another way to judge if a president mishandled a situation, you should look to the people. FDR had overwhelming support (along with opposition as with any leader) and people had faith in him. Many people agreed Nixon mishandled his presidency. How? Because he's simply one of the most hated presidents. The people weren't happy.

Worst Americans:

Timothy McVeigh: Domestic terrorism. Although it existed for far longer, McVeigh really did reintroduce this fear back into America. Not to mention that he killed many people.

Joseph McCarthy - Promoted propoganda and the Red Scare. Violated rights. A radical.

[sadolakced acid]

Thomas Jefferson -.. well, hes up there. he was a hypocrite. he proclaimed that all men were created equal and continued to own slaves.

the life of a slave in the hands of a kind master was much better than that of a freed slave.

if jefferson had fred his slaves, no doubt they would have been mistreated in the north, or re-enslaved in the south.

Benedict Arnold - he was a traitor.

benedict arnold was the best general we had in the revolutionary war. He was continually slighted and not promoted. When he won battles, other generals took the credit. he had an ego problem- and yet General Washington had to publicly censure him infront of his troops.

yes, he sold out. he gave away plans to west point. he became a british general. but anyone would have done the same.

Andrew Jackson - for his cruel treatment of Native Americans (the trail of tears), as well as sometimes disregarding laws to pursue his own personal goals.

andrew jackson believed he was protecting the native americans by sending them out of the reach of whites. Whites were corrupting the indians, thought jackson.

and the trail of tears did help the indians last longer.

[ComradeRed]

the civil war was inevitable. if there had been no civil war than the country would have divided into 2 separate nations. the south was being too demanding. someone had to take an agressive stance on the matter.

Hardly. The South was demanding that states in the West vote on whether they wanted slavery--was that being "too demanding" (furthermore, the South's OWN Constitution prohibited the importation of slaves so the South was not bent on expanding slavery to any considerable extent outside of New Mexico and Arizona)? An aggressive stance led to the bloodiest war in US History--whereas almost every other nation in the Americas saw slavery come to a natural end by the late 1880s (Brazil being the last nation) without fighting a bloody war (Haiti is the only one I can think of where slavery was ended by war). Clearly, the Civil War was not needed and only resulted from the South's perception that Lincoln would be overly aggressive and disrupt the status quo. Under Pierce, there were four years of relative calm and peace which is more than I can say for most presidents, so while he wasn't one of the greatest presidents ever, he nonetheless does get too much crap. Even if the country divided into 2 separate nations, historically speaking, it would not have mattered at all. The South was economically unimportant to the North until the 1980s and 90s with the booms in NC, GA, TX, and FL, and would not have seriously hampered our ability to defeat either the Nazis or the Soviets.

Besides, Pierce had the brilliant idea of buying Cuba--that would have appeased the South since it would have restored the Senate balance, and moreover it would have saved us so much trouble later on (no Castro, no missile crisis, etc.)

[Ington]

Call me slow, but I think foreign policy and the current "War on Terror" do more to create hatred than a documentary film.  Care to offer anything to substantiate your opinion? 

I find it rather interesting that you are choosing a person who expresses a political perspective over the likes of Aldrich Ames, Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson, Tim McVeigh or even Lee Harvey Oswald.

1. He's the first person who popped into my head.
2. The documentary got him attention. People listen to him now.
3. I have different opinions than you. If I wanted to, I can pick Martha Stewart. You have no right implying to me that I have the wrong opinion.

[illumineering]

1. He's the first person who popped into my head.
2. The documentary got him attention. People listen to him now.
3. I have different opinions than you. If I wanted to, I can pick Martha Stewart. You have no right implying to me that I have the wrong opinion.

This is a debate. It is reasonable to justify your opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm asking you to substantiate your claim. Read the first post.

Be prepared to defend your choices!

[MFDOOM]

Define "worst" Americans. Until I have a clear understanding of what is you mean by "worst," then I will not take this thread or its starter seriously.

[sadolakced acid]

did we ask you to?

worst= worser than worser.

[MFDOOM]

did we ask you to?

worst=  worser than worser.

I feel no sense of patriotism toward any country. However, I'm glad I moved to New York, London is bitterly uptight.

Legally, Doom is a citizen but I do not share any sense of pride in this country. Include Doom to the list.

[*kryogenix*]

Ah, but merely thinking one is doing the right thing does not make it just. Michael Moore probably thinks he is doing the right thing, too, but as you pointed out, he's still...well, an a-hole, to be frank. But if you think Michael Moore is bad for misleading the American public, certainly Bush should be held accountable as well. He misled the American public about Iraq's WMD programs, even though many intelligence officials and members of his own administration warned that the intelligence was faulty.

Michael Moore knows what he put in the documentary was misleading, but Bush did not know for certain that the intelligence was faulty.

Could Bush have taken the chance, especially since we know now about the scandals to protect Iraq?

If a someone yelled "There's a bomb on this plane!," but a bunch of people were just saying that there really wasn't, you'd still investigate it wouldn't you?

Even if you let him get away with that, certainly his abuses of American civil rights (especially with the reason NSA wiretapping scandal) put him up at least into the realm of worst presidents. He's done more to hinder the American way of life than the terrorists ever have, as well as hindering our reputation abroad. I'm disgusted when I open the newspaper and not only see articles of the illegal detention and torture of "enemy combatants," but listening to Bush condone and actually encourage such abuses. I'm disgusted when I read that Bush continually circumvents the Senate, judicial system, and American law in order to achieve his own ends.

I still haven't read enough about it, but if it's true, I'd probably agree with you.

Nathan Bedford gets a lot of crap that he probably doesn't deserve. For one, when he "started" the KKK all it did was ride around town and play pranks. It was basically a social club for Tennessee elite. When the KKK became militant and started lynching black people, Forrest not only resigned but he publicly denounced it. Blaming Forrest for the KKK's militancy is like blaming Marx for the Gulags.

Point taken, since I've been reading that NBF's KKK is way different from the KKK we know.

We've had a LOT worse than Grant.

But in a time as critical as post Civil War?

wow, all my history textbooks have been pretty different from Wikipedia bias-wise. U.S. Grant was still a corrupt drunk though. Could you name those who you feel are worse?

Oh come on, out of hundreds of millions of Americans, five is all you can think of?

Read that as "I've been procrastinating on my over the break assignments."


Added to the list:

Axis Sally
Tokyo Rose
Hanoi Jane _\____ Traitor.
Alger Hiss- Traitor.
Julius and Ethel (?) Rosenburg- Traitor. (question mark because some believe that only Julius was involved, as the Venona cables show)
John Walker Lindh- Traitor.
Charles Lindbergh- Fascist Sympathizer.
Huey Long- Imagine what life would be like if he became president.
John C. Calhoun- For championing secession and no compromise.

Benedict Arnold doesn't count because he wasn't an American.

While we're talking about it, who gets too much crap?

A name that comes to mind immediately is Herbert Hoover. Way too much blame was put on him for the crash.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Could Bush have taken the chance, especially since we know now about the scandals to protect Iraq?

If a someone yelled "There's a bomb on this plane!," but a bunch of people were just saying that there really wasn't, you'd still investigate it wouldn't you?

Maybe if he had really investigated, he would have found out the truth, no?
You wouldn't just bomb the plane yourself so those who could have potentially set the bomb would die, would you?

[*not_your_average*]

Hanoi Jane  _\____ Traitor.
Charles Lindbergh- Fascist Sympathizer.

I wasn't aware that a Vietnam War protester and a Depression-era pilot were enemies to America.

[*kryogenix*]

I wasn't aware that a Vietnam War protester and a Depression-era pilot were enemies to America.

That's not why I'm criticizing them. Protesting the Vietnam War and being a Depression-era pilot does not make you a traitor.

Jane Fonda talked to the enemy leaders about American strategy, sat on an anti aircraft gun that was used against American planes and broadcasted radio messages for the NVA.

Lindbergh wrote a memo concerning the strength of Luftwaffe (which was later proven false) that convinced Neville Chamberlain to appease Hitler.

[*mipadi*]

Lindbergh wrote a memo concerning the strength of Luftwaffe (which was later proven false) that convinced Neville Chamberlain to appease Hitler.

...but Bush did not know for certain that the intelligence was faulty.

Could Bush have taken the chance, especially since we know now about the scandals to protect Iraq?

If a someone yelled "There's a bomb on this plane!," but a bunch of people were just saying that there really wasn't, you'd still investigate it wouldn't you?

Is it not possible that Lindbergh had the same faulty information and securty concerns that you attribute to Bush?

[*kryogenix*]

...but Bush did not know for certain that the intelligence was faulty.

Could Bush have taken the chance, especially since we know now about the scandals to protect Iraq?

If a someone yelled "There's a bomb on this plane!," but a bunch of people were just saying that there really wasn't, you'd still investigate it wouldn't you?

Is it not possible that Lindbergh had the same faulty information and securty concerns that you attribute to Bush?

Your equating Lindbergh (the messenger) to Bush (the decision maker).

[WindSorcerous]

I suppose I'll say what most people I know are thinking: George W. Bush, simply because I feel he is a modernized Hitler. Wanna argue with me? Tough, I hate arguing because it causes negitivity.

Want proof? Watch the news with your eyes open

[*kryogenix*]

I suppose I'll say what most people are thinking: George W. Bush, simply because I feel he is a modernized Hitler. Wanna argue with me? Tough, I hate arguing because it causes negitivity. 

Bush is FAR from a modern Hitler. Get out of this topic. If you're not here to debate, why come to the debate forum?

[WindSorcerous]

LoL You care way to much about this topic...

[*kryogenix*]

LoL You care way to much about this topic... 

No, as a community leader I have to enforce the rules. Please read them.

[WindSorcerous]

LoL what i mean is depending on the person GW can be bad or good...but you see for those who are more wealthy, GW is the right president because he can secure their wealth: mostly only for the super wealthy though, but most like the middle class such as myself: we get screwed over with everything...

it's also scary since because of him we have soldiers coming to my school to enlist people... which i feel is totally wrong since people are dying for this useless war

ah, I was right...i'm not good at this debating thing...i don't like it really...

[stryker76]

Nathan Bedford Forrest- For starting the KKK.
Joe McCarthy- For his overzealous crusade against Communism.

I'd havc to say both. Forrest because well to be honest there will never be and end to Racism. But to do the things that the KKK have done are just plan wrong. Differences between different ethnic groups has been around as long as human kind has walked the earth. It will never be gone it something that people need to learn to deal with pretty much as bad as it is.

And McCarthy because Communism/Socialism isnt really tha bad of a political format if it is done with out corruption(Communism). Without it being corruoted by ppl with that lack will power it isnt that bad and it eliminated Class systems which are a mahor problem with society. But what McCarthy did to those that felt Communism was better was wrong. Beating ppl he thought where communist. Which meant Speaking againt the government or the "Norm" of the time. Wearign nething that was red. Or even some much as havin an opinion that someone else may have not liked. You rights as a human where completely revoked. And the worst part was that the Courts allowed it because it was "War Time." Lame.


Now for my big disagreement. FDR. He Saved this counrty from becoming and othder third world country. If it wasnt for him entering us into WWII after the Japanese attempt at Pacific Domination. We would be living in a much different country. The American Depression was not only felt here in America. But was felt by all nations of the world. America was a Huge Importer and Exporter of Goods and when the Market crashed many countries around the world also fell with it. It was the ultimate the Depression here in America that started the War. It started here ans was felt in Europe as well and German was already in a mild depression after the WWI. This made it easy for Hitler to come into power and make his attempts at creating his "Perfect" world. I dont think that FDR was in any way a Dictator during the War but more as a person that raise Morale here on the home front for the people and Saved our Nation from further attacks by Japan as well as the possibilty of attacks by Nazi German if we didnt enter the war to stop them from progression across the Atlantic.

[*kryogenix*]

And McCarthy because Communism/Socialism isnt really tha bad of a political format if it is done with out corruption(Communism). Without it being corruoted by ppl with that lack will power it isnt that bad and it eliminated Class systems which are a mahor problem with society. But what McCarthy did to those that felt Communism was better was wrong. Beating ppl he thought where communist. Which meant Speaking againt the government or the "Norm" of the time. Wearign nething that was red. Or even some much as havin an opinion that someone else may have not liked. You rights as a human where completely revoked. And the worst part was that the Courts allowed it because it was "War Time." Lame.

Communism isn't a political format, it's an economic system. And Communism IS a bad thing. The thing was, McCarthy started a witch hunt.

Now for my big disagreement. FDR. He Saved this counrty from becoming and othder third world country. If it wasnt for him entering us into WWII after the Japanese attempt at Pacific Domination. We would be living in a much different country. The American Depression  was not only felt here in America. But was felt by all nations of the world. America was a Huge Importer and Exporter of Goods and when the Market crashed many countries around the world also fell with it. It was the ultimate the Depression here in America that started the War. It started here ans was felt in Europe as well and German was already in a mild depression after the WWI. This made it easy for Hitler to come into power and make his attempts at creating his "Perfect" world. I dont think that FDR was in any way a Dictator during the War but more as a person that raise Morale here on the home front for the people and Saved our Nation from further attacks by Japan as well as the possibilty of attacks by Nazi German if we didnt enter the war to stop them from progression across the Atlantic.

He did? Some can argue he prolonged the Great Depression. He expanded government control over the economy. We're dealing with problems created by Roosevelt today. The Depression did not start WWII. The Germans did. Read up more on Roosevelt and look at all the things he tried to get to pass. When the Supreme Court wasn't cooperative, he tried to change the Supreme Court by adding more seats so that it would pass the New Deal acts. You say Hitler gained power because Germany was in a deep depression. FDR gained so much power because America was in such a sorry state.

[stryker76]

He did? Some can argue he prolonged the Great Depression. He expanded government control over the economy. We're dealing with problems created by Roosevelt today. The Depression did not start WWII. The Germans did. Read up more on Roosevelt and look at all the things he tried to get to pass. When the Supreme Court wasn't cooperative, he tried to change the Supreme Court by adding more seats so that it would pass the New Deal acts. You say Hitler gained power because Germany was in a deep depression. FDR gained so much power because America was in such a sorry state.

Yeah he did manipulate Government. But it isnt ne worst then what politicians and Lobbist do today. And at least he didnt hide it. And Yes Germany was already in a post war depression after WWI which Hilter used to fuel his way into power. Also i agree that America was in a sorry state when FDR came into government. But it wasnt him that created it. Althought he fixed it pretty good. Also i would like to know what problems we are currently trying to fix that FDR created. Every problem we have in american is caused by our present President's greed and hungry for money from the oil industry.

[*mipadi*]

Your equating Lindbergh (the messenger) to Bush (the decision maker).

Which is precisely why it's more important for Bush to check his facts before sending young men off to war.

[*kryogenix*]

Which is precisely why it's more important for Bush to check his facts before sending young men off to war.

Chamberlain and Bush were given faulty info, which is why they don't get as much blame as they could(should?) get.

I take it you don't think getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. (actually let's not debate the war in this thread...)

If you're going to say Bush is bad for using faulty intel, then will you say the House is bad for approving the war on bad intel? Are you going to say Bill Clinton is bad for Operation Desert Fox?

Interesting enough, Chamberlain is criticized for not acting, where as Bush is blamed for taking action. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yeah he did manipulate Government. But it isnt ne worst then what politicians and Lobbist do today. And at least he didnt hide it.

Manipulating the government is an understatement.

And Yes Germany was already in a post war depression after WWI which Hilter used to fuel his way into power. Also i agree that America was in a sorry state when FDR came into government. But it wasnt him that created it. Althought he fixed it pretty good.

I don't get your logic here. Hitler didn't create the depression either.

FDR could have prolonged the depression by taking control of the economy instead of letting it balance itself out.

Also i would like to know what problems we are currently trying to fix that FDR created. Every problem we have in american is caused by our present President's greed and hungry for money from the oil industry.

He was elected three times, pretty much had control over the economy and tried to pack the courts. The guy introduced welfare, minimum wage and the use of fiat money.

You wish we could blame all of our problems on Bush.

[*mipadi*]

I take it you don't think getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. (actually let's not debate the war in this thread...)

I don't think it's a good thing when our president manipulates facts to achieve an end, however justified that end might be. He told us the war was to disarm Saddam; if he meant that the war was depose Saddam, he should've just come out and said that.

Besides, the illegal detainment and torture of Iraqi citizens didn't exactly end with Saddam, did it?

[stryker76]

Manipulating the government is an understatement.
I don't get your logic here. Hitler didn't create the depression either.

You wish we could blame all of our problems on Bush.

No Hitler didnt cause the depression for Germany he used it to manipulate the German people into thinking that he could restore Germany to is Glory. But once he was in power he started the creation or the attempted at creating his Arian(sp) Nation.

Every Major figure god or bad or neither gained there power during economic crisis. Whether it was FDR, Hitler, Mao Tse Tong(sp), Stalin, Saddam, and tonz more. The people where looking for an answer to the problem and they offered a temporary fix to get them into power.

Also can you imagine what the world would be like today if America hadnt entered WWII? Chances are that much of the western World would be under german control. With Japan expanding East. Causing the 2 forces to meet in America. Which could have started another conflict (possibly)

[acid_high]

UHHH It's like right in your face Gergore Bush 2 For starting an unwinable war no matter how far they said we've come

[sadolakced acid]

No Hitler didnt cause the depression for Germany he used it to manipulate the German people into thinking that he could restore Germany to is Glory. But once he was in power he started the creation or the attempted at creating his Arian(sp) Nation.

exactly what FDR did.

Every Major figure god or bad or neither gained there power during economic crisis. Whether it was FDR, Hitler, Mao Tse Tong(sp), Stalin, Saddam, and tonz more. The people where looking for an answer to the problem and they offered a temporary fix to get them into power.

temoprary fixes that are causing problems right now.

Also can you imagine what the world would be like today if America hadnt entered WWII? Chances are that much of the western World would be under german control. With Japan expanding East. Causing the 2 forces to meet in America. Which could have started another conflict (possibly)

can you imagine what the world would have been like if chamberlain didn't try to appease hitler?

anyways, the western world seems pretty good at resisting unification. America didn't help with napoleon, and the british still brought him down.

plus, both napoleon and hilter made the mistake of attacking russia. Don't attack russia. expecially not in the summer, because things will only get worse. attack russia in the winter, and you won't overextend yourself, and you'll be ready for the winter.

[stryker76]

I have yet to see ne of the problems that FDR's plan during the depressions have cause or what we are still having problems with. And who cares about russia they are a Once super power nation that has since almost declined into the status of a third world Nations.

And Napoleons Problems was not that he attacked russia in the summer it was the his ego was to large for him to grasp. He felt the he could take the world in one swift motion. But solider morale doesnt last that long for that to be possible in that time of the world.

Germans problem was in the fact that they where fighting a war on too many fronts. Blitzkerg warfare is an excellent style of warfare if you have the resources to do it. The problem with germany was that they over stretched them selves so that they could not continue attacks for long periods of time. Blitzkerg was worked good for germany. But it would have won them the war if they had the resource to have continuous wave after wave instead of 2 maybe 3.

[ComradeRed]

FDR's plans caused a hell of a lot of trouble down the line. Here's an official 1973 Senate Report: http://www.freedomsite.net/93-549.htm

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.

These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.

FDR killed and imprisoned people for political advantage and threatened to undermine the most important Constitutional protections of rights through schemes like court packing.

FDR's "reforms" prolonged the Depression (the only thing FDR did differently from Hoover was in lowering the tariff, probably a good thing--Hoover himself was a supporter of big government, as can be seen in his own campaign slogan "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage"). FDR's economic policies were based on the erroneous assumption that unemployment and inflation were inversely related. (Anyone who believes this can look to the 1970s, where higher inflation led to high unemployment, not lower employment) so the Depression ended in spite of, not because of, FDR's policies.

Depressions (which occur when demand doesn't align with supply) always end naturally. As warehouses sit with unsold goods, companies lower their prices and wages so eventually the economy returns to the original level of output (albeit with lower prices). As workers become unemployed, they become willing to work for lower wages so eventually they all have a job again (albeit at a lower wage). The fact that FDR ended the Depression in what? 10 years?--is not impressive at all, but in fact shows that his New Deal policies were probably a failure.

[kimmytree]

George W. Bush.

[ichigofan]

George "Dubya" Bush..He single handedly imposed his religion and morality onto our government, started a war over basically nothing, ignores actual issues like The Missile warfare going on in North Korea which is ACTUALLY a threat to America! Im glad that his presidential stay is almost over I hope that we can survive the next 2 years

[cashmere deer]

Call me slow, but I think foreign policy and the current "War on Terror" do more to create hatred than a documentary film. Care to offer anything to substantiate your opinion?

I find it rather interesting that you are choosing a person who expresses a political perspective over the likes of Aldrich Ames, Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson, Tim McVeigh or even Lee Harvey Oswald.

Same here. I don't think Moore is such a bad guy. You may dislike him but to label him as one of 'the word americans ever' is a bit harsh. Sure he's got his opinions but that is all they are and they haven't really lead to anyone being hurt.

[*Teenage Mutant Ninja Meg*]

Michael Moore. He pretty much shaped modern liberalism into a philosophy of anti-American hate.

imo, michael moore is an amazing human-being. sure he bends the truth sometimes and fiddles with his camera to make something look worse than it is, but at least he has the guts to speak his opinion no matter the cost. plus, he has done some astounding documentaries.

being canadian, i'm not familiar with many "bad americans" other than george w. bush. he just repulses me. all he appears to care about is money and power, and he'll do whatever it takes to get it, even if it means killing innocent people in the process. i'm highly apposed to war, so that's another reason why i really dislike him.

another reason why i don't like george bush is how he handled september 11 and the new orleans flooding. when the two places were hijacked and flown into the trade centers, he had people helping within hours. whereas, when new orleans was flooded, it took him days to get help in, what i believe, was one of the worst disasters i've been alive to see. that information just reinforces my accusation of him being money-hungry. new york is a weathly state and, for the most part, you see weathly people there. new orleans on the other hand is a poor state.

that's basically all i have to say about that.

[kimmytree]

^ I completely agree with you.

I dont think he reacted that great with the 9/11 attacks, but he definately handled it better than he did New Orleans last year.

He literally sickens me.

[sw33t_rouge]

George Bush- the killing's of innocent live's.

[magicfann]

i`d hafta say i hate emo kids the most...


uh

emo kids WITH macs

yep, that should do it

[Smoogrish]

George Bush, for being so goddamn biased against the guerillas in Lebanon. I mean yeah, they're killing Israelis, but the Israelis are killing them too. Pretty soon there won't be a Lebanon and Israel will still be trying to catch the guerillas.