Worst Dictator Ever

[California Mountain Snake]

Now, honestly, does the fact that we elected Bush into office change the fact that he still introduced policies that constrict our way of thinking and thus could be labeled a dictator? Remember that people elected Hitler into office as well. I just dislike Bush more because we actually kept him in office in the one opportunity we got to get his ass out of there.

Please enlighten us as to how any of the policies established by the Bush administration have "constricted" your thinking. A list of books you've been prevented from taking out of the library because of President Bush? Popular websites our government censors? Perhaps you can just show me the statute which outlaws unpatriotic speech, Bush passed one of those, right?

I question if you even understand what the term dictator means.

[Der Kommissar]

Considering that Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Worker's Party involved Germany in a literally unwinnable war, persecuted intellectuals of all stripes, and murdered a wide swathe of citizens for ideological lunacies, to say that Hitler was even "good for Germany" is grossy inaccurate.

The OP needs to clarify if worst is supposed to mean "most tyrannical" or "most incompetent."

Labelling Bush as a dictator is disingenious, considering that he doesn't hold anything close to absolute power. He's an asshole, a law-breaking, stunningly incompetent asshole, but he's not a dictator. Frankly, I doubt he wants to be.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Der Kommissar

[Herr Wozzeck]

Please enlighten us as to how any of the policies established by the Bush administration have "constricted" your thinking. A list of books you've been prevented from taking out of the library because of President Bush? Popular websites our government censors? Perhaps you can just show me the statute which outlaws unpatriotic speech, Bush passed one of those, right?

I question if you even understand what the term dictator means.

I was actually referring to the Patriot Act, Title II;

Title II established three very controversial provisions: "sneak and peek" searches, roving wiretaps and the ability of the FBI to gain access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens. The so-called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification of the execution of search warrants. The period before which the FBI must notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the Act — the FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard" — and it may be extended at the court's discretion. These sneak and peek provisions were struck down by judge Ann Aiken on September 26, 2007 after a Portland attorney, Brandon Mayfield was wrongly jailed because of the searches. The court found the searches to violate the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Roving wiretaps are wiretap orders that do not need to specify all common carriers and third parties in a surveillance court order. These are seen as important by the Department of Justice because they believe that terrorists can exploit wiretap orders by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones, while opponents see it as violating the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment. Another highly controversial provision is one that allows the FBI to make an order "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution."

Now, if this was any other country, the government could rush straight over to your house and arrest you, not give you a trial, and then you'd be killed for making a joke in a phone conversation. Not like it'll happen over here, but the simple fact that it could happen if this was a different nation is very, very frightening.

And also, what about Guantanamo Bay? Giving prisoners of war no habeus corpus doesn't exactly sound like a Democratic ideal; even if they're not from the US, they should at least be granted a fair trial (and at the very least, in their own homeland)

And yes, I understand that a dictator is a guy who holds absolute power in a nation; I just have a broader definition of the word that includes any world leader who abuses their position in office and makes the lives of others abject hell.

[Metal Rabbit]

Bennytoe sucked.

I atleast respect Hitler for rallying up the idiot germans. Stalin was cool because he physically eliminated his competition. Bush has a movie about hisself, and Napolean was a land whore.

I have no opinion on Mr. Mao because I haven't researched him yet.

[California Mountain Snake]

The FBI exceeded its authority and got beaten down by the American justice system because they acted illegally. It is not sanctioned for government agencies to treat citizens this way, and any court case will easily be found in favor of the defendant.

But it doesn't change the fact that this is all irrelevant to how information and thinking patterns have been "constricted" by the US government. It has always been illegal to conspire illegal acts or incite violence, and the fact that the US government has gotten more nosey and developed a tendency for violating your right to privacy doesn't reflect any new active restriction of knowledge and discussion that wasn't already illegal before the Bush administration's policies.

I agree that the efforts to invade private life are disturbing, but you are mislabeling invasions of privacy with constriction of thinking patterns.

[Knife]

Bush is one damn bad dictator. In the sense that he's not a dictator.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Knife

[Starwolf_UK]

If we're talking about the 20th Centry alone then Pol Pot and Kim Il-sung deserve mentions certainly moreso than George Bush Juniorzroffllcopter topic derailment imminent. I'm not certian if Cambodia has recovered (in terms of living standards for the people) but it is clear North Korea has not.

[Beigeen]

People who haven't heard of Mao need educate themselves ASAP. I can't believe the educational standards of a first world country can be so shameful.

[Herr Wozzeck]

The FBI exceeded its authority and got beaten down by the American justice system because they acted illegally. It is not sanctioned for government agencies to treat citizens this way, and any court case will easily be found in favor of the defendant.

But it doesn't change the fact that this is all irrelevant to how information and thinking patterns have been "constricted" by the US government. It has always been illegal to conspire illegal acts or incite violence, and the fact that the US government has gotten more nosey and developed a tendency for violating your right to privacy doesn't reflect any new active restriction of knowledge and discussion that wasn't already illegal before the Bush administration's policies.

I agree that the efforts to invade private life are disturbing, but you are mislabeling invasions of privacy with constriction of thinking patterns.

All I'm saying is that such invasions of privacy could be used to control how people think. Fine, it's not actually happening, but I'm saying it could happen if there was no Supreme Court to keep things in check.

Also, I wonder; if Bush doesn't have absolute power, why did he act like he did when he declared 'Mission Accomplished'? It was a huge event back then, sure, but looking back now it seems like an overly prideful statement of 'yeah, we did it, we're the US and you terrorists better watch your backs, because we'll be hunting you down even through misguided means'.

That's not my main qualm about the whole 'Mission Accomplished' thing, though, and neither is the fact that five years after that statement, the mission is still not accomplished; it's what he was wearing. As far as I know, Bush is the only president in the entirety of American history to make a public appearance in uniform while he was serving in office. No, it doesn't mean that he's evil, but I find it disturbing that one man who is only part of American government acts like he's the whole of American government.

People who haven't heard of Mao need educate themselves ASAP. I can't believe the educational standards of a first world country can be so shameful.

I agree completely with you there, man.

But honestly, education around here hasn't always been the greatest. There's too much focus on colleges and universities ad not enough on the high schools and elementary schools, and the thing that I think some people in our high offices don't realize is that without a strong primary education there's no way people will be able to do well once they go on to college. Hell, some people basically breed students to be idiots (such as my own school district, where the Superintendent of Miami-Dade Public Schools insists on teaching a test that you can pass just fine if you're just taught the normal curriculum (seriously, go throw stones at the guy; he's stupider than Bush ever will be)).

Edited December 17, 2008 by Herr Wozzeck

[Der Kommissar]

Also, I wonder; if Bush doesn't have absolute power, why did he act like he did when he declared 'Mission Accomplished'?

Because he's a political and ideological simpleton, which is a large part of why he's been a poor president.

[Herr Wozzeck]

Because he's a political and ideological simpleton, which is a large part of why he's been a poor president.

That was a rhetorical question; I think we all know the extent of Bush's stupidity by now.

[YokaiKnight]

If we're going to be calling Presidents dictators, and we're talking about bad ones, can we get some AFRICA UP IN THIS BITCH?

The OP

:B

...needs to clarify if worst is supposed to mean "most tyrannical" or "most incompetent."

Agreed.

And yes, I understand that a dictator is a guy who holds absolute power in a nation; I just have a broader definition of the word that includes any world leader who abuses their position in office and makes the lives of others abject hell.

If you're going to use "shirts" to mean "clothes," isn't it only courteous to let people know beforehand?

Also, I wonder; if Bush doesn't have absolute power, why did he act like he did when he declared 'Mission Accomplished'?

I know you said it was rhetorical, but I couldn't resist the bait. Making sweeping proclamations and posturing=/=absolute power.

[Ragnell]

If we were talking worst for their country, I would say Mussolini. If it is worse for the rest of humanity, then I would say Hitler. Hitler was very good at manipulating people and forcing them to do what he wanted without them even knowing it. While Mussolini did not spread his rule as well as many of the other leaders here.

People who haven't heard of Mao need educate themselves ASAP. I can't believe the educational standards of a first world country can be so shameful.

Amen. I honestly do not know who Mao is. And I also do not quite know as much about a few of the others as I would like. And yes, the education system in the US is horrible. I literally could have learned everything in middle school history/math in about 2 months. So instead of really educating people, the schools teach at the level of the dumbest kid in the class. Granted, I'm not out of high school yet. But still, my school is pathetic.

And finally, just because the media says BushsucksBushsucksBushsucksBushsucksBushsucks does not mean it is true. The media is extremely biased, and never seems to report anything Bush has done well. But they seem to have gobs of time to talk about every little thing he has done wrong. He is in no way a dictator, and in very few ways an idiot. He has had an extremely hard presidency, and has had to fight the media every step of the way. No other candidate in the past elections could have done better in my opinion. That doesn't mean he's perfect, he's made his fair share of dumb mistakes. But that doesn't make him an idiot, that makes him human. Every other president of the US when it was at war took away ALL citizens rights, so we're lucky to have what we do. Read about WWI and WWII and you'll see how different things are now. If you insulted the president you were sometimes put on trial and could lose your job. And guess what, we won those wars. Bush isn't a dictator, and saying he is is just an excuse to slam him some more.

[Herr Wozzeck]

If you're going to use "shirts" to mean "clothes," isn't it only courteous to let people know beforehand?

Yeah, I should, shouldn't I? I guess I get it from the fact that my parents came from Cuba just before Castro came into power, so that dictator = evil ruler.

I know you said it was rhetorical, but I couldn't resist the bait. Making sweeping proclamations and posturing=/=absolute power.

But wearing a military uniform = absolute power. No other President has done that in US History, and I brought that up since it's a precedent set by Washington that Bush has been the first to break.

[California Mountain Snake]

Hitler was very good at manipulating people and forcing them to do what he wanted without them even knowing it.

Yeah, because when Hitler created publicly celebrated policies which outlawed German-Jewish marriages "for the protection of Germain heritage," and openly allowed an attack on the Jewish community on Crystal Nacht, an incident which gained worldwide attention and demonstrated exactly what was going on in Germany, and then wrote that book which kind of had the moral "and so I will eradicate the Jews when I come to power", he was so subtle.

People who think that somehow Hitler needed to hide what was going on need to get a clue, what was going on was no secret, and everyone was complicit in their participation, whether directly involved or choosing to do nothing to stop it. Blaming Hitler for somehow being individually responsible for the genocide is completely ignorant, and disregards the fact that genocide is only possible with a societal wide effort, expressed either in active participation or apathy.

[Der Kommissar]

But wearing a military uniform = absolute power. No other President has done that in US History, and I brought that up since it's a precedent set by Washington that Bush has been the first to break.

Er...are you joking again? Bush not having tact and deciding to play dress-up (leaving aside that he WAS a guard airman, as I recall) doesn't really say anything about his power.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Der Kommissar

[Herr Wozzeck]

Er...are you joking again? Bush not having tact and deciding to play dress-up (leaving aside that he WAS a guard airman, as I recall) doesn't really say anything about his power.

I don't think I clarified my stance on the military uniform enough, then; the wearing of the uniform to me is a sign of arrogance on Bush's part, as military tends to be equated with power.

[bunny: spider bitten]

For clarification's sake, I'm referring to Hitler. Are you seriously going to try and defend the Final Solution?

NO WAI?! IT WAS HITLER? HOW COULD I MISS THAT?

Are you seriously whining about it? Just because he killed people in an organized fashion doesn't make him any worse than all the other dictators that also killed people.

Was it a good thing? No. But it's not the first time under a dictatorship where the aim was genocide.

At least he didn't use them to win the war before killing them.

[Deity]

Hitler, in my opinion.

[Fox]

NO WAI?! IT WAS HITLER? HOW COULD I MISS THAT?

Are you seriously whining about it? Just because he killed people in an organized fashion doesn't make him any worse than all the other dictators that also killed people.

I wasn't arguing that he was. I was countering your point, which was that the number of people who died under each dictator's regime somehow has no bearing on how "good" of a dictator they were. Hitler and Stalin were examples.

At least he didn't use them to win the war before killing them.

Yes, yes he did. Workers in the concentration camps were made to manufacture weapons and parts for the war machine until they died, at which point someone was sent in to take their place until they died, and so on.

[bunny: spider bitten]

Considering they didn't win the war in Germany, he didn't use them to win the war.

[Fox]

Considering they didn't win the war in Germany, he didn't use them to win the war.

Oh no my point has been completely invalidated.

[YokaiKnight]

Considering they didn't win the war in Germany, he didn't use them to win the war.

hoooooooooly SHIT what a way to be a bitch about choice of words, especially when you know his goddamn point. 8/10, I am not happy at all.

[bunny: spider bitten]

The difference is in what I meant. His point may be valid, but it's not proving anything or telling me something I didn't know. Misappropriation of man power was more along the lines of what I was claiming had happened.

He could just as easily left them alive for the war but he would have killed them afterwards either way.

But considering historically the odds weren't exactly in his favor for his dreams to be fulfilled, he got closer his way.

[General Spoon]

Why isn't any of the Gamefaqs admins on the list? They hate Animal Crossing and have got together and agreed to not split the AC: City Folk board (or at least rumors like this will spring up if inaction continues). And that board needs a damn split.

EDIT: I vote Mao because of eye-slits.

Edited December 18, 2008 by General Spoon