Bush was a horrible president, and he got us into a war we should never have gotten involved in. But he's not the first president, let along leader, to lead us into a pointless war.
If we were to list U.S. presidents here for just getting into pointless wars we would have to have list almost ever one of them.
I have to agree about Bush. He always seemed to be just what he presented himself as.
Honestly, you can't argue with the suggestions that have been put forth so far. Of the ones that have been suggested the most, I'd have to say my votes would go for George W. Bush, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin, although Sarah Palin is an interesting suggestion.
George W. Bush will be remembered for a while for 911, WMD, and basically the fact that he has been stereotyped and made fun of by people who don't even know why they are making fun of him. It's borderline robotic, but in a way he does deserve some of it. Were there worse presidents? Yes. Will there be worse presidents? Probably. But he was by no length an excellent leader of the US.
As far as Adolf Hitler goes, It's interesting when you bring him into political debate, simply because he was in his own way a brilliant mind. He revived a reeling German economy, rebuilt its army, and showed military brilliance. Fortunately I can pin him here under the label of physco, of course for all the terrible things that he did.
Joseph Stalin, I would say, is the most likely to show up on this list. He was responsible for millions of deaths, deaths to his OWN people, subjecting them to poverty and poor government. Of course he helped the US at a crucial time, but I would assert that does not forgive his crimes.
I find it a bit funny that we sit here and speculate about past psychos when we ourselves know not what the future holds. In one hundred years, our grandchildren may speculate about the tyrannical rulers just on our horizon. Until then though, this does make for fascinating debate.
Im surprised no one came up with any recent phyco/hypocrite. I go with Sumner Redstone (owner of viacom). The reason i think hes a hypocrite is because he sued Google for having 100,000+ copyrited videos on YouTube when he has been promoting illegaly downloading music/youtube videos (he also owns cnet, limewire, frostwire, etc.).
no i aint saying he is the first BUT from my point of view i find him the WORST(hey that rhymed) everybody i know haTES HIM...and he is a racist and katrina....and 9/11 and saddam hissain war/war/war=more war he is considered a TERRORIST from the number of wars he waged...(maybe hitler is worst then GW)
I may have missed something, but how was Bush racist?
....and 9/11
He wasn't behind 9/11!
Just because someone is unpopular does NOT mean you are justified in blaming him for stuff he had no control over. It also means you are not justified in exaggerating what you don't understand.
Bush got us into two wars, one with Afghanistan and the other with Iraq. Bush tried to mash the two together so it's understandable why people would think they were the same war.
The Iraq war is bad, but it's nothing like the Cold War or the war in Vietnam.
Mother Teresa was known for helping the sick. Her and many of her followers would take the sick into a shelter and try to help them in any way they can. It's a touching site and a touching story. However, Mother Teresa made millions of dollars from donations, and all of the money was given to the church.
Think of all the people who supported Mother Teresa. After so much support and donations, she never invested that money in better medicine, a better atmosphere for the sick, or professional doctors. She was basically gathering those who were about to die, and lay them in a cot and bless them, and claim she was doing her best to help them.
Further ore her intentions were selfish. She believed by surrounding herself with suffering this made her more enlightened. There were even those who could have been helped who didn't receive it in her home for the dying.
Anyone who puts George W. Bush above Hitler or Stalin is confused. Not that I'm defending Bush, but did he try to kill you to gain power? Hitler and Stalin killed millions of people (Stalin killed something like 23 million people). What about Mao Ze-dong?
What a coinsidence(or however you spell it): today in school we saw a documentary film about the collaboration and deep friendship between the Solviets and the Nazis during 1938-1941. Also, Stalin was responsible for the holodomor, from which Hitler took an example. Also, german torturers were trained in the USSR. So I'll go with Stalin, and also every communist leader except maybe for Gorbachev(he publickly denounced stalin and opened the archives). Also Che should be counted as mad.
Would anyone consider Kim-Jong Il a Psycho? He has created nuclear missiles and has threatened to use them in the past, he has ordered an attack on a South Korean island, and more. I also think it's a bit off that he has his son promoted in the military just so he can become the next leader.
I was considering listing him myself for being a hypocrite. Though he does have a few more years to actually do what he said he'd do, so I will reserve making that call until then. That's not say I think he will break away from such a label.
Would anyone consider Kim-Jong Il a Psycho?
This brings up a question along with many of the others listed. Should all dictators be regarded as political psychos?
