The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: thundley4 on January 04, 2011, 10:21:13 PM
-
hootinholler (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-04-11 04:54 PM
Original message
A question to ponder...
The time machine thread got me wondering, so here's a question I think could be illuminating.
If it was in your power to remove one person from history, who would it be and why?
I'll be back with my choice, I haven't decided yet
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x115855
Ohio Joe (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-04-11 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. Jesus
For world peace.
badtoworse (193 posts) Tue Jan-04-11 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
16. Muhammad
IMO, Islamic fundamentalism is today's biggest threat to world peace
Motown_Johnny (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-04-11 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. you would remove the largest religion in the world because you are afraid?
curious
badtoworse (193 posts) Tue Jan-04-11 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #18
34. My choice is based on who's doing what in the world today
Fear has nothing to do with it.
Motown_Johnny (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-04-11 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. and what wars are Muslims engaged in today
other than with us? If you have no answer then clearly eliminating us would be more sensible since there are far more of them.
badtoworse (193 posts) Tue Jan-04-11 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Islamic fundamentalists have committed terrorist attacks all over the planet
Edited on Tue Jan-04-11 10:21 PM by badtoworse
I might add that in many Muslim countries, the justice system, which is based on religious law, is barbaric. In these same countries, the abuse of women is appalling. Are you OK with women being flogged for wearing slacks?
The OP asked about eliminating a single individual from history, not eliminating billions of Muslims from the world today.
badtoworse must be a freeper troll.
elehhhhna (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-04-11 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
22. whoever was responsible for themost deaths...
which could be Charlemagne (most royalty is decended from him, and they started a LOT of wars). So that makes the mind go to Jesus. Mohammed. All the religious figures whose names were used in vain to justify killing the innocents. It's an interesting question. I have no answer. Not yet, anyway.
bemildred (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-04-11 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Genghis Khan, Tamurlane, I mean that is what most of political history IS!
Although it is true that the 20th century applied new methods in a most efficient way to the "problem". For sheer numbers, you have to go with Stalin and Mao, but it's not because they were really different.
Oh my.
elehhhhna (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-04-11 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #26
40. pol pot was also a piece of work
hate radio -- see Rwanda & Glen Beck
slavers
Leopold of Belgium
so many jerks...
COLGATE4 (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-04-11 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
27. Hitler. Think of the countless millions and millions of lives that
would have been saved.
Synicus Maximus (604 posts) Tue Jan-04-11 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Mao or Stalin Think of the countless millions and millions of lives that would have been saved.
-
Motown_Johnny (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-04-11 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. and what wars are Muslims engaged in today
other than with us? If you have no answer then clearly eliminating us would be more sensible since there are far more of them.
:lmao:
Hmmm, Ok. Here we go:
Chechnya
France
Netherlands
Philippines
Iraq
Iran
Afghanistan
England
Spain
Nigeria
Sudan
Somalia
Kenya
Italy
Saudi Arabia
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
They're at war with EVERYONE NOT MUSLIM, you Damn morons!
-
BTW, me? Karl f'n Marx. HANDS DOWN!
-
That's easy. Robespierre. Him and his merry little band of misfits (Jacobins) were the original DUmmies. Robespierre, was in many ways, the original Obama. A good orator, told the unwashed and uneducated what they wanted to hear. Opposed the death penalty, unless somebody disagrees with him, then they had to be killed for the good of the state. Was more than happy to use the power of the state to execute anybody for any reason, evidence or not. Tried to make society and commerce conform his views rather than conforming his views to the observable world. A real nice piece of work, all around. Without him, the Marxists don't come about in their historic form.
The DUmmies are amusing. They want to get rid of Jesus' influence? Do they realize that the Jesus and the Church are responsible for the notions of human rights in the west? Seriously, without them, the DUmmies would be indentured servants somewhere being made to work. They should thank God every single day for Jesus and what he brought.
-
Looks like a close race at the DUmp between Hitler and Ronald Reagan. I'm surprised Dubya isn't a landslide winner.
-
That's easy. Robespierre. Him and his merry little band of misfits (Jacobins) were the original DUmmies. Robespierre, was in many ways, the original Obama. A good orator, told the unwashed and uneducated what they wanted to hear. Opposed the death penalty, unless somebody disagrees with him, then they had to be killed for the good of the state. Was more than happy to use the power of the state to execute anybody for any reason, evidence or not. Tried to make society and commerce conform his views rather than conforming his views to the observable world. A real nice piece of work, all around. Without him, the Marxists don't come about in their historic form.
The DUmmies are amusing. They want to get rid of Jesus' influence? Do they realize that the Jesus and the Church are responsible for the notions of human rights in the west? Seriously, without them, the DUmmies would be indentured servants somewhere being made to work. They should thank God every single day for Jesus and what he brought.
Good one; I was also thinking of Karl Marx (which still left Engels alive), but then you mention Robespierre.
Gotta love the whining about Jesus. As if no one has ever killed anyone else before Jesus came and invented war. Indeed, leftists have no concept that Christianity is the sole reason why the West has the high and well-honed understanding of morality that it does. Two thousand years of Christianity have given us a deep-seated sense of right and wrong, speaking to the natural sense of morality God inscribed on the human conscience, and excelled in this to a degree absolutely no other religion or philosophy has ever managed to equal or surpass.
As always - stupid Democrats.
Also, I'm surprised Dubya isn't the landslide winner, too. From the last few years of his presidency, you'd have thought that the Left has hated no one else ever and will hate no one else after Bush leaves office.
-
Yeah. Reagan ruined their dream of what is now the defunct USSR.
-
I was expecting to see one of the DUmmies say Sarah Palin.
-
badtoworse (193 posts) Tue Jan-04-11 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
16. Muhammad
IMO, Islamic fundamentalism is today's biggest threat to world peace
Admin over there must be getting lax. They still haven't deleted this gem. :-)
-
Obwana, just cause I hate the ****er more than any other person that has inhabited the ****in' planet in my lifetime!
Did I say I hate the ****er?
I don't think I have ever said that about another human being. I have disagreed with many, but never has it been elevated to "hate". O'Bumbler takes the cake!
Mostly because he used his race to get morons to vote for the least capable prick in the universe to occupy the Peoples House!
-
Motown_Johnny (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-04-11 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. and what wars are Muslims engaged in today
other than with us? If you have no answer then clearly eliminating us would be more sensible since there are far more of them.
**** you...you worthless POS. A certain sector of the Muslim world is engaged in a war with ANYONE that isn't of their belief system?
Do you honestly ****ing think that kissing their ass will somehow appease them?
Who are the Muslims engaged in war with? Infadel asshats like you. Only you're head is jammed too far up your politically correct libtard fourth point of contact to realize it.
EADC.
-
Also, anybody Hindu. Sweetie-pie Muslims will consider Christians to be the "People of the Book," which old Mo said were OK (as long as they paid up the Jizzyah). Hindus fair game. "Hindu Kush" means "The Slaughter of the Hindus."
-
Hard not to go with Hitler, but Mohammed is certainly a huge contender and Stalin isn't far behind the two of them. Stalin was every bit as bloodthirsty as Hitler if not moreso. I would hesitate to say that Marx, Mao, or Stalin were unique actors whose removal would have changed anything, though, they all had equally-horrid or dangerous cohorts who could well have gotten their own societies to the same place. For instance, the USSR under Lavrentiy Berya would actually have been even more horrible than under Stalin.
-
Motown_Johnny (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-04-11 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. and what wars are Muslims engaged in today
other than with us? If you have no answer then clearly eliminating us would be more sensible since there are far more of them.
Let's narrow this down:
QUESTION: Which nation with a prominent Muslim population does NOT have an issue with terrorism and civil war?
ANSWER: It's a trick question, there isn't one.
-
Response to Original message
22. whoever was responsible for themost deaths...
which could be Charlemagne (most royalty is decended from him, and they started a LOT of wars). So that makes the mind go to Jesus. Mohammed. All the religious figures whose names were used in vain to justify killing the innocents. It's an interesting question. I have no answer. Not yet, anyway.
Mao. 70,000,000 people murdered. Stalin is a distance second at 'only' 40,000,000.
-
I hope that everyone realizes that going back in time alone would change things beyond just what You might try and accomplish removing a historical figure. You could end up being the cause for letting an even worse person to do where a Butler or a Mao failed to do.
-
I hope that everyone realizes that going back in time alone would change things beyond just what You might try and accomplish removing a historical figure. You could end up being the cause for letting an even worse person to do where a Butler or a Mao failed to do.
Yep...especially in the political sphere. Transformative religious figures might be another story, but who knows what would've happened in their absence.
-
Yep...especially in the political sphere. Transformative religious figures might be another story, but who knows what would've happened in their absence.
Always better to look on the bright side. Maybe we wouldn't have to listen to DUmmies runnin' their mouths about shit they know nothing about if we got rid of a key figure on their side, like Fidel or Che! No wait, how 'bout Hugo??? Yeah that's the ticket! What would a primitive do without their savior of the 21st century?
Well I can dream can't I?
-
Al, Jesus may have said 'The poor we will always have with us,' but he could just as easily and correctly have said 'The stupid mofos we will always have with us.' No matter who you take out, there will always be plenty of dumbshits left in the world to establish and fill the ranks of places like DU.
-
Al, Jesus may have said 'The poor we will always have with us,' but he could just as easily and correctly have said 'The stupid mofos we will always have with us.' No matter who you take out, there will always be plenty of dumbshits left in the world to establish and fill the ranks of places like DU.
:lmao: sorry, know it's not a funny topic, but that comment made me laugh.
-
:lmao: sorry, know it's not a funny topic, but that comment made me laugh.
Any topic in the DUmpster is funny! They just can't help themselves!
-
Cortez's,----Cotton Mathers, John Wilkes Booth, take your pick.
-
:lmao:
Hmmm, Ok. Here we go:
Chechnya
France
Netherlands
Philippines
Iraq
Iran
Afghanistan
England
Spain
Nigeria
Sudan
Somalia
Kenya
Italy
Saudi Arabia
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
They're at war with EVERYONE NOT MUSLIM, you Damn morons!
Thank You! I know there was a statistic a few years ago and it was said at the time that there were 26 wars going on in the world and either 25 or all 26 involved Muslims.
-
:lmao:
They're at war with EVERYONE NOT MUSLIM, you Damn morons!
and it should be noted, they have been for 3 centuries or close to it!
( oh, and thanx Reb for showin' me a way to write Damn without using the obvious term! Much obliged! )
-
They're at war with EVERYONE NOT MUSLIM, you Damn morons!
You forgot, that the different sects of Muslims have been at war with each other also.
-
Whoever it was that first gave mankind the notion of "luck."
That because you had less food, less water and thinner clothing than your neighbor, you were unlucky.
That because you weren't as strong as your neighbor, and could therefore not plant and harvest as much as he, you were unlucky.
That because your neighbor had a better looking spouse, you were unlucky.
That because you perceived life as little more than some ****ing "throw of the dice," everything you didn't have was because you were unlucky, and could be rectified by stealing from those who had worked harder than you, and convincing everyone that to do so was somehow righteous.
Verily I say unto you, whoever it was that conned the world into believing that a lack of willingness, work ethic and self-discipline could be blamed upon those who possessed these traits deserves to be not only removed from history, but regarded as the single greatest mass murderer the world has ever known.
I submit that whoever this colossal douchebag is, the proof of God's existence may be found if, and only if, this repugnant, evil soul is presently spending eternity with his wretched asshole serving as Satan's umbrella stand.
By the way: THIS is the question I plan upon asking of the Father, if I'm ever deemed worthy of His audience.
-
and it should be noted, they have been for 3 centuries or close to it!
( oh, and thanx Reb for showin' me a way to write Damn without using the obvious term! Much obliged! )
More like 14 centuries.
-
You forgot, that the different sects of Muslims have been at war with each other also.
Yeah, that falls in line with this:
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works. As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
http://dttj.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-stop-muslim-immigration.html
-
More like 14 centuries.
Sorry, I ****ed up in thinkin' in thousands instead of hundreds!
Ya get the idea though! Thanx for fixin' it!
-
Yeah, that falls in line with this:
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
http://dttj.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-stop-muslim-immigration.html
You forget to mention that they also export terrorism in order to achieve their goals in every other nation that is not muslim!
-
Hard not to go with Hitler, but Mohammed is certainly a huge contender and Stalin isn't far behind the two of them. Stalin was every bit as bloodthirsty as Hitler if not moreso. I would hesitate to say that Marx, Mao, or Stalin were unique actors whose removal would have changed anything, though, they all had equally-horrid or dangerous cohorts who could well have gotten their own societies to the same place. For instance, the USSR under Lavrentiy Berya would actually have been even more horrible than under Stalin.
Stalin and Hitler did make their splash in the world. Hitlers pretty much died with him and Stalins did when the "elite" of his generation finally died out enough to lose their grip on the people.
Mo on the other hand as has been pointed out, has ****ed up peoples minds and lives for 1400 years or more. You wouldn't need to go back in time to kill him, all you need to do is go back to be his editor. O-)
-
Hands down Mo.
-
Adam
It would have saved us bunnies from a ton of grief.
-
Stalin and Hitler did make their splash in the world. Hitlers pretty much died with him and Stalins did when the "elite" of his generation finally died out enough to lose their grip on the people.
Mo on the other hand as has been pointed out, has ****ed up peoples minds and lives for 1400 years or more. You wouldn't need to go back in time to kill him, all you need to do is go back to be his editor. O-)
No shit! H5!
Must be nice to write yer own religion, huh?
Boy, could I have some fun!
I don't think the DUmmies would be pleased though! Ah well, according to them, it's the natural order of things when religion kicks yer ass! I'm sure they will understand!
-
Adam
It would have saved us bunnies from a ton of grief.
You need to find the guy who decided bunnies "taste like chicken"!
Not sure that was Adam, maybe Eve though! heh!
Just sayin.......
-
badtoworse (193 posts) Tue Jan-04-11 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
16. Muhammad IMO, Islamic fundamentalism is today's biggest threat to world peace
Admin over there must be getting lax. They still haven't deleted this gem. :-)
That's what I thought when I read that. Freeper trolls. :-)
-
Margaret Sanger - Think of all the babies we could've saved. Hitler's favorite American.
Woodrow Wilson - Most responsible for leading this country towards a nanny state, which makes us weak. An America not weakened by sucking the government teat would be in a better position mentally, militarily, and financially to put an end to the petty bullshit by all these 2-bit dictators, mullahs and Arab princes.
Cindie
-
Margaret Sanger - Think of all the babies we could've saved. Hitler's favorite American.
Woodrow Wilson - Most responsible for leading this country towards a nanny state, which makes us weak. An America not weakened by sucking the government teat would be in a better position mentally, militarily, and financially to put an end to the petty bullshit by all these 2-bit dictators, mullahs and Arab princes.
Cindie
What is amusing is, if ya ask a leftie, they will tell ya FDR is their hero in arms! Wilson did more to cause WWII than any single man in the frikkin' world! Not only that, he laid the groundwork for what is now the stinkin' UN, residing on our own soil while doing everything possible to take us down! League of Nations, anyone? He was more than willing to let us go down the crapper for that POS rather than ever take America's best interests to heart! He actually believed he could Socialize the whole ****in' planet with one piece of legislative treatise!
As far as presidents go, Wilson betrayed his country far more in the name of "Progressive Ideals" than anyone before or since!
The guy was closer to a damn socialist than our current Coward In Chief!
O'bumbler and Soros are only continuing Wilson's Doctrine!
-
No shit! H5!
Must be nice to write yer own religion, huh?
Boy, could I have some fun!
I don't think the DUmmies would be pleased though! Ah well, according to them, it's the natural order of things when religion kicks yer ass! I'm sure they will understand!
Been done since Mo, Joseph Smith and the founder of Scientology did one heck of a good job.
-
Wouldn't want to waste a chance like this, and just subtracting someone from history doesn't necessarily mean that all the bad crap he or she did wouldn't have happened anyway (not to mention unintended consequences of removing, say, Hitler--would the US be the superpower it is now if not for WWII?). Mohammed seems like an obvious choice, but I'd guess that someone in his inner circle would have filled the bill and we'd still have Islam. Let's remember that Islam really started out as a political doctrine looking for window dressing. That strongly suggests to me that any number of people would have forwarded this horror on the world.
But an American President of reasonably modern times, I think, could not simply have been replaced by anyone else. It's much more a case of the right man needed at the right time to mold the future events we want to avoid than the time and purpose of Mohammed.
So I'd get rid of FDR. I can't imagine any other President having been elected in his place having accomplished so much damage to the United States. Remove FDR, and likely we'd have had no Obama.
-
Wouldn't want to waste a chance like this, and just subtracting someone from history doesn't necessarily mean that all the bad crap he or she did wouldn't have happened anyway (not to mention unintended consequences of removing, say, Hitler--would the US be the superpower it is now if not for WWII?). Mohammed seems like an obvious choice, but I'd guess that someone in his inner circle would have filled the bill and we'd still have Islam. Let's remember that Islam really started out as a political doctrine looking for window dressing. That strongly suggests to me that any number of people would have forwarded this horror on the world.
But an American President of reasonably modern times, I think, could not simply have been replaced by anyone else. It's much more a case of the right man needed at the right time to mold the future events we want to avoid than the time and purpose of Mohammed.
So I'd get rid of FDR. I can't imagine any other President having been elected in his place having accomplished so much damage to the United States. Remove FDR, and likely we'd have had no Obama.
Good point! Imagine if the left got rid of Regan! We'd still be in a cold war! No other pres had the balls to take on the Ruskies after him!
ETA:
Then again, imagine Clintoon not givin' up our technology to the Chicoms or the N. Koreans!
The bat swings both ways!
-
Motown_Johnny (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-04-11 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. and what wars are Muslims engaged in today
other than with us? If you have no answer then clearly eliminating us would be more sensible since there are far more of them.
You mean, other than with India, Russia, most of Europe, China, various African countries, themselves, and pretty much some population on every continent except Antarctica?
Sense by the metric of who's more numerous, not who constitutes a better and decent civilization? (Or, in this case, a civilization and a worldwide population of barbarians.) Plus eliminating Mohammed eliminates Islam in this scenario (a dubious proposition anyway), not the people.
Man, DUmmies are painfully ignorant. Painfully.
Hell, even if they somehow were the more "valuable" group, and even if eliminating Islam from history somehow eliminated the people who became Moslems, only someone extremely ****ed in the head would place their existence above ours in an us vs them world.
-
Hard not to go with Hitler, but Mohammed is certainly a huge contender and Stalin isn't far behind the two of them. Stalin was every bit as bloodthirsty as Hitler if not moreso. I would hesitate to say that Marx, Mao, or Stalin were unique actors whose removal would have changed anything, though, they all had equally-horrid or dangerous cohorts who could well have gotten their own societies to the same place. For instance, the USSR under Lavrentiy Berya would actually have been even more horrible than under Stalin.
Stalin had a higher body count, up to 60,000,000. Those henchmen are just as bad. Lavarentii Beria is really bad. Sometimes I think he worse than Stalin. Stalin was very paranoid, self-hating, and insecure, like Hitler.
-
Looks like a close race at the DUmp between Hitler and Ronald Reagan. I'm surprised Dubya isn't a landslide winner.
I am surprised too and Palin, considering Bush and Palin drive them into madness. Than again, they are not historical figures yet. Okay, Bush is because he was President.
-
Mao. 70,000,000 people murdered. Stalin is a distance second at 'only' 40,000,000.
I read Mao had killed up to 90 million, while Stalin killed 30 to 60 million. Hitler killed 20 to 30 million.
-
Margaret Sanger - Think of all the babies we could've saved. Hitler's favorite American.
Woodrow Wilson - Most responsible for leading this country towards a nanny state, which makes us weak. An America not weakened by sucking the government teat would be in a better position mentally, militarily, and financially to put an end to the petty bullshit by all these 2-bit dictators, mullahs and Arab princes.
Cindie
Woodrow Wilson help bring about the League of Nations, a forerunner of the United Nations. The League of Nations failed in stopping the Axis and America was isolationist. Also, during World War I, civil liberties were severely curtailed, even more than what Bush did after 9/11.
-
That's easy. Robespierre. Him and his merry little band of misfits (Jacobins) were the original DUmmies. Robespierre, was in many ways, the original Obama. A good orator, told the unwashed and uneducated what they wanted to hear. Opposed the death penalty, unless somebody disagrees with him, then they had to be killed for the good of the state. Was more than happy to use the power of the state to execute anybody for any reason, evidence or not. Tried to make society and commerce conform his views rather than conforming his views to the observable world. A real nice piece of work, all around. Without him, the Marxists don't come about in their historic form.
An H5 for that. I agree with you, Vagabond, and would add Woodrow Wilson, for the reason stated on this page (Page 4).
-
If it was in your power to remove one
person group from history, who would it be
Now we're talking change you can believe in.