/liberty/ - Liberty

>>63660

You cannot be fucking serious. FDR, Wilson, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, even someone that essentially just pissed on the ashes like Obama did are all worse than him. What are you on about.

Since you already posted the obvious #1, I'll raise with John Marshall for leading the majority opinion on Marbury v. Madison.

>>63664

Bull fucking shit. I know Wilson was the one that started the progressive president trend but FDR was such an explosive fungal bloom of insane destructive progressivism that he absolutely left everybody else in the dust.

I also still haven't swallowed the 'the south did nothing wrong' or 'slavery would have faded away on its own!' pills so Lincoln doesn't carry any sort of water with me as a bad president. An earlier anon's Hamilton proposal is much more intriguing, but if you say that you might as well say George fucking Washington since he and Hamilton were in lockstep about most shit.

So many contenders. Hard to pick just one. If we go by immediate damage, Chinggis Khan, Mao, Hitler etc. would be the obvious candidates. If we discount that, I would pick one of these two gentlemen:

>Woodrow Wilson

Aggravated WW1, caused WW2. Breaking up Austria-Hungary paved the way for the march of Nazi Germany through Central Europe. The democratic constitution of Weimar, as good as sponsored by Wilson, along with the extreme humiliation of Germany, along with the demographic changes of Germany with its new borders, all helped Hitlers rise. The creation of Czechoslovakia led to the suffering of many minorities in that region. Same with Yugoslavia. In general, the newly created countries after the war were a hotbed of instability and many would later succumb to communism.

>Lenin

Ended the Russian monarchy and substituted communism for it. Nuclear proliferation, the terrors of the USSR, WW2, the spread of communism around the globe, all can be traced to him.

The French Revolution was a joint effort, otherwise I would name its mastermind. The Reformation also caused a lot of harm, but it did also help capitalism along.

>>63671

Wtf it was "the world" when I first read it. I was wondering why everyone here only cared about

In that case, I think I can subscribe to Lincoln, for the reasons already mentioned. The biggest asshole on a personal level was probably Truman, however:

>Dropped not one, but two atomic bombs

>Drafted striking workers into the Korean War

>Wanted to call his citizens greedy bastards for complaining about a beef shortage

>Considered ending said beef shortage by rounding up cattle all over the US, only decided against it for logistical reasons

>>63674

>who only cared about

* America, kill me.

>>63668

Teddy Roosevelt is an interesting case. He was an impressive figure in many regards, but his political ideas were uninspired as hell. He pretty much rode the train of the progressive Zeitgeist.

>>63688

Is this b8, or do you just hate it when people aren't naked savages that sacrifice children to the rain god?

>>63690

Is this b8, or are 'libertarians' completely fine with the slavery and genocide of people of color?

>>63691

No they aren't. A good chunk of them online seem to be openly racist from what I've seen. It might be that a lot of them are recently converted Alt Righters. You're more likely to find that kind on image boards because of how young the base of posters is.

Definitely either Hamilton or Lincoln.

>>63691

>>63693

The subject is not who did or didn't commit a genocide, it's who caused the most harm to America. As Columbus brought civilization to that continent for the first time, he's a bad candidate. In the long run, his effect was beneficial. Of course, that doesn't excuse his actions in the short term, but there are enough people who committed genocides and also fucked whole countries over for centuries to come.

You don't have to be a racist to see that some cultures are worth more than others, too. If you believe so, then you're an idiot.

>>63690

is this b8, or are you implying that genocidal epidemic was a good thing for natives?

europeans were literally plague rats

>>63700

Getting rid of the oppression under the Incas and the human sacrifices of the Aztecs, that was a good thing. And the epidemics weren't a crime, they were events. Back then, no one could've foreseen the weakness of the natives against diseases that were common in the Old Word. Science wasn't advanced enough yet.

>>63701

Trump is not a disease, he's a symptom. He's what happens when your people get dumber and dumber and the establishment more and more corrupt.

>>63702

I think he's more like a cancer. The damn system's so corrupt, and the majority of the people here are fucking retarded. Honestly with all the shit he's done, I have no idea how he could get out of office.

He's also probably our last president.

>>63703

>He's also probably our last president.

If only

>>63702

>Getting rid of the oppression under the Incas and the human sacrifices of the Aztecs, that was a good thing.

so ending up dead or in slavery was a good thing for natives

got it

>>63705

I already addressed the difference between long- and short-term in my post, and it's not hard even for your brain to figure out that this also addresses the question of whether those that didn't live to see the long-term effects benefitted from them. So, we done here, or got some other inane comment to type?

>>63706

you're no different from commies

they genocide for communism and justify it with historical necessity

you genocide for long-term and justify it with "it was just nature bro!"

>>63709

*utilitarians are no different from commies

>>63709

You could easily make your case without bringing up the diseases, you know? You have to be fucking braindead if you think that the settlers used biological warfare back when it wasn't even known, and couldn't have been known, that the natives had a weakness against diseases that a European would've shrugged off. The settlers, including Columbus, didn't act with malicious intent or with negligence as far as the diseases go. That's why I call it a catastrophe and not a genocide.

And also:

>you genocide for long-term and justify it

Yet here is what I said:

>>63699

>As Columbus brought civilization to that continent for the first time, he's a bad candidate. In the long run, his effect was beneficial. Of course, that doesn't excuse his actions in the short term, but there are enough people who committed genocides and also fucked whole countries over for centuries to come.

Here, I explicitly said that Columbus' deserve no exculpation for the slavery and the murders committed under him and by him. I don't know how you could fuck this up. Was my wording ambiguous, or something? In that case, you now know what I meant and can stop sperging out.

>>63674

>>Dropped not one, but two atomic bombs

There was absolutely nothing wrong with that. Blows my mind that anyone besides fellow travelers and higher bitch about that shit. You can take the NAP and shove it up your fucking ass, there was a war on. I will agree that Truman on the whole was bad but not because of that. I give him credit for having the Soviets' measure much better than FDR before him or even Eisenhower after him, it's just a shame he was so stupid about so much other shit and that his administration was still dominated by soviet double agents and sympathizers held over from the FDR administration.

>>63691

Stop baiting, dickhead.

>>63660

>/leftypol/

Kissinger was one of the greatest statesmen america ever had

Hands down, Jon Stewart.

>>63711

>Columbus' deserve no exculpation for the slavery and the murders committed under him and by him

you could say that for any powerful person pre-18th century

besides, promoting trade and discovery > killing a few violent savages

>>63674

>Dropped not one, but two atomic bombs

Maybe the Nips shouldn't have broken the NAP then

>>63789

I'd throw Woodrow Wilson for good measure.

>>63782

There was substantial reason to believe that by that point, Japan would've surrendered without a mainland invasion and before the Soviets would've invaded.

>>63691

>Slavery

No they aren't.

>Genocide of niggers

Wanting to live in separate neighborhoods/not wanting to date people of color is not the same as genocide. "People of color" had consistently increasing living standards prior to the civil rights era and the Black middle class was the largest it's ever been before a combination of the war on drugs, welfare, and (racist) civil rights legislation meant to "protect" them fucked everything up.

>>63789

>David Rockefeller

I could never wrap my head around how an upstanding man like John, a man who's only goal in life was to make oil as cheap as possible for the average American, could sire such a little shit that would go on to fuck up the entire Rockefeller legacy.

>>63787

So you think that only modern science discovered that when you stab someone with a sword, he dies? Because that's the only way I can read your comment, you dense motherfucker.

>>63788

>Collective guilt

>NAP

Pick one.

>>63794

That is the exact opposite of what I've heard. Japs believe in fighting to the last man.

>>63890

Their leadership was considering surrender, it was just a question of what terms to propose. The Allies, being the fucking retards they were, wouldn't accept anything short of an unconditional surrender, though. They did the same in Germany, two times. They busted all the peace talks, then pushed humiliation terms under duress. Part of the reason why Germany fought on during WW2 was because it was known that the Allies played with the thought of dividing the country, sterilizing all Germans, destroying all industry and leaving it agrarian and so forth. I swear, look up the Morgenthau-Plan, and if you want to know real horror, the Kaufman-Plan right after it. At least the latter found no reception in the US, but the Morgenthau-Plan did and the leadership did jackshit to counter the impression that it wanted Germany destroyed.

>>63794

Obvious bullshit pushed by Zinnites and other faggots looking for any reason to demonize the United States. If they were that ready to surrender they would have surrendered after the first bomb, fuck off.

>>63909

Do you know what "unconditional surrender" means? It means that you make peace and don't know what happens afterwards. It's a completely idiotic demand, one that can mean just about anything in practice. After someone just dropped a gigantic bomb on a densely populated town of yours, vaporized thousands and incinerated tens of thousands of people, would you trust the good will of that person? Or would you think that they might enslave your people for decades and decades, forbid your religion, publicly execute the royal family and all other kinds of shenanigans? The Allies didn't do any of that, sure, but how would the Tenno and his advisors have known?

And yes, the Japs were savages during the war. No doubt about that. However, that does not excuse the murder of innocent civilians, which is what the bombs amounted to.

>>63803

>Collective guilt

we attacked the state of japan after they attacked us. pretty simple

>>63936

And that gave "you" the right to burn civilians alive?

>>63915

>Do you know what "unconditional surrender" means? It means that you make peace and don't know what happens afterwards. It's a completely idiotic demand, one that can mean just about anything in practice.

Fuck off, imbecile. Unconditional surrender was not some new concept. It was demanded and recieved from the Germans as well, why would Japan receive different treatment? Not only did they start the war, they were in NO position to be dictating any kind of terms at that point. You starry eyed an-auts are the biggest cancer in libertarianism and it's a good thing you'll never be in charge of army or your legitimately autistic devotion to muh wartime NAP would end up getting your own fucking side killed.

The US went as far as dropping leaflets on those cities for weeks warning them what was going to fucking happen and telling them to evacuate. Japan was given every opportunity to surrender and those people to save themselves. American lives were not going to be wasted on a mainland invasion when it wasn't absolutely necessary and the American sacrifices already made weren't going to be demeaned by allowing the soviets to take over and carve out a piece of the country for themselves.

No deals, no bullshit and you and all the other Zinnites can go fuck yourselves for being so damn stupid. There is no way to spin this: if they were 'ready to surrender', they would have done it after the first bomb.

>>63946

>Fuck off, imbecile. Unconditional surrender was not some new concept. It was demanded and recieved from the Germans as well, why would Japan receive different treatment?

It was a shitty idea in Germany and it was a shitty idea in Japan. In both cases, it prolonged a war needlessly. I described this in my post.

>Not only did they start the war, they were in NO position to be dictating any kind of terms at that point. You starry eyed an-auts are the biggest cancer in libertarianism and it's a good thing you'll never be in charge of army or your legitimately autistic devotion to muh wartime NAP would end up getting your own fucking side killed.

Okay, this is autistic screeching and doesn't warrant a further comment.

>The US went as far as dropping leaflets on those cities for weeks warning them what was going to fucking happen and telling them to evacuate. Japan was given every opportunity to surrender and those people to save themselves. American lives were not going to be wasted on a mainland invasion when it wasn't absolutely necessary and the American sacrifices already made weren't going to be demeaned by allowing the soviets to take over and carve out a piece of the country for themselves.

Then why not, like, demand a conditional surrender, you fucking retard? That's the alternative I propose, not an invasion.

Not sucking Stalins dick also would've helped, while we're at it. Where were the Americans when Stalin attacked Poland and Finland? Non-interventionism is an option for you warmongers when it suits you but the rest of the time, it's cowardice.

>No deals, no bullshit and you and all the other Zinnites can go fuck yourselves for being so damn stupid. There is no way to spin this: if they were 'ready to surrender', they would have done it after the first bomb.

Not unconditionally. Not after the Allies gave Stalin a piece of Germany and played with the thought of making the country an agrarian peasant state. This has fuck all to do with ethics and everything to do with how warfare works. If you give a people no way out, they fight to the death. So if you want to avoid bloodshed, you give them some way out. Let the emperor keeps his heavenly mandate for Christ's sake if that's going to save lives.