| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Newspaper poll ranks president second among most evil |
| 2005-02-13 |
| Hat tip: LGF commenter "sngnsgt" A New York Post survey of readers sampling nearly 20,000 people ranks Bill Clinton second to Adolf Hitler as the most evil person of the millennium. Not who you thought, is it? Hitler received 8.67 percent, or 1,664 votes, and Clinton received 8.47 percent, or 1,625, placing him well above mass-murdering Soviet leader Josef Stalin, who got 6.69 percent, or 1,284 votes. What makes the president's appearance on the survey more astonishing is respondents had to write his name in, while Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Dr. Josef Mengele and others were listed on the survey. First lady Hillary Clinton came in sixth on the survey, with 3.99 percent and 765 votes -- all write-ins. Hee hee hee. Some NY Post readers don't think too kindly of Bubba and the Hildabeest, do they? Others on the list included Saddam Hussein, Charles Manson, Idi Amin, Genghis Khan, Jeffrey Dahmer, Benito Mussolini, Ayatollah Khomeini, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Ivan the Terrible, Fidel Castro, Vlad the Impaler, Timothy McVeigh and Marquis de Sade. I wouldn't put the Clintoons in the company of these clowns. Bubba and Hildy aren't that talented. |
| Posted by:Barbara Skolaut |
| #14 Something just struck me about this: Could you see a similar immediate and out of hand dismissal for charges of being "evil" against Reagan or Bush on DU or other liberal boards? Just goes to show you, who is thinking and being truthful (The Burg), and who lets their ideaology and hatred overrule truth and common sense (DU and Koz, et al). |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-02-13 9:55:07 PM |
| #13 Their sample must be awfully screwed up to get Bubba in ahead of Stalin and Pol Pot, et al. I didn't like Bill Clinton, but I dont for a moment believe he was "evil". "Amoral" comes closest in that when it came to decision making, he really didnt consider morality nor ideology, just what was in it for him. He was just in it for the fame, power and, ahem, all the "cigars" he could get. I'd bet that his only idealogical bends came from Hildabeeste's nagging. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-02-13 8:46:33 PM |
| #12 Something just struck me about this: Could you see a similar immediate and out of hand dismissal for charges of being "evil" against Reagan or Bush on DU or other liberal boards? Just goes to show you, who is thinking and being truthful (The Burg), and who lets their ideaology and hatred overrule truth and common sense (DU and Koz, et al). |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-02-13 9:55:07 PM |
| #11 Their sample must be awfully screwed up to get Bubba in ahead of Stalin and Pol Pot, et al. I didn't like Bill Clinton, but I dont for a moment believe he was "evil". "Amoral" comes closest in that when it came to decision making, he really didnt consider morality nor ideology, just what was in it for him. He was just in it for the fame, power and, ahem, all the "cigars" he could get. I'd bet that his only idealogical bends came from Hildabeeste's nagging. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-02-13 8:46:33 PM |
| #10 Look at the ultimate source. This is a photoshop job, not reality. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-02-13 10:21:11 PM |
#9 Oh, come on. The New York Post and its readers must know better. As New York Post reporters Jack Newfield and Pete Hamill agreed, the list of the most evil people of the century or the millenium should be:
|
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2005-02-13 10:17:02 PM |
| #8 Well, AJackson, perhaps Mao, Stalin, and Hitler killed more because they had access to more power. Pol Pot had a much smaller, weaker state to work with, but he killed a greater percentage of the people under his power. Personally, I think Lenin was more evil than Stalin. He killed more people per year, but was fortunately crippled early on. Stalin was willing to let the children of "traitors" live. Lenin gave written orders to kill them, too. Of course, this is like asking whether Baal or Satan is more evil. At first, I was going to ask where George Bush was, but them I remembered that Bush = Hitler, so his total would be lumped in there. |
| Posted by: jackal 2005-02-13 10:13:23 PM |
| #7 Something just struck me about this: Could you see a similar immediate and out of hand dismissal for charges of being "evil" against Reagan or Bush on DU or other liberal boards? Just goes to show you, who is thinking and being truthful (The Burg), and who lets their ideaology and hatred overrule truth and common sense (DU and Koz, et al). |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-02-13 9:55:07 PM |
| #6 I didn't like Bill Clinton, but I dont for a moment believe he was "evil". Neither do I. Bubba might have been conniving, oily, and despicable maybe, but not evil. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-02-13 9:37:18 PM |
| #5 Then there's the view of the Simpsons (TV): "Jimmy Carter?! He's history's greatest monster!" |
| Posted by: AJackson 2005-02-13 9:30:27 PM |
| #4 My top three most evil pople of the millenium would be Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. And that would be based on the number of people murdered on their orders. Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, Kim Sung Il, Napolean, Saddam Hussein for dishonorable mention. The rest of the list is just no account thugs. |
| Posted by: AJackson 2005-02-13 9:24:25 PM |
| #3 A second rate president - sure. Narcissistic - you bet. Evil - no. Clinton's policies were misguided. Clinton allowed evil to take root and gain a foothold in the Middle East and Asia. But no rational person could call him 'evil'. Hitler was evil. Chamberlain was merely a fool. |
| Posted by: AJackson 2005-02-13 9:20:18 PM |
| #2 Maybe the readers didn't have a clue about all those foreigners? Agree, evil is absolutely off the mark, and given the fact that he's married to Hillary I even cut him some slack for his morals. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-13 8:50:03 PM |
| #1 Their sample must be awfully screwed up to get Bubba in ahead of Stalin and Pol Pot, et al. I didn't like Bill Clinton, but I dont for a moment believe he was "evil". "Amoral" comes closest in that when it came to decision making, he really didnt consider morality nor ideology, just what was in it for him. He was just in it for the fame, power and, ahem, all the "cigars" he could get. I'd bet that his only idealogical bends came from Hildabeeste's nagging. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-02-13 8:46:33 PM |