My vote goes to George W. Bush, Current Occupant (with a bow to Garrison Keeler).
“Apparently, thousands of wounded soldiers who served in Iraq are being asked to return part of their enlistment bonuses – because their injuries prevented them from completing their tours.”
“Perversely, President Bush phoned Fox’s mother to ask after Fox in May. Now his administration is taking money out of the pockets of wounded veterans like him.”
The worst person in which word? 
Garrison Keeler is the one who refers to W as the Current Occupant.
Oh crap! 
(Bullshit would work, come to think of it.)
Anyway, maybe the mods will fix it.
Ah, I thought you were giving him an honorable mention for Worst person in the World. I know some people don’t like his show, but that seemed a little harsh.
I have no animosity for GK.
Wow. So Bush is worse than Lisa Montgomery, who kidnapped a pregnant 23-year-old woman and cut the baby from her body, killing her? Bush is worse than a woman who used a kitchen knife to hack away at a conscious woman, trying desperately to defend herself as her unborn baby girl was taken from her womb?
He’s worse than the Khayelitsha rapist who damaged his nine-month old victim so badly that reconstructive surgery was needed?
Do you believe yourself a rational judge of this issue?
I think you should probably specify “the worst powerful person in the world” so as to take out serial killers and rapists and the like.
My vote would probably be for Omar al-Bashir, the current leading genocidist (if that’s a word), or Kim Jong-Il, who does a wonderful job of weaving Mao with Caligula. As much as I detest George Bush, he simply ain’t in the running in amount of suffering caused, at least not in their own nations.
What about Kim Jong Il? or Robert Mugabe? or the Burmese Junta? or Osama Bin Laden? or the network execs who cancelled Firefly?
Playing devils advocate here, which of them needlessly caused the deaths of upwards of a hundred thousand people?
As far as long-term, society-changing, far reaching consequences that will haunt us for decades or even centuries, George W. doesn’t have any competition.
I don’t think he’s evil though, really. I don’t think he WANTS to destroy stuff or hurt people, so I guess that keeps him out of the running for “worst” person. I think to call someone evil, you have to take into account their intent. The most deliberately evil person in the world is probably Mugabe, in my opinion.
Moreso than you.
I think so, yes. He’s certainly responsible for a lot more suffering and deaths of innocents.
What opinion have I advanced that is irrational?
If you’re seriously arguing that Bush is worse than Kim Jong Il, than kiddie rapists, than serial murderers, then I ask you to at least concede that for the vast majority of adults worldwide, you won’t get agreement with that view.
So objectively, your claim is not solid.
What claim am I making that places me in worse postion, so that you can say you are more rational than I?
Hey, now, Olbermann isn’t to tonight’s Worst Person in the World yet. (I’m posting this at 8:35 EST and they’re still on story #3.)
That said, the DOD really cocked this one up with the enlistment bonuses.
Before I even argue the point about what Bush is responsible for – you also believe that Bush is worse than Robert Mugabe, who passed legislation outlawing any homosexual acts, likening them to unnatural behavior, behavior worse than dogs and pigs; whose policies have led to mass starvation; who has carried out the arrest and torture of opposition members of parliament human rights lawyers, and journalists?
You can’t think of a single human being on the face of the planet more deservig of the “worst” title than Bush?
You’re looking for an argument even though you know that G.W. is a loathsome turd, but you get your rocks off defending him.
I won’t bother with you, Bricker.
Can’t we all just come together? {{{Hugs}}}
…and say that Bush may be among the worst Presidents the U.S. has ever had? 
And concentrate on mass killers and facilitators of mass rape instead, perhaps? Fine. What current powerful person has caused more deaths than Bush?
To the OP, legend has it that the widows of the bandmembers on the Titanic received only partial wage packets for their husbands’ work, since they hadn’t completed a full voyage.
Look, I’m not the one that posted this:
in a thread asking for The Worst Person in the World.
You did.
Now, perhaps you meant “Worst President.” That’s not a lock - it’s certainly debatable. But I couldn’t say you were irrational for the view. But no - you had to rachet up the stakes, and claim he’s the The Worst Person in the World. Now you’re called on it, and rather than just saying, “Obviously, this is hyperbole,” you whine pitifully about how I defend Bush.
Well, if you have a shred of intellectuall honesty, you would also defend Bush against that charge. Even if you think he’s a loathsome turd, you’d agree that he’s not The Worst Person in the World. But your hatred of him apparently blinds you to this, and even blinds you to the extent of your own irrationality.
No doubt, when someone mention the irrational hatred of the Left, you shake yor head, wondering why the Left is demonized by such baseless charges. Somehow you are oblivious to the fact that it’s actions like yours that give the truth to those charges: what you’ve done here is irrational, and you fail to acknowledge it.
This is Great Debates, kiddo, not IMHO. You offer a subject here, you have to be prepared to defend it in debate. Whining piteously when your subject is shredded is hardly an effective defense, although admittedly it’s hard to see what you could have done that would have been more effective, given your commitment to the startup material.