John Adams suspended the First Amendment, guy. Woodrow Wilson threw people in jail for criticizing the government. Let's also not forget FDR's Japanese Internment camps.

 

Think before you speak.

Adams wasn't able to get away with that for long.

 

I have a feeling that Wilson was doing that during a war, although it's still ridiculous.

 

Yes, FDR's actions in that case were bad, but it wasn't his idea. There was national hysteria and political pressure to get him to do something about the perceived Japanese threat. Once again, this was during a major war.

Wow, just wow.

 

But, but, but, but, but....Bush SUX!!!!!

 

When Bush has used this 'war thing' as a means to push his executive power it was the absolute worst thing ever (not implying I agree with what he's done in that area), but when those presidents did it in a time of war it is justified?

 

That FDR execuse you give is laughable. Wow. Can you imagine if I or someone else used similar words to justify a Bush policy? Get out the firing squad!

 

Could you be anymore biased/misinformed?

At the very least, this President has done more to damage free speech and Constitutional rights than the last 42 before him combined.

amazing.

John Adams suspended the First Amendment, guy. Woodrow Wilson threw people in jail for criticizing the government. Let's also not forget FDR's Japanese Internment camps.

 

Think before you speak.

Adams wasn't able to get away with that for long.

 

I have a feeling that Wilson was doing that during a war, although it's still ridiculous.

 

Yes, FDR's actions in that case were bad, but it wasn't his idea. There was national hysteria and political pressure to get him to do something about the perceived Japanese threat. Once again, this was during a major war.Justification, justification, and justification.

 

Adams had his actions cost his party the next election cycle (dum dum DUM!)

 

Wilson did it during a war. One that was pretty trumped up (on our side only) to begin with. Sound familiar?

 

How can we say it was Bush's idea? How can you argue there isn't hysteria when it comes to terrorism and an Arab threat? And remind me, weren't we attacked the same way?

 

Bush is bad. Absolute statements that are not supported by facts are worse. Oh, and btw.....history likes to repeat itself. Unique things don't happen much, the details just change. This presidency is another instance of that.

Bush has authorized illegal wiretapping of Americans suspected of being linked to or having funded terrorist groups. This is going on despite the fact that there are no credible threats of terrorism to the country.

 

If the situation was different, and, say, the President ordered that everyone had to wear a mask over their mouth because there was a slight possibility that there could be an outbreak of SARS (or fill in the blank infectious and highly contageous disease), wouldn't you think that's a little bit excessive?

 

How is that much different from illegally wiretapping people because there is a slim chance that they might be supporting terror?

 

Don't even get me started on this administration's authorization of torture as an authorized method for interrogation.

Regardless of anything you might think of this president, you can't call him the worst offender against the Bill of Rights when others have suspended the First Amendment for US citizens and put Americans in jail for practicing free speech. I don't care what side of the political fence you are, there's no way you can make this argument. Stop it. Please.

Regardless of anything you might think of this president, you can't call him the worst offender against the Bill of Rights when others have suspended the First Amendment for US citizens and put people in jail for practicing free speech. I don't care what side of the political fence you are, there's no way you can make this argument. Stop it. Please.

It was a mistake, but he is certainly the worst since the McCarthy era.

 

Certainly no other President in modern times, or perhaps ever, has politicized the government as much as he has. Nixon was close, but I think Bush has the edge for now.

Bush has authorized illegal wiretapping of Americans suspected of being linked to or having funded terrorist groups. This is going on despite the fact that there are no credible threats of terrorism to the country.

 

Blah, Blah, Blah

 

Don't even get me started on this administration's authorization of torture as an authorized method for interrogation.

The NSA surveillance has never been proven to be illegal. (Again, not my opinion on it)

 

Things like waterboarding and such are held up under U.S law and please inform us what that has to do with 'damage [to] free speech and Constitutional rights'.

Bush has authorized illegal wiretapping of Americans suspected of being linked to or having funded terrorist groups. This is going on despite the fact that there are no credible threats of terrorism to the country.

 

Blah, Blah, Blah

 

Don't even get me started on this administration's authorization of torture as an authorized method for interrogation.

The NSA surveillance has never been proven to be illegal. (Again, not my opinion on it)

 

Things like waterboarding and such are held up under U.S law and please inform us what that has to do with 'damage [to] free speech and Constitutional rights'.

The NSA surveillance program has never proven to be illegal because no one, except those in charge of the program, truly know how far-reaching it is.

 

Waterboarding and various methods of torture are prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, something that the U.S. created in the first place...

 

Not to mention it's highly unethical.

Bush has authorized illegal wiretapping of Americans suspected of being linked to or having funded terrorist groups. This is going on despite the fact that there are no credible threats of terrorism to the country.

 

Blah, Blah, Blah

 

Don't even get me started on this administration's authorization of torture as an authorized method for interrogation.

The NSA surveillance has never been proven to be illegal. (Again, not my opinion on it)

 

Things like waterboarding and such are held up under U.S law and please inform us what that has to do with 'damage [to] free speech and Constitutional rights'.

The NSA surveillance program has never proven to be illegal because no one, except those in charge of the program, truly know how far-reaching it is.

 

Waterboarding and various methods of torture are prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, something that the U.S. created in the first place...

 

Not to mention it's highly unethical.

Actually, I am not correct. The effect of waterboarding is not legal under U.S law. I totally take that back.

 

(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html)

 

Still, in regards to methods of torture, etc. what does that have to do with 'damage [to] free speech and Constitutional rights'

It can be argued that torture violates the cruel and unusual punishment amendment of the Bill of Rights.

 

Of course, the Justice department can get away with this because they are not Americans.

 

Still, in the case of Guantanamo especially, I would say that at least about 75% of the detainees there were innocent. Watch the film "Road to Guantanamo", which is a semi-biographical film about the experiences of three British Arab students who happened to be in Afghanistan during the war. They had no ties to terrorism whatsoever, but they were held from 2001-2005 without any stated reason in Afghanistan and then Guantanamo. Fortunately they were released, albeit without any apology from the U.S. government.

They should of impeached him already

This was pretty much expected. What's Bush have to lose? His approval ratings are in the toilet, he's going to repay the few loyal soldiers he's got left. Not happy about it but I couldn't have thought much worse of him anyway so this doesn't change my opinion of him.

 

I mean, that is just American society and I happen to think it's a good trait to have. Learn from mistakes, but look ahead as well.

 

If only that much were true!

A big yawner to this non story. Libby was their fall guy, and everyone knew it the whole time. Someone had to take the blame, but nobody is going to do the time. That much was obvious from the beginning.

Civil liberties have never been as valued in our country as they are now with the exception of the period right after the revolutionary war. Adam's conduct was pretty atrocious.

 

But for the longest time, the idea of civil rights really was not that valued a concept. Yes, FDR did a terrible act against the Japanese. But what was worse was a the complacency of the American people, the willingness of the victim's neighbors to go and loot their houses, and the blatant racism of other places that didn't want to accept relocation of these people. Our country as a whole was a terrible place.

 

Today things are much different. The Warren court and the post civil rights era has made things like privacy and civil liberties fundamental to our lives. So Bush's encroachments are that much worse because they go against the fundemental values of the modern era. It needs to be put in the context of what we consider as a generation.

 

Let's say Bush segregated blacks and whites in the White House. Would that make him the biggest racist president of all time? Not necessarily. But that would definitely make him worse in a different way because his racism would go against the fundamental values of our country today. It doesn't excuse past presidents, but it puts it makes his actions that much worse.

 

Put a third way, would it be worse for Bush to own a slave or for Jefferson to own a slave?

But hey, Bush is going to go down as the worst president in the history of the country. The guy is a walking talking joke.

Not that I disagree that it could happen (even though its never a difinitive answer and who cares, really) but how many times has that been said when a president is currently in office? A lot. Pretty useless.

 

Maybe so, but it depends on how the war in Iraq is seen by history.

No doubt and that is at minimum a decade away.

 

Plus I think the whole Presidential legacy thing is somewhat a joke. Most of us hardly remember or hold those out of office accountable for many of the policies or actions they carried out during their term(s).

 

See: Carter, Jimmy; etc.

 

On the contrary, I think Carter's legacy still haunts democrats. The failure to be aggressive when American lives were on the line set dems back 12 years from the White House.

 

I do think Bush's legacy will recover in the eyes of history because Hussein was a terrible person, but I still think he is a bad president. He allowed himself to be stubborn to the point of foolishness. That's just me though.

 

I agree with your point on the issue of Bush's legacy. I apologize if someone else already said what Im about to say but I got bored of reading a thread comparing Clinton to Bush in terms of pardons, when really its a nonissue, b/c Clinton is no longer president and what happened already happened.

 

Bush didn't violate the constitution by what he did. Some may feel its morally wrong or its just political nonsense, but it sure as hell isn't illegal or unconstitutional. Its no different than that judge forcing Paris Hilton to go back to jail, usually people don;t serve that long for the same offenses, but the judge did nothing unconstitutional.

 

I also laugh at the way some people on the board assert things with such certainty, when in reality many of those issues are extremely complicated from a legal standpoint. For example, the Guantanamo detainees. Very difficult issue. First do certain things fit under the definition of torture? What status do the detainees have, because if you read any of the Geneva Conventions, rights are based on status. Too difficult of a question to discuss with any degree of certainty.

Bush certainly has the right to do what he did. It is obvious that Libby was the fallguy... the guy that really should be going to jail is Cheney. But we all know that's not going to happen.

 

Bush is probably the worst president in the modern era, but this commutation doesn't make me think any worse of him. He's already a terrible president... he'd have to do much worse for my opinion of him to go any lower.

Bush certainly has the right to do what he did. It is obvious that Libby was the fallguy... the guy that really should be going to jail is Cheney. But we all know that's not going to happen.

 

Bush is probably the worst president in the modern era, but this commutation doesn't make me think any worse of him. He's already a terrible president... he'd have to do much worse for my opinion of him to go any lower.

 

When people say Bush is the 'worst' what is this based on? Approval ratings perhaps?

 

I happen to think LBJ is the worst and we can discuss these topics for hours.

Bush certainly has the right to do what he did. It is obvious that Libby was the fallguy... the guy that really should be going to jail is Cheney. But we all know that's not going to happen.

 

Bush is probably the worst president in the modern era, but this commutation doesn't make me think any worse of him. He's already a terrible president... he'd have to do much worse for my opinion of him to go any lower.

 

When people say Bush is the 'worst' what is this based on? Approval ratings perhaps?

 

I happen to think LBJ is the worst and we can discuss these topics for hours.

 

I personally think he's the worst. Not sure you can really come up with an objective standard to determine whether he was the worst president in the modern era.

 

I think he's the worst because he's managed to mess up on so many occassions. I'm not sure I can name more than 2-3 areas in which Bush has been successful or at least moderately successful. I'll try: 1) Post 9/11; 2) Afghanistan war (the early part, because since 2003 Afghanistan has been a disaster). I can't think of anything else.

Bush certainly has the right to do what he did. It is obvious that Libby was the fallguy... the guy that really should be going to jail is Cheney. But we all know that's not going to happen.

 

Bush is probably the worst president in the modern era, but this commutation doesn't make me think any worse of him. He's already a terrible president... he'd have to do much worse for my opinion of him to go any lower.

 

When people say Bush is the 'worst' what is this based on? Approval ratings perhaps?

 

I happen to think LBJ is the worst and we can discuss these topics for hours.

 

I personally think he's the worst. Not sure you can really come up with an objective standard to determine whether he was the worst president in the modern era.

 

I think he's the worst because he's managed to mess up on so many occassions. I'm not sure I can name more than 2-3 areas in which Bush has been successful or at least moderately successful. I'll try: 1) Post 9/11; 2) Afghanistan war (the early part, because since 2003 Afghanistan has been a disaster). I can't think of anything else.

 

Afghanistan is not a disaster now, the media has tried to pound that in as a reason as to why the Iraq war is such a bad decision. But I do see your point. But as of right now I can't think of any successes LBJ had. Granted that was a lot longer ago. I feel the Bush is the worst president statements are influenced that most people on this board were born Nixon-era or later. Some much later, so the only presidents most here remember vividly are Reagan-Bush II. Maybe Carter as well, but thats about it.

Bush certainly has the right to do what he did. It is obvious that Libby was the fallguy... the guy that really should be going to jail is Cheney. But we all know that's not going to happen.

 

Bush is probably the worst president in the modern era, but this commutation doesn't make me think any worse of him. He's already a terrible president... he'd have to do much worse for my opinion of him to go any lower.

 

When people say Bush is the 'worst' what is this based on? Approval ratings perhaps?

 

I happen to think LBJ is the worst and we can discuss these topics for hours.

 

I personally think he's the worst. Not sure you can really come up with an objective standard to determine whether he was the worst president in the modern era.

 

I think he's the worst because he's managed to mess up on so many occassions. I'm not sure I can name more than 2-3 areas in which Bush has been successful or at least moderately successful. I'll try: 1) Post 9/11; 2) Afghanistan war (the early part, because since 2003 Afghanistan has been a disaster). I can't think of anything else.

 

Afghanistan is not a disaster now, the media has tried to pound that in as a reason as to why the Iraq war is such a bad decision. But I do see your point. But as of right now I can't think of any successes LBJ had. Granted that was a lot longer ago. I feel the Bush is the worst president statements are influenced that most people on this board were born Nixon-era or later. Some much later, so the only presidents most here remember vividly are Reagan-Bush II. Maybe Carter as well, but thats about it.

 

So you don't think the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act were a success? I would say those are successes of historic proportion. Medicare is also a success, IMO.

 

Even if Afghanistan is not a disaster... that's still only two successes.

Bush certainly has the right to do what he did. It is obvious that Libby was the fallguy... the guy that really should be going to jail is Cheney. But we all know that's not going to happen.

 

Bush is probably the worst president in the modern era, but this commutation doesn't make me think any worse of him. He's already a terrible president... he'd have to do much worse for my opinion of him to go any lower.

 

When people say Bush is the 'worst' what is this based on? Approval ratings perhaps?

 

I happen to think LBJ is the worst and we can discuss these topics for hours.

 

I personally think he's the worst. Not sure you can really come up with an objective standard to determine whether he was the worst president in the modern era.

 

I think he's the worst because he's managed to mess up on so many occassions. I'm not sure I can name more than 2-3 areas in which Bush has been successful or at least moderately successful. I'll try: 1) Post 9/11; 2) Afghanistan war (the early part, because since 2003 Afghanistan has been a disaster). I can't think of anything else.

 

Afghanistan is not a disaster now, the media has tried to pound that in as a reason as to why the Iraq war is such a bad decision. But I do see your point. But as of right now I can't think of any successes LBJ had. Granted that was a lot longer ago. I feel the Bush is the worst president statements are influenced that most people on this board were born Nixon-era or later. Some much later, so the only presidents most here remember vividly are Reagan-Bush II. Maybe Carter as well, but thats about it.

 

So you don't think the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act were a success? I would say those are successes of historic proportion. Medicare is also a success, IMO.

 

Even if Afghanistan is not a disaster... that's still only two successes.

 

In my opinion the expansion of medicare was a huge catastrophe, and it set the stage for a nationalized healthcare program that is badly administered and badly run. The Civil Rights Act as a whole was not a success IMO either, as it granted too much power to restrict private freedoms and allowed the federal government too much power. I have't reads through the VR Act, so I won't comment.

 

It just gets back to the point of subjectivity. Granted theres some things I think everyone can agree were successful, such as WWII or Brown v. Board. But when it comes to things like medicare it runs down ideological bounds and arguments can be made on both sides.

 

The economy is strong under Bush, and employment is at 20 year highs. However, people will counter to that and say, yeah but the jobs are lower paying jobs.

I'm not sure how you can be against the voting rights act or the civil rights act, but to each his own.

 

As for the economy, the macro numbers are fine. The problem is the distribution of wealth is the most unequal since the 1920s. Extreme inequality is a recipe for a host of social, political, and economic problems, such as high violent crime, a permanent underclass, and excessive political division. Latin America is a prime example of what happens when there is so much inequality.

 

In addition, growing inequality undermines free trade and globalization (as an article in Foreign Affairs recently noted). As a whole, free trade and globalization adds real income, but those that are least likely to benefit are growing in numbers and becoming increasingly opposed to trade liberalization.

 

To be honest, I am not totally sure how responsible the Bush Administration is for this growing inequality. It's a trend that started in the 1980s and continued to the present (although it has grown sharper since Bush took office). It may be a structural issue (the economy adjusting itself to the new global economy, free trade, etc.). Perhaps this will be corrected on its own, but it certainly merits attention and should be addressed.

Back in September 2003 as the investigation was getting under way, Bush announced "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.... If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

 

Ah, so that's what he meant.

John Adams suspended the First Amendment, guy. Woodrow Wilson threw people in jail for criticizing the government. Let's also not forget FDR's Japanese Internment camps.

 

Think before you speak.

actually it was the republican controlled congress that voted in that bill...and they also made sure it was enforced alot more so than wilson

John Adams suspended the First Amendment, guy. Woodrow Wilson threw people in jail for criticizing the government. Let's also not forget FDR's Japanese Internment camps.

 

Think before you speak.

Adams wasn't able to get away with that for long.

 

I have a feeling that Wilson was doing that during a war, although it's still ridiculous.

 

Yes, FDR's actions in that case were bad, but it wasn't his idea. There was national hysteria and political pressure to get him to do something about the perceived Japanese threat. Once again, this was during a major war.

Wow, just wow.

 

But, but, but, but, but....Bush SUX!!!!!

 

When Bush has used this 'war thing' as a means to push his executive power it was the absolute worst thing ever (not implying I agree with what he's done in that area), but when those presidents did it in a time of war it is justified?

 

That FDR execuse you give is laughable. Wow. Can you imagine if I or someone else used similar words to justify a Bush policy? Get out the firing squad!

 

Could you be anymore biased/misinformed?

people back then didnt think as they do today...as awful as it is for us to concieve of a an internment camp for a race of a people...it was not only what was wanted by the american people, it was done to protect the american people from spies and and so on