RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events George W. Bush: The worst president ever?

History may ultimately hold Bush in the greatest contempt for expanding the powers of the presidency beyond the limits laid down by the U.S. Constitution...this administration has asserted that the president is perfectly free to violate federal laws on such matters as domestic surveillance and the torture of detainees....Bush seems to think that, since 9/11, he has been placed, by the grace of God, in the same kind of situation Lincoln faced. But Lincoln, under pressure of daily combat on American soil against fellow Americans, did not operate in secret, as Bush has. He did not claim, as Bush has, that his emergency actions were wholly regular and constitutional as well as necessary; Lincoln sought and received Congressional authorization for his suspension of habeas corpus in 1863. Nor did Lincoln act under the amorphous cover of a "war on terror" ...

Richard Nixon's conduct of the war in Southeast Asia and his covert domestic-surveillance programs prompted Congress to pass new statutes regulating executive power.

By contrast, the Bush administration -- in seeking to restore what Cheney, a Nixon administration veteran, has called "the legitimate authority of the presidency" -- threatens to overturn the Framers' healthy tension in favor of presidential absolutism. Armed with legal findings by his attorney general (and personal lawyer) Alberto Gonzales, the Bush White House has declared that the president's powers as commander in chief in wartime are limitless. No previous wartime president has come close to making so grandiose a claim. More specifically, this administration has asserted that the president is perfectly free to violate federal laws on such matters as domestic surveillance

Maybe we should just start calling him... "Black Bush"

Obama has been in office nearly three months. Far and away his most important initiative over that time has been to continue George W. Bush’s costly Troubled Asset Rescue Plan. Next most important: a mortgage rescue plan that likewise follows ideas bequeathed by his predecessor. Obama has not yet raised taxes. He has not yet introduced a healthcare plan. He has not yet detailed a climate-change policy. He has declined to rescue the automobile companies.

During the campaign, Democrats promised pro-union changes in labour law. In office, one Democratic senator after another has broken ranks against this. Republicans have mused that Democrats might alter broadcasting regulations in ways inimical to conservative talk radio. No sign of action there either.

So, what you're saying is that Obama is unable to accomplish any of his goals and is continuing policies of George W. Bush...whom you consider a failure. Got it.

Try reading your own posts once in a while.

You posted the editorial that said Obama had done nothing to date but carry on Bush polices.

You believe that Bush polices are failed policies.

Ergo, you must believe that Obama is also, to date, a failure.

It's basic logic.

Jebus, dude. Can you not remember what the fuck you say from post to post? Or are your DNC talking points flashcards out of order again.

See, you can't keep your stories straight. One post you're calling Bush a failure, the next you're saying he saved the economy with TARP funds.

Overall Bush was a failure as a President IMHO...

You're not even making sense now.

You posted an article that said Obama was following Bush's policies on several areas, not just TARP, and failing to overturn his directives in others.

If you claim Person A is a failure for committing certain acts, and Person B commits the same acts, then logically you have to believe Person B is also a failure.

...Obama has been in office nearly three months. Far and away his most important initiative over that time has been to continue George W. Bush’s costly Troubled Asset Rescue Plan. Next most important: a mortgage rescue plan that likewise follows ideas bequeathed by his predecessor.
...

Obama has not yet raised taxes. He has not yet introduced a healthcare plan. He has not yet detailed a climate-change policy. He has declined to rescue the automobile companies.

You left out this part of your earlier post:

You just changed your position again. You went from arguing that he hadn't continued Bush policies to arguing he had but it was okay because "change takes time."

As pointed out I supported Bush on the TARP deal

[quote=the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh][quote=MEM]
As pointed out I supported Bush on the TARP deal

...You have taken one post from a story I didn't even comment on ...

You took it upon yourself to post (and endorse) an editorial that argued, in essence, that Obama was carrying on more Bush polices than not.

That fact you posted that opinion in a different thread should have no bearing on whether or not you believed what you wrote. You either endorse that argument or you don't.

Here's the problem, that's not what I thought the editorial argued in essence. You decided that was what I thought it meant. Following that you titled and continue to title your posts to misrepresent my opinion.

Si, Senor.

Here's the problem, that's not what I thought the editorial argued in essence. You decided that was what I thought it meant. Following that you titled and continue to title your posts to misrepresent my opinion.

Further proof you need help on understanding what is good and bad. The TARP funds have been misused to give executives that tanked their companies multi-million dollar bonuses with no ability to track their use. Saying you supported this is not surprising to say the least.

I think Doc's quote just shows that he's pissed at me because we've dissagreed strongly lately.

Or, more likely, disbelief that you keep changing the crux of your argument.



That's a lie. It's not 'more likely'. It 100% IS that.

i think its more of a hallmark of the era, and not so much a responsibility of any one side or any one person.

i do think the definitive dawn of the era was the 2000 election, where gore and dubya split the title for weeks on end. that created an endless, sports-like debate between "fans" of who would, or should, make the right move.

then, after a long playoff series, and a championship series, one team had a winner, one team had a loser, and the media hyped the shit out of the bitter rivalry. from that point on, everything was a hate war. moreso about who was the better message board poster than any form of political warfare.

the news became polarized, the country became polarized, everyone was against the other person for the sake of the fact that they were the other person. and all of this could have very well been coming into play, anyway. but the election really tipped everything into immediate action.

at this point, there's no longer even a point to much of it. its very "middle east" in nature, in that the sides are split and fighting because they're supposed to, or because "they did it first", and no longer because they have personal reasoning. political debate has become the grown up equivalent of "i know you are, but what am i".

my personal belief is this has intensified, and will continue to intensify, because of the media. not the standard "you're the bias media" claim, but simply because the news is no longer a factual retelling of events, but rather a journalistic viewpoint skew to address an audience. the news is hype. its telling you "this is the best movie evar!!1!" but in a suit and tie.

but, to directly address the specific point you raised, why you don't see any praise for obama/dems/libs, you can look at the previous 8 years when there was no praise for bush/repubs/conserv...s. and, to a greater extent, this "look in the mirror" mentality can be said of pretty much any political debate now a days.

for example, bush specifies a date to withdraw troops from iraq. this receives a public outcry. obama specifies a date to withdraw troops from iraq ...notably, the same exact date bush already specified. this receives praise.

but the "outcry" is only from one side. and the "praise" is only from one side. and those two factors are immediately interchangeable, depending upon the source and/or target. it's not just about bush, it's not even just about the presidency, its all of politics now. but the easiest way to see the idiocy of most of the discussions is to flip it, comparatively.

obama flubs the inaugural speech. cracks a joke about the special olympics. goes on the tonight show as president. intervenes in company decisions for hiring / firing. can decide tax amounts on a per-person basis. increased troops in afghanistan. refuses secret service suggestion to ditch cellphone. etc.

now, i'm not saying i'm against any of these things, or hate any of these things, or that i even give a fuck about any of these things (it's a mix; joke, no; tonight show, yes, etc). but just imagine for a second if bush (or to a lesser extent, palin / mccain / cheney ) was responsible for any of the above. can you imagine different newspaper headlines? an entirely different reaction set from message board posters? again, not even making a judgement of whether or not its right or wrong, just the reaction to which side took the stance.

there have been cases where a governor or mayor from one side will go to jail for a crime, and then like 5 hours later, a governor or mayor from the other side will go to jail for a similar crime. without failure, fans of one side defend theirs and attack the other. "you're unamerican!" "no, you're unamerican!" silly.

however, make no mistake about it, you can not make a "it was bush" type statement. there is no problem with just him, just his presidency, just people that supported him and do not support obama. the notion of thinking "it's just them" is more or less what encompasses the entire above stream o'silly.

But you agreed because Obama agreed remember?

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. —
Two FBI workers are accused of using surveillance equipment to spy on teenage girls as they undressed and tried on prom gowns at a charity event at a West Virginia mall.

The FBI employees have been charged with conspiracy and committing criminal invasion of privacy. They were working in an FBI satellite control room at the mall when they positioned a camera on temporary changing rooms and zoomed in for at least 90 minutes on girls dressing for the Cinderella Project fashion show, Marion County Prosecutor Pat Wilson said Monday.

Gary Sutton Jr., 40, of New Milton and Charles Hommema of Buckhannon have been charged with the misdemeanors and face fines and up to a year in jail on each charge if convicted. Sutton has been released on bond, Wilson said, and Hommema is to be arraigned later this week. Wilson did not know Hommema's age.

The workers were described in a complaint as "police officers," but prosecutors did not say whether the men were agents or describe what kind of work they did.

The Cinderella Project at the Middletown Mall in the north-central West Virginia town of Fairmont drew hundreds of girls from 10 high schools in five counties. Organizer Cynthia Woodyard said volunteers, donors and participants are angry.

"I can't even begin to put words around what I consider an unspeakable act, the misuse of surveillance by a branch of our government in a place we felt so secure," she said. "Never in a million years would we have thought something like this would happen. We're in shock."

Hospice Care Corp. was sponsoring the event, offering prom dresses, shoes and accessories to girls who could not otherwise afford them. Dresses sold for as little as $5.

Woodyard, director of marketing for Hospice Care, said this year's event was the biggest in the decade the organization has been holding it, with more than 800 dresses on display.

The prosecutor would not say how authorities found out about the accusations.

It was not immediately clear if the accused men had attorneys. Messages left at phone listings for Gary Sutton were not immediately returned; there was no listing for Hommema.

The FBI issued a brief statement, but refused to answer questions. The statement said the Office of Inspector General was investigating.

"The FBI is committed to the timely and full resolution of this matter, but must remain sensitive to the privacy concerns of any potential victims and their families," the statement said.