ummm.... I won't argue about him being the worst president of the last 50 years, though I personally think Lyndon Johnson and possibly Jimmy Carter were worse, but there's no way he's the worst president of all time. That mark goes to James Buchanan without even a close contest. Also, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, Ulysses Grant, and Warren Harding were a lot worse than GW. (If you don't know who those guys were, I recomend http://en.wikipedia.org )

I agree that Bush has pushed the boundaries when it comes to executive authority, but it vexes me when people say he has been the greatest violater of civil liberties our nation has ever seen. If you want a president who spat on the Constitution and "violated the rights and freedoms the forefathers of this nation fought and died for," I implore you to study the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. He violated the Constitution more than all of the other presidents combined. During his administration's time in office, Lincoln was guilty of the following: without congressional approval, called forth the militia, increased the size of the Army and Navy, expended funds for the purchase of weapons, instituted a blockade--an act of war--and suspended the precious writ of habeas corpus, all without congressional approval. As anyone can see, Bush is not the worst offender of civil liberties this nation has seen. Also, comparing the US to British Imperialists is foolish and ignorant. Judicial oversight and Supreme Court decisions such as Boumediene v. Bush and others still pending have protected people's liberties and ensured our way of life.

I will use a buffer of time before I evaluate the success of Bush's two terms in office. It may seem like a failure now, but the same thing happened to Truman. He was as unpopular as Bush is when his presidency finished and many people considered him one of the worst presidents. However, he is now considered one of our best presidents. I hope people will wait and use time before passing judgement on Bush.

ok, that was weird. sorry about the double post

We won't be able to tell what kind of president he is until we see the long term effects of his actions. We don't know how the middle east is going to turn out. I'm not a fan of his fiscal policies, but I think the jury is still out on his foreign policy. He is definitely not a good public speaker. I won't miss that when he's out of office.

As for the worst president in 50 years? My vote goes to Carter on that. He was ineffective at the worst time and has spent most of the rest of his life trying in desperation to have people remember him for something other than his horrible presidency.

I give this thread a 9.4.

Don't tell that to me.  Everytime when someone get killed who is muslim by someone who is not muslim it is a whole mess around here:

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=0-IIU-Ekd3w&feature=related

Don't forget about LBJ, ProfCrab. He rode Kennedy's coattails straight into the motherfucking ground.

True LBJ was active bad president while Carter was a passive bad president.

I give that post a 9.8.

i cant comment , since i don't know
if america is better now than 8 years ago then he is good
if not then he is not,, right?

Not necessarily. Contrary to popular belief, the President has little control over the economy. Most of that is up to the market itself and Congress. It peaks and valleys by itself and some of the difficulties America is having right now predate Bush and his craptastic policies.

Bush has also made some massive changes to foreign policy. It will be decades before the real impact of those policies are seen in full.