English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'm not stating an opinion here, I'm just asking a simply question:

Has Bush been ethical in his decisions. Give examples..thumbs down to people who don't give examples.

So no insults please.

2007-03-28 08:41:04 · 14 answers · asked by Jerry H 5 in Politics & Government Politics

14 answers

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
That good citizens are compliant and unconcerned regarding G.W. Bush's propensity to trample constitutional freedoms bespeaks a great ignorance or a great apathy, or both.

These rights have already been lost! Whether individual Americans have been personally subjected to the resultant tyranny or not doesn't change the fact that they have already lost these freedoms! This fact, alone, should be enough for any studious lover-of-liberty to be outraged.

This sound like a moral man to you .

2007-03-28 08:44:16 · answer #1 · answered by trouble maker 3 · 7 2

He has not been ethical, because he has not been honest. I don't believe I need to list specific examples, since the news has been full of this evidence since the 2000 elections. He was dishonest in getting elected, he was a liar about reasons to go to war and kill many of our own citizens, he sat motionless after being told "the country is under attack," reading his copy of some goat story in Florida (of course). He promises to ignore the desires of the American people, which were clearly stated in the last elections when dems took control. He will veto any time line for withdrawl from Iraq - he wants to just set up camp there - soon it will be an American Territory! The basest job for the President is to listen and respond to the stated desires of his employers - citizens - and he can't do that. Immoral - liar - cheater - insults yes, but all proven true...

2007-03-28 15:46:26 · answer #2 · answered by N.FromVT 3 · 5 2

MORALITY: "the character of being in accord with the principles or standards of right conduct." Based on this American Heritage definition, Bush is anything but a moral man."
He lied about WMD.
He lied about Saddam.
He lied about 9-11.
He lied about Bin Laden.
He lied about Katrina.
He lied about his relationship with Jack Abramoff.
He lied about wire tapping.
He is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of over 3,000 young Americans, and thousands of Iraqi civilians.

2007-03-28 15:59:56 · answer #3 · answered by Hemingway 4 · 0 0

Sorry Trouble, I know this nonsense passes for 'fact' on the loony leftist websites that you pulled that foolishness from, but it simply not true.
In the first place you are talking about the 'Patriot Act'.
Congress had to pass it - it is not as if Bush declared himself emporer and just installed that legislation on his own.
Secondly those draconian measures that you allege are only permitted in the most extreme of circumstances and not without mitigating factors and all kinds of ancillory evidence.
Law abiding Americans are not 'losing' anything other than the fear of another terrorist attack.
I, for one, am fine with that and will remain so until one of you 'civil libertarians' can show me proof of A SINGLE , INNOCENT AMERICAN CITIZEN who is wronged by these measures.
Go on...just one.
That's right, you can't.
We live in a very real world. Terrorism is a very real threat.
All this theoretical blather is fine and dandy, but the administrations job is to save our lives.
I'm fine with letting them get on with it.
At the end of the day, what's more MORAL than that?

2007-03-28 15:58:26 · answer #4 · answered by Garrett S 3 · 0 2

Mr Bush loves to tell the citizens of the USA how we bringing democracy to Iraq. While at the same time we are seeing our ideas of democracy eroding away. One wonders who wrote the Patriot Act and how many members of Congress read it before it was to be come law?

2007-03-28 18:21:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

A while back when an Amish community was assaulted their reaction was one of profound Christianity, demonstrating restraint and forgiveness. GWB claims he is following his heavenly father's guidance. I can not believe that the same God is responsible for both types of reaction. Claiming your actions are ordained by God then order killings is not the mark of a "Moral man". The Amish showed us God's path, George showed us the other path.

2007-03-28 15:51:33 · answer #6 · answered by Alan S 7 · 2 0

Evil
From the accusation of terrorism with in an hour of the World Trade Center attack. How could he have know all others would have declared an investigation into terrorist act.
Evil
Declaration of war with out backing of United Nations
Evil
Declaration of war with out backing of congress.
Evil
Imprisonment with out charges.
Evil
Imprisonment for 3 years with out charges or representation .Evil
Sending troops with out armament and adequate training.
Lying
Weapons of Mass destruction
Murder
Involvement with authorizing Terry Shrible starve to death.

You decide.

2007-03-28 15:50:13 · answer #7 · answered by granny_sp 4 · 1 0

None of the Republicans are morals. The claim to have "faith" but they don't practice it. They're the first ones to judge others who do not believe in their own beliefs. But when they get caught, then they hide behind their bibles....and of course, any idiot from the south would believe it too because they're equally stupid.

2007-03-28 15:48:36 · answer #8 · answered by PuzzledGuy 3 · 3 0

First of all, it's immoral to use the words "Bush" and "Moral" in the same sentence. There isn't enough space to list all the items here - use Google for that.

2007-03-28 15:51:14 · answer #9 · answered by San jap 2 · 1 1

In general I must say YES.
He has lied to the American people.
All politicians lie to us. That happens to be a reality forced on them to get elected.
They can't even tell a joke without receiving ridicule so how can they tell the Truth in serious matters without receiving the same?

Bush has taken a stand to resist those who train their own children from birth to HATE, KILL and to DIE in efforts to KILL YOUR CHILDREN and to kill all who don't teach their children that it is holy to murder in the name of Alla
In effect, he has chosen a difficult course to fight EVIL.
I call that moral.

2007-03-28 15:53:08 · answer #10 · answered by Philip H 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers