aquarius Posted April 5, 2008 Report Posted April 5, 2008 Within the homeland security act and the partiot act lies many ridiculous laws. One law so vague that it gives bush (president) the power to become dictator. Stop the elections. Declare martial law. Take over local, and tribal governments. I am not the most articulated scholar, so I'd like to hear some of your opinions on this. "Most crucial now are Presidential Directive #51, Executive Orders #13303, #13315, #13350, #13364, #13422, #13438, and more, by which Bush has granted himself an immense arsenal of powers for which the term "dictatorial" is a modest understatement." Source: http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publis...icle_2255.shtml
FMBI Posted April 5, 2008 Report Posted April 5, 2008 Heard about this a few years ago, but I don't think so. It'd be more useful for him to let McCain get in, and basically continue the same policies, rather than provoking a possible revolution. The american populace is almost zombified, but not quite.. That isn't to say he wouldn't fake a terrorist attack or something, as spinsanity is fond of pointing out.
NBVegita Posted April 6, 2008 Report Posted April 6, 2008 Actually that article is quite misleading as the president does not have the power to stop the elections. The president, even amongst the bylaws he's passed cannot declare martial law without the approval of congress, on non federal military personnel. A majority of states have their own state defense forces. Even if the president were to attempt to declare a further state of emergency and mobilize the entire national guard, the states with the aforementioned forces would be able to withstand the force of the national guard until which time that the president is impeached. Which would be immediately. We are currently in a state of emergency, and have been in a declared "state of emergency" since Clinton declared it in 95' I believe. That is how such things as the patriot act have been passed, under the pretense of being in a state of emergency. The entire concept that this president would even attempt to dissolve our government, let alone that he would be successful is as ridiculous as thinking the world will end on 2012 because thats when the Mayan calendar ends. Every president we've had has the means to destroy our government under the right conditions, but without a president who has complete control of both the house and the senate, along with the full support of the supreme court, it just is not plausible. Being our congress would rather poke the president in the eye with a sharp stick than agree with him as to what to order for lunch, this is just another propagandist ideal to attack an already battered president. There is a reason why we have three branches of government.
FMBI Posted April 11, 2008 Report Posted April 11, 2008 NB, nice points, but at this point Congress is virtually nothing more than a rubber-stamp committee. They've been forced to go along with Bush on all the major issues, and despite all the claims of being "independent," democratic and republican policy is virtually indistinguishable on many issues (yes, listen to the paranoid kids, it's true). Additionally, Bush twisted Justice around his little finger when he was making new torture laws, he managed to lie to the whole country for several years over Iraq, and he's cemented power in a way that very few presidents have. Your "every president had a chance" point is null, as many came into office and acted for the status quo - Bush took a disaster which was 50 years in the making and transformed it into a chance to finally finish off our drowning economy and our flailing civil liberties. And lastly, before you say "If Bush were really in control you couldn't write this", consider - the most successful dictatorships in history did not censor explicitly, they left it to the populace. Sure, it takes longer, but it works eventually, and with the education level of the average American today, they'll never even figure it out. So just wait 5 years, and see if people are still making posts like this.
NBVegita Posted April 11, 2008 Report Posted April 11, 2008 Your simple attempt at a conspiracy is amusing. You are attempting to debate rancid speculation against Federal law. I would like you to cite where the current congress has uncompromisingly gone along with the president on all the issues. In fact if you can even prove that they've uncompromisingly appeased the president on even half of the major issues, I'll give you that statement. democratic and republican policy is virtually indistinguishable on many issues I would disagree, I would say that their policy is virtually indistinguishable on very few issues. Bush was not the one lying to the country, it was our federal government who was. Case in point the president was intelligent enough, hard for some of you to grasp, so that if anyone were to attempt to go after him under the clause of lying about the war, the highest you may be able to trace it is to the VP, who would get a nice pardon when Bush leaves office. Again I will ask you to elaborate on how this president has "cemented power in a way that very few presidents have". *If you choose to cite the patriot law, I ask you to cite specific clauses specifically listed in the patriot law Bush took a disaster which was 50 years in the making and transformed it into a chance to finally finish off our drowning economy and our flailing civil liberties. Any foundation on that statement besides speculation? (By the way zeitgeist does not count as foundation) None of your statements are even logical. If a president were to try to dissolve the United States government the last thing they would need is a m!@#$%^&* animosity of not only our country, but half of the other countries in the world. As stated prior, this congress has done nothing but disagree with the president and he's done more veto's during this congress's term than in the entire presidency he's had before that. I reiterate, there is no possible way that the house, senate and court would vote to dissolve their own branches of governments, nor would they not impeach the president immediately if he attempted (which I would like someone to outline exactly how the president would try such a thing being he really has virtually no power without the house and senate) to do so himself.
NBVegita Posted April 11, 2008 Report Posted April 11, 2008 In order to believe in such a thing plausable I might just have to be strung out.
FMBI Posted April 15, 2008 Report Posted April 15, 2008 Hmm, 4 days? I must be slipping. Your simple attempt at a conspiracy is amusing. [simple? Uhh.. Some parts of this are debatable, but a lot of the more basic stuff is widely accepted.] You are attempting to debate rancid speculation against Federal law. [Law which Bush twisted into meaninglessness on the torture issue, ran circles around on surveillance, and made headlines for because he attempted to put bases in Iraq unilaterally?] I would like you to cite where the current congress has uncompromisingly gone along with the president on all the issues. In fact if you can even prove that they've uncompromisingly appeased the president on even half of the major issues, I'll give you that statement.[uncompromisingly can mean different things.. for example, if a child is dragged along to school, they're not compromising, but they aren't making a meaningful resistance either.] democratic and republican policy is virtually indistinguishable on many issues I would disagree, I would say that their policy is virtually indistinguishable on very few issues.[Other than gun control and taxes (which the democrats are making only symbolic fights for at this point, because they want to keep support), they are startlingly similar. The republicans have been steadily expanding government, the democrats are less anti-war than they were some time back. Hillary and Obama are both taking "keep them in Iraq as long as we need" stands at this point, which, while somewhat logical, is very unlikely to be executed correctly, making it more of a liability than simply pulling out and leaving them to their genocides.] Bush was not the one lying to the country, it was our federal government who was. Case in point the president was intelligent enough, hard for some of you to grasp, so that if anyone were to attempt to go after him under the clause of lying about the war, the highest you may be able to trace it is to the VP, who would get a nice pardon when Bush leaves office. [Lol? Bush pushed intelligence around quite a bit, had Colin Powell lie, and managed to keep a large amount of the population convinced that Saddam had WMDs into '05.. The federal government as a whole can't do that, due to the incompetence, only the president can personally push it through.] Again I will ask you to elaborate on how this president has "cemented power in a way that very few presidents have". *If you choose to cite the patriot law, I ask you to cite specific clauses specifically listed in the patriot law [see below for full list - also, have you heard of TIA? PATRIOT is the most famous one, but there are a lot of other programs he tried to put through.] Bush took a disaster which was 50 years in the making and transformed it into a chance to finally finish off our drowning economy and our flailing civil liberties. Any foundation on that statement besides speculation? (By the way zeitgeist does not count as foundation) [The "50 years" figure is generally taken to refer to Mossadegh - I personally feel that is overblown, but I support the time range because of other serious offenses, like Guyana, that took place in the 40-60 year range, and which eventually led to global resentment. I personally am of the "terrorists are logical in their own insane way" school of thought, though I do not deny that Islam has a great part in their activities.] None of your statements are even logical. If a president were to try to dissolve the United States government the last thing they would need is a m!@#$%^&* animosity of not only our country, but half of the other countries in the world. As stated prior, this congress has done nothing but disagree with the president and he's done more veto's during this congress's term than in the entire presidency he's had before that. [Are you so sure? Remember how much support he had during the "Why do they hate us" period? He can now make a case for unilateralism because "they won't support us in the good fight". As for the home front, yes, he's encountered a lot of resistance, but a startlingly small amount of that was indigenous - most of it was (is?) the not-so-great media informing the brain-dead population what's going on. If the media, bad as it is, suffers from free speech removal (which seems likely sometime in the future, whether from overt censorship or just quiet pushing) then you'll see no resistance at all.] I reiterate, there is no possible way that the house, senate and court would vote to dissolve their own branches of governments, nor would they not impeach the president immediately if he attempted (which I would like someone to outline exactly how the president would try such a thing being he really has virtually no power without the house and senate) to do so himself.[i said this earlier, I'll say it again.. He won't remove them, just weaken them. Again, the most successful dictators have been those who did not look like dictators. Maintain the illusion while endlessly chopping their figurative legs out from under them. Are you forgetting that China and the USSR both had representative bodies?] Sec. 106 - The president has the authority to take over funds from "enemy countries" and whatnot - and as we're well aware, "enemy" can mean anything from Nazi Germany to a non-conforming and well-defended nation, like Iran. Sec. 201 & 202 - Relating to wiretapping, both of these can be easily stretched - suspected terrorists, and suspected fraudsters? That can apply to quite a few people. Sec. 213 - Hey, who cares if you break into my house? I'll forgive you when you notify me 10 years down the road, old buddy. - especially note (3) that says "the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown" Sec. 501 - If I recall, this was one of the ones that got people mad because it applied to library records? Not sure. Sec. 502 - The number? Not the content, the number? Sec. 225 - Wiretap immunity, this was already big news, but it's still highly disturbing. Sec. 412 - This one's a bit odd, because it's an example of what hasn't happened, rather than what has. We're all familiar with Bush's tricky little dance to avoid this law - Guantanamo, here we come! Sec. 506 - This does not specifically enhance their powers by a huge amount, but it does go towards creating a "republican guard" of sorts. I could list more of these, but right now I'm sorta bored with looking through legalese.
NBVegita Posted April 15, 2008 Report Posted April 15, 2008 You realize that you typed that entire post without answering one of my questions. Ok you answered one. I would like you to cite where the current congress has uncompromisingly gone along with the president on all the issues. In fact if you can even prove that they've uncompromisingly appeased the president on even half of the major issues, I'll give you that statement.[uncompromisingly can mean different things.. for example, if a child is dragged along to school, they're not compromising, but they aren't making a meaningful resistance either. Again I ask you to cite me an example. Congress is not a child, the president is not a parent. As a minor a parent has full control over everything you do. Awful analogy. You cited one instance, the war, where republicans and democrats have come to a similar viewpoint. to finally finish off our drowning economy That was what I would like to give me some foundation on. Are you so sure? Remember how much support he had during the "Why do they hate us" period? He can now make a case for unilateralism because "they won't support us in the good fight". As for the home front, yes, he's encountered a lot of resistance, but a startlingly small amount of that was indigenous - most of it was (is?) the not-so-great media informing the brain-dead population what's going on. If the media, bad as it is, suffers from free speech removal (which seems likely sometime in the future, whether from overt censorship or just quiet pushing) then you'll see no resistance at all.] Yet again a bunch of rubbish that amounts to nothing. !@#$%^&* in a national poll less than a year ago, I believe, 40% of American's believed that he should be impeached immediately. But I'm sure you're right, all he'll have to do is snap his fingers and the 300,000,000 mindless drones that consist of the American population will fall in love with him and give him free reign over the entire country. It's a shame he's waited 8 years to do this otherwise the vatican might have made him pope back in 2005. As for your last paragraph again, I would like you to cite some way the president is going to destroy our government. What you don't understand is that no matter how you want to twist the words, if the president weakens the legislative and judicial branches, thus expanding the executive branches power, that destroys the very fundamentals of our government and in turn our government as well. And your patriot act really does not provide anything but superficial limitations on people. I will go through and debate your interpretations of each of the acts when I have more time to post.
Recommended Posts