PDA

View Full Version : No 2008 elections



SSanf
July 3rd, 2007, 08:19 AM
Montagraph talks about the possible repercussions of The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive signed by GW Bush in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EKR5uEGT8I

You can read The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive here.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

pawnman
July 3rd, 2007, 08:36 AM
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Nox_Mortus
July 3rd, 2007, 08:41 AM
While I realise the possible (if unlikely) repercussions of that particular act, I have to say I find it almost impossible to take some dude in camo paint talking about being a "new world order soldier) seriously.

RoseKitten
July 3rd, 2007, 08:53 AM
I'm sorry... I don't see the " I become king!" (as per the video) clause in there... care to point it out?

Nox_Mortus
July 3rd, 2007, 08:57 AM
I'm sorry... I don't see the " I become king!" (as per the video) clause in there... care to point it out?
that was hyperbole on his part, however under the right conditions he could extend his presidency indefinitely. Of course my feeling is that if he tried that you would see a sudden uprise of domestic terrorism.

RoseKitten
July 3rd, 2007, 08:59 AM
that was hyperbole on his part, however under the right conditions he could extend his presidency indefinitely. Of course my feeling is that if he tried that you would see a sudden uprise of domestic terrorism.

I know it was hyperbole, I'm not that dense... hence the quotes from the video. Again, where is that part stated?

Nox_Mortus
July 3rd, 2007, 09:07 AM
I know it was hyperbole, I'm not that dense... hence the quotes from the video. Again, where is that part stated?

It isn't stated explicitly but is implied by several of the sections taken to thier logical conclusion, read the whole directive.

Phoenix Blue
July 3rd, 2007, 09:22 AM
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Do you have something substantial to add to this discussion?

I'm curious, frankly, as to what you'd do if 2008 elections weren't held. Would you continue being a partisan apologist, or would you hold true to the oath you've taken to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

Snapdragon
July 3rd, 2007, 09:30 AM
There are more than a few people in this country who want to see a military dictatorship. Of course, it has to be done in the "right" way--not just any tyranny will do. The jailers need to wear the right uniforms, and the bars of the cells should be painted red, white, and blue...and there should be a Bible (or Torah) available to every prisoner.

Dick Cheney is such a person, and Bush is of the same mindset. Is any of this a surprise? Who needs habeus corpus, protection against torture, and the like? They have something better in mind for us--something virile, with blood and iron in it, marching confidently forward, carrying aloft the banner of our Great Destiny to foreign lands.

It's familiar stuff...and always appealing to a certain kind of mentality.

Trithemius
July 3rd, 2007, 10:00 AM
I know it was hyperbole, I'm not that dense... hence the quotes from the video. Again, where is that part stated?

Here:


The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.

The President is now fully and solely in control of the government.

Here:


"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;


Here we have lip service paid to cooperative effort between the three branches of government. But it's made crystal clear that the President is in charge of coordinating and controlling that "cooperative effort."

Here:


In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator.

The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

In other words, this directive creates a "national continuity coordinator" who takes orders from and reports directly to the President. This NCC has the authority to "guide" Federal, State, and local government operations, along with private businesses and industries. To put it another way, the President now has full control of all governments and businesses through the NCC.

Here:


The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

This means the SHS has the job of actually bringing these governments and industries under federal, ie. Presidential, control.


Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.


It also has classified "Continuity Annexes," whatever those might be.

Looks pretty clear-cut to me. This is a blueprint for creating a Presidential dictatorship.

Semele
July 3rd, 2007, 10:20 AM
that was hyperbole on his part, however under the right conditions he could extend his presidency indefinitely. Of course my feeling is that if he tried that you would see a sudden uprise of domestic terrorism.

That uprising is the blood that will feed the hungry beast. The uprisers wll uprise against each other because they will be angry and ill focused and will not trust anyone. The neighbor who keeps letting his dog crap in the yard is probably a good enough first target.

Heil Bush


Of course, it has to be done in the "right" way--not just any tyranny will do.

This has to be my favorite quote of the dy, both in and out of context. :)

SSanf
July 3rd, 2007, 10:27 AM
While I realise the possible (if unlikely) repercussions of that particular act, I have to say I find it almost impossible to take some dude in camo paint talking about being a "new world order soldier) seriously.Montagraph is a YouTube director who has a comedy account. He makes all his videos in some kind of outlandish attire and wears wigs, false noses, even sometimes dresses in drag. Most of his stuff is hilarious. But, sometimes he wants to talk about serious matters that are on his mind and he will, then, put on a costume that has some kind of connection to the subject. If not, he just wears his iconic wig. When he posts something of a serious nature, you may not agree with his point of view but it is usually both informative and thought provoking. He is a pretty intelligent guy.

Nox_Mortus
July 3rd, 2007, 10:29 AM
Montagraph is a YouTube director who has a comedy account. He makes all his videos in some kind of outlandish attire and wears wigs, false noses, even sometimes dresses in drag. Most of his stuff is hilarious. But, sometimes he wants to talk about serious matters that are on his mind and he will, then, put on a costume that has some kind of connection to the subject. When he posts something of a serious nature, you may not agree with his point of view but it is usually both informative and thought provoking. He is a pretty intelligent guy.

ahh that makes a lot more sense then.

Phoenix Blue
July 3rd, 2007, 10:33 AM
That uprising is the blood that will feed the hungry beast. The uprisers wll uprise against each other because they will be angry and ill focused and will not trust anyone. The neighbor who keeps letting his dog crap in the yard is probably a good enough first target.
It's my sincerest hope that a large portion of the existing military would become one of the first organized resistance groups. Of course, I'm also a realist, and I'm not sure that such a scenario would actually occur.

Nox_Mortus
July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 AM
That uprising is the blood that will feed the hungry beast. The uprisers wll uprise against each other because they will be angry and ill focused and will not trust anyone. The neighbor who keeps letting his dog crap in the yard is probably a good enough first target.

Heil Bush




thats one possibility, but people tend to act quite differently in times of extreme crises, in this case if enough people sympathize with the terrorists, which given the state the government would be in would be very possible if not likely it could cause a full on rebellion, also that sort of situation would be a wonderful time for a country like China or Russia to "liberate" us from our tyrannical government, maybe first they wouls sponsor some "police actions" as well.

Shanti
July 3rd, 2007, 11:20 AM
May of 2007. No surprise to me.
Sure this bill was written and signed by the big man because he has no intentions of acting on it. Its possible and I wouldn't be surprised if Bush uses it.

It wouldn't be hard to act on it, hell Iran is in our sights, a terrorist attempt is always glooming somewhere on main street. Right now, or shall I say sometime in 2008, it wouldn't be hard at all to pop a 'legit' excuse out of the Bush hat to justify using this little piece of paper.

Oh, the guy in the video is trying to get into peoples heads and wake them up.
His style makes sence.
He is sending a message.
The people have sat back and let pieces of their constitution be taken away and have done nothing. These pieces are taken for a reason and it isnt for our benefit and its isnt American.

The only prob I have had is what to do....I have never seen a way for a single nobody like me to act to try to stop any of it. I have been able to see a lot of ways to get into big trouble though since getting to involved in being against this gov is a ticket to hell.
It would take the majority of people to ban together to stand for your freedoms, to again fight for our freedoms but they don't exist anymore, obviously.
The minority wont win, as is also obvious.

Happy 4th, our celebration of our independence thats being chipped away within our own walls.

Laisrean
July 3rd, 2007, 11:58 AM
Bush has to stay in office so he can emerge as the anti-christ in 2012 when the Mayan calendar officially ends. That's why he needs to be able to suspend the elections.

:awilly:


(maybe I am serious. I don't know...._inabox_ )

Dawa Lhamo
July 3rd, 2007, 12:14 PM
And there's quite a few in this country who would take up arms to see that there will be a vote if it came down to it. Something that egregious, well, I think would stir the people from their apathy. ^_^

I take voting very seriously. I vote in every election, no matter how "minor"... because I really don't think anything is "minor".

I really don't think it'll come down to it, though. Not yet, not 2008. 2012 maybe... end of the world as we know it. ;)

Laisrean
July 3rd, 2007, 12:35 PM
Do you have something substantial to add to this discussion?

I'm curious, frankly, as to what you'd do if 2008 elections weren't held. Would you continue being a partisan apologist, or would you hold true to the oath you've taken to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?


Domestic enemies? You mean those hippies who stand in the way of our glorious president and his un-ending "war on terrorism"?

pawnman
July 3rd, 2007, 12:48 PM
Do you have something substantial to add to this discussion?

I'm curious, frankly, as to what you'd do if 2008 elections weren't held. Would you continue being a partisan apologist, or would you hold true to the oath you've taken to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

It's a moot point. There will be elections. For folks who accuse Bush of fear-mongering, the liberals sure are good at it.

Nox_Mortus
July 3rd, 2007, 01:25 PM
It's a moot point. There will be elections. For folks who accuse Bush of fear-mongering, the liberals sure are good at it.

while there probably will be elections, don't be so sure, I wouldn't put it past the current administration to use this power if they felt they could get away with it. Besides that, this being on the books at all is blatantly unconstitutional, he shouldn't have even considered signing this if he actually cared about freedom and all of his other patriotic buzzwords.

pawnman
July 3rd, 2007, 01:30 PM
while there probably will be elections, don't be so sure, I wouldn't put it past the current administration to use this power if they felt they could get away with it. Besides that, this being on the books at all is blatantly unconstitutional, he shouldn't have even considered signing this if he actually cared about freedom and all of his other patriotic buzzwords.

Of course you wouldn't. If I made a post that Bush was abducting impoverished infants and eating them at state dinners, someone would tell me they wouldn't put it past him.

It's not going to happen. I'll have to keep tabs on this thread, and the day after the election I'll resurrect it so we can all have a good laugh.

Laisrean
July 3rd, 2007, 01:47 PM
Of course you wouldn't. If I made a post that Bush was abducting impoverished infants and eating them at state dinners, someone would tell me they wouldn't put it past him.

It's not going to happen. I'll have to keep tabs on this thread, and the day after the election I'll resurrect it so we can all have a good laugh.

But even if he doesn't, the important thing to keep in mind is that this is now an option thanks to the tards who approved that law. Will Bush use this power? Maybe not, but some future president will.

Point is, even if you think Bush is a saint and will never use it, what about those who come after him (including Democrats)?

Do you feel comfortable with Hillary having the power to suspend elections and retain power indefinitely?

PaganLibrarian
July 3rd, 2007, 02:31 PM
Sure. I have guns...

Kadynas
July 3rd, 2007, 02:42 PM
It's a moot point. There will be elections. For folks who accuse Bush of fear-mongering, the liberals sure are good at it.

The question was theoretical... IF the elections were cancelled, what would you do?
He didn't ask how likely you thought it was...

Phoenix Blue
July 3rd, 2007, 03:31 PM
The question was theoretical... IF the elections were cancelled, what would you do?
He didn't ask how likely you thought it was...
It's all right. Even a non-answer is still an answer.

PaganLibrarian
July 3rd, 2007, 03:42 PM
IF the elections were cancelled, what would you do?

See my last post for an answer...

PaulKrul
July 3rd, 2007, 04:43 PM
Just the fact that Bush COULD suspend elections "legally" is terrible. Bush and his friends can not sustain the war much longer with the pressure and lack of funds and when it becomes obvious the war was lost, unnecessary and cost so many lives they and their party would be suffering repercussions.

Though I doubt Bush will actually make a grab for a dictatorship, he is in the same sort of position as Hitler was. And Bush has fewer morals then Hitler. So just the presence of Bush in such a position is scary.

Semele
July 3rd, 2007, 04:55 PM
It's my sincerest hope that a large portion of the existing military would become one of the first organized resistance groups. Of course, I'm also a realist, and I'm not sure that such a scenario would actually occur.

Well, naturally the military would be the first ones to try to instill order..against the angry neighbors we once called friends (literal John and Betty next door, not just Iran and Iraq and whomever else we can manage to piss off to add to the chaos .)

I have no doubt that the military is divided on which side they will stand, which just adds to the chaos. Oh and yes there will be sides...so any it will be geometric nightmare once called freedom. Funny how when you narrow something down it just tends to blow up on you at a certain point. You can't tease an ignorant, hungry dog with raw meat and give it to him a bit at a time long enough to make him think he deserves it and then take it away and not expect to get bitten. Sure martial law will permit the simple shooting o the dog, but tere ae a lot of dogs...and a lot of uns. yes it will be bloody.

We wont need to worry about terror attacks from the outside for much longer.

pawnman
July 3rd, 2007, 10:25 PM
I doubt very highly that the military would be divided. There'd be some grumbling, but since congress passed this particular law, even if the elections were suspended Bush would still be the legal president, and therefore the legal commander in chief.

But that's all in fantasy land anyway. I don't foresee a single possible circumstance where elections would be cancelled. Postponed for a week or so, potentially, but cancelled, not at all.

pawnman
July 3rd, 2007, 10:27 PM
Just the fact that Bush COULD suspend elections "legally" is terrible. Bush and his friends can not sustain the war much longer with the pressure and lack of funds and when it becomes obvious the war was lost, unnecessary and cost so many lives they and their party would be suffering repercussions.

Though I doubt Bush will actually make a grab for a dictatorship, he is in the same sort of position as Hitler was. And Bush has fewer morals then Hitler. So just the presence of Bush in such a position is scary.

We'll see. I'm guessing that unless Kucinich gets elected president, we'll stay in Iraq well into the next president's term as well. Hillary voted for this war too, you know.

WokeUpDead
July 4th, 2007, 12:12 AM
I heard they just passed a new version of the patriot act that makes it illegal to read the patriot act.

Laisrean
July 4th, 2007, 12:49 AM
Here is a question I'd like to hear everyone's response to: Why would Bush push for an executive power he does not intend to use?

Another question: Why is the right to suspend elections even necessary? We've never done that before, except possibly during the civil war. We fought other major conflicts since then, such as WW2 and we never needed to suspend elections during those times.

It is unnecessary, and it spells the end of America. All that is necessary for this nation to become a dictatorship is for this law to actually be applied, and that is a scary thought... I mean, you're asking politicians not to use the power to stay in office indefinitely.

Someone will definitely use this somewhere down the road, and when they do we'll be no different than Rome when Octavian became the first emperor, or Germany when Hitler disbanded the Weimar Republic.... or that Galactic Republic in Star Wars when Palpatine made himself emperor.

It has happened before. One of the things I've learned all too well is that we aren't immune from anything. The terrible things going on in other countries COULD happen here. We have to wake up and realize that before it is too late.

Isn't there also that law where anything that can happen is certain to happen if given sufficient time? Now that it is possible to permanently suspend elections all that is necessary is for a president to invoke it. It is only a matter of time....

Laisrean
July 4th, 2007, 12:52 AM
We'll see. I'm guessing that unless Kucinich gets elected president, we'll stay in Iraq well into the next president's term as well. Hillary voted for this war too, you know.

Have you heard of Ron Paul? He would end this madness and restore America.

pawnman
July 4th, 2007, 08:52 AM
You know, I've read through the thing now, including the snippets that were posted on here, and I didn't see a single clause that said "President may become dictator for life".

Phoenix Blue
July 4th, 2007, 08:56 AM
You know, I've read through the thing now, including the snippets that were posted on here, and I didn't see a single clause that said "President may become dictator for life".
How long would he have to suspend elections before you thought it unconstitutional?

pawnman
July 4th, 2007, 09:00 AM
How long would he have to suspend elections before you thought it unconstitutional?

Show me the passage where it talks about suspending elections. It says that the President will be in charge of continuity actions...it doesn't say that the president can't change while such actions are taking place.

Laisrean
July 4th, 2007, 09:49 AM
Show me the passage where it talks about suspending elections. It says that the President will be in charge of continuity actions...it doesn't say that the president can't change while such actions are taking place.

Isn't that the same thing?

Putting a president directly in control of his own position is dangerous to say the least. It basically means trusting him (or her) to always do the right thing, but history shows that never works out forever... For example, every president respected a rule established since Washington that no president should have more than 2 terms, but FDR broke that rule and perhaps would have went on much longer if he didn't die during his 4th... not long after that congress restricted presidents to 2 terms because FDR wouldn't follow them voluntarily.

Eventually you'll have someone who refuses to bow out when his time is up, and then this country will be no different than a Banana republic.

One of the main things which has made our Republic last as long as it has when others in foreign lands fall into dictatorships and revolutions is that we've always had president voluntarily relinquish power to a successor. This law threatens that continuity.

Laisrean
July 4th, 2007, 10:02 AM
This is an older post but I want to reply to it...


I doubt very highly that the military would be divided. There'd be some grumbling, but since congress passed this particular law,

Laws that violate the constitution are invalid.


even if the elections were suspended Bush would still be the legal president, and therefore the legal commander in chief.

Isn't your oath to defend the constitution? I know the Hitler youth and perhaps the German military swore an oath to the Fuhrer directly, but I didn't realize America was doing that now.


But that's all in fantasy land anyway. I don't foresee a single possible circumstance where elections would be cancelled. Postponed for a week or so, potentially, but cancelled, not at all.

I somehow get the feeling that if Bill Clinton had pushed for this law a year or two before his presidency was set to expire you wouldn't be thinking it was such a trivial thing.

pawnman
July 4th, 2007, 10:17 AM
Isn't that the same thing?

Putting a president directly in control of his own position is dangerous to say the least. It basically means trusting him (or her) to always do the right thing, but history shows that never works out forever... For example, every president respected a rule established since Washington that no president should have more than 2 terms, but FDR broke that rule and perhaps would have went on much longer if he didn't die during his 4th... not long after that congress restricted presidents to 2 terms because FDR wouldn't follow them voluntarily.

Eventually you'll have someone who refuses to bow out when his time is up, and then this country will be no different than a Banana republic.

One of the main things which has made our Republic last as long as it has when others in foreign lands fall into dictatorships and revolutions is that we've always had president voluntarily relinquish power to a successor. This law threatens that continuity.

Like I said, I didn't see anything about suspending elections.

And the president is the commander-in-chief as long as he is legally president. If the Supreme Court rules this law unconstitutional and a president still refuses to step down, then we have a problem.

Trithemius
July 4th, 2007, 10:18 AM
Show me the passage where it talks about suspending elections. It says that the President will be in charge of continuity actions...it doesn't say that the president can't change while such actions are taking place.

There doesn't have to be a passage explicitly stating "The President has the authority to suspend elections." He has the power to do it. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. It was completely illegal for him to do so, but he had the power to do it and he did.

This law gives the President legal control over every level of government in the country in the event of an emergency. That alone is troubling enough. Combine that with a megalomaniacal power hungry president (not necessarily Bush, but you never know who we'll end up with in the future), and yeah, you're looking at a potentially permanent American dictator.

I remember back before the '04 election, this same rumor was floating around - that an "October Surprise" might be a terrorist attack on the US that would suspend the election. And of course, nothing happened. Thing is, the rumor wasn't just Democratic fear-mongering. Quite a few conservatives agreed. Sean Hannity flat-out said that if we were attacked, he didn't think we should go ahead with the election. Think about that: suspension of the election had support. That's pretty scary.

pawnman
July 4th, 2007, 10:22 AM
There doesn't have to be a passage explicitly stating "The President has the authority to suspend elections." He has the power to do it. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. It was completely illegal for him to do so, but he had the power to do it and he did.

This law gives the President legal control over every level of government in the country in the event of an emergency. That alone is troubling enough. Combine that with a megalomaniacal power hungry president (not necessarily Bush, but you never know who we'll end up with in the future), and yeah, you're looking at a potentially permanent American dictator.

I remember back before the '04 election, this same rumor was floating around - that an "October Surprise" might be a terrorist attack on the US that would suspend the election. And of course, nothing happened. Thing is, the rumor wasn't just Democratic fear-mongering. Quite a few conservatives agreed. Sean Hannity flat-out said that if we were attacked, he didn't think we should go ahead with the election. Think about that: suspension of the election had support. That's pretty scary.

So it doesn't say anything about suspending elections...and yet here we are, trying to convince people that Bush will use this law to seize power indefinitely.

And they say conservatives are fear-mongers.

Laisrean
July 4th, 2007, 10:24 AM
Like I said, I didn't see anything about suspending elections.

And the president is the commander-in-chief as long as he is legally president. If the Supreme Court rules this law unconstitutional and a president still refuses to step down, then we have a problem.

Sad thing is, the president appoints Supreme Court justices, and this one has already appointed two. Could we expect them to interpret the constitution correctly if the time came?

pawnman
July 4th, 2007, 10:27 AM
As opposed to granting the President a permanent position? Yes.

I'm not sure I see how this law provides for that occurance, though. If he has the power to suspend elections now, he had it before.

Laisrean
July 4th, 2007, 10:29 AM
Another question I have to ask is, how in the heck did this law get passed with the Democratic congress?

This either proves the Dems don't really stand for anything, or that they don't read what they vote for, or (most likely) both of the above.

Wolfpoet
July 4th, 2007, 11:00 AM
Bush had significant support in the last election, he probably felt he didn't NEED this legislation. Now her can't legaly stand for a secodn term, hence he is more likely to use it if so inclined.

pawnman
July 4th, 2007, 11:42 AM
Another question I have to ask is, how in the heck did this law get passed with the Democratic congress?

This either proves the Dems don't really stand for anything, or that they don't read what they vote for, or (most likely) both of the above.

Because it's all legal gibberish and doesn't actually do anything?

More feel-good legislation, with everyone patting themselves on the back for "having a plan".

Trithemius
July 4th, 2007, 12:32 PM
So it doesn't say anything about suspending elections...and yet here we are, trying to convince people that Bush will use this law to seize power indefinitely.

And they say conservatives are fear-mongers.

So you're not going to actually address any of the points I made. That's fine.

And I do hope you're not insinuating that I'm a liberal.


Because it's all legal gibberish and doesn't actually do anything?

More feel-good legislation, with everyone patting themselves on the back for "having a plan".

Doesn't actually do anything? You don't think giving one person control over all levels and branches of government is doing anything?

My main question is why the hell was this law even needed in the first place? We already have continuity of government plans in place. The so-called Armageddon Plan was developed during the Reagan administration and was utilized on Sept. 11. In 2002, Bush announced his administration had devised a "shadow government" plan to ensure continuity of government. What those two plans didn't do was hand control of the country to one person. This plan does. From what I'm seeing it has very little to do with continuity of government, and a lot to do with laying the groundwork for a dictatorship disguised as a security measure.

Ra Tem Kheper
July 4th, 2007, 04:35 PM
We have no reason at all to have any kind of faith that the Government's military forces would do the right thing, should Dick, george and Karl's grand scheme ever begin to come to pass.

Step one upon enlistment- indroctinate, assimilate, brain wash.
You must play follow the leader until the sun no longer shines on your face.

Independant thought is STRICTLY FORBOTTEN.

This is very easy to see, look around you,
The COMPANY Lie, er uh Line comes at you in print, on the radio, on television, in blogs and on message boards. It never changes.

Our founding fathers knew this only too well

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff169586.html)

When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
Thomas Paine (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomaspain122854.html)

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.


Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.
George Washington (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgewash382162.html)

pawnman
July 4th, 2007, 04:58 PM
We have no reason at all to have any kind of faith that the Government's military forces would do the right thing, should Dick, george and Karl's grand scheme ever begin to come to pass.

Step one upon enlistment- indroctinate, assimilate, brain wash.
You must play follow the leader until the sun no longer shines on your face.

Independant thought is STRICTLY FORBOTTEN.

This is very easy to see, look around you,
The COMPANY Lie, er uh Line comes at you in print, on the radio, on television, in blogs and on message boards. It never changes.

Our founding fathers knew this only too well

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff169586.html)

When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
Thomas Paine (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomaspain122854.html)

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.


Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.
George Washington (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgewash382162.html)


Where'd you go to basic to be brainwashed? They must teach the new enlistees something very different from the officer candidates.

Ra Tem Kheper
July 4th, 2007, 06:03 PM
No it is extreemly obvious that the enlisted and the officer cantidate are feed the same bs, and the officer does a much better job of buying into it and passing it along to the general public, after all that is thier job.

Job one: controll the troops, carry out the whims of the decider.

Ask no questions, follow the leader, no matter how dirty he may be.
=======================================================

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.
George Washington (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgewash382162.html)

pawnman
July 4th, 2007, 06:56 PM
No it is extreemly obvious that the enlisted and the officer cantidate are feed the same bs, and the officer does a much better job of buying into it and passing it along to the general public, after all that is thier job.

Job one: controll the troops, carry out the whims of the decider.

Ask no questions, follow the leader, no matter how dirty he may be.
=======================================================

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.
George Washington (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgewash382162.html)



Yep, we're definitely learning something entirely different than that. Have you ever spent any time in the military, or does this all just stem from your disappointment that the Pentagon hasn't crafted a plan for a military coup?

Eldric_Dragonsblood
July 4th, 2007, 07:29 PM
I ma forced to point something out which has been glossed over.

Congress DID NOT PASS THIS as a bill. THIS IS NOT A LAW. This is the PRESIDENT making a statement of "this is HOW it's going to be". Hate to point this out to you pawnman, but this is George W. Bush powergrabbing plain and simple. It is going to take the PEOPLE forcing Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court to slap down this sort of ILLEGAL action on the part of the Presidency. It should happen each and everytime the President puts out a directive, to be honest, no matter who is the office holder.

The Constitution gives the President the job of ENFORCING what is already law. Not creating law via this B.S. method.

Ra Tem Kheper
July 4th, 2007, 07:34 PM
No, No, No. We know we can not trust our freedoms inside of this country to the military.

We all know they can not get that job done!

As A good George,
George Carlin has said.

Qxymoron=Military Intelegence

Laisrean
July 4th, 2007, 07:51 PM
If Bush is now ruling by decree then doesn't he meet the criteria of a dictator?

Thunder
July 4th, 2007, 07:57 PM
Sure. I have guns...So do I... you and I might finally have something we could do together... :viking:

Semele
July 4th, 2007, 08:00 PM
Because it's all legal gibberish and doesn't actually do anything?

More feel-good legislation, with everyone patting themselves on the back for "having a plan".

You mean the Dems were too lazy or ill versed in gibberish to bother reading it?

pawnman
July 5th, 2007, 08:21 AM
You mean the Dems were too lazy or ill versed in gibberish to bother reading it?

Of course. They ARE members of congress, after all.

Sequoia
September 3rd, 2007, 04:38 PM
Congress DID NOT PASS THIS as a bill. THIS IS NOT A LAW. This is the PRESIDENT making a statement of "this is HOW it's going to be". Hate to point this out to you pawnman, but this is George W. Bush powergrabbing plain and simple. It is going to take the PEOPLE forcing Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court to slap down this sort of ILLEGAL action on the part of the Presidency. It should happen each and everytime the President puts out a directive, to be honest, no matter who is the office holder.

To anyone: Is there any update? Has congress gotten rid of this nasty piece of work yet?

Wicce
September 3rd, 2007, 04:45 PM
The question in my mind is would America even care in that event? Their lives on the whole are so apolitical that after the initial downpour I'm pretty sure most people would just open their umbrellas and keep on walking. If almost half the country doesn't vote and the majority of the people who do vote don't understand the issues, what or why they are voting for...then we already live in only a nominal democracy. All those people who don't vote believe they are getting along fine not doing so. They choose not to participate in the system and I don't know that they would truly care after the BS settles down

wolfjan1
September 3rd, 2007, 05:14 PM
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
While you have been know for your witty repartee, this one is really confusing me. Are you saying that this thread is a bit much for you? Or are you saying that the sky is truly falling and is going to elect himself president for life?
Just wondering.

banondraig
September 4th, 2007, 03:34 PM
Domestic enemies? You mean those hippies who stand in the way of our glorious president and his un-ending "war on terrorism"?

it means domestic enemies of the Constitution. you know, people who try to guy the Bill of Rights, things like that.

SweetIsTheTruth
September 4th, 2007, 03:48 PM
The question in my mind is would America even care in that event?

Only if it disrupted the latest news on Paris Hilton.



If almost half the country doesn't vote

But we Americans do vote. Watch American Idol sometimes. You will see.

Laisrean
September 4th, 2007, 07:27 PM
it means domestic enemies of the Constitution. you know, people who try to guy the Bill of Rights, things like that.

I know. I was being sarcastic. ;)

banondraig
September 4th, 2007, 07:48 PM
I know. I was being sarcastic. ;)

yeah, i know, but it needed to be said. :)

pawnman
September 6th, 2007, 07:12 PM
While you have been know for your witty repartee, this one is really confusing me. Are you saying that this thread is a bit much for you? Or are you saying that the sky is truly falling and is going to elect himself president for life?
Just wondering.

I'm saying that, much like chicken little, this thread is getting hysterical about something that will never happen. Especially not under Bush.