onedomino
SCE to AUX
- Sep 14, 2004
- 2,677
- 481
- 98
What possibilities are those? Specify.Good to see the level of awareness of the possibilities, I hope it's widespread across your nation.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What possibilities are those? Specify.Good to see the level of awareness of the possibilities, I hope it's widespread across your nation.
What possibilities are those? Specify.
There is no threat that any President any time soon can "seize" power. A presidential directive has no force over Congress, it applies ONLY to the executive branch. Some of you need to do some class work on how our Government works.
Unless Bush ( or Hillary if somehow she gets elected) have a secret army we don't know about neither can seize anything without our military LETTING them. Without our Congress allowing it. Without our Courts permitting it. And last without the public agreeing to it.
There is no threat that any President any time soon can "seize" power. A presidential directive has no force over Congress, it applies ONLY to the executive branch. Some of you need to do some class work on how our Government works.
Unless Bush ( or Hillary if somehow she gets elected) have a secret army we don't know about neither can seize anything without our military LETTING them. Without our Congress allowing it. Without our Courts permitting it. And last without the public agreeing to it.
There is no threat that any President any time soon can "seize" power. A presidential directive has no force over Congress, it applies ONLY to the executive branch. Some of you need to do some class work on how our Government works.
Unless Bush ( or Hillary if somehow she gets elected) have a secret army we don't know about neither can seize anything without our military LETTING them. Without our Congress allowing it. Without our Courts permitting it. And last without the public agreeing to it.
It's already happened before. Woodrow Wilson shut down newspapers and people were arrested for speaking against WWI. FDR rounded up american citizens and put them in internment camps, not to mention all his economic programs which flagrantly ignored the constitution. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, arrested northern senators, suspended some state elections, and shut down anti-war newspapers.
I know that military personnel pledge an oath to the constitution and not to the president, but in practice most of them will simply do as they're told. Especially during an emergency, real or imagined. If a nuke went off in an american city followed by economic meltdown, do you really think any president, republican or democrat, would fail to immediately use the powers in this new directive, for the duration of his office? Do you think any generals would fail to obey orders, short of mass murder perhaps?
I'm not saying it would play out exactly like Weimar Germany. Someone once said history does not repeat itself, but rather it rhymes. For example I don't think the government would try to curtail 1st amendment rights; mainly because they've learned that it's safest to let people blow off steam while ignoring them. I do think however that we would see an unprecedented level of government intrusion with regards to other freedoms--travel, guns, employment restrictions, nationalized oil and banking industries, and other things we can only guess at now.
And I simply disagree. Unless the Congress was eliminated there is NO way it is going to simply be ignored. Unless the military had a lobotomy on all its members there is NO WAY it is going to stand by while the Congress is eliminated from its position of responsibility unwillingly.
And dont forget Hitler and many Freikorp (some were Communist) units thought that the Comyanusts, Joos, and intaleckshuls i.e. the evul Libruls, had stabbed the Germany army in the back on the home front, which brought about her defeat in WW1.
Hmm sounds just like the Sergeant Bilkos and the Waffle House warriors wailing about why we are failing in Eye-wrack and why the pygmies in black pyjamas beat us in Vietnam, doesnt it?
Who you callin dimbulb? I am merely callin partisans partisan.
I hope you do learn something. Maybe you will learn to stop being a narrow minded partisan from one (either) side of the fence, and learn to just kick the fence over.
My point is, didn't Bush just sign some executive order or some such giving the President sole authority to act in certain states of emergency?
And I'm not pointing a finger at Bush. I'm pointing a finger at the legislation itself, and what could happen. Has he signed into law something that can be abused in the future and used against "We, the people?"
I sometimes wonder if ANY of these damned politicians can see past the end of their own terms.
I tend to agree. However, on the other side of the coin, we have a legislature incapable of accomplishing anything preferring to spend their time engaged in petty partisan bickering.
I saw an interesting movie Saturday and this man was one of the panelists discussing what had just transpired during that movie. So I googled him on Sunday morning and found this:
The Patriots
By Dr. Bob Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
The United States is in trouble. We're in danger of becoming a fascist dictatorship where big government and big business combine to rule, and where the people are considered just a source of labor. The marriage of government and the investor class has succeeded in exporting our jobs, importing illegal aliens to provide a pool of cheap labor, and thus driving down wages for all American workers and destroying the middle class. Their foreign and military policies have led us into unnecessary wars of aggression to gain raw materials and enhance profits of the global robber barons. Their trade policies have resulted in capital flight, job loss, trade deficits, and the ownership of much of our infrastructure by foreign interests.
We've gotten into this fix because our presidents, of both parties, have been servants of the global investors, and because our representatives in Congress, again of both parties, have abdicated their Constitutional responsibilities and subjected themselves to an imperial presidency.
A "patriot" is defined as one who loves, supports, and defends his country....
...snip
We, the People of the United States of America , deserve better than we have been getting.
We must demand a government which
(1) follows the Constitution,
(2) honors the truth, and
(3) serves the people.
..snip
Accordingly, "The Patriots" is not a political party, but a nonpartisan organization of patriotic Americans seeking to return our country to Constitutional government based on truth and in service of the people. For now, we operate as a project of the non-profit Institute for Space and Security Studies, a 501c(3) organization. Our immediate mission is to educate the American people on the issues. In the future, we may form a "Patriot PAC" to support candidates for public office and to promote specific legislation. We also intend to form a Patriot Caucus including members of Congress from all political parties. However, for now we are concentrating on public education.
The first question usually raised is, "Is this organization conservative or liberal?" The answer to that question is, "Yes." We have both conservative and liberal members, and both conservative and liberal ideas. But mostly, we are just patriotic Americans embodying the best of both conservatism and liberalism in the service of the American people. Few Patriots will agree with all of the following positions, but all ascribe to the basic devotion to Constitution, truth, and service to the people. That is what is important. The specific policy positions below are mine alone. I see them as a good basis for further discussion. They are all anathema to those currently in power.
We Patriots are "conservative" inasmuch as we are devoted to the Constitution, to limited government, and to fiscal responsibility.
...snip
Are YOU a patriot?
I'm calling you a dimbulb... I didn't stutter... can't you read?
I'm not on either side, board retard... I'm an independent... I don't like dems or republicans...
but... do you have anything at all to say ABOUT the topic, Bob Bowman and The Patriots or are you just ctoo slow to stay on topic?