The Day Bush became dictator

[Avatar4321]

I've got a question. Given that you guys are begging for a king, wouldn't the lot of you make the American Revolution senseless?

I'm being serious, because when you think about it you are guys are advocating getting rid of the United States Constitution and replacing it with the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta gave the king the kind of power Junior is begging for.

Have all of you forgotten Thomas Paine? He explained in very clear language why the Magna Carta is a joke, which makes your apologetic posts a joke.

As for your claim about how Junior will soon be out of office, I'm sure all of you feel that the vacated position will be replaced by a Junior clone, someone with only two active brain cells. In that sense nothing has changed and it will be like you have a dictator for life as I'm sure all of you dream about.

Do you just not have a sense of humor or do you just refuse to read what people actually say?

 

[trobinett]

Do you just not have a sense of humor or do you just refuse to read what people actually say?

Neither?

 

[Gunny]

I've got a question. Given that you guys are begging for a king, wouldn't the lot of you make the American Revolution senseless?

I'm being serious, because when you think about it you are guys are advocating getting rid of the United States Constitution and replacing it with the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta gave the king the kind of power Junior is begging for.

Have all of you forgotten Thomas Paine? He explained in very clear language why the Magna Carta is a joke, which makes your apologetic posts a joke.

As for your claim about how Junior will soon be out of office, I'm sure all of you feel that the vacated position will be replaced by a Junior clone, someone with only two active brain cells. In that sense nothing has changed and it will be like you have a dictator for life as I'm sure all of you dream about.

Back up your mouth. WHO on the right has (please use the quote function -- if you nned help contact a mod) advocated either a monarchy or a dictator?

I'd just like to see what exactly it is your ranting little post is in response to.

 

[GeeWhiz]

Back up your mouth. WHO on the right has (please use the quote function -- if you nned help contact a mod) advocated either a monarchy or a dictator?

I'd just like to see what exactly it is your ranting little post is in response to.

Try comparing the Magna Carta and the United States Constitution. Try reading the works of Thomas Paine especially the part where he tears apart the Magna Carta.

Try reading the majority of posts on this thread. The majority of the posts makes light of the far reaching powers being granted to the executive branch of our government.

In fact learn about how the jews in Nazi Germany didn't believe a worst case scenario would happen even though it was obvious Hitler and the Nazis were anti-semetic. The jews were shocked that it did go as far as the concentration camp, yet they didn't believe that it would. Just like the majority of posters here on this thread, they believe giving the executive branch virtual unlimited powers is nothing to worry about.

Try contributing instead of acting like a parrot.

 

[dilloduck]

Try comparing the Magna Carta and the United States Constitution. Try reading the works of Thomas Paine especially the part where he tears apart the Magna Carta.

Try reading the majority of posts on this thread. The majority of the posts makes light of the far reaching powers being granted to the executive branch of our government.

In fact learn about how the jews in Nazi Germany didn't believe a worst case scenario would happen even though it was obvious Hitler and the Nazis were anti-semetic. The jews were shocked that it did go as far as the concentration camp, yet they didn't believe that it would. Just like the majority of posters here on this thread, they believe giving the executive branch virtual unlimited powers is nothing to worry about.

Try contributing instead of acting like a parrot.

Trying to equate the power of the presidency to the power of English kings is absurd. If a republican wasn't the president we wouldn't hear a peep out of you regarding presidential powers.

 

[Gunny]

Try comparing the Magna Carta and the United States Constitution. Try reading the works of Thomas Paine especially the part where he tears apart the Magna Carta.

Try reading the majority of posts on this thread. The majority of the posts makes light of the far reaching powers being granted to the executive branch of our government.

In fact learn about how the jews in Nazi Germany didn't believe a worst case scenario would happen even though it was obvious Hitler and the Nazis were anti-semetic. The jews were shocked that it did go as far as the concentration camp, yet they didn't believe that it would. Just like the majority of posters here on this thread, they believe giving the executive branch virtual unlimited powers is nothing to worry about.

Try contributing instead of acting like a parrot.

Again, how about YOU learning to debate. I contribute just fine when there is something to contribute to.

How about YOU post the relevant portions of the Magna Carta, US Constitution and Thomas Paine's rantings? Your alarmist opinion of what Nazi Germany may or may not have thought is irrelevant.

In case you haven't noticed, your "Chicken Little" paranoia isn't working. You're grasping for straws.

 

[Hobbit]

Try comparing the Magna Carta and the United States Constitution. Try reading the works of Thomas Paine especially the part where he tears apart the Magna Carta.

Try reading the majority of posts on this thread. The majority of the posts makes light of the far reaching powers being granted to the executive branch of our government.

In fact learn about how the jews in Nazi Germany didn't believe a worst case scenario would happen even though it was obvious Hitler and the Nazis were anti-semetic. The jews were shocked that it did go as far as the concentration camp, yet they didn't believe that it would. Just like the majority of posters here on this thread, they believe giving the executive branch virtual unlimited powers is nothing to worry about.

Try contributing instead of acting like a parrot.

Your parrot argument is just dumb, but moving on, how about Clinton and his disgusting power grabs? What about the feel-good 'assault weapons ban' which did nothing but appease gun control nuts without stepping too much on the toes of the gun nuts. What about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows anybody to get your name and address from your ISP with nothing but an IP number and a(n) (unsubstantiated) claim that you violated a copyright. How about Eschelon? Carnivore? And the fact that they were used to spy on Republicans more than jihadists? Care to answer any of that, or are you just a parrot who can't say anything "Bush is a king, Bush is king! SQUAWK!!"

 

[Avatar4321]

Try comparing the Magna Carta and the United States Constitution. Try reading the works of Thomas Paine especially the part where he tears apart the Magna Carta.

Try reading the majority of posts on this thread. The majority of the posts makes light of the far reaching powers being granted to the executive branch of our government.

In fact learn about how the jews in Nazi Germany didn't believe a worst case scenario would happen even though it was obvious Hitler and the Nazis were anti-semetic. The jews were shocked that it did go as far as the concentration camp, yet they didn't believe that it would. Just like the majority of posters here on this thread, they believe giving the executive branch virtual unlimited powers is nothing to worry about.

Try contributing instead of acting like a parrot.

Do you even know what the Magna Carta was? it was a revolutionary document that limited the power of the King. It was the first of its kind to do so and a predecessor of reforms that eventually lead to Democratic rule in Great Britian.

Quite true that it looks alittle outdated to our standards. but for the time it was the first step to freedom.

As for your hitler analogy, you have it backwards. Its you who doesnt seem to think that the Islamo fascists will carry out their threads of exterminating jews. Its you who refuses to see the enemy as it is. They want to kill every westerner whether jew, Christian, or other. They arent going to go away just because we refuse to fight them. All thats going to do is ensure they get more power to kill innocents.

Wake up. Pull your head out of your ass and stop this blind hatred of President Bush long enough to realize that there are people who want to kill us. They dont want to kill liberals or Conservatives. They want to kill Americans. And the more you try to fight our efforts in stopping them the more you play into their hands and give them opportunities to destroy us.

 

[Annie]

Do you even know what the Magna Carta was? it was a revolutionary document that limited the power of the King. It was the first of its kind to do so and a predecessor of reforms that eventually lead to Democratic rule in Great Britian.

Quite true that it looks alittle outdated to our standards. but for the time it was the first step to freedom.

As for your hitler analogy, you have it backwards. Its you who doesnt seem to think that the Islamo fascists will carry out their threads of exterminating jews. Its you who refuses to see the enemy as it is. They want to kill every westerner whether jew, Christian, or other. They arent going to go away just because we refuse to fight them. All thats going to do is ensure they get more power to kill innocents.

Wake up. Pull your head out of your ass and stop this blind hatred of President Bush long enough to realize that there are people who want to kill us. They dont want to kill liberals or Conservatives. They want to kill Americans. And the more you try to fight our efforts in stopping them the more you play into their hands and give them opportunities to destroy us.

Yeah, I've spent nearly an hour looking for what he is referring to. I guess it's up to him to present a link...

 

[Kagom]

Can you read?

Alright, then read the part of that bill which says the president can do whatever he wants to anyone.

And tell me how that doesn't make him a dictator.

Dictators have a bit more than just being able to do as they please.

 

[GeeWhiz]

Yeah, I've spent nearly an hour looking for what he is referring to. I guess it's up to him to present a link...

From Thomas Paines "Common Sense," which I found in less than a minute. Please note when you see written in bold, "PRESENT CONSTITUTION" Paine is referring to the Magna Carta.

FIRST. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this continent. And as he hath shewn himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty. and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power; is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies, “YOU SHALL MAKE NO LAWS BUT WHAT I PLEASE.' And is there any inhabitant in America so ignorant as not to know, that according to what is called the PRESENT CONSTITUTION, that this continent can make no laws but what the king gives leave to; and is there any man so unwise, as not to see, that (considering what has happened) he will suffer no law to be made here, but such as suit HIS purpose. We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us in England. After matters are made up (as it is called) can there be any doubt, but the whole power of the crown will be exerted, to keep this continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of going forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or ridiculously petitioning. –WE are already greater than the king wishes us to be, and will he not hereafter endeavour to make us less? To bring the matter to one point. Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern us? Whoever says No to this question, is an INDEPENDANT, for independancy means no more, than, whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have, shall tell us “THERE SHALL BE NO LAWS BUT SUCH AS I LIKE."

But the king you will say has a negative in England; the people there can make no laws without his consent. In point of right and good order, there is something very ridiculous, that a youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall say to several millions of people, older and wiser than himself, I forbid this or that act of yours to be law. But in this place I decline this sort of reply, though I will never cease to expose the absurdity of it,

The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them. For it is the republican and not the monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing an house of commons from out of their own body—and it is easy to see that when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons?

Also read the Declaration of Independance which supports Paines writings above.

Another poster bragged about reading Edmund Burke but never bothers to mention Thomas Paine's, "Rights of Man" where Paine blows Burke out of the waters. The following is taken from Paines, "Rights of Man"

I will now, by way of relaxation, turn a thought or two to Mr. Burke. I ask his pardon for neglecting him so long.

"America," says he (in his speech on the Canada Constitution bill), "never dreamed of such absurd doctrine as the Rights of Man."

Mr. Burke is such a bold presumer, and advances his assertions and his premises with such a deficiency of judgment, that, without troubling ourselves about principles of philosophy or politics, the mere logical conclusions they produce, are ridiculous. For instance,

If governments, as Mr. Burke asserts, are not founded on the Rights of MAN, and are founded on any rights at all, they consequently must be founded on the right of something that is not man. What then is that something?

...

Since the revolution of America, and more so since that of France, this preaching up the doctrines of precedents, drawn from times and circumstances antecedent to those events, has been the studied practice of the English government. The generality of those precedents are founded on principles and opinions, the reverse of what they ought; and the greater distance of time they are drawn from, the more they are to be suspected. But by associating those precedents with a superstitious reverence for ancient things, as monks show relics and call them holy, the generality of mankind are deceived into the design.

Government by precedent, without any regard to the principle of the precedent, is one of the vilest systems that can be set up. In numerous instances, the precedent ought to operate as a warning, and not as an example, and requires to be shunned instead of imitated; but instead of this, precedents are taken in the lump, and put at once for constitution and for law.

I'll stop here. You can see Burke was a clown and preached the doctrine of precedence which would go against the very reason for the American Revolution. If fact the doctrine of precedence would enslave future generations as Paine has pointed out in his "Rights of Man"

 

[Annie]

I guess it depends on one's perspective. I had no problem finding Common Sense, just not reading it the way you do. I see some similarities in what you are intimating and this:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...ke&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11&client=firefox-a

 

[Said1]

Another poster bragged about reading Edmund Burke but never bothers to mention Thomas Paine's, "Rights of Man" where Paine blows Burke out of the waters. The following is taken from Paines, "Rights of Man"

I didn't ask you to quote Paine, I asked where, in your opinion does Burke support grovelling. This would involve quoting Burkes actual words. Since you're down with all that stuff, I thought it would be an easy one. Too bad you had to rely on Paine's interpretation of Burke's writing. Paine interpreted Burke's work on behalf of the French , which is what you posted:

Soon after this I saw his advertisement of the Pamphlet he intended to publish: As the attack was to be made in a language but little studied, and less understood in France, and as everything suffers by translation, I promised some of the friends of the Revolution in that country that whenever Mr. Burke's Pamphlet came forth

See, I can quote Paine too.

I won't say that Burke wasn't an elitist snob. But still, just because Paine thinks he's a snivelling coward, doesn't necessarily make it so.


BTW, how many republics had France had since then, 5, 6?

 

[Gunny]

You couldn't find your own **** if you were given a week, unless you want to call your mouth a **** I'll go along with that.

From Thomas Paines "Common Sense," which I found in less than a minute. Please note when you see written in bold, "PRESENT CONSTITUTION" Paine is referring to the Magna Carta.

FIRST. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this continent. And as he hath shewn himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty. and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power; is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies, “YOU SHALL MAKE NO LAWS BUT WHAT I PLEASE.' And is there any inhabitant in America so ignorant as not to know, that according to what is called the PRESENT CONSTITUTION, that this continent can make no laws but what the king gives leave to; and is there any man so unwise, as not to see, that (considering what has happened) he will suffer no law to be made here, but such as suit HIS purpose. We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us in England. After matters are made up (as it is called) can there be any doubt, but the whole power of the crown will be exerted, to keep this continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of going forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or ridiculously petitioning. –WE are already greater than the king wishes us to be, and will he not hereafter endeavour to make us less? To bring the matter to one point. Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern us? Whoever says No to this question, is an INDEPENDANT, for independancy means no more, than, whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have, shall tell us “THERE SHALL BE NO LAWS BUT SUCH AS I LIKE."

But the king you will say has a negative in England; the people there can make no laws without his consent. In point of right and good order, there is something very ridiculous, that a youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall say to several millions of people, older and wiser than himself, I forbid this or that act of yours to be law. But in this place I decline this sort of reply, though I will never cease to expose the absurdity of it,

The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them. For it is the republican and not the monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing an house of commons from out of their own body—and it is easy to see that when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons?

Also read the Declaration of Independance which supports Paines writings above.

Another poster bragged about reading Edmund Burke but never bothers to mention Thomas Paine's, "Rights of Man" where Paine blows Burke out of the waters. The following is taken from Paines, "Rights of Man"

I will now, by way of relaxation, turn a thought or two to Mr. Burke. I ask his pardon for neglecting him so long.

"America," says he (in his speech on the Canada Constitution bill), "never dreamed of such absurd doctrine as the Rights of Man."

Mr. Burke is such a bold presumer, and advances his assertions and his premises with such a deficiency of judgment, that, without troubling ourselves about principles of philosophy or politics, the mere logical conclusions they produce, are ridiculous. For instance,

If governments, as Mr. Burke asserts, are not founded on the Rights of MAN, and are founded on any rights at all, they consequently must be founded on the right of something that is not man. What then is that something?

...

Since the revolution of America, and more so since that of France, this preaching up the doctrines of precedents, drawn from times and circumstances antecedent to those events, has been the studied practice of the English government. The generality of those precedents are founded on principles and opinions, the reverse of what they ought; and the greater distance of time they are drawn from, the more they are to be suspected. But by associating those precedents with a superstitious reverence for ancient things, as monks show relics and call them holy, the generality of mankind are deceived into the design.

Government by precedent, without any regard to the principle of the precedent, is one of the vilest systems that can be set up. In numerous instances, the precedent ought to operate as a warning, and not as an example, and requires to be shunned instead of imitated; but instead of this, precedents are taken in the lump, and put at once for constitution and for law.

I'll stop here. You can see Burke was a clown and preached the doctrine of precedence which would go against the very reason for the American Revolution. If fact the doctrine of precedence would enslave future generations as Paine has pointed out in his "Rights of Man"

Let's review. Your original post:

I've got a question. Given that you guys are begging for a king, wouldn't the lot of you make the American Revolution senseless?

I'm being serious, because when you think about it you are guys are advocating getting rid of the United States Constitution and replacing it with the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta gave the king the kind of power Junior is begging for.

Have all of you forgotten Thomas Paine? He explained in very clear language why the Magna Carta is a joke, which makes your apologetic posts a joke.

As for your claim about how Junior will soon be out of office, I'm sure all of you feel that the vacated position will be replaced by a Junior clone, someone with only two active brain cells. In that sense nothing has changed and it will be like you have a dictator for life as I'm sure all of you dream about.

I will, in so many words, repeat my original response to it:

WHO exactly is advocating a monarchy? Your allegation is unsupported by any statement made in this thread, and it is unsupported by a resolution giving the President of the US specific, limited power in dealing with the perpetrators of a specific event.

It definitely is unsupported by your repeated personal attacks as a means of deflection.

 

[Gunny]

You couldn't find your own **** if you were given a week, unless you want to call your mouth a **** I'll go along with that.

For this completely unprovoked personal attack when you were simply requested (for about the 50th time) to support your bullshit argument has earned you the dubious distinction of being THE ONLY person I have ever dinged on this board. Enjoy your "title."

 

[Said1]

Let's review. Your original post:



I will, in so many words, repeat my original response to it:

WHO exactly is advocating a monarchy? Your allegation is unsupported by any statement made in this thread, and it is unsupported by a resolution giving the President of the US specific, limited power in dealing with the perpetrators of a specific event.

It definitely is unsupported by your repeated personal attacks as a means of deflection.

Hey, Consitutional Monarchy is the way to go.

 

[Gunny]

Hey, Consitutional Monarchy is the way to go.

I would prefer Constitutional monarchy to the current, continual grab for power between the executive and legislative branches that does nothing but deflect from foucssing on REAL issues.

The President is representative of the will of this Nation. During times of emergency or war, he should be given the latitude to at least carry out the policies of this Nation without being continually attacked by his political opponents who see their ideology as paramount ot the existence of this nation.

 

[Said1]

I would prefer Constitutional monarchy to the current, continual grab for power between the executive and legislative branches that does nothing but deflect from foucssing on REAL issues.

The President is representative of the will of this Nation. During times of emergency or war, he should be given the latitude to at least carry out the policies of this Nation without being continually attacked by his political opponents who see their ideology as paramount ot the existence of this nation.

Politics is the same all around.

The Queen is really just a figure head as is the Governor General. Pomp and ceremoney. They do have some reserve powers in extreme circumstances, but that's it.

 

[Gunny]

Politics is the same all around.

The Queen is really just a figure head as is the Governor General. Pomp and ceremoney. They do have some reserve powers in extreme circumstances, but that's it.

You have to admit, the level of respect given the Queen and the President of the US aren't quite the same.

 

[Said1]

You have to admit, the level of respect given the Queen and the President of the US aren't quite the same.

Depends where you're posting from.

She probably gets more respect because she sits in her palace, drinking tea while watching 'how clean is your house'. If she were implementing policy, she'd be fair game.