NationStates Jolt Archive

well, is it?

to answer my own question, i say yes - especially since congress has shown no sign of stepping up to the plate to even make an attempt at stopping him from exercising unlimited authority under his role as head of the military. if they did, it might have become a more bloody one.

A coup against who or what?

Bush was, like it or not, elected by the people of the United States of America in accordance to the constitutional processes for the selection of a president. The fact that he is in power is in no way indicative of a coup.

Welcome to democracy - the worst choice...except for all other options.

A coup against who or what?

Chavez was, like it or not, elected by the people of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in accordance to the constitutional processes for the selection of a president. The fact that he is in power is in no way indicative of a coup.
Bolded my changes...not to mock you in any way, but to cram the idea of elections into the mouths of those who like to use the word dictator anyway.

Um........democratically elected presidential administrations are not "coups."

Um........democratically elected presidential administrations are not "coups."

Yeah. No matter how terrible that president.

A coup against who or what?

the constitution mainly. congress secondarily. or don't you find there to be something wrong when the president doesn't feel the need to veto bills because he says that he'll just break the law when he feels like it (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13568438.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation)? how about when he suspends the fourth amendment protections of citizens? and the 5th or 6th amendments? or removes the right of habeas corpus?

Um........democratically elected presidential administrations are not "coups."

alberto fujimori. look it up.

Yeah. No matter how terrible that president.

You know, I've heard this so many times (I'm an Independent), but I can't summon much hate towards the guy. Here are the three main reasons people hate him:

1. "His" war. Did you not forget that we all were clamouring for payback after 9/11? And what are mass gassings if not usages of WMDs? Also, the claim that Bush personally killed thousands of Iraqi civilians is absurd. The military did this by accident, and anyone who claims they were not trying 100% to avoid doing so is an idiot.

2. Civil rights "erosions." Where? I've not noticed one single thing. If I do, believe me, I'll get on the streets with my picket signs at once.

3. Pandering to the "right-wing." Not one law he has passed has been a right-wing law. Partial-birth abortion ban maybe, but come on. Even if you're pro-choice, you can't jump on him for that.

alberto fujimori. look it up.

Haha, guess what. Bush won fair and square. Get over it. Maybe he's evil, but he's President. Peru has nothing to do with it.

Yeah. No matter how terrible that president.

yeah, keeping us from terrorist attacks is indicative of a terrible president. Lowering our taxes and increasing the amount on your paycheck (necessarily) is an example of a terrible president.

I could go on and on defending him from the froth-mouthed Left, but that's enough...

Welcome to democracy - the worst choice...except for all other options.

firstly, like most churchill-isms, that's stupid and wrong.

secondly, true or false: it is possible for someone to gain power in a democratic election and then go on to grant themselves powers that were not previously given to the position they occupy.

the constitution mainly. congress secondarily. or don't you find there to be something wrong when the president doesn't feel the need to veto bills because he says that he'll just break the law when he feels like it (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13568438.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation)? how about when he suspends the fourth amendment protections of citizens? and the 5th or 6th amendments? or removes the right of habeas corpus?

hmmm, the Constitution.

So we have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

..and President Bush has done nothing to hurt any of those things for law-abiding (non-terrorist) Americans.

do you have a problem with the NSA listening in on terrorists' calls? I sure as hell don't, if it makes us safer. (and you know it does...)

Haha, guess what. Bush won fair and square.... Peru has nothing to do with it.

ignoring the falsehood in the first sentence, peru has everything to do with the claim "democratically elected presidential administrations are not 'coups'".

firstly, like most churchill-isms, that's stupid and wrong.

secondly, true or false: it is possible for someone to gain power in a democratic election and then go on to grant themselves powers that were not previously given to the position they occupy.

Fact:

The #1 job of the president is to PROTECT US.

Because if we're all DEAD, we can't enjoy ANY rights.

Since 9/11, he's gone out of his way to make our safety his #1 agenda, for which I, at least, am extremely grateful. I'm glad I have a president who worries about my health and safety and I don't mind at all if he curbs the rights of FREAKING TERRORISTS. It is the job of the military to protect the US from all enemies, foreign or domestic. And the President is commander in chief...

I shudder to think what Gore would (or, more aptly stated, wouldn't) have done after 9/11...

the constitution mainly. congress secondarily. or don't you find there to be something wrong when the president doesn't feel the need to veto bills because he says that he'll just break the law when he feels like it (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13568438.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation)? how about when he suspends the fourth amendment protections of citizens? and the 5th or 6th amendments? or removes the right of habeas corpus?

The expansion of power by the central government, particularly by the executive, has been the unfortunate history of the US since not long after the ratification of the Constitution. The use of extraconstitutional (if not blatantly unconstitutional) means against real or percieved enemies of the administration has been with us for as long (Alien and Sedition Acts in the 1790s, Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, internment of Japenese). Executive "interpretation" of what laws to enforce or not has a long history as well. (cf Andrew Jackson's apocryphal "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it.") This is nothing new.

Not being new, of course, doesn't make it right. I despise many actions of the Bush administration and make no secret of that. However, that does not make those actions a coup.

If you want to talk about bloodless coups in American history, though, let's talk about the ratification of the Constitution. There we have a cabal meeting in secret and creating a new government that they rise up while under the legitimate authority of the Articles of Confederation. There's a bloodless coup for you.

hmmm, the Constitution.

So we have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

That's the declaration of independence. The constitution specifically outlines privacy rights, and wiretapping is a clear violation of that, no way around it. If you find a clause in the Constitution that permits it, then tell us.

It's not really a coup unless he ensures that he or his 'circle' stay in power. He hasn't had the constitution changed yet, so he won't be electable for a third term. Not much of a coup if he can't be dictator for life, at least in name.

hmmm, the Constitution.

So we have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

not in the constitution. you should read it sometime.

..and President Bush has done nothing to hurt any of those things for law-abiding (non-terrorist) Americans.

evidence? how does one reconcile the opening of secret torture camps and the suspension of habeas corpus, etc, with the idea that,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That, to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That, whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

do you have a problem with the NSA listening in on terrorists' calls? I sure as hell don't, if it makes us safer. (and you know it does...)

do you have any evidence that that is all they have done? do you have any evidence that their actions have made us 'safer'? because we have lots and lots of evidence that the state has spent a lot of it's resources spying on domestic political opponents and anti-war groups.

someone needs to make a photoshop of the bush administration slaughtering lambs or children or something to that effect


*reads book on photoshop*

It's not really a coup unless he ensures that he or his 'circle' stay in power. He hasn't had the constitution changed yet, so he won't be electable for a third term. Not much of a coup if he can't be dictator for life, at least in name.

he doesn't need to change the constitution - he's already said that the only prt that matters is that it proclaims him the head of the military and therefore he can do anything he wants

I would say that democracy as we know it in the western world, is one of the government types, that are most prone to corruption... A dictator who knows what's he's doing, can make some remarkable results in his country. Just take Fidel... Every country should have a leader like him. He's a peoples leader, walking with the common man, quite efficient at building up everyones favorite sugarproducing island and he's the most charismatic person the world's ever known... Sure, the "You can't leave, but keep 'em coming" policy may scare people away, but it's just the Cuban people, who's too dim to understand his strategy. Also, who would you like to have a chat with... Witty and wise Fidel Castro Ruz, or George Bush the magnificent dancing chimp?

So we have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

..and President Bush has done nothing to hurt any of those things for law-abiding (non-terrorist) Americans.Tell that to all those people that aren't allowed to fly anymore just because some terrorist happens to have used the same name. Not really liberty, that.

he doesn't need to change the constitution - he's already said that the only prt that matters is that it proclaims him the head of the military and therefore he can do anything he wantsAs I understand it, there's an amendment to the US consitution prohibiting a president having more than two terms.
So unless he has that changed, or somehow prolongs his current term, he won't be a president for much longer. A coup usually aims for more than an elected term.

Fact:

The #1 job of the president is to PROTECT US.

incorrect

Because if we're all DEAD, we can't enjoy ANY rights.

Since 9/11, he's gone out of his way to make our safety his #1 agenda, for which I, at least, am extremely grateful. I'm glad I have a president who worries about my health and safety and I don't mind at all if he curbs the rights of FREAKING TERRORISTS.

if you can manage to stop pissing yourself in terror for a minute, please stop and think. this adminstration has declared that they don't need to demonstrate to anybody, the public or the judiciary, that a person they accuse of being a terrorist actually is one. they have got, what, 14 convictions on terrorism charges out of hundreds of accussations. since the courts kept showing them to be wrong and stupid, they've decided to illegally not use the courts anymore.

the rights of people who have never and most likely will never be shown to be terrorists are being restricted. and you don't care, because you are too afraid of the monster under the bed setting fire to the reichstag..

As I understand it, there's an amendment to the US consitution prohibiting a president having more than two terms.
So unless he has that changed, or somehow prolongs his current term, he won't be a president for much longer. A coup usually aims for more than an elected term.

well, we don't know what they have in the works, but since they don't seem to care overly much about anything else the constitution has to say, i wouldn't be surprised about anything. but it also should be noted that this isn't a personal power grab by one man, but the work of an entire group of like-minded individuals. all that matters is that somebody in the group have the power to implement their will.

[F]rom the froth-mouthed Left, but that's enough...

Hold on while I wipe the froth from my face
...
Okay, continuing.

About the "civil rights violations" They have occured. Weather they have occured to YOU or not doesn't make them non-existent. Because I can garuntee that if they had happened to YOU you wouldn't be complaining about/defending Bush.

The point is, they HAVE occured. Doesn't the Constitution (or one of those famous peices of paper) say somewhere, loosly, "Innocent until proven guilty"?

If you haven't appeared before a court, then you are automatically proven innocent. Therefore, the government is declaring "terrorists" guilty, when they may really be a four-year old child.

It's NOT a coup d' etat (yes thats French) nevertheless, because after January 20, 2009, BUsh is out and the US of A can try and rebuild itself from the ground up, starting with the Constitution being followed.

How can we possibly have a lower standard of living than NORWAY? Howzabout the President focused on his country as opposed to declaring A jihad on the middle east.

Oh whoops, I thought too much... Looks like I'm off to Guantanamo for a nice long stay

:) :mp5:

Just take Fidel... Every country should have a leader like him.

ugh

Oh whoops, I thought too much... Looks like I'm off to Guantanamo for a nice long stay.


Heh, it's no so bad, it's warm and cozy, and you get all the cigars and brandy you could possibly want... Oh wait, that's OUTSIDE the Guantanamo! Oh well, hope you like hitting rocks... :P

ugh

What's the matter? You don't like the everlasting glow of Fidel? How many of YOUR presidents have survived so many assassinations? Hah! Yours falls like flies!

That's the declaration of independence. The constitution specifically outlines privacy rights, and wiretapping is a clear violation of that, no way around it. If you find a clause in the Constitution that permits it, then tell us.


if you can find a way around the common sense/necessity of wire-tapping terrorists, let us know... i'd rather we wire tap them than NOT wire tap them and let them plan.. to.. murder.. us.

yeah, that makes sense -- respect the rights of terrorists.

...and if terrorists are killing us, then we're not doing a good job of protecting our #1 right, which is LIFE... are we?

if you can find a way around the common sense/necessity of wire-tapping terrorists, let us know... i'd rather we wire tap them than NOT wire tap them and let them plan.. to.. murder.. us.

Hmm...maybe they can, I dunno, go before a court and get a warrant? Y'know...like is required by the fourth amendment?

...and if terrorists are killing us, then we're not doing a good job of protecting our #1 right, which is LIFE... are we?

Y'know, we used to have people in this country with a backbone.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Terrorists are killing us? Yes, they did attack us, but are they attacking us at such a pace we need to WIRETAP Americans and deprive them of their basic liberties? I mean, why not take other consequentialist measures and ban guns because they could *possibly* deprive someone of life.

I usually agree with you Frangland, but I just can't this time.

Hmm...maybe they can, I dunno, go before a court and get a warrant? Y'know...like is required by the fourth amendment?

Also, I agree with this statement.

#1 right, which is LIFE... are we?

Actually, the #1 right is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."( thats in the CONSTITUTION)(NOT The DECLARATION)(DUH)

therefore, Life doesn't even make the top TEN.

Our laws don;t revolve around the Declaration of Independance, they revolve around the Constitution.

The Declaration was just saying to England, "Hey, we're people too! Give us some control!"

Do some people ever learn?

Well, I wouldn't say it's the number one right, just the first one listed. Property rights are just as important as freedom of speech.;)

I think it was a coup... A coup in the since of ideals... The central government has been hijacked by neoconservative philosophy wrapped around 9/11 and the flag... Personally, I think the government itself has led a coup against the people of this country... Given the amount of scandals and the buying/selling of congressional votes.. The people have been sold out by the ones who are suppose to protect us. It's not so much I dislike Bush, as I dislike his party and the ones who control the party... It's the winner take all approach.. He won by 2 million votes, what about the rest of us? Well to republicans; we're traitors, ect.... The Bush administration and the Republican party collectively are a disgrace to America and it's principles...

therefore, Life doesn't even make the top TEN.

Ignoring the fact that your analysis is off, read a bit further in the BoR.

Amendment V

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

(bolding mine)

Looks like a right to life to me.

Well, I wouldn't say it's the number one right, just the first one listed. Property rights are just as important as freedom of speech.;)

Thats true...

RIght to Not being shot by the government is kinda assumed.

Unfortuantely, It is on a different document and Doesn;t appear in the preamble, OR any (of the first ten, I didn;t read all 28) amendments.

Get the documents right at least.

Fact:

The #1 job of the president is to PROTECT US.

Because if we're all DEAD, we can't enjoy ANY rights.

Since 9/11, he's gone out of his way to make our safety his #1 agenda, for which I, at least, am extremely grateful. I'm glad I have a president who worries about my health and safety and I don't mind at all if he curbs the rights of FREAKING TERRORISTS. It is the job of the military to protect the US from all enemies, foreign or domestic. And the President is commander in chief...

I shudder to think what Gore would (or, more aptly stated, wouldn't) have done after 9/11...

"He who sacrifices liberty for temporary safety deserves neither."--Ben Franklin

George, and the Republican party, simply don't care about dissenting opinions. They don't have to. They control the game.
Why didn't George get the warrants from a rubber stamp court? That's a very interesting question to me. In over 3,000 cases, the FISA court approved the warrant, objecting to 5 of them, and approved 4 of those after they were revised. Keep in mind that the NSA can wiretap without a court order, as long as they go get the warrant within 72 hours after the fact.
So, how am I being kept safe from the terrorists again?
I'm growing quite weary of these so called Americans willing to have the White House wipe up their piddle with the U.S. Constitution.

No. He's just another US President. There'll be another one by 2009.

i'd rather we wire tap them than NOT wire tap them

so you voted "yes, and that's a good thing" in my poll, right? you clearly disagree with the constitutional protects against such government actions, and support government action that ignores any such restrictions - aka, you support the coup against a system of government that enshrines those protections as it's highest law.

Why didn't George get the warrants from a rubber stamp court?

seriously. the only possible explanations are either that the shit they were doing was so wrong that even the rubber-stamp would have stopped it, or that they object to the idea of needing to ask permission on principle.

or both.

so for those who say no, what would you say could make it one? what action could the administration do to make you think they had pulled off a coup?

That's the declaration of independence. The constitution specifically outlines privacy rights, and wiretapping is a clear violation of that, no way around it. If you find a clause in the Constitution that permits it, then tell us.

Have you ever read the constitution? Please show us where it says the government can't wiretap citizens communicating with terrorists. Show me where it says that citizens have an unconditional right to privacy. It's not there. :sniper:

Have you ever read the constitution? Please show us where it says the government can't wiretap citizens communicating with terrorists. Show me where it says that citizens have an unconditional right to privacy. It's not there. :sniper:

4th amendment. no warrant, no wiretap

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



I believe this covers wiretapping...

No, they aren't. A (bloodless) coup would require them to come in to power via military action forcing the previous leader out of power. Bush was legally elected in 2000 and 2004 beyond any doubt and so is the legitimate leader of the United States.

No, they aren't. A (bloodless) coup would require them to come in to power via military action forcing the previous leader out of power. Bush was legally elected in 2000 and 2004 beyond any doubt and so is the legitimate leader of the United States.

You don't need the military to lead a coup.. Besides our military is everywhere but on American soil.... If there ever was a true threat to this nation, such as an invasion... We'd be screwed...

You don't need the military to lead a coup.. Besides our military is everywhere but on American soil.... If there ever was a true threat to this nation, such as an invasion... We'd be screwed...

We've got a majority of our troops in the United States; I think it's almost 1,000,000 within the contiguous 48, 16,000 in Alaska, 34,000 in Hawaii, and a few thousand more on outlying islands.

We've got a majority of our troops in the United States; I think it's almost 1,000,000 within the contiguous 48, 16,000 in Alaska, 34,000 in Hawaii, and a few thousand more on outlying islands.

I always associated those numbers as troops in training and then they get sent overseas... That 1 million person number is reserves right??

Point tho; you'd never get our military to back a coup.... There would have to be some pretty bad things going on in order for our military to take control like that... The people in the military are indoctrinated to protect us (the entire country and what we stand for) at all costs...

No, they aren't. A (bloodless) coup would require them to come in to power via military action forcing the previous leader out of power.

an elected leader can be part of a coup. again, see alberto fujimori.

in this case, bush claims extra-legal powers for himself on the grounds that he is the leader of the military. he also claims that these extra-legal powers are necessary to bring about stability and security. which is precisely the line offed by all military juntas ever.

bush and his adminstration believe themselves to be above the law. more than that, they believe only they have the right to determine whether some action should be considered legal or illegal.

You know, I've heard this so many times (I'm an Independent), but I can't summon much hate towards the guy. Here are the three main reasons people hate him:

1. "His" war. Did you not forget that we all were clamouring for payback after 9/11? And what are mass gassings if not usages of WMDs? Also, the claim that Bush personally killed thousands of Iraqi civilians is absurd. The military did this by accident, and anyone who claims they were not trying 100% to avoid doing so is an idiot.

2. Civil rights "erosions." Where? I've not noticed one single thing. If I do, believe me, I'll get on the streets with my picket signs at once.

3. Pandering to the "right-wing." Not one law he has passed has been a right-wing law. Partial-birth abortion ban maybe, but come on. Even if you're pro-choice, you can't jump on him for that.



Haha, guess what. Bush won fair and square. Get over it. Maybe he's evil, but he's President. Peru has nothing to do with it.

That is it, pretty much, in a nutshell.

I don't agree with his wiretap thing, personally, but they aren't snooping in to everybody's lives, just suspected terrorists...like known Middle-Eastern political criminals, known anarchists, people the government thinks (or knows) will cause trouble or mass chaos.

For the record, I am willing to give up some of my privacy rights for the sake of preventing another 9/11. I think that some people feel that they should have all the freedom in the world. Besides, Bush is just cutting out the middle man when tapping people, do you all realize how easy it is to get a warrant?

That is it, pretty much, in a nutshell.

I don't agree with his wiretap thing, personally, but they aren't snooping in to everybody's lives, just suspected terrorists...like known Middle-Eastern political criminals, known anarchists, people the government thinks (or knows) will cause trouble or mass chaos.

For the record, I am willing to give up some of my privacy rights for the sake of preventing another 9/11. I think that some people feel that they should have all the freedom in the world. Besides, Bush is just cutting out the middle man when tapping people, do you all realize how easy it is to get a warrant?


It's very easy to get a warrant... So just do it... Don't do this petty crap to gain even more power.... HE should follow the rules, even if he is President...

in this case, bush claims extra-legal powers for himself on the grounds that he is the leader of the military. he also claims that these extra-legal powers are necessary to bring about stability and security. which is precisely the line offed by all military juntas ever.

Yes, but at the same time it is entirely possible for us to remove him if he breaks the law; unlike many of the countries that suffered coups, we have Constitutional and civil law capable of dealing with him if he transgresses. US v. Nixon finally established in writing the idea that the Presiden't isn't above the law.

bush and his adminstration believe themselves to be above the law. more than that, they believe only they have the right to determine whether some action should be considered legal or illegal.

No, they don't have that right and if they keep trying it they deserve impeachment and removal from office provided their actions can be proven to merit it.

We impeached a President for perjury.. It's time to impeach another for abuse of power... It's a weak arguement but so is perjury over a blowjob...

:headbang:

It's not really a coup unless he ensures that he or his 'circle' stay in power. He hasn't had the constitution changed yet, so he won't be electable for a third term. Not much of a coup if he can't be dictator for life, at least in name.

Well he could go the Deng Xiaopeng/Manuel Noriega route and be the ruler of the nation without having any official office. Just saying its possible to rule a nation without officially being in control of anything, if you control those in control.

But, this thread is sort of ridiculous. Maybe in 2008 if Bush manages to keep himself in power, but not right now. He was JUST elected a year ago.

HE should follow the rules, even if he is President...

change that to especially

i know it's fallen out of fashion these days, but technically the state is the thing that is to be restricted by a constitution. of course, it never was all that good at the job, but lately its gotten even more out of hand.

I always associated those numbers as troops in training and then they get sent overseas... That 1 million person number is reserves right??

It's a mix of national guard, reserves, and active duty. There are also at least 3-4 million people on "inactive reserve" status (they completed their tours of duty and remain on reserve for a certain period of time in which they can be called up again), but they would require more time to become combat-ready.

No, they aren't. A (bloodless) coup would require them to come in to power via military action forcing the previous leader out of power. Bush was legally elected in 2000 and 2004 beyond any doubt and so is the legitimate leader of the United States.
The concept of a legal revolution ;) Hitler applied it oh-so very well.

A coup against who or what?

Bush was, like it or not, elected by the people of the United States of America in accordance to the constitutional processes for the selection of a president. The fact that he is in power is in no way indicative of a coup.

his first election, the majorty of people didnt vote for him

change that to especially

i know it's fallen out of fashion these days, but technically the state is the thing that is to be restricted by a constitution. of course, it never was all that good at the job, but lately its gotten even more out of hand.

The states have no rights... ZERO... We can't decide on much anymore... But hey why have states rights, then the populace wouldn't argue so much and we'd actually hold central government leaders accountable for their failures... But a leader in the US can fail miserably with the economy and on foreign issues but say I'm against abortion and gay marriage and BINGO they're re-elected...

his first election, the majorty of people didnt vote for him

History records Gore with the win with about 100,000 more votes than GW...

As long as I look forward to January 21, 2009 (I have a countdown to that date), there is no coup. We'll pretend that 2001-2008 never happened.

As long as I look forward to January 21, 2009 (I have a countdown to that date), there is no coup. We'll pretend that 2001-2008 never happened.

If only it was that easy, but once what GW and Co. did is exposed.. The people of the US will find out just how long it will take to clean this mess up.... The deficit, alliances destroyed, our image in the world, ect... It'll take years to undo the damage this madman and his party have caused...

The concept of a legal revolution ;) Hitler applied it oh-so very well.

Yeah, but Hitler was helped by an economic depression and an embarassingly weak constitution that let him walk in to dictatorship,

If only it was that easy, but once what GW and Co. did is exposed.. The people of the US will find out just how long it will take to clean this mess up.... The deficit, alliances destroyed, our image in the world, ect... It'll take years to undo the damage this madman and his party have caused...
How about we just have one big party that night and invite everyone.

We'll put up a big banner on our aircraft carriers, "We're sorry about that, we got rid of him!"

If only it was that easy, but once what GW and Co. did is exposed.. The people of the US will find out just how long it will take to clean this mess up.... The deficit, alliances destroyed, our image in the world, ect... It'll take years to undo the damage this madman and his party have caused...

Well, if we don't cut taxes and keep spending modest, we'll balance the budget by 2009.

Yeah, but Hitler was helped by an economic depression and an embarassingly weak constitution that let him walk in to dictatorship,
Those are merely aggravating factors. Bush has insecurity to work with. And a world in which the USA's dominance is in increased threat of an eclipse. He also has people who don't like cultural changes in the USA to work with.

no. he won within his constitutional limits.

But, this thread is sort of ridiculous. Maybe in 2008 if Bush manages to keep himself in power, but not right now. He was JUST elected a year ago.

even assuming a legit recent election, that has nothing to do with the existence of a successful coup. all that matters is that the old system of government be de facto overthrown. and since nobody has stepped up to stop them, then they have already done so.

Well, if we don't cut taxes and keep spending modest, we'll balance the budget by 2009.

Bush does cut taxes, at the wrong time... And he's a republican, military spending is his thing.... A balanced budget is going to be tough in 09... We'll have to cut a lot of programs ect in order to be able to pay down this @ssholes expenses....

no. he won within his constitutional limits.

Correction he won within voting irregularities.... Just like in 2000.. Isn't it amazing... Everytime Bush ran for election there's been something screwy with the voter counts...

even assuming a legit recent election, that has nothing to do with the existence of a successful coup. all that matters is that the old system of government be de facto overthrown. and since nobody has stepped up to stop them, then they have already done so.

Well it was a coup, but not in the sense that is most commonly thought of.

I wouldn't be surprised if after the mid-term elections, if the republicans keep control of congress, Bush doesn't try to get rid of term limits...

Correction he won within voting irregularities.... Just like in 2000.. Isn't it amazing... Everytime Bush ran for election there's been something screwy with the voter counts...

take it up with the supreme court.

take it up with the supreme court.

It's on the docket... Funny tho, if SCOTUS went in favor of Gore and the votes proved it, the republicans would be up in arms regardless.. The only way Bush could have won is if SCOTUS stopped the recount.... The republicans knew it and so did his supporters..

It's on the docket...

good

I still don't know why Americans support President Bush and the republicans... That party is against America... Out to destroy us... Turn us into a theocracy, curb our rights, endanger world peace, ect... If people would stop playing party politics we'd see the writing on the wall...
Bush on the constitution and democracy: "Its just a god damn piece of paper" and "Sure a dictatorship would be easier, just as long as I'm the dictator!"

I still don't know why Americans support President Bush and the republicans... That party is against America... Out to destroy us... Turn us into a theocracy, curb our rights, endanger world peace, ect... If people would stop playing party politics we'd see the writing on the wall...

because they are ignorant or know like me that the other major party pulls the exact same kind of shit. hopefully third parties will emerge out of this ordeal.

What do you mean by that?

his first election, the majorty of people didnt vote for him

That's totally meaningless. The president is elected by the electoral college, not by a direct popular vote.

The only way Bush could have won is if SCOTUS stopped the recount....

Which they should have done. It was a clear violation of Florida electoral law and the US Constitution to carry on the recount in the manner the Democrats requested.

I still don't know why Americans support President Bush and the republicans... That party is against America... Out to destroy us... Turn us into a theocracy, curb our rights, endanger world peace, ect... If people would stop playing party politics we'd see the writing on the wall...

And all you are doing in that post is playing party politics. Neither party is looking out for the interests of Americans; it's not a matter of one party being good and the other evil.

That's totally meaningless. The president is elected by the electoral college, not by a direct popular vote.



Which they should have done. It was a clear violation of Florida electoral law and the US Constitution to carry on the recount in the manner the Democrats requested.



And all you are doing in that post is playing party politics. Neither party is looking out for the interests of Americans; it's not a matter of one party being good and the other evil.

I unfairly bashed the republicans, I'll admit... But 2 parties for 180 million voters, isn't cutting it... We need more parties....

What do you mean by that?

If you were asking me, the parties placate us with social issues... Meant to divide us... A united front of voters would change the way this country is run and you'd see a huge change of power, one that wasn't bought by lobbyist or corporations or even wealthy people, but a country that is run by the people it was set up for, for the people, by the people...

A coup against who or what?

Bush was, like it or not, elected by the people of the United States of America in accordance to the constitutional processes for the selection of a president. The fact that he is in power is in no way indicative of a coup.

I'd also follow this up by mentioning the average citizen is anything but crying bloody murder on the reality that bush was conducting easy droping on citizens. Can we really call it a coup when the average citizen approves, or atleast is indifferent of the actions of their ELECTED officals ?

Also, last I checked, while disaproving of his conduct of the war, still 60% of americas remain resolute to staying in Iraq which means continuing military action.

I'd also follow this up by mentioning the average citizen is anything but crying bloody murder on the reality that bush was conducting easy droping on citizens. Can we really call it a coup when the average citizen approves, or atleast is indifferent of the actions of their ELECTED officals ?

Also, last I checked, while disaproving of his conduct of the war, still 60% of americas remain resolute to staying in Iraq which means continuing military action.

With regards to the Iraq war: What's done is done. It may have been Bush's war, but now it's the American publics responsibility.. We have to finish the job... We can't leave now and let Iraq fall into civil war or whatever. That would undermine the whole point to the war... well the points are vague but still... I may not of supported the war, but now I support the mission, I've got little choice....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfhjorr
That's totally meaningless. The president is elected by the electoral college, not by a direct popular vote.

Which they should have done. It was a clear violation of Florida electoral law and the US Constitution to carry on the recount in the manner the Democrats requested.

And all you are doing in that post is playing party politics. Neither party is looking out for the interests of Americans; it's not a matter of one party being good and the other evil.

I unfairly bashed the republicans, I'll admit... But 2 parties for 180 million voters, isn't cutting it... We need more parties....

To your original post... You talk as though a popular vote holds more legitmacy then the electoral college system.. do you even understand the beifits of the electoral college system ? Giving a voice to states whose issues would go unoticed and unaddress as large stats like Texas, New York, and California would capture all the attention of Politicans (as these are the major population centers).

Then you talk of some violation of Florida constitutional law ? no according to the supreme court, but then i suppose you can interpret the constitution better then them... and w hich recout are you talking about ? the first 2 or 3... or just the last one that didn't go through. They could have kept counting those votes and they still woudln't have come up with a different result!

And get a clue about politicans, they have one goal in life.. relection! They will care about your interests when you make yourself important to them. Evangelicals and old people go to the polls.. thus, they are the ones the politicans care about!. You want your interests looked after, go out there and make your voice heard! With only half the nation voting in these elections its clear many people dont really care if their interests are looked after.

If you were asking me, the parties placate us with social issues... Meant to divide us... A united front of voters would change the way this country is run and you'd see a huge change of power, one that wasn't bought by lobbyist or corporations or even wealthy people, but a country that is run by the people it was set up for, for the people, by the people...

The reality is, there is no such thing as a united front of voters.. everyone has their own interests in mind, everyone votes for their own reasons.. and it is the distinct side effect of a democracy that the more voices you allow to be heard, the more viewpoints and positions you have to deal with. Why do you think it is representative democracies are so inefficent and ineffective. Everyone gets to make their voice heard, and so, no ones voice is heard.

I unfairly bashed the republicans, I'll admit... But 2 parties for 180 million voters, isn't cutting it... We need more parties....

Vote Libertarian. </plug>

Vote Libertarian. </plug>

I am a libertarian... and I'm also a politican in the state of NY... I'm bi-partisan... I'm pro-states rights.. and I'm a fiscal conservative..

In terms of the recount; the recorded votes were in favor of Gore in the state of Florida... had there been a total recount Gore would've won, even fox news reports that...

Can we really call it a coup when the average citizen approves, or atleast is indifferent of the actions of their ELECTED officals ?

yes. approval has nothing to do with it. nor do elections. again, look up alberto fujimori.

Also, last I checked, while disaproving of his conduct of the war, still 60% of americas remain resolute to staying in Iraq which means continuing military action.

that's because people don't know or care what the iraqis think - they view the occupation as the cause of the instability. they want us gone, and they want it yesterday.

yes. approval has nothing to do with it. nor do elections. again, look up alberto fujimori.



that's because people don't know or care what the iraqis think - they view the occupation as the cause of the instability. they want us gone, and they want it yesterday.

They may want us gone, but what happens if we leave now??? They'll have civil war... I'd rather have a stable Iraq than one thats crippled by war... A war that would surely involve the entire middle east.. Threatening fuel supplies and regional security... Atleast with US military presence, no other nation will make a move on Iraq...

They may want us gone, but what happens if we leave now??? They'll have civil war... I'd rather have a stable Iraq than one thats crippled by war... A war that would surely involve the entire middle east.. Threatening fuel supplies and regional security... Atleast with US military presence, no other nation will make a move on Iraq...
Iraq is not crippled by war right now? What's your definition of "crippled by war"? Hiroshima after the United States dropped a nuclear bomb on the city? And Iraq is not looking very stable as of yet...after almost four years of "rebuilding" and "liberating."

And the war we are currently fighting already involves the entire middle east. Many of the "terrorists" there now came from outside Iraq. Agreed, we must stay and clean up this shithole, but we mustn't forget that we have our own shithole at home to clean up. I.e. Social Security, the economy and our $7.8 trillion deficit that's now probably higher, and Bush's explaination for randomly attacking Iraq.

Iraq is not crippled by war right now? What's your definition of "crippled by war"? Hiroshima after the United States dropped a nuclear bomb on the city? And Iraq is not looking very stable as of yet...after almost four years of "rebuilding" and "liberating."

And the war we are currently fighting already involves the entire middle east. Many of the "terrorists" there now came from outside Iraq. Agreed, we must stay and clean up this shithole, but we mustn't forget that we have our own shithole at home to clean up. I.e. Social Security, the economy and our $7.8 trillion deficit that's now probably higher, and Bush's explaination for randomly attacking Iraq.

I'm well aware of the other issues, but we must realize what's done is done... Like I said prior, this may have been Bush's war, but its our responsibility now.... I think the war was a huge/costly mistake, but it wont deter me of our responsibility... If we leave now, Iraq would fall victim to a civil war most likely, with other arab nations having a hand in it... We have a responsibility to the home front, that should be our first priority, but because of Bush's adventure, we must all take the backseat to clean up the mess our President started.

Editted: Crippled by war to me means a war without end... Like a lot of African nations and even South American nations that are or once were plagued with endless war....

I'm well aware of the other issues, but we must realize what's done is done... Like I said prior, this may have been Bush's war, but its our responsibility now.... I think the war was a huge/costly mistake, but it wont deter me of our responsibility... If we leave now, Iraq would fall victim to a civil war most likely, with other arab nations having a hand in it... We have a responsibility to the home front, that should be our first priority, but because of Bush's adventure, we must all take the backseat to clean up the mess our President started.

Editted: Crippled by war to me means a war without end... Like a lot of African nations and even South American nations that are or once were plagued with endless war....
I completely agree with that...and I see how your define "crippled by war." I hesitate to think that this war will indeed last forever, it may not always be hot like it has been for the past four years, but I don't see the conflict between Muslim countries and the majority of the Western world softening anytime soon. Indeed, the invasion of Iraq has prolonged the war, and our unstirring support for Israel keeps the tension alive.

Bush may be able to get our troops out of Iraq and install a somewhat stable government, but he won't be able to end the war between Muslim countries and the Western world.

Can we really call it a coup when the average citizen approves, or atleast is indifferent of the actions of their ELECTED officals ?...

Yes, you can still call it a coup, look at Napoleon 3 of France (Napoleon Bonaparte's nephew) He won the race with ~90% of the vote, made himself dictator-for-life with ~95%, and it was still a coup! He overthew the constitution!

They'll have civil war... I'd rather have a stable Iraq than one thats crippled by war... A war that would surely involve the entire middle east..

First off, what is the result of a civil war? a STABLE GOVERNMENT as if there wasn't enough peple dying... Nothing would change there. NAd maybe they woud have countries defined by ethnic group. Not lame British lines.

This is all the fault of Britain after WWI. they decided to draw lines in the sand with what the Ottomans had, and ended up with ne group (The Kurds) in 3 countres, 3 groups who violently hate each other in Iraq, etc. etc. If they had divided by ethnic group, everyone woud be happy.

Can we redraw the middle east?

Honestly, though, it wasn't a coup. At least not completely. there still is a dissenting power, and they aren't a puppet, so Bush doesn't have total control.

Why can't we elect a moderate?

Whoops, my Cuban Guards are searching for me again! Back to Guantanamo!
:) :mp5:

Not even close, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela as President now there is a coup, a real dictator, Fidel Castro of Cuba now there is a real dictator.

During the Venezuela re-call referendum which Chavez won, President Jimmy Carter and Colombian OAS Secretary General from 1994 to 2004 Cesar Gaviria
who monitored the election and declared the election clean, also declared that they were not allowed into the main building where all the ballots were officially counted and announced.

Some persons actually believe and think there is some proof and I am not saying this is true because I cannot know that,that the brief coup where Chavez was ousted from power by the millitary and then re-instated by millitary officers was actually a well organized plot by Fidel Castro and
Hugo Chavez to bring out opposition members and have them arrested,
a self coup.

As I have posted before anyone who compares President Bush a dictator,
does not know what a real dictator is like.

No matter what happend in the 2000 and 2004 U.S. Presidential elections,
President Bush will step down and a new American President will be elected
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or whatever, that fact makes President
Bush not even close to a real dictator, yes like President dictator Fidel Castro
of Cuba for life.

Not even close, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela as President now there is a coup, a real dictator, Fidel Castro of Cuba now there is a real dictator.

During the Venezuela re-call referendum which Chavez won, President Jimmy Carter and Colombian OAS Secretary General from 1994 to 2004 Cesar Gaviria
who monitored the election and declared the election clean, also declared that they were not allowed into the main building where all the ballots were officially counted and announced.

Some persons actually believe and think there is some proof and I am not saying this is true because I cannot know that,that the brief coup where Chavez was ousted from power by the millitary and then re-instated by millitary officers was actually a well organized plot by Fidel Castro and
Hugo Chavez to bring out opposition members and have them arrested,
a self coup.

As I have posted before anyone who compares President Bush a dictator,
does not know what a real dictator is like.

No matter what happend in the 2000 and 2004 U.S. Presidential elections,
President Bush will step down and a new American President will be elected
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or whatever, that fact makes President
Bush not even close to a real dictator, yes like President dictator Fidel Castro
of Cuba for life.

Brings to mind another question; In all honesty are their various guidelines as to what a dictator is?? Or is it strict? Meaning, while Americans generally are not being imprisoned, other non-americans are. And the curbing of our percieved rights, while not getting rid of them, just putting restraints... And setting up various degree's of power for the next president... Could that be a 1st world dictatorship? Or do you have to kill/maim/imprison, oppress people, ect to be a dictator...

Brings to mind another question; In all honesty are their various guidelines as to what a dictator is?? Or is it strict? Meaning, while Americans generally are not being imprisoned, other non-americans are. And the curbing of our percieved rights, while not getting rid of them, just putting restraints... And setting up various degree's of power for the next president... Could that be a 1st world dictatorship? Or do you have to kill/maim/imprison, oppress people, ect to be a dictator...

Desipite the Patriot Act, congress can still stop it, reform it, reverse it or
eliminate it, Cuba's dictatorship cannot be eliminated democratically.

The U.S.A. is far from beign a true dictatorship like Cuba's, just the fact that
we can still express our diffrent points of views on a forum like Nationstates
which would never be allowed in Cuba under Fidel Castro, Patriot Act or not
proves that.

Desipite the Patriot Act, congress can still stop it, reform it, reverse it or
eliminate it, Cuba's dictatorship cannot be eliminated democratically.

The U.S.A. is far from beign a true dictatorship like Cuba's, just the fact that
we can still express our diffrent points of views on a forum like Nationstates
which would never be allowed in Cuba under Fidel Castro, Patriot Act or not
proves that.

Good point.. Can't equate with that... But I think we still have our different forms of dictator... A dictator running America is a lot different than the one running Cuba or NK, ect...

Where's the option for "No, and this question gets dumber every time someone asks it"?

Where's the option for "No, and this question gets dumber every time someone asks it"?

sorry, the poll only included reasonable options.

the president has openly violated congressional law and the constitution. congress did nothing about it. ergo, congress' power has been effectively nullified and bush has declared himself to be a de facto military dictator.

Good point.. Can't equate with that... But I think we still have our different forms of dictator... A dictator running America is a lot different than the one running Cuba or NK, ect...

In my view we dont have a dictator running America,
as I have posted before, President Bush will step down
when his term expires and a new Presient, Republican,
Democrat, Libertarian or whatever is elected.

Thank you for your post, Good point.
In the U.S.A. and the European Union Nations
we can express, debate and share our diffrent points of views.

Desipite the Patriot Act, congress can still stop it, reform it, reverse it or
eliminate it

maybe. though bush doesn't seem to think so, since he doesn't recognize any limits on his powers as commander-in-chief. it would be interesting to watch them try. perhaps he would surrender when asked. perhaps not. since they apparently aren't interested in even asking, the coup stands, bloodless.

The U.S.A. is far from beign a true dictatorship like Cuba's, just the fact that
we can still express our diffrent points of views on a forum like Nationstates
which would never be allowed in Cuba under Fidel Castro, Patriot Act or not
proves that.

nothing in being a dictatorship requires the complete supression of free speech.

In my view we dont have a dictator running America,
as I have posted before, President Bush will step down
when his term expires and a new Presient, Republican,
Democrat, Libertarian or whatever is elected.

Thank you for your post, Good point.
In the U.S.A. and the European Union Nations
we can express, debate and share our diffrent points of views.

Right on :)

Right on :)

Thank you Free Utopia, we agree.

Um........democratically elected presidential administrations are not "coups."
If that were the case here then this would be pertinent.
Thus ...

Fact:

The #1 job of the president is to PROTECT US.
AGAIN you are blatantly lying or at THE VERY LEAST showing a GLARING absence of understanding or knowledge of a position you don't hold.
It's been posted to you FACE FIRST BEFORE.
His first and FOREMOST oath was his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

And you NEVER SEEM TO GET THAT.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I shudder to think what Gore would (or, more aptly stated, wouldn't) have done after 9/11...
Who gives a sh*t what bumps in the night you're afraid of?
Your fears aren't the impetus of justice, they're the cowerings of a person who apparently NEVER deals with the reality that things aren't what you've been telling yourself they are!

Thank you Free Utopia, we agree.

Ah sometimes we forget, there are worse places out there than the US... There's nothing our government could ever do/get away with that could even compare to other dictatorships...

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
*bows*
So now begins "which people?"
*grrrr*

*bows*
So now begins "which people?"
*grrrr*

Those who make a mill + a yr and those who own or manager major corporations... Those people :-p

As I understand it, there's an amendment to the US consitution prohibiting a president having more than two terms.
So unless he has that changed, or somehow prolongs his current term, he won't be a president for much longer. A coup usually aims for more than an elected term.

*ahem*

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000176.html
April 16, 2003
Repeal the 22nd Amendment?

I remember about three years ago, President Clinton would frequently make jokes about the 22nd Amendment, which prohibits a president from being elected more than twice, and how much he resented its presence in the Constitution. There was probably a kernel of truth in his jokes, but no one seriously ever talks about repealing the 22nd Amendment, right?

It turns out there are two resolutions currently pending in the 108th Congress to repeal the 22nd Amendment. One, H.J.Res. 11, is sponsored by Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.), while another, H. J. RES. 25, has broader bi-partisan appeal with seven co-sponsors: Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Howard Berman (D-Calif.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), Martin Sabo (D-Minn.), and George Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). (The same seven representatives sponsored an identical resolution in the 107th Congress, but it didn't go anywhere.)
...
Reagan himself seemed to warm up to the idea in 1987, telling an interviewer that he'd support an effort to repeal the 22nd Amendment for his successors so Americans would be free to "vote for someone as often as they want to do." Though the Iran-Contra scandal had already damaged Reagan's reputation, and Alzheimer's symptoms were slowly becoming apparent, a group called Project '88 formed to try and change the law to allow for Reagan's second re-election effort.
----
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)

HJ 24 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 24
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 17, 2005
Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

Those who make a mill + a yr and those who own or manager major corporations... Those people :-p
Yep. :(

Ah sometimes we forget, there are worse places out there than the US... There's nothing our government could ever do/get away with that could even compare to other dictatorships...

To all our fellow nations, Free Utopia makes a good point, for exsample
would anyone here believe that if Cuba's President Fidel Castro would
allow the Cuban government to listen to any Cuban citizens phone conversations, it would become public knowledge, be printed by
the news media, be criticized by any democratically elected representative
in the Cuban National Assembly, be considered grounds for impeachment
by any democratically elected representative in the Cuban National Assembly?

Which meets twice a year when convened by President Fidel Castro or
Ricardo Alarcon president of the Assembly.

Ignoring the fact that your analysis is off, read a bit further in the BoR.

Amendment V

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

(bolding mine)

Looks like a right to life to me.
Yes but with due process of law you can still be murdered, so your analysis is a bit off as well.
This upholds the importance of the integrity of administration TO LAW.

No, they aren't. A (bloodless) coup would require them to come in to power via military action forcing the previous leader out of power. Bush was legally elected in 2000 and 2004 beyond any doubt and so is the legitimate leader of the United States.
Bush was NOT legally elected in 2000. Get your facts straight.

Bush was NOT legally elected in 2000. Get your facts straight.

Correct he was appointed...

Then you talk of some violation of Florida constitutional law ? no according to the supreme court, but then i suppose you can interpret the constitution better then them... and w hich recout are you talking about ? the first 2 or 3... or just the last one that didn't go through. They could have kept counting those votes and they still woudln't have come up with a different result!
M'kay, enough of this bullsh*t. Punch up Katherine Harris' timeline from 1999-NOW.
Then you can start talking about it like you know something about it.

Desipite the Patriot Act, congress can still stop it, reform it, reverse it or
eliminate it, Cuba's dictatorship cannot be eliminated democratically.

The U.S.A. is far from beign a true dictatorship like Cuba's, just the fact that
we can still express our diffrent points of views on a forum like Nationstates
which would never be allowed in Cuba under Fidel Castro, Patriot Act or not
proves that.
It doesn't help when you have arseholes like Bush making PUBLIC statements like
George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier -
just so long I'm the dictator."- December 18, 2000

It makes the arrangement of things more stark in some ways and more hazy in others.

Fact:

The #1 job of the president is to PROTECT US.

Because if we're all DEAD, we can't enjoy ANY rights.

Since 9/11, he's gone out of his way to make our safety his #1 agenda, for which I, at least, am extremely grateful. I'm glad I have a president who worries about my health and safety and I don't mind at all if he curbs the rights of FREAKING TERRORISTS. It is the job of the military to protect the US from all enemies, foreign or domestic. And the President is commander in chief...

I shudder to think what Gore would (or, more aptly stated, wouldn't) have done after 9/11...

This is the only comment I will make on this thread. How can you possibly know who the terrorists are to suspend the rights of? They say they only target terrorists, but if they have evidence that they are, arrest them, try them, and fry them. As is, people are being imprisoned and spied on under the guise of "terrorism" with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Also, your argument of no terrorist attacks after 9/11 doesn't hold water, since the war in Iraq has almost EXCLUSIVELY consisted of terrorist attacks. I guess it's ok if it's not on our soil though, right? I mean, when was the last terrorist attack on our soil(by a non American, since we did have the unibomber) BEFORE 9/11?

Yes, because our government was specifically designed to enable bloodless coups every four years.

Any blood shed has not been as a result of one party coming to power nor of another leaving it.

Fact:

The #1 job of the president is to PROTECT US.

Because if we're all DEAD, we can't enjoy ANY rights.

Since 9/11, he's gone out of his way to make our safety his #1 agenda, for which I, at least, am extremely grateful. I'm glad I have a president who worries about my health and safety and I don't mind at all if he curbs the rights of FREAKING TERRORISTS. It is the job of the military to protect the US from all enemies, foreign or domestic. And the President is commander in chief...

I shudder to think what Gore would (or, more aptly stated, wouldn't) have done after 9/11...

Although you've been flamed quite a bit (and with extreme accuracy) for this post by others, I just had to bring it up with my own point:

The day al Qaida, or any other terrorist group, tries to wipe all of us out, I'll laugh. Unless they're using Grey Goo, in which case I'll laugh and then scream and then run to the President and tell him to launch every Goddamn nuke we have and detonate them in the upper atmosphere to generate a (hopefully) globe-spanning EMP effect.

Bush won fair and square both times. You can't argue the 04 election because of 2 million extra for Bush. 2000 can be argued.....kinda, but the point is moot, he was re-elected in 04. Republicans also took the senate in 2000 until a republican senator left the party to become an independent, then thew senate was evenly split. In 2004 the republicans took more senate seats and officially became the majority in the senate. House of reps. has been controlled by republicans since 1994. This is the way things work. Democrats controlled the house of reps. for 40 years and the senate for a good amount of that time too. Many democratic presidents enjoyed a congress controlled by their own party (JFK & LBJ did when they escalated Veitnam). Eventually the agenda of the party in power will become too extreme for mainstream american voters and the other party will regain their power. It has happened numerous times since the country was founded.

Bush was NOT legally elected in 2000. Get your facts straight.

In my view, President Bush was legally elected in 2000,
on election night President Bush was leading in Florida
by a slim margin and it was All Gore who challenged
the election results, he wanted to count every vote,
hanging chads, under votes, over votes, votes that had been
thrown out by decisions of both Democrats and Republicans,
and votes that have never been counted before in any election.

Sorry to bring Cuba up again, but, if anyone wants to blame
the election of President Bush in 2000, blame President Clinton
who on election nigh was quoted as saying, why was the vote so close in Florida
it wasnt supposed to be, he under estimated the hurt of many
Cuban Americans, blame Cuban Americans like myself, blame Clinton
for giving in to Fidel on anything he asked for, and
accepting Fidel's promise not to use Elian for politics,
a promise he did not keep, blame Janet Reno who could have paroled
Elian into the U.S.A. on humanitarian grounds and that
would have been the end of it and All Gore would have been President,
there were enough Cuban Americans all though not myself who would have
voted for All Gore to overcome any so called Republican cheating.

<snip>

People like you amuse me to no end. I'm sure you Cuban-Americans weren't using Elian for political purposes. I'm also sure that the fact that Clinton was following US law on the thing didn't enter into your mind, either.

Complete version of my Post.
On election night President Bush was leading in Florida
by a slim margin and it was Al Gore who challenged
the election results, he wanted to count every vote,
hanging chats, under votes, over votes, votes that had been
thrown out by decisions of both Democrats and Republicans,
and votes that have never been counted before in any election,
true if the Supreme Court had been made up of a majority of Democrats
Al Gore would have been appointed President.

Sorry to bring Cuba up again, but, if anyone wants to blame
the election of President Bush in 2000, blame President Clinton
who on election nigh was quoted as saying, why was the vote so close in Florida
it wasnt supposed to be, he under estimated the hurt of many
Cuban Americans, blame Cuban Americans like myself, blame Clinton
for giving in to Fidel on anything he asked for, and
accepting Fidel's promise not to use Elian for politics,
a promise he did not keep, Janet Reno could have paroled
Elian into the U.S.A. on humanitarian grounds and that
would have been the end of it and Al Gore would have been President,
there were enough Cuban Americans all though not myself who would have
voted for Al Gore to overcome any so called Republican cheating.

People like you amuse me to no end. I'm sure you Cuban-Americans weren't using Elian for political purposes. I'm also sure that the fact that Clinton was following US law on the thing didn't enter into your mind, either.

Political purpose or not on the part of Cuban Americans,
many Cuban Americans like myself were hurt by the way
President Clinton gave in to a dictator like Castro, many
Cuban rafters as well as other people have been paroled
into the U.S.A. on humanitarian grounds.

His mother died at sea on a raft and tied Elian onto the raft so that he would
survive and not live under that government, his mother had custody of Elian
in Cuba, I could go on and on, but this is not the thread for it.

I do not agree with your post but you have a right to your views.

In my view, President Bush was legally elected in 2000
Okay, that's in your view, but nonetheless, he WAS NOT legally elected.
The vote recount was suspended, and when a certain time passed for the suspension of the recount until it was imperiling the outcome, the vote became irrelevant and the Supreme Court AWARDED it to Bush. Look it up.
And Katherine Harris was the most prominent of the "authorites" involved in that screwed up fiasco. And it would behoove you to punch up where she is NOW and what group she works with AND what authority she has *NOW*.
Also you might consider what she'd been up to late '98/early '99 UNTIL now.

EDIT:
true if the Supreme Court had been made up of a majority of Democrats
Al Gore would have been appointed President.
even if this is a subtle political smack, i'm noting it and don't necessarily disagree with you, thinking in terms of "else".

Political purpose or not on the part of Cuban Americans,
many Cuban Americans like myself were hurt by the way
President Clinton gave in to a dictator like Castro, many
Cuban rafters as well as other people have been paroled
into the U.S.A. on humanitarian grounds.

True, but even my father, a staunche Republican, was all for Elian being sent home. That was, and still is, where his father lives, after all.

His mother died at sea on a raft and tied Elian onto the raft so that he would
survive and not live under that government, his mother had custody of Elian
in Cuba, I could go on and on, but this is not the thread for it.

Why not? Not much else is happening on this thread, right now. ;)

I do not agree with your post but you have a right to your views.

Touche. I'd explain why I said what I said, but I seem to have forgotten the reason. Sorry. I know there is one, I just cannot remember.

Janet Reno could have paroled
Elian into the U.S.A. on humanitarian grounds

Ah but don't leave out the part about when Clinton and Reno, defenders of human rights, and the sacred protectors of civil rights, removed Elian with nothing other than a SWAT team! See, they want to get rid of private citizens rights so when you get divoriced and your children are late returning to their mothers the local swat team won't have to worry about you resisting their enforcement of the custody of your children. Funny I thought Bush was the dictator!?!

Ah but don't leave out the part about when Clinton and Reno, defenders of human rights, and the sacred protectors of civil rights, removed Elian with nothing other than a SWAT team! See, they want to get rid of private citizens rights so when you get divoriced and your children are late returning to their mothers the local swat team won't have to worry about you resisting their enforcement of the custody of your children. Funny I thought Bush was the dictator!?!
Good thing neither of them are in power and we can get on to the situation at hand, then!

Ah but don't leave out the part about when Clinton and Reno, defenders of human rights, and the sacred protectors of civil rights, removed Elian with nothing other than a SWAT team! See, they want to get rid of private citizens rights so when you get divoriced and your children are late returning to their mothers the local swat team won't have to worry about you resisting their enforcement of the custody of your children. Funny I thought Bush was the dictator!?!

Funny, the boy's father was in Cuba. Or I suppose you wouldn't object to your wife running off with your kid to Iran?

Bush won fair and square both times.
Incorrect. I'm through arguing about it. It's your onus.
As for the second part of your post, you should consider the ruling against the Repubs for their gerrymandering. The first legal result is that they broke the law....the one DeLay was so arrogant about.
Eventually the agenda of the party in power will become too extreme for mainstream american voters and the other party will regain their power. It has happened numerous times since the country was founded.
Probably right, so i see myself agreeing with you on the last part almost completely.

A much of a "bad guy" as Hugo Chavez is, he has done a lot of good for Venezuela.

But, he has also probably done some bad.

And he's somewhat of a nutcase.

Nevertheless, he is a Democratically elected PRESIDENT who has changed the constitution ONCE. And theoretically, just like Bush, he will step down when his term ends.

He has not sucessfully overthrown the government

and he still has checks on his power.

Therefore, like Bush, NOT a dictator. :D

Yo soy Venezolano!

Pero, yo vivo en los E.E.U.U. despues de yo tuve cuatro años.

)I´m Venezuelan, but I have lived in the US since i was four, for those of you who don´t speak Español!