NationStates Jolt Archive

...if Dubya and Co., in 2008, decided, "The hell with this - we're not going anywhere." A number of powerful people want Bush to be in charge, and a number of very belligerent people want him there, too. Granted, a lot of people want him out, out, out, but there's a decent chance he would get away with it as well. The American people aren't exactly the greatest at overthrowing their own oppressors (thought they have a track record of tossing out oppressors who would take them over...that is, when they really want to.) Look at the last attempt to give the federal government the finger - it ended badly. Nowadays, we just riot, and the National Guard (whatever's left of it) can be called out to deal with that. Armed protesters are no match for state-of-the-art riot guards with tear gas and bullet-proof vests. It would be full-on martial law by 2010. Complete with conscription, a belligerent government, and a full-on death penalty for lots more stuff.

And speaking of the death penalty, how many Americans would lose sleep over having homosexuality declared a capital offense? What about Islam? Two out of three people support the death penalty (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-12/2005-12-02-voa4.cfm?CFID=54968810&CFTOKEN=91922541, for those who want a source), and according to the 2004 votes, gay marriage is not a popular thing to vote for. So if Bush and Co. decide to make the final push and execute homosexuals and Muslims, who in America would be upset by it besides homosexuals and Muslims themselves? Christian doctrine as well as patriotism could be used in order to force families to put the state and the religion before their own relatives and loved ones. Got a gay son? Either straighten him out or turn him over.

I would certainly have a problem with Bush flaunting the 22nd Amendment. However, if it were really put to the test, would the American public?

I'm glad that's not an "if" statement, because that is damn scary.

I'm glad that's not an "if" statement, because that is damn scary.

Ummm...not clear on what you're trying to say. That was a large "if" statement. "If" Dubya won't step down in 2008. "If" he flaunts the 22nd Amendment. "If" he declares martial law to quell riots. "If" he goes after Muslims and homosexuals. Do I believe he will? I doubt it, but I could see it. I honestly don't see an America after Dubya at this point, and if there is one, there's a decent chance the neocons will get their next guy elected.

If he did I imagine an invasion/assasination to restore democracy would be justified. And we know they have WMDs.

it would require a huge constitutional amendment, which would not have the support to pass either house of congress, nor would it be approved by enough state legislatures, esp. not in time for him to reap the benefits.

if he just chose to stay there, then the military is required to oust him by whatever means necessary.

...if Dubya and Co., in 2008, decided, "The hell with this - we're not going anywhere." A number of powerful people want Bush to be in charge, and a number of very belligerent people want him there, too. Granted, a lot of people want him out, out, out, but there's a decent chance he would get away with it as well. The American people aren't exactly the greatest at overthrowing their own oppressors (thought they have a track record of tossing out oppressors who would take them over...that is, when they really want to.) Look at the last attempt to give the federal government the finger - it ended badly. Nowadays, we just riot, and the National Guard (whatever's left of it) can be called out to deal with that. Armed protesters are no match for state-of-the-art riot guards with tear gas and bullet-proof vests. It would be full-on martial law by 2010. Complete with conscription, a belligerent government, and a full-on death penalty for lots more stuff.

And speaking of the death penalty, how many Americans would lose sleep over having homosexuality declared a capital offense? What about Islam? Two out of three people support the death penalty (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-12/2005-12-02-voa4.cfm?CFID=54968810&CFTOKEN=91922541, for those who want a source), and according to the 2004 votes, gay marriage is not a popular thing to vote for. So if Bush and Co. decide to make the final push and execute homosexuals and Muslims, who in America would be upset by it besides homosexuals and Muslims themselves? Christian doctrine as well as patriotism could be used in order to force families to put the state and the religion before their own relatives and loved ones. Got a gay son? Either straighten him out or turn him over.

I would certainly have a problem with Bush flaunting the 22nd Amendment. However, if it were really put to the test, would the American public?

i suggest you read up on how Hitler (almost) democratically gained power in Germany.

it would require a huge constitutional amendment, which would not have the support to pass either house of congress, nor would it be approved by enough state legislatures, esp. not in time for him to reap the benefits.

Let me go right ahead and say I don't think any of this will happen, I'm being completely hypothetical.

I could see the 2008 elections being canceled or annulled in the event of an extremely serious terrorist attack on election day. Imagine if 15 or 20 polling stations were attacked on the morning of election day. I could easily see the Federal government ordering people not to go vote, especially if the attacks kept occuring. If it were Bush's intention to seize power in such a fashion (again, I'm being hypothetical) this would be a perfect time to do it. If a number of serious attacks occured in CONUS I think that Congress would rubber stamp any law under the guise of a "temporary measure" until the threat were to pass. And with the hypothetically evil and dictatorial Bush, the threat would probably continue indefinately.

the government changes in january 2009 whether george bush likes it or not. (not that he woul do try such a thing)

when the new guy is sworn in, everything revolves around him. the officers of the old administration can try to order people around but no one would obey them.

if bush refuses to vacate the white house, he will be removed.

in 2001 when clinton was leaving office, similar paranoid fantasies went around. it didnt happen then and it wont happen in the future.

as to making homosexuality a crime punishable by death... thats a matter for the states not the federal government.

the president does not have the power to decide what crime gets what penalty. the congress would have to pass laws making homosexuality a crime. it would have to pass both houses and be signed by the president.

a mechanism would have to be set up to search out gay people and moslems. we dont have the budget for that. verrrry expensive. budget considerations are a great guardian of our freedoms.

it takes many years to carry out a death sentence in the US. there would be plenty of time to bring the issue before both the people and the supreme court. either venue would overturn the law.

I highly doubt he could get away with such things and if he did there would probably be a revolt one I would join in. He would need the support of the military and congress things he would never get he wouldnt stand a chance if his plan is to sieze power and most likley he would end up in jail or dead.

Nahh. I'm not owrried about it.

People are funny about things here. They may think shrubby is the greatest thing every but they tend to think the Constitution is offlimits to the scum of Washington. It's part of that "my guy is good but the rest are thieves" mentality.

He can toss out the subject but the majority will say "get out"
If he said "f off I am staying" then there would be problems as many people might start shooting. It's one of those things they keep in mind. You can't force those kinds of changes when the civilians are all packing......

And speaking of the death penalty, how many Americans would lose sleep over having homosexuality declared a capital offense?

Dick Cheney might seeing as how his daughter is a homosexual.

...if Dubya and Co., in 2008, decided, "The hell with this - we're not going anywhere." A number of powerful people want Bush to be in charge, and a number of very belligerent people want him there, too. Granted, a lot of people want him out, out, out, but there's a decent chance he would get away with it as well. The American people aren't exactly the greatest at overthrowing their own oppressors (thought they have a track record of tossing out oppressors who would take them over...that is, when they really want to.) Look at the last attempt to give the federal government the finger - it ended badly. Nowadays, we just riot, and the National Guard (whatever's left of it) can be called out to deal with that. Armed protesters are no match for state-of-the-art riot guards with tear gas and bullet-proof vests. It would be full-on martial law by 2010. Complete with conscription, a belligerent government, and a full-on death penalty for lots more stuff.

And speaking of the death penalty, how many Americans would lose sleep over having homosexuality declared a capital offense? What about Islam? Two out of three people support the death penalty (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-12/2005-12-02-voa4.cfm?CFID=54968810&CFTOKEN=91922541, for those who want a source), and according to the 2004 votes, gay marriage is not a popular thing to vote for. So if Bush and Co. decide to make the final push and execute homosexuals and Muslims, who in America would be upset by it besides homosexuals and Muslims themselves? Christian doctrine as well as patriotism could be used in order to force families to put the state and the religion before their own relatives and loved ones. Got a gay son? Either straighten him out or turn him over.

I would certainly have a problem with Bush flaunting the 22nd Amendment. However, if it were really put to the test, would the American public?

:rolleyes: Do you have any idea how ridiculous this subject is?

He is definitly not as popular as he once was with the military, and you are serverely underestimating what the American populace could get away with in an open revolt. A man taking over in violation of the constitution would probably warrant a stronger response than the Vietnam war did.

edit to add:
And speaking of the death penalty, how many Americans would lose sleep over having homosexuality declared a capital offense? What about Islam? Two out of three people support the death penalty (http://www.voanews.com/english/archi...TOKEN=91922541, for those who want a source), and according to the 2004 votes, gay marriage is not a popular thing to vote for.

And this...Im just not making the connection from "Supporting capital punishment" and "opposing gay marriage" to connecting the two. There is just no foundation to walk on there.

i suggest you read up on how Hitler (almost) democratically gained power in Germany.

Yeah. Just don't give Bush any ideas about burning down Congress.

Hate to say it, but you really need to get a new tinfoil hat.

i suggest you read up on how Hitler (almost) democratically gained power in Germany.

I kind of have a good idea of what happened. Basically, Hitler's party was a force to be reckoned with, Hindenburg was trying to get parliament dissolved or in a majority situation but could not, and after trying to get a majority, Hindenburg reluctantly agreed to appoint Hitler as Chancellor. Basically, no one else could do the job. Hitler got lucky, and someone set fire to the Reichstag; if this doesn't happen, Hitler may have been dismissed, and someone else may have been the dictator of Germany. (Interesting idea for an alternate history.) So Hitler soon has control of lawmaking, since the Enabling Act gives him and his group legislative AND executive power. Using that, he can stomp out opposition parties.

:rolleyes: Do you have any idea how ridiculous this subject is?

No, I really don't. And I don't care. Bush's administration has shown utter contempt for the law, especially since it got re-elected. Wiretapping without a warrant. Secret prisons. It even disregarded the weapons inspections in Iraq it helped to set in motion. What's to say that the 22nd Amendment means a damn thing to him? What's to say that the fact that his term expires in 2008 stops him? He's pushed, and no one's pushed back.

Not granted, i don't think he can do it without a little help, nor do I think he will try. He'll need something akin to the Reichstag burning. I don't know what. A hurricane could even do the trick if it's in D.C.; I don't know. Dubya has two years to think of that.

...if Dubya and Co., in 2008, decided, "The hell with this - we're not going anywhere." A number of powerful people want Bush to be in charge, and a number of very belligerent people want him there, too. Granted, a lot of people want him out, out, out, but there's a decent chance he would get away with it as well. The American people aren't exactly the greatest at overthrowing their own oppressors (thought they have a track record of tossing out oppressors who would take them over...that is, when they really want to.) Look at the last attempt to give the federal government the finger - it ended badly. Nowadays, we just riot, and the National Guard (whatever's left of it) can be called out to deal with that. Armed protesters are no match for state-of-the-art riot guards with tear gas and bullet-proof vests. It would be full-on martial law by 2010. Complete with conscription, a belligerent government, and a full-on death penalty for lots more stuff.

And speaking of the death penalty, how many Americans would lose sleep over having homosexuality declared a capital offense? What about Islam? Two out of three people support the death penalty (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-12/2005-12-02-voa4.cfm?CFID=54968810&CFTOKEN=91922541, for those who want a source), and according to the 2004 votes, gay marriage is not a popular thing to vote for. So if Bush and Co. decide to make the final push and execute homosexuals and Muslims, who in America would be upset by it besides homosexuals and Muslims themselves? Christian doctrine as well as patriotism could be used in order to force families to put the state and the religion before their own relatives and loved ones. Got a gay son? Either straighten him out or turn him over.

I would certainly have a problem with Bush flaunting the 22nd Amendment. However, if it were really put to the test, would the American public?


So you really think that Bush is going to cancel the '08 presidential elections and execute homosexuals and muslims.

How old are you again?

Someone has quite the imagination.

I am not a Bush fan, but I do not think that he would try to overthrow the government. He may have a very different world view than I do, but that does not make him a maniac. You also underestimate the militaries capacity of following orders. They would either rebel or segment.

Yeah, I'm going to go in with the I don't like Bush and I don't like a lot of what he's done, but there is a big difference from the relativly covert authoritarianism he has goin gon now, which has cost him just look at his approval rating, and something as overt as setting himself as president indefiantly. The congress wouldn't stand for it, the military wouldn't stand for it, and the people wouldn't stand for it. Even with a major disaster or terrorist attack I can't see him selling such a seizure of power.

As for the muslim and homosexual thing thats just out there, there might be a few nuts that would support it :coughfredphilipscough: but I don't think Bush would want to do that, switch happy as he is, let alone get the people to support it. As previously mentioned there is a bit of a leap from saying that one dosen't want gays marrying and saying one wants them all rounded up and killed, I can maybe see them pushing to re-pass anti-sodomy laws, but I think even that is a strech, at least at the national level.

How old are you again?

Judging by your signature, old enough to reply to your post.

Maybe I have a bit of an imagination. That's not a bad thing. Do I think he'll do it? Odds are against it. That wasn't the question. Maybe next time, focus on the question. If I asked, "If Washington D.C. got nuked, where would we put the U.S. capital city?" I am not telling you that I think the U.S. will see D.C. get nuked. It's a speculative question. My question was how we would react if it did happen. Don't go accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist for posing the question.

You can pose the question; what-ifs and counter-factuals are important ways to think, debate, discuss etc.

I think your what-if is too extreme to generate very useful debate, though...

That said, the one thing that I did pick up on is that someone brought up the belief that in the US, armed civilians constitute a check on the power of the state... Given the efficicy of the modern military, this is pretty ridiculous. It was a sensible idea a couple of hundred years ago for a rural country, but it's been totally superceded by modern military organisation and technology.

Judging by your signature, old enough to reply to your post.

Over 18 eh? That means the best parts of your life are over.

Maybe I have a bit of an imagination. That's not a bad thing. Do I think he'll do it? Odds are against it. That wasn't the question. Maybe next time, focus on the question. If I asked, "If Washington D.C. got nuked, where would we put the U.S. capital city?" I am not telling you that I think the U.S. will see D.C. get nuked. It's a speculative question. My question was how we would react if it did happen. Don't go accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist for posing the question.

D.C. has a way better chance of getting nuked then Bush seizing a third term and executing Muslims and homosexuals.

And I am focusing on your question, I'm just focusing on its' absurdity.

No, I really don't. And I don't care. Bush's administration has shown utter contempt for the law, especially since it got re-elected. Wiretapping without a warrant. Secret prisons. It even disregarded the weapons inspections in Iraq it helped to set in motion. What's to say that the 22nd Amendment means a damn thing to him? What's to say that the fact that his term expires in 2008 stops him? He's pushed, and no one's pushed back.

Not granted, i don't think he can do it without a little help, nor do I think he will try. He'll need something akin to the Reichstag burning. I don't know what. A hurricane could even do the trick if it's in D.C.; I don't know. Dubya has two years to think of that.

OK, global warming is now, at long last, being accepted as fact, but even so, if Bush actually has a way to manipulate the weather so as to get a hurricane to hit DC in the next two years, I think we may have bigger problems than just whether he wants to keep the presidency.

However, I don't think that this country would stand still for a major military coup, and I don't think that anything less would do the trick. We are too big, and too firmly entrenched in our current system to let someone whose popularity is so low to chuck it all. If he were immensely popular, had the strong backing of everyone in the military, and some catastophic event or series of events occurred, it is barely possible that what you posit might happen, but other than that, no.

I would certainly have a problem with Bush flaunting the 22nd Amendment. However, if it were really put to the test, would the American public?I'm counting on some of the people with guns that keep yapping about "He's not going to be reelected again, so stop complaining" would rise up should that happen.

...if Dubya and Co., in 2008, decided, "The hell with this - we're not going anywhere." A number of powerful people want Bush to be in charge, and a number of very belligerent people want him there, too. Granted, a lot of people want him out, out, out, but there's a decent chance he would get away with it as well. The American people aren't exactly the greatest at overthrowing their own oppressors (thought they have a track record of tossing out oppressors who would take them over...that is, when they really want to.) Look at the last attempt to give the federal government the finger - it ended badly. Nowadays, we just riot, and the National Guard (whatever's left of it) can be called out to deal with that. Armed protesters are no match for state-of-the-art riot guards with tear gas and bullet-proof vests. It would be full-on martial law by 2010. Complete with conscription, a belligerent government, and a full-on death penalty for lots more stuff.

And speaking of the death penalty, how many Americans would lose sleep over having homosexuality declared a capital offense? What about Islam? Two out of three people support the death penalty (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-12/2005-12-02-voa4.cfm?CFID=54968810&CFTOKEN=91922541, for those who want a source), and according to the 2004 votes, gay marriage is not a popular thing to vote for. So if Bush and Co. decide to make the final push and execute homosexuals and Muslims, who in America would be upset by it besides homosexuals and Muslims themselves? Christian doctrine as well as patriotism could be used in order to force families to put the state and the religion before their own relatives and loved ones. Got a gay son? Either straighten him out or turn him over.

I would certainly have a problem with Bush flaunting the 22nd Amendment. However, if it were really put to the test, would the American public?

I'd say a good half of his staunchest supporters support him because he's the legitimate president and for no other reason. If that legitimacy went away, whose support would he have left? The military? Military personnel have friends and families too. Do people really think most soldiers will side with the government against the constitution they pledged to uphold and against their own families and friends?

OK, global warming is now, at long last, being accepted as fact, but even so, if Bush actually has a way to manipulate the weather so as to get a hurricane to hit DC in the next two years, I think we may have bigger problems than just whether he wants to keep the presidency.

However, I don't think that this country would stand still for a major military coup, and I don't think that anything less would do the trick. We are too big, and too firmly entrenched in our current system to let someone whose popularity is so low to chuck it all. If he were immensely popular, had the strong backing of everyone in the military, and some catastophic event or series of events occurred, it is barely possible that what you posit might happen, but other than that, no.

Don't forget he cause Katrina. Why not have one hit DC too?

Over 18 eh? That means the best parts of your life are over.

Really. I don't know; college was a pretty good part of my life. Beat the hell out of high school. If this is a personal attack and you're trying to imply that I will spend the rest of my life in my parents' basement, it's living proof you know very little about me.

D.C. has a way better chance of getting nuked then Bush seizing a third term and executing Muslims and homosexuals.

And I am focusing on your question, I'm just focusing on its' absurdity.

D.C. won't get nuked. Who would do it? We're obviously not going to nuke ourselves, and I can't imagine Britain and France doing it. Russia's got better things to do, India and Pakistan are more worried about each other, China's not insane, and Israel's on our side. That leaves Iran and North Korea, neither of whom could hit us from that far away. All you have left is al-Qaeda. As long as Iran doesn't actually have nukes, there's very little to be worried about.

As for your focusing on my question's "absurdity", that's a little thing called the fallacy of ridicule. Upper Botswavia answered the question by saying it's not practical and we're too entrenched in our system to allow someone to buck it without popular support. You, on the other hand, have tried to laugh at my question and make me look like a buffoon. Really, is that the best you can do is try to ridicule my question? Come on now. Answering even the most inane questions with "That's absurd, and you're stupid for suggesting it" won't win you a lot of friends and won't influence people. Maybe if you cared to tell me why it won't happen, your argument might make more sense.

If I understand correctly, Nixon kicked around the idea of flaunting the 22nd Amendment. However, Nixon made too many enemies to make it work. Granted, judging by his win in 1972, if he were less abrasive, he could have done it, but he made enemies out of Congress, and Congress (along with the Washington Post) took him down, and he didn't even last to midterm elections of his second term. (Those of you who have seen the second Back to the Future movie may recall when the main characters are shown holding newspapers from a parallel 1985. Before they transform back into the normal 1985 headlines, there was one paper that showed the headline "Nixon to Seek Fifth Term" with the sub-heading "Pledges to End Vietnam War by 1985." Obviously, the headline changed to "Reagan to Seek Second Term." I guess the events of BTTF2 negated Watergate.)

OK, global warming is now, at long last, being accepted as fact, but even so, if Bush actually has a way to manipulate the weather so as to get a hurricane to hit DC in the next two years, I think we may have bigger problems than just whether he wants to keep the presidency.

However, I don't think that this country would stand still for a major military coup, and I don't think that anything less would do the trick. We are too big, and too firmly entrenched in our current system to let someone whose popularity is so low to chuck it all. If he were immensely popular, had the strong backing of everyone in the military, and some catastophic event or series of events occurred, it is barely possible that what you posit might happen, but other than that, no.

I doubt he would be able to create a hurricane or a terrorist attack any more than the Nazis were able to create the Communist party in Germany. What I am saying is that he would be able to use such a thing to his advantage.

I don't really think it would be an issue. The military brass aren't exactly enamored with Bush and have no reason to view him as commander in chief if he is violating his oath of office. Power is all about getting people to follow your orders, and Bush just doesn't have that kind of support. Even GOP hardliners would turn their backs on him if he tried to play a game like that. Then you have the issue that the most "red" states tend to be states that are both quite distrusting of government(the south, the west, and the midwest) and quite well armed. It doesn't matter how conservative Bush is or how hard he believes in Jeebus, he'd have to have a strong and loyal military to quell the revolts.

Finally, it is important to remember that we live in a country with quite a few high powered weapons. When you have civilians with sniper rifles that boast ranges over a mile and can punch through an APV, well, its hard to rule from a bunker...

In 2001, Rudy Giuliani was on his term-limited way out of office as Mayor of New York City when the attacks of September 11th happened. He asked that he be allowed to stay in office past the December 31st deadline to coordinate the WTC recovery and the New York State legislature turned him down flat. Giuliani was an extremely popular mayor, mind you, but the state decided that despite the awfulness of the attacks and burden the recovery would place on the incoming new mayor, the process mattered and the elections went on as planned and Bloomberg took over at the end of the year.

I think the principle applies even more so on the national level. I often joke, saying, "If you to such-and-such, the terrorists win!" but in this case, that's exactly what would happen. It would require a Constitutional Amendment, as noted above, to repeal the one term-limiting the President (which was sponsored and passed, by the way, by the GOP in the late 40's). And an attempt at a coup ... well, you'd have people rising up all over the country. (On a brighter note, I think Safeway is having a sale on tin-foil this week.)

It simply would not happen. Americans, for all their faults, value the rule of law and their Constitution above all else. If any president refused to leave office, the people (and probably the military too) would remove him from it.

This is hyperbole to the extreme.

Not possible even from the point of conjuring up ‘what if’ thought experiments.

Anyone making comments about a military coup to enshrine Bush as a dictator knows nothing about the US armed forces. The military is the people – they are not some separate segment of society completely disconnected from the rest. While they tend to be more conservative and favor Republicans, they are still comprised of the people of the country.

Were anyone to even suggest such a thing they would be laughed at.

Even in the midst of civil war, we still had elections. Terrorist attacks will not close the polls (well perhaps the particular poll attacked – what an insignificant target to waste resources on – but no others will close and those people will either vote at another location or by absentee ballot).

Were DC hit by a nuke and the federal government knocked out – the country will still continue to function quite well. State governments will still function and most government agencies have regional offices. The only federal operation that will be critical would be military – which has command and control systems setup to handle exactly such an event (yay to paranoid generals for the internet!).

Well, we'd forcibly remove him from office and try him for a number of quite serious crimes. The military and the American people's loyalty is to the country, not to President Bush; if he tried to do that he would be universally rejected because it is not part of our country's history or values to enshrine a leader as dictator, nor is it part of our values to support such a leader.

It violates our Constitution and our traditions, and I can say with full confidence that America will never allow anyone to rule over it as dictator.

If Bush has no one to support him in trying to stay on past his term, he won't do it. The assumption is this - Bush has some reason to believe he can pull it off. Some faction of the military would have to be with him, albeit it would splinter the military. Also, what would Bush have to lose by going out in a blaze of glory like this? Or a blaze of insanity, whatever. His legacy is already a colossal failure of diplomacy, a batshit-insane invasion of Iraq, a poor management of Afghanistan, a piss-poor job of managing the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and God-only-knows-what-else after the 2006 election. Oh yeah, and an erosion of our rights as private citizens.

My point to all this is how complicit most of America has been with all of this. Phone taps? He has to if we want to get the bad guys. When told it was time to invade Iraq, many Americans pledged full-force support because of this or that. When told that the Iraqis are not really liberated, there were no WMDs, and Saddam wasn't in cahoots with al-Qaeda, a chunk of America prefers to put their hands over their ears and shout "LALALALALALALALALA" rather than to accept this new information. We focus less on how half-assed the Katrina cleanup was and more on how the Katrina evacuees are criminals, looters, and drunks.

Citizens of America would probably figure out, "Wait a minute, he can't do that" if Bush tried a ploy like that. Would any of them get up and do something about it? I don't really have faith in it. It would take someone official to do it for us. Granted, that may well happen, but that's what it would take.

Now for my next question - if the neocons want to make a run for it in 2008 legitimately, as in not trying to turn Dubya into a dictator, who's their new Dubya?

wasn't this the plot of the movie V for Vendetta?

slow erosion of civil rights is happening, so yes it is possible.
In Canada we had a declaration of the War Measures Act, which was essentially martial law or suspension of civil rights in the 70's. So if you think it can't happen in the USA you're mistaken, manipulation of the media to convince everyone their country is in danger and resistance to it disappears.

wasn't this the plot of the movie V for Vendetta?

slow erosion of civil rights is happening, so yes it is possible.
In Canada we had a declaration of the War Measures Act, which was essentially martial law or suspension of civil rights in the 70's. So if you think it can't happen in the USA you're mistaken, manipulation of the media to convince everyone their country is in danger and resistance to it disappears.

You know Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War, guess what we still had elections.

Why would Bush even want to try? I know it's trendy around here to think of him as a Nazi, but it's really quite ridiculous. He may be incompetent and, generally, a failure on many issues (even for a right-winger such as myself; borders, illegal immigration, etc), but he's not a Hitler. Honestly, there are far more dangerous men/women in the world to be concerned over.

You know Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War, guess what we still had elections.guess what, so did we. But situations change. Governments never used to track us like they do now, wiretaps are becoming common, arrests with out charge, denial of legal help, deportations, admissable torture, we're becoming more of a police state by small degrees. The fight against terrorism to save a way of life freedom and liberty, is actually reducing our freedom and liberties.

...if Dubya and Co., in 2008, decided, "The hell with this - we're not going anywhere." A number of powerful people want Bush to be in charge, and a number of very belligerent people want him there, too. Granted, a lot of people want him out, out, out, but there's a decent chance he would get away with it as well. The American people aren't exactly the greatest at overthrowing their own oppressors (thought they have a track record of tossing out oppressors who would take them over...that is, when they really want to.) Look at the last attempt to give the federal government the finger - it ended badly. Nowadays, we just riot, and the National Guard (whatever's left of it) can be called out to deal with that. Armed protesters are no match for state-of-the-art riot guards with tear gas and bullet-proof vests. It would be full-on martial law by 2010. Complete with conscription, a belligerent government, and a full-on death penalty for lots more stuff.

And speaking of the death penalty, how many Americans would lose sleep over having homosexuality declared a capital offense? What about Islam? Two out of three people support the death penalty (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-12/2005-12-02-voa4.cfm?CFID=54968810&CFTOKEN=91922541, for those who want a source), and according to the 2004 votes, gay marriage is not a popular thing to vote for. So if Bush and Co. decide to make the final push and execute homosexuals and Muslims, who in America would be upset by it besides homosexuals and Muslims themselves? Christian doctrine as well as patriotism could be used in order to force families to put the state and the religion before their own relatives and loved ones. Got a gay son? Either straighten him out or turn him over.

I would certainly have a problem with Bush flaunting the 22nd Amendment. However, if it were really put to the test, would the American public?
At the height of his Presidency--that is, where he had the highest approval ratings--there was a slim chance of him pulling off a dictatorship, if he were so inclined. Now? No way in Hell. He could try it, but he'd have 90 million Americans--NOT an exaggeration--breaking down the door of the White House to throw him out. No, the America we knew and loved still exists. We'll get rid of Bush. We just have to wait another couple years before that stain is finally rubbed out.

guess what, so did we. But situations change. Governments never used to track us like they do now, wiretaps are becoming common, arrests with out charge, denial of legal help, deportations, admissable torture, we're becoming more of a police state by small degrees. The fight against terrorism to save a way of life freedom and liberty, is actually reducing our freedom and liberties.
Yes, but there is a big difference between small degrees and the giant leap that this would be. They can try and pass the small degrees off as a necesary trade offs to protect freedom, though that isn't working with wiretaps at least, no one is going to buy that in a case such as the one suggested.

i would personally -censors as to save self from the SS-