Facing the End of Constitutional Democracy

[hillclimber1]

Exactly why did you introduce BiR into a discussion that
1. He has not posted a comment.
2. The discussion has absolutely nothing to do with him.

Perhaps you could focus on the discussion at hand and avoid introducing extraneous topics/subjects when attempting to make your point.

This is no different than the way Rush and Sean perpetually bring up former President Bill Clinton when discussing topics that have absolutely nothing to do with him. That never lends any credence to the points they are trying to make, and it doesn't work for you either.

As for your comment that "Hillary has to turn left" to see me, please provide the proof that I am to the left of Hillary, utilizing my comments posted to the board. That is quite a statement, and I would like to see the basis for such a pronouncement. After all: until now, I wasn't even participating in this discussion.

Regards anyway,
BiR

Oh BiR, your too sensitive. But I seem to remember you making a statement similar to that. If you didn't, then I'm mistaken, but I don't see you denying it. And Clinton is the poster boy for most all discussions concerning liberals, after all, he is treated as the father of the dem. party.

And IITim was only using you to illustrate his point. There are things to get ticked at in life, this isn't one.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Exactly why did you introduce BiR into a discussion that
1. He has not posted a comment.
2. The discussion has absolutely nothing to do with him.

Perhaps you could focus on the discussion at hand and avoid introducing extraneous topics/subjects when attempting to make your point.

This is no different than the way Rush and Sean perpetually bring up former President Bill Clinton when discussing topics that have absolutely nothing to do with him. That never lends any credence to the points they are trying to make, and it doesn't work for you either.

As for your comment that "Hillary has to turn left" to see me, please provide the proof that I am to the left of Hillary, utilizing my comments posted to the board. That is quite a statement, and I would like to see the basis for such a pronouncement. After all: until now, I wasn't even participating in this discussion.

Regards anyway,
BiR

What a drama queen.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

What a drama queen.

You didn't answer the question......... how convenient for you to simply disparage someone and not feel compelled to defend your comments.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Oh BiR, your too sensitive. But I seem to remember you making a statement similar to that. If you didn't, then I'm mistaken, but I don't see you denying it. And Clinton is the poster boy for most all discussions concerning liberals, after all, he is treated as the father of the dem. party.

And IITim was only using you to illustrate his point. There are things to get ticked at in life, this isn't one.

Go back and read where I was introduced into this discussion, and notice that to which I was equated in his post.
As for denying it, I don't have to deny anything. "IITim" made an observation, and I issued a direct challenge to him to provide proof for his assertion. It is not up to me to defend a charge that he cannot even prove.

Regards, hope all is well,
BiR

 

[JustChristian]

Not possible.

I don't hate Bush nor anyone else.:thumbs:

But I do agree that Roberts' writings are emotional and whiny. Hate is a strong emotion.

So you don't hate either President or Senator Clinton? What about Teddy Kennedy? Come now. You could have fooled me.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

You didn't answer the question......... how convenient for you to simply disparage someone and not feel compelled to defend your comments.

Disparage? I only used you as an example because you yourself claim to be on the left and you defend Hillary at times. if you feel I have disparaged you then that is not what I intended to do. If accusing you of being on the left side of politics is incorrect and in fact disparaging let me know. I will rejoice in your move back to the right.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Disparage? I only used you as an example because you yourself claim to be on the left and you defend Hillary at times. if you feel I have disparaged you then that is not what I intended to do. If accusing you of being on the left side of politics is incorrect and in fact disparaging let me know. I will rejoice in your move back to the right.

Go back and read the sentence prior to introducing me into the topic, not to mention the pathetic "drama queen" comment.

 

[carpro]

So you don't hate either President or Senator Clinton? What about Teddy Kennedy? Come now. You could have fooled me.

I don't have to "fool" you.

You do an outstanding job of doing that yourself.:thumbs:

 

[Rufus_1611]

Old-line Republican warns 'something's in the works' to trigger a police state

Muriel Kane

Thom Hartmann began his program on Thursday by reading from a new Executive Order which allows the government to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies.

He then introduced old-line conservative Paul Craig Roberts -- a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan who has recently become known for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War -- by quoting the "strong words" which open Roberts' latest column: "Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."

"I don't actually think they're very strong," said Roberts of his words. "I get a lot of flak that they're understated and the situation is worse than I say. ... When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order] ... there's no check to it. It doesn't have to be ratified by Congress. The people who bear the brunt of these dictatorial police state actions have no recourse to the judiciary. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule. ... The American people don't really understand the danger that they face."

Roberts said that because of Bush's unpopularity, the Republicans face a total wipeout in 2008, and this may be why "the Democrats have not brought a halt to Bush's follies or the war, because they expect his unpopular policies to provide them with a landslide victory in next year's election."

However, Roberts emphasized, "the problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that Cheney and Rove and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts, or it assumes that they are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed after Bush has his fling." Roberts believes instead that Cheney and Rove intend to use a renewal of the War on Terror to rally the American people around the Republican Party. "Something's in the works," he said, adding that the Executive Orders need to create a police state are already in place.

"The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," Roberts continued. "Chertoff has predicted them. ... The National Intelligence Estimate is saying that al Qaeda has regrouped. ... You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda's not going to do it, it's going to be orchestrated. ... The Republicans are praying for another 9/11."

...

...........

 

[carpro]

Those nutballs won't have much to do after President Bush hands over the reigns of the Presidency to the next President in January, 2009.

 

[just-want-peace]

Unless you're prepared for another "TEA PARTY", there ain't much the average joe can do re: loss of this country to some form of dictatorship or socialistic or marxist takeover.

I've said for the last several years that the only difference in the two parties is the rapidity of ruining the country and the nicities of same.

The Ds will do it very rapidly, and be nasty in the process, whereas the Rs will take awhile longer and be more civil about it.

End result same - no more USA as we know it today!

I'm ready for Jesus Christ to take over!!!!!

 

[Rufus_1611]

Those nutballs won't have much to do after President Bush hands over the reigns of the Presidency to the next President in January, 2009.

There will be no peaceful transition of power in Jan '09.

 

[carpro]

There will be no peaceful transition of power in Jan '09.

You've put your tongue to prophecy.

I'll remember you said that.:laugh:

 

[Rufus_1611]

You've put your tongue to prophecy.

I'll remember you said that.:laugh:

Remember I said it, but don't call it prophecy. I'm sure you understand the criteria for one making a prophetic statement.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

There will be no peaceful transition of power in Jan '09.

There is a good chance of that! The election of 2000 will be a laughing stock compared to this one.

 

[carpro]

There is a good chance of that! The election of 2000 will be a laughing stock compared to this one.

Possible.

But I believe he means that Bush won't give up power peacefully, not that the candidates will squabble amongst themselves.

That's what he has to mean for all the nutballs to be vindicated.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Possible.

But I believe he means that Bush won't give up power peacefully, not that the candidates will squabble amongst themselves.

That's what he has to mean for all the nutballs to be vindicated.

Ahhh!.... Well that idea is so foreign to me I would never see that. What a ludicrous thought.

 

[poncho]

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —George W. Bush Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

One thing I'm confused about. Why would the global elite allow George W. Bush to be dictator? I mean there must be someone better qualified and more charismatic for that job. His administration and their "legal reasoning" has brought us quite a bit closer to that situation with the idea of a unitary decidership and that the CIC is above the law as long as we're at war. And now we're always going to be at war or so it would seem.

As David Cole puts it,

Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished.

 

[carpro]

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —George W. Bush Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

"If" is a sometimes huge word.

From his viewpoint, it's a true statement.

If I said it, it would would also be a true statement.

The problem is with that blasted "if". It just won't go away.:laugh:

 

[Rufus_1611]

"If" is a sometimes huge word.

From his viewpoint, it's a true statement.

If I said it, it would would also be a true statement.

The problem is with that blasted "if". It just won't go away.:laugh:

In 2000 it wasn't a dictatorship. However, in 7 years the president has accomplished quite a bit.