PDA

View Full Version : Bush a dictator?



Llamas
05-20-2007, 07:32 AM
Apparently, if there's another catastrophic event while Bush is still in office, it'll become a sort of dictatorship.

"The Bush administration has released a directive called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency” the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency."


Full article. http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=2169

wheelchairman
05-20-2007, 08:14 AM
It depends what powers they give him. Because people throw the term dictator around a lot. ESPECIALLY on a website where they talk about exposing the "new world order", wtf does that even mean?

The only increased powers it seems that Bush gets as of now are extra advisors. All functioning parts of government will exist, Bush will only "lead" them. Although he's supposed to lead the Federal Government through these catastrophic times, should they arrive. It doesn't define what lead means, and it doesn't give him any more powers.

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.

Llamas
05-20-2007, 08:25 AM
Well, it says he can make decisions without cooperation with all branches of the government.

The website is definitely biased, and I wish I could find something a little more factual... I'm not freaking out about it, but it's definitely something to think about and is kinda scary in a way.

wheelchairman
05-20-2007, 08:39 AM
Which directive says that?

Ha I wish I could tell you of a good site. Cause biased is one thing, completely delusional is another. "New World Order"? ick.

Llamas
05-20-2007, 08:54 AM
He gets to coordinate everything in all the branches under this. So since he gets to do that himself, they don't have to agree with him... at least that's how it seems.

And I didn't read that New world order thing, haha. Weird.

wheelchairman
05-20-2007, 09:17 AM
Yeah but where does it say that? The article you posted as a link to whitehouse.gov where it shows the directives as they were written.

Llamas
05-20-2007, 09:25 AM
"a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, "

am I totally misunderstanding something?

wheelchairman
05-20-2007, 09:32 AM
The rest of that directive says "with proper respect to the separation of the three powers and to the constitution."

Llamas
05-20-2007, 09:44 AM
How does that say otherwise?

HeadAroundU
05-20-2007, 09:51 AM
You don't have TheOldMark's BS hanging on the wall, that's a problem. :D

wheelchairman
05-20-2007, 09:56 AM
How does that say otherwise?

It doesn't sound like it makes Bush a dictator, in fact it doesn't sound entirely more than the power some of our former presidents have accumulated.

HeadAroundU
05-20-2007, 10:00 AM
The rest of that directive says "with proper respect to the separation of the three powers and to the constitution."
What's that? What are those powers? :confused:

Mota Boy
05-20-2007, 10:03 AM
ESPECIALLY on a website where they talk about exposing the "new world order", wtf does that even mean?As far as I can tell, the phrase "new world order" originated from Bush I, who was referring to the UN-sanctioned Gulf War, in which a coalition of global forces, including the USSR, worked together to repel Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It optimistically referred to a post-Cold War world in which all nations would work together to further the causes of freedom and democracy (at the time, neoconservatism was still in its infancy).

Of course, to thousands of paranoid freaks in the US, "new world order" was a code name of a secretive cabal of powerful men who were going to bring about a single, global military government under the auspices of the UN, dismantling US democracy and removing the right to bear arms. Seriously.

wheelchairman
05-20-2007, 10:15 AM
Mota Boy, be that as it may, when Hogan joined the NWO, the World Wrestling Federation was in for a shock. Also I don't think roguegovernment.com was talking about that optimistic definition.

HAU, I meant three branches of government. Legislative, Executive and Judicial.

HeadAroundU
05-20-2007, 10:32 AM
Thanx, hmmm "proper respect". Is that like when he could/did veto the whole government that USA is not gonna take away military forces from Iraq? :p

wheelchairman
05-20-2007, 11:11 AM
Well I think the president has the right to veto. Haven't looked into it though.

I imagine that there are other bills that already exist that in case of an American Reichstags fire would give the president omnipotent super powers.

nieh
05-20-2007, 01:02 PM
Thanx, hmmm "proper respect". Is that like when he could/did veto the whole government that USA is not gonna take away military forces from Iraq? :p

He can't veto the whole government. Congress and the house can override the veto if they get enough votes.

HeadAroundU
05-20-2007, 01:52 PM
I just checked wiki:

"in systems such as that of the United States, the President has the power to veto acts of the legislature, and in turn a supermajority of legislators may act to override the veto."


"The United States Senate requires a supermajority of 60 percent to move to a vote through a cloture motion, which closes debate on a bill or nomination, thus ending a filibuster by a minority of members. There are currently 100 members, so sixty percent is sixty Senators."

"The United States Senate is one of the two chambers of the bicameral United States Congress, the other being the House of Representatives. It is known informally as the "upper house.""


"The United States Constitution requires a supermajority of two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose a Congress-driven constitutional amendment; it also requires a three-quarters supermajority of state legislatures for final adoption of any constitutional amendment, as well as a two-thirds supermajority to pass a bill over the president's veto."

"The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America."


MyHeadAroundHurts. :(

Venom Symbiote
05-20-2007, 04:10 PM
Oh please.

nieh
05-20-2007, 04:47 PM
Oh please.

I'm kind of tempted to ask you to elaborate but I'm afraid you might actually take me up on it.

HeadAroundU
05-20-2007, 06:12 PM
I guess he developed "oh look, it's Venom being insightful again" phobia.

Jakebert
05-20-2007, 06:19 PM
I have a feeling that most of the board has got that by now.

Venom Symbiote
05-20-2007, 06:26 PM
Well, Wheelchairman will hate me for agreeing with him, but he's basically covered everything that needs to be said.

It's increased powers, sure, but people saying "zomg, dictatorship!" are just plain stupid. It's similar to the French thing. "Oh no, he's a little more right-wing than our last guy, he MUST BE MUSSOLINI/HITLER REINCARNATE" - fucked up.

Slightly increased presidential powers does not equate to the downfall of your entire established democracy.

Sin Studly
05-21-2007, 10:54 AM
This is awful. If there was a nuclear strike or something on my country, I'd want at least four months of wading through buerocratic red tape before anyone in charge could start doing anything about it.

wheelchairman
05-21-2007, 11:00 AM
I think there is more fear of a reichstag fire than of a nuclear bomb.

Sin Studly
05-21-2007, 05:35 PM
Why is that a bad thing, anyway?

edit ; I guess it would suck for the people in the "Reichstag".