twa Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Yeah, I'm sad that Carter backed off his comments because he was right on the money and Bush's approval ratings prove it. Bush 28%!!! You go buddy, see how low you can get it in the next 18 months, I bet you can hit the teens! You obviously weren't around for Carter's catastrophe of a term. talk about the pot calling the kettle black...Carter set the standard for incompetence. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 You mean except for the parts that ended up with him in jail, right? He ended up a good 10 years prior to the enabling act. Or the part where his thugs killed his political enemies? Why kill a political enemy when you can simply declare them enemy combatant? Or the part where he declared that one election was enough, and he was dictator for life? The enabling act was passsed and limited to 4 years, after 4 years of dictatorship the decision was made, by Hitler, to extend it. Once democracy is effectively gone, how exactly are you going to limit a dictators power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 LOL...Godwin's Law strikes again. Not scary at all, but the histrionics certainly are funny. It was only a matter of time based on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 You obviously weren't around for Carter's catastrophe of a term.talk about the pot calling the kettle black...Carter set the standard for incompetence. :laugh: Well then wouldn't Carter be in the best position to understand what incompetence is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Well then wouldn't Carter be in the best position to understand what incompetence is. Hard to argue that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Read up on your history, because after he spent time in jail he vowed to come to power legally and he did. And his dictator for life title was bestowed upon him legally. I'm sorry techboy but the facts are not on your side, and having had 2 courses in Nazi Holocaust in undergrad I'm pretty sure of the history of how that monster did what he did. Not only have I read my history, I have taught it to middle schoolers. Anyway, I hope you're not going to try to tell me that the "Night of the Long Knives" (or any number of murders and intimidation tactics by the SA before this) was perfectly legal. I'm sorry, but it's simply not a valid comparison. Caution is one thing, hysteria is another. Unless, of course, you found Lincoln and Roosevelt to be Hitler-esque as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Always ready to step up and straighten the country out You do realize that you took an oath to defend the Constitution and not the President, right? I think this is a response to Hurricane Katrina. Bush took a ton of crap over what happened in Katrina, even though there was very little he could do. It was up the Governor to request the National Guard, and the mayors and governors to to create and execute an evacuation plan. Louisiana (and especially New Orleans) was very . . . slow to do these things. This plan would make it so the President doesn't have to wait. Then again, I'm sure most dictators have at least seemed like they had the best interests of the people at heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 The true irony of this, of course, is that the people who would be most upset bny this were it to happen (liberals), are the ones least likely to have the armaments necessary to revolt and take back power... We libertarians have no such concerns, of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan999 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Am I the only one that thinks that even if a president did make himself dictator, no one would support him? Is the military THAT much of a servile body? I doubt many in America would support a man making himself dictator. Nazi Germany was a little bit different because of the terrible conditions they were in after WWI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Anyway, I hope you're not going to try to tell me that the "Night of the Long Knives" (or any number of murders and intimidation tactics by the SA before this) was perfectly legal. FYI, this happened after the enabling act, and considering the circumstances it was perfectly legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted May 22, 2007 Author Share Posted May 22, 2007 i'm surprised this thread picked up so much steam. i just figured this was a way to be more effective during terrorist attacks or natural disasters. i thought the conclusion from 911 and katrina is that we need more communication between the agencies and though the pres is a little high up the ladder they do need someone to keep them on task. however from reading some of these posts, it could be setting the stage for a power play before jan 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieFlatline Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 You guy still aren't getting it. He's responsible for making sure there is a Continuity of Government plan in place that is coordinated amongst everyone. This is not about him being in charge in the face of an emergency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Well, he's already thrown around the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" and trivialized them so badly that I assume "catastrophic" could mean a menacing looking rain cloud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 You guy still aren't getting it. He's responsible for making sure there is a Continuity of Government plan in place that is coordinated amongst everyone. This is not about him being in charge in the face of an emergency. You're talking about Bush remember, he has proven that he can't make sure there is continuity within his own party, how in the world do we expect him to ensure continuity between all the branches of government? Especially when he views anyone who disagrees with him as being evil and unAmerican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Well, he's already thrown around the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" and trivialized them so badly that I assume "catastrophic" could mean a menacing looking rain cloud. Or a bunch of Republicans turning on him and demanding a pull out in Iraq, I can't imagine Bush seeing anything more catastrophic than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Yeah like King W is so good in a crisis, a real leader please. He sat there in that Florida school for 20 minutes like a deer in head lights when he first heard NY WTC was under attack. Yellow bellied coward inspires real confidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Seriously, folks, I wouldn't worry about it. Odds are, if there is an emergency in the next two years, he'll be on vacation, anyway, and his response will be that he'll get right on it, just as soon as he finishes these three days of fundraisers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switchgear Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 I remember this kind of hysteria from right wingers in the lead up to the end of the Clinton administration. Talk radio was abuzz with rumors of troop buildups in preparation for a power grab and such. I thought the liberal types were supposed to be more level headed than this. I'll make a deal with anyone thinks Bush really is going to try to set himself up as a dictator. I'll help any "overthrow the government" movement if he stays one day past his appointed term. On the flip side, assuming the transfer of power goes as it has for the past 200+ years, people who bought into this will come back to ES and admit they were being paranoid nut jobs. Who's in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Seriously, folks, I wouldn't worry about it. Odds are, if there is an emergency in the next two years, he'll be on vacation, anyway, and his response will be that he'll get right on it, just as soon as he finishes these three days of fundraisers. Not to mention that we'll hear him talking about the "progress" that is being made. Ugh! All progress and no results, this will the W's legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Yeah, I'm sad that Carter backed off his comments because he was right on the money and Bush's approval ratings prove it. Bush 28%!!! You go buddy, see how low you can get it in the next 18 months, I bet you can hit the teens! he backed off because he know what he said was wrong how can you be the worst president when during your term the stock market is at the highest, the economy is still strong even with high gas prices, the only thing Bush did wrong was how he handled the war, even if someone else was president we still would be in Iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Just to clarify, the left wing is now mad that Bush is doing this, but 1.5 years ago they were mad because he didnt do it during Katrina. Second verse, same as the first. What would Lincoln do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 he backed off because he know what he said was wronghow can you be the worst president when during your term the stock market is at the highest, the economy is still strong even with high gas prices, the only thing Bush did wrong was how he handled the war, even if someone else was president we still would be in Iraq No, he backed off because the story became about Carter and not Bush, and Carter wants the attention squarely on Bush. As far as the high stock market being the President's responsibility then I think you seriously over estimate the President's ability to control a global economy. This is like giving all the credit and all the blame to the goalie in hockey as if he were the reason for the wins and losses and is ignorant that he is but one cog in a very large wheel. As for being in Iraq regardless, well, I for one would argue the legitimacy of that position because I believe that this Administration acted in such a way so that they fabricated the case for war based on their own Neo-Con ideology, which would not have happened under another administration. Bill Moyers "Buying the War" shows just how the Administration created the connection between Iraq, WMD, Al Qaeda and the preceived eminent threat that these posed to the US, which was then used to bring Bush's personal vendetta against Saddam into the realm of the "War on Terror" which is really the war on Jihadist Islam. But, then that is beyond the scope of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Just to clarify, the left wing is now mad that Bush is doing this, but 1.5 years ago they were mad because he didnt do it during Katrina.Second verse, same as the first. What would Lincoln do? I actually place the blame for Katrina on Mayor Nagan and the Louisiana Governor. While I think that FEMA dropped the ball too, much of the loss of life could have been prevented by the local governments. As for your last comment, I will simply repeat what I said earlier; I am more inclined to give this authority and the benefit of the doubt to Lincoln than I am inclined to give the same benefit of the doubt to Bush especially considering his track record of governemental abuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 No, he backed off because the story became about Carter and not Bush, and Carter wants the attention squarely on Bush. That makes no sense and you know it. If he wanted it to be about bush he would not have denied it. He looked like a moron when saying oh i was talking about one president and bush even though he said the WORST OF ALL TIME, to me that means all time. The reason why Carter backtracked because the WH responded and said the Carter no longer matters, and that hit home with Carter and is the truth. He is irrevelant now and is an old man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 I actually place the blame for Katrina on Mayor Nagan and the Louisiana Governor. While I think that FEMA dropped the ball too, much of the loss of life could have been prevented by the local governments.As for your last comment, I will simply repeat what I said earlier; I am more inclined to give this authority and the benefit of the doubt to Lincoln than I am inclined to give the same benefit of the doubt to Bush especially considering his track record of governemental abuses. Either ALL Presidents have this authority, or none of them do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.