It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush - President for Life

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Bush is testing the waters now to see if he can somehow become President for Life - with an alternate plan involving getting Laura Bush elected for four years while the Supreme Court can be jimmied, and the votes obtained by election fraud, in the House and Senate, to overturn the 22nd Amendment forbidding it. The Constitutional Convention required would be a dandy time to also include other revisions to the Constitution. One assumes those revisions will be said to have been "not actually read" by the convention and passed at some time like 3 in the morning on a Sunday.

I expect reaction from the "Right" to be "good - that's what we need."




posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
What evidence do you have of this? Or is this a theory?

My personal theory is that by 2008 we'll be embroiled in a pretty large scale war, and emergency legislation will be enacted prior to that year, to postpone the elections when martial law is declared. It will be a rather innocuous part of a bill for something else, like money for crippled kids or something, and yes, likely passed at around 3am on a Sunday....



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
What evidence do you have of this? Or is this a theory?

My personal theory is that by 2008 we'll be embroiled in a pretty large scale war, and emergency legislation will be enacted prior to that year, to postpone the elections when martial law is declared. It will be a rather innocuous part of a bill for something else, like money for crippled kids or something, and yes, likely passed at around 3am on a Sunday....


I agree with you Gazrok I've thought the exact same since after 9/11.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
"Good, that's what we need"?! That is the last thing this country needs. Bill Clinton made a push at a pseudo-repeal of the 22nd ammendment, to change it to a 2 consecutive term limit, but everyone, both on the right and the left, shot it down. I don't see todays environment being any less polarized as the nation was during Clinton's time.

Let not your heart be troubled.

By the way, it sounds like you are of the opinion that fellow "Righters" like myself don't cherish democracy, and would rather see a totalitarian form of government. This is far from the truth!



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
lefties crack me up. first W is a drunken party boy, just the mouthpiece for rove, and then he's a schemer with his own ideas.

which is it ? can you make up your mind ? oh wait, thats what cost you the last election, no clear stances on anything !



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Sorry, "Right," I should have said "some" on the "right."

I heard the "Laura Bush for Prez" yesterday, somewhere. It's too depressing to go back and find out where but I did hear it (or read it.)

Ever notice that the people who in the U.S. who complain about the "liberal" media don't realize that's who trained them to separate everything into "liberal" and "conservative" in the first place?

And it's: "Bush fell quick prey to Amphetamine Fascism (in his case coc aine)" and yes, it all IS Karl's idea. And the Carlyle group, and the 40 Committee, and the Bin Laden family, and Halliburton, and Westinghouse and GE.

Less government. Less corporate powers. More peace. More beer. More science.

Yes, I really DO fear a move like that from Bush.

[edit on 6/1/2005 by Noumenon]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
First off, let me say that I do not cherish "democracy", as we were supposed to be a Republic, rather than civil government under military rule.

Now, having said that, may I request that you clarify the opening post as it is vague and disjointed?

Are you suggesting that Laura Bush is going to run for president? An outlandish notion, if you ask me, but then again, I said the same thing about Clinton's possible reelection a year before it happened!

I'm not sure what you are saying when you speak of a jimmied Supreme Court. What does that mean?

You are aware how a constitutional amendment is supposed to occur, don't you? You are aware that it is not something that can occur by congress at 0300hrs, right, therefore your concept is erroneous? Thankfully so, I might add, as the 20th amendment "Advisory Panel to the Commander in Chief" congress is dangerous enough as it is.

Free Traficant!



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
a jimmied Supreme Court. What does that mean?


Your question has many answers. Why not play devil's advocate and see what you can come up with?



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
What I might come up with is not the point.

I saked you to clarify yourself, as it is you that made the assertion.

If you have no clue what you were trying to say, tell me now so that I might move this thread to the trash. Otehrwise, please do not try and play mystic with me, clarify your thoughts. I do not read minds.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noumenon
Your question has many answers. Why not play devil's advocate and see what you can come up with?


That amused me!

Thomas: Dang it, touche...When I read your republic comment, I was hoping to shirk by on semantics, had I said "our democracy", but I didn't. Doh!



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
It is easy to misuse the word "democracy" as we have been conditioned to use it as a good word.

Sparta is an example of a democracy; we weren't supposed to be a nation patterned after Sparta.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
You asked about "jimmy the Supreme Court".
scenarios:
Death of justices, replaced by secretly-unAmerican (meaning secretly undemocratic and unFederalist)
Blackmail
Bribery
Moles already in place
Justices controlled like Manchurian Candidates, Justices all drugged, manipulated
Justices all killed at once, martial law declared.

There are probably many ways to "jimmy" the Supreme Court. Many including me believe it happened already in 2000.

And no, I am not making this up:
www.google.com...



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   


lefties crack me up. first W is a drunken party boy, just the mouthpiece for rove, and then he's a schemer with his own ideas.

which is it ? can you make up your mind ? oh wait, thats what cost you the last election, no clear stances on anything !


hehe...touche'!!!

Though I'm not a "leftie", I think the drunken party boy/coke-head/awol moniker fits, hehe...

As for "schemer", I don't think anyone really believes Shrub is the one calling the shots here... It's those who are really pulling the puppet strings, those are the ones who schemed this.

As for not being able to make this happen, true, amendments take a while, but not emergency bills or executive agreements, national security directives, etc. One need look no further than the Terri Schiavo case to see how the Bush team is perfectly willing and able to draft a bill overnight and pass it through a midnight session of Congress, when they want to. I still can't believe that nonsense didn't send a shiver down peoples' spine...regardless of party affiliation...



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I think the term "jimmy" has thrown me off.

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, it has been manipulated for years by the liberals in congress, in order to usurp power and use it to create "law" that would never be passed through legislative means.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
It is easy to misuse the word "democracy" as we have been conditioned to use it as a good word.

Sparta is an example of a democracy; we weren't supposed to be a nation patterned after Sparta.


I think you're thinking of Athens, which, so far as I know, was the last true democracy to grace this planet. The Spartan government was ruled by two heredical kings. Sparta did, however, have more freedoms for woman than any of the other Greek citystates.

And I'm sure this will go far to further the discussion about Bush



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noumenon
Bush is testing the waters now to see if he can somehow become President for Life

According to what???


- with an alternate plan involving getting Laura Bush elected for four years

Uhmmm, conspiracy fails.


while the Supreme Court can be jimmied,

Why would 4 years make any difference? What leftist is getting replaced in 4 years?



jake
Sparta did, however, have more freedoms for woman than any of the other Greek citystates.

They were allowed to cut their hair short and participiate in nude gymnastics, but then again they couldn't leave the home and newlyweds had to be 'ritually raped' by their husbands (who'd sneak into the house, at night, to consumate their marriage, and not otherwise see their women).

But then again thats relative to the rest of the world.

Some have considered Sparta to by a gynocracy, where the women ruled the men, tho obviously not directly.

[edit on 1-6-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Sparta is an example of a democracy; we weren't supposed to be a nation patterned after Sparta.

? The founders modeled the US on Sparta and Rome. Did you mean Athens perchance?? Sparta was more of a republic, with a constitution, and checks and balances on the kingship (ie a dual kingship), and also a Gerousia, literally, a meeting of geriatrics, old men, rather than a large open general assembly (tho they had that too). Whereas athens had no kings, no senate, and just a large open assembly.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
True, but they were a "democracy" in the true sense, as it was military backing their civil government. One vote per person, just as share holders, and once you cast the vote as the shareholder, you have no more power. As it is with us today, in that the individual states have no sovereignty, but are controlled, and even owned, by the federal government.
I understand what the both of you are saying, but I am refering to another angle. Most governments are a bit complex, and is hard to describe them with one word; I was thinking of one aspect, the aspect that is not good, or even meant to be, for our original form of government.

While we were already in trouble, economically, we really crashed against the reefs in 1861.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noumenon
Bush is testing the waters now to see if he can somehow become President for Life - with an alternate plan involving getting Laura Bush elected for four years while the Supreme Court can be jimmied, and the votes obtained by election fraud, in the House and Senate, to overturn the 22nd Amendment forbidding it. The Constitutional Convention required would be a dandy time to also include other revisions to the Constitution. One assumes those revisions will be said to have been "not actually read" by the convention and passed at some time like 3 in the morning on a Sunday.

I expect reaction from the "Right" to be "good - that's what we need."


Your statement is foolish, President Bush is in no way planning any of that. Laura is not going to run for President. But that is what the Clintons are planning.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
"where the women ruled the men, tho obviously not directly." by Nygdan]

That's everywhere, as far as I know, to some extent or another. Perhaps the traditional routes to power allowed women in each society are varied. And when change occurs, its either smoothly or not so smoothly.







 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join