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.

 

Generalissimo Bush

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 05:50 AM
link   
A Clear And Present
Danger To The Republic



Source




A generalissimo, besides being the top officer in the military, is also the absolute ruler over the populace and the other parts of the government. He answers only to himself, and makes and enforces the laws as he sees fit. This is exactly the power that President Bush is claiming as commander in chief.






It is significant to note that after the Supreme Court ruled against his commander-in-chief argument that he had the right to ignore the Geneva Conventions in Guantanamo, Bush, instead of saying he would "of course comply" with the court's ruling, said he was "willing to comply" with the decision, clearly implying that he didn't feel compelled to comply with a decision by the High Court.


Ideally, Congress would be challenging this assault on its own authority by a megalomaniacal president. Ideally the federal courts would be slapping down this affront to the Constitution. But Congress is in the hands of the presidentâ·s party, and Republicans in Congress are content to sit on their hands as the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend is trashed. The Democratic "opposition" party, meanwhile, has been so afraid of being accused of "treason," or of being "soft on terrorism," that they have done little or nothing to block the president's power grabs. Many Democrats in Congress have even endorsed the nomination of judges like John Roberts and Sam Alito who back the president's dictatorial ambitions. And the Supreme Court, as well as the lower courts, are being packed with apologists for unfettered presidential power.

If we Americans do not demand that Congress stand up to this unconstitutional power grab, if we do not demand that only those who believe in the concept of separation of powers and who share the founders' abiding fear of an overly powerful presidency be elevated to the federal bench, and if we do not start publicly protesting this perversion of the presidency, American democracy could be on its last legs.



American Democracy IS on its last legs...no telling where we go from here. IMO this is a good article because it shows that el Generalissimo Bush is not going to waiver from his agenda.





posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   


posted by dgtempe

A Clear And Present
Danger To The Republic



A generalissimo, besides being the top officer in the military, is also the absolute ruler over the populace and the other parts of the government. He answers only to himself, and makes and enforces the laws as he sees fit. This is exactly the power that President Bush is claiming as commander in chief. [Edited by Don W]




Let’s see, DGT, who have been generalissimo in the not too distant past we can compare to Bush43? Hmm. Francisco Franco, the generalissimo of fascist Spain and the silent ally of Adolph Hitler.

Then there was Chiang Kai-chek, who called himself the generalissimo of the Republic of China. Chiang was a son in law of Sun Yat-sen, leader of the 1912 Revolution in China. Chiang was the leader of the Koumantang Party of Sun. Sun had 3 daughters. Another daughter married the president of the Bank of China. The third daughter married the head of the Secret Police.

Generalissimo sounds like a title you’d be proud of? By way of comparison, Josip Broz Tito called himself “Marshal Tito.” He was no fascist and did not want a title so familiar with the rank of generalissimo. Even Binto Mussolini did not aspire to the title, generalissimo but did take the title of “il Duce” which I guess must be Italian for The Duke. Sort of a precursor of Hitler’s title “Der Fuhrer” which I think means The Leader.





Congress is in the hands of the president, and Republicans in Congress are content to sit on their hands as the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend is trashed.

The Democratic "opposition" party, meanwhile, has been so afraid of being accused of "treason," or of being "soft on terrorism," that they have done nothing to block the president's power grabs.

If Americans do not demand Congress stand up to this unconstitutional power grab and if we do not start publicly protesting this perversion of the presidency, American democracy could be on its last legs. [Edited by Don W]



American Democracy IS on its last legs . . no telling where we go from here. IMO this is a good article because it shows that Generalissimo Bush is not wavering from his agenda. [He knows what he is doing! Do we?] [Edited by Don W]



Was it not Ben Franklin who answered, “You have a republic if you can keep it?”


[edit on 7/10/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Generalissimo? Proud?

What are you talking about?


Did you miss the whole point of the story? Because if you did, the point was that other countries have had THEIRS, now we seem to have one too.

There is nothing to be proud of here.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...


The term "Generalissimo" in English has come to refer to a kind of ruler who has ascended to that position by a military coup. In most developed English-speaking countries, the term commonly evokes the image of corrupt dictatorships and so-called "banana republics."


Somebody here on this thread decided to agree with this definition to apply to our current president.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
And so i have. He is generalissimo of the Banana Republic, America.

Time to out him.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   


posted by deltaboy

Wikipedia = Generalissimo


The term "Generalissimo" in English has come to refer to ruler who ascended to that position by a military coup. In most developed English-speaking countries, the term commonly evokes the image of corrupt dictatorships and so-called "banana republics." Edited by Don W]



Somebody here on this thread decided to apply to our current president



OTOH, DeltaBoy, I like this definition:


A generalissimo, besides being the top officer in the military, is also the absolute ruler over the populace. He answers only to himself as he sees fit. This is exactly the power that President Bush is claiming as commander-in-chief.



I’ll bet you never thought for a New York minute you’d be writing this today, in 2006, in America. Sort of disappointing isn’t it? What happened to July 4? What happened to December 7?

The master plan began on Nine Eleven.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

I’ll bet you never thought for a New York minute you’d be writing this today, in 2006, in America. Sort of disappointing isn’t it? What happened to July 4? What happened to December 7?

The master plan began on Nine Eleven.


And it seems to surprise you that in a country like America which is supposedly commanded by a supposed generalissimo, you are allowed to critic him. Now why would somebody like Bush who is supposedly ruling the country with an iron fist allow somebody like you to criticise him? If you were living under the rule of Stalin...well you know what happens.


[edit on 10-7-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Bush as a Generalissimo?


Yes he will be more than happy to be called one . . . occurs under a dictatorship . . . something that I think he dreams about all the time.


I can only imagin all the names that he would love to be called around personal circles.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Deltaboy has the correct take on this.

Now, class. Pay attention and read my lips.

If the U.S. really was a dictatorship, etc., etc., ad nauseum as dgtempe and others love to claim, then she and all the others would not be posting what they do. They would simply have been silenced long ago.

Fact is, we can all actually use dgtempe as a kind of "U.S. dictatorship barometer" from now on.

If dgtempe is still here posting, then there's no U.S. dictatorship.




[edit on 7/10/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
centurion1211

You better leave dear Dg alone because is very well known that Bush has used the term If this was a dictatorship and If I was a dictator at least three times in public.

Occurs he is just joking . . . but still he is the president supposedly democratically elected so what business he has to be making references to dictatorships?

He dreams about it that is what happen.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Occurs he is just joking . . . but still he is the president supposedly democratically elected so what business he has to be making references to dictatorships?

He dreams about it that is what happen.


I'm certain other past presidents would have want to do things that is considered undemocratic, even if it meant to protect or serve the people. Does it mean dictatorship? Depends on who is being asked.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
marg,

I'm sure dgtempe can fend for herself.

Bush telling jokes, or anything else that dgtempe and the people that think similarly have posted, does not equal a U.S. dictatorship.




posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
deltaboy

The only people that Mr. Bush is serving is the corporate one even you already has noticed that.

A president that cares for the well being of a nation would not have our nation in such incredible and outrageous deficit.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
deltaboy

The only people that Mr. Bush is serving is the corporate one even you already has noticed that.

A president that cares for the well being of a nation would not have our nation in such incredible and outrageous deficit.


Uhuh. As if Bush is the only president to have America in a deficit state. Anyways what is your view of other past presidents' actions in times of war?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
DGTEMPE here...reporting under the cover of my nice living room...appearing to all the outside world as a sane person....

Do hereby declare that this is the most fitting name for this president. AND apparently still with the freedom to post it. But dont dispair, my friends, the time will come when uttering these words, will mean my lips will be shipped to Guantanamo and my body will be riddled with bullets somewhere in the North East.

The time is not right yet.
It will be, just wait and see.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

actions in times of war?


What war? oh, you mean the invasion and liberation of Iraq?

Or Bush made and proclaim war in the ideology of terrorism.

Yes we are at war alright.
and he is self proclaim war president.

For some reason US wars records has not been very good in the past and the present.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043


For some reason US wars records has not been very good in the past and the present.



War records as you mean in wins and loses, or do you mean how presidents in the past have dealt in wars, both foreign and domestic?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

War records as you mean in wins and loses, or do you mean how presidents in the past have dealt in wars, both foreign and domestic?


Yes deltaboy the wars that our country has fought in foreign land not our own domestic wars.

I believe it was not long ago a thread on that subject . . . I don't know if you remember . . . I kind of learned a few facts that I had no clue existed until I decided to take a good look at the reasons and results of the wars US has been involved with.

While many good points were discussed also was the bad points too.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
marg, we seem to be going off topic. This thread is about Bush being considered a generalissimo. Now we right now are at war (after all what the heck is it call then?), and when we are at war, some civil liberties tend to be viewed as being curbed. We have in the past where presidents during wartime have taken extreme measures that could be considered undemocratic and leading to dictatorship. Now the question is...is Bush is considered a generalissimo? Are the past presidents whos policies in the past wars considered them generalissimos?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Yes we are going off topic.

I only believe that the term Generalissimo are given to dictatorial leaders at least in Spanish countries.

Now when it comes to Bush and his self proclaim powers of war president he can be called a General or Generalism.

Issuing the term to describe him is due in part to the way he is view in his role as president.

I agree with the term.

But occurs you support the administration so in your case you will disagree with me and anybody else that uses the term to describe him.

Its a matter of personal opinion and interpretation.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join