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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I was young during the Vietnam war...i dont recall any of what is going on today as far as freedoms and rights.
I am willing to bet that previous "wartime" presidents did not have the reputation that our current president has today.
They may have bent some rules, but all in all, there wasnt the "feel" and the "corruption" and the goon squad wanting to mold and reshape the world without provocation, i might add.
This one is to be feared. Not only is he the "wartime" president (:shk: due to 9/11) but he's the cowboy president, the president who, is determined to change the world FAR beyond his allowed years as president, and has fancied himself as a dictator. He said so. Believe me, that was NO joke. His actions speak louder than his bad English.




posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

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



Chang Kai Shek (sp?) from Taiwan (chinese speaking country) was also called "generalissimo".


Originally posted by dgtempe
I was young during the Vietnam war...i dont recall any of what is going on today as far as freedoms and rights.
I am willing to bet that previous "wartime" presidents did not have the reputation that our current president has today.
They may have bent some rules, but all in all, there wasnt the "feel" and the "corruption" and the goon squad wanting to mold and reshape the world without provocation, i might add.


I guess you are saying that President Johnson's fabrication of the so-called Gulf of Tonkin incident did not cause you any worry? For those unaware of the details, Johnson falsely claimed that the north vietnamese attacked U.S. Navy ships off the coast, and then used that claim to justify a massive enlarging of the war from only U.S. advisors helping the South Vietnamese army to having over 500,000 U.S. troops there.

Oops, is your double standard showing? I'm still waiting to hear the screaming, "Johnson lied!!!!!" - because, in this case, Johnson really did lie to the American people. And look how many U.S. soldiers died because of Johnson's lie. Not 2,500 as in Iraq, try 55,000.


[edit on 7/10/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Actually it looks like an Italian word.


I'm too good:

generalissimo
noun

generalissimos
1. A supreme commander of the combined armed forces in some countries, who often also has political power.

Etymology: 17c: Italian, superlative of generale general.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Centurium, I wasnt worried about world politics in elementary school

As i said, i've lived my life surrounded by people in denial. How would i know trouble if it bit me in the butt? In fact, i am well aware of previous problems, but not to the Apocalyptic extent we have them now.
This takes the cake.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   



posted by marg6043

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




Here follows 2 stories from Google

1. Chiang Kai Shek.
Business Asia; June 15, 1998;
Generalissimo's genesis. My spirit will always be with my colleagues ... an age of revolution . Known by the rank he took, generalissimo, often shortened to the gimo by his American admirers ... political prisoner for two weeks, an indignity the Generalissimo never forgot.

2. Gen. Chiang Kai-Shek: paving the way for ...
Seattle Times, March 3, 2004
... Chiang Kai-Shek: China's Generalissimo and the Nation He Lost by Jonathon Fenby; I remember Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, the limping lion of ... The generalissimo was indeed a dictator in a system something ...



[edit on 7/10/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Centurium, I wasnt worried about world politics in elementary school

As i said, i've lived my life surrounded by people in denial. How would i know trouble if it bit me in the butt? In fact, i am well aware of previous problems, but not to the Apocalyptic extent we have them now.
This takes the cake.


But you were "willing to bet" that that 'idyllic' time was different than today. What are you basing your bet on? Sounds like nothing more than your personal feelings. I was just showing you that, in fact, it was worse. Instead of the "chicken little" people we have today crying "U.S. dictatorship, U.S dictatorship" based on, well, nothing, we had the real thing happening: a U.S. president lying to us and getting 55,000 soldiers killed in the process.

[edit on 7/10/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Actually is a book on El generalissimo el Busho that talks about the Bush years in a satirical way.

Tagging Bush El generalissimo is not new it goes as far as his governor years I believe.

One of the reasons given for such a title is the way in which he has implemented a new doctrine of invading any country any time with not substantial evidence whenever the US is threatened.

While this will be fine for some supporters of Bush doctrine it will not sit well if the invading country was other than the US.

Picturing him in uniform with medals seems to appeal to cartoonist and satirical writers.

Issues like holding information from the public and make it classified because national security, spying on American citizens and the writing of the patriot act are all taken into consideration when the term Generalissimo is used



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Could be, Centuriun, but i am concerned about "today"

Are you saying that because we've had near dictators in the past its ok to have one now?
I live in "today" mode. Today, we have a mess and its do to the man this thread is about.
Otherwise, we could go thru Clinton, Bush Sr, Johnson, Carter, Kennedy, you name tham, they've done something people did not agree with.

I'm talking NOW. Lets not forget Nixon....
who didnt cause one iota of the grief this man is causing now, but that's my opinion. BTW, Clinton turned out to be a disgrace to his wife and family and no one else. That was ok, though.

I swear.....(I should stop swearing)



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Centurion, you are apparently unaware that VERY powerful people own Bush.

Hell, they've owned quite a few of our presidents. But, whatever. Keep supporting this chimp faced buffoon, it's your choice.

I prefer to call him Liar in Chief, or maybe Idiot in Chief. But, I like Generalissimo too...




posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   


posted by marg6043

Tagging Bush El generalissimo is not new it goes as far as his governor years I believe. Issues like withholding information from the public and make it classified because [he claims] national security, spying on American citizens and the writing of the Patriot Act are all taken into consideration when the term Generalissimo is used [Edited by Don W]



Bush43 and his flunky, Gonzales, had 154 men executed in his 6 years as governor of Texas. That was one execution every 2 weeks, on average. They had 2 “doubles” and scheduled one “triple” which flopped into a mere “double.”

That is a world record, by the way. Well amongst the so-called civilized states. I do not believe a normal person can sign 154 death warrants. And stay normal.

“The buck stops here.” To sign a death warrant is not to fulfill a perfunctory requirement of the law. If that was all it meant, a clerk could sign the warrant. To sign the warrant represents the convicted person’s last chance for life. To sign a death warrant is to certify that you - the governor - and not a flunky - have reviewed the case sufficiently to be satisfied the person is guilty as charged and that all his constitutional rights have been preserved. Then you sign.

I will never believe Geo W Bush read those 154 cases. Never.



[edit on 7/10/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite



posted by marg6043

Tagging Bush El generalissimo is not new it goes as far as his governor years I believe. Issues like withholding information from the public and make it classified because [he claims] national security, spying on American citizens and the writing of the Patriot Act are all taken into consideration when the term Generalissimo is used [Edited by Don W]





I will never believe Geo W Bush read those 154 cases. Never.



Maybe he had someone read to him, since he cannot.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I live in "today" mode. Today, we have a mess and its do to the man this thread is about.


You originally brought up the past, but I'm happy to return this to the present.


I'm talking NOW. Lets not forget Nixon....
who didnt cause one iota of the grief this man is causing now, but that's my opinion. BTW, Clinton turned out to be a disgrace to his wife and family and no one else. That was ok, though.

I swear.....(I should stop swearing)


Like I said, now you are.

To many, truth and reality are apparently very fluid concepts. My point (and it sounds like you kind of agree) was simply that we've been governed by a long string of "benders of the truth". My question to you is (and has been), exactly what is it about this one that has turned you into a 'chicken little' type?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Centurion, you are apparently unaware that VERY powerful people own Bush.

Hell, they've owned quite a few of our presidents. But, whatever. Keep supporting this chimp faced buffoon, it's your choice.

I prefer to call him Liar in Chief, or maybe Idiot in Chief. But, I like Generalissimo too...



If you read any of my more recent posts, I am not supporting him. There are a number of issues where I think Bush has made the wrong decisions. What I have been 'fighting' for, however, is a level playing field to discuss this (and others) issue. Many of you are just thoughtlessly ranting about this guy like he was the anti-christ or something. The hate generated against this guy seems way out of proportion when you consider what previous presidents have also done. My 'different' approach is the constitutional one - I don't call Bush childish names, or call for impeachment, or worse because I don't like his decisions, I vote for someone else next time.

As far as being Bush being "owned"? You naively say that like this situation is new and unique. This is also something I say a lot - get a history book ...




[edit on 7/10/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Centurium,

I'll be honest and straight with you. No jokes. The day it was announced that Bush and Cheney would have the White House, i got a knot in my stomach, it was a sadness i couldnt explain. I had nothing against Bush or Cheney, honest. So i have this feeling of impending doom like i never had any other time in my life.
Let me backtrack and say that i liked Reagan, i know, some didnt like him, i absolutely loved him. I liked the man. With Clinton, well, there wasnt much going on until the stuff with the women started coming out. Still, i had no real problem, he was ok and did ok with bringing down the deficit and all.
Going back to my knot in the stomach, that was when it all started for me. Then 9/11 came and i swear, i was wearing the t shirts with the flags, singing "God Bless America" the whole thing. I was behind my nation......until i started doubting and that knot came back to me and things started to become quite clear to me that something was wrong. It became apparent to me that 9/11 wasnt what it was cut out to be.
I was behind the war in Afghanistan, as most of us were. THEN the poop hit the fan for me when Bush started his talk about preemptive wars, went in to Iraq because he's the "decider" and you know the rest of the story...
Since, so much has come to surface daily, i'm talking daily, that i have had it with the lies which persist, the crimes, the people he's affiliated with, crime people,...
Then there's Cheney- God forgive me, i cant stomach that man. He has a black aura....the epitome of arrogance....what can i say?
So its not just Bush per se, its the "bunch" he's affiliated with; Looking at them seems "final", "apocalyptic", "Trouble of biblical proportions".....do you follow me?

I know i am not a good writter, but i think i can convey the message here. These people do not sit well with me from day one.

There's a whole lot more, maybe i am not being fair. Who knows. Maybe i have made them into monsters and all they simply want is to save America. Somehow, i highly doubt it.
According to the polls, lots of Americans feel as i do. I am just trying to give you a little of my perspective and i appreciate you listening, even if you dont agree.
My gut is hardly ever wrong.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Actually Dg I felt the same but when the second term came because I did supported Bush/Chenney on the first term.

And yes I believe that the death sentences has to do very much with the tagging of generalissimo.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I have to say that it is counterproductive to call Bush Generalissimo. If you don't like the guy or his policies then have an argument against him that other people will be willing to listen to. If you start right off by calling him a Nazi or whatever, people will automatically stop listening to you. It would be much more appropriate to call him by the title that he has earned, President of the United States, and then move on to if you think he fills the role well. And especially don't fret over the fate of the world due to the small part that Bush plays in it. Yes horrible wars are started but in some time a new leader will be elected, and if we as people push for responsible representation then we should have no fear in the future. All problems can be solved in time, It is just a matter of how much.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
We ARE having a nice discussion and YOU brought up the word NAZI. Kindly refrain from that.
It is against ATS rules.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I can't say the word "Nazi"? I am new here so if there is a rule stating that people cannot post the word "Nazi" then please by all means show it to me. There very well may be, but this seems like a strange policy to me.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I'll be honest and straight with you. No jokes. The day it was announced that Bush and Cheney would have the White House, i got a knot in my stomach, it was a sadness i couldnt explain. I had nothing against Bush or Cheney, honest. So i have this feeling of impending doom like i never had any other time in my life. I am just trying to give you a little of my perspective and i appreciate you listening, even if you dont agree.
My gut is hardly ever wrong.


OK, no jokes, etc. from me either. I'm a mostly logical, scientific, project manager type of guy that also likes to dabble a little on the metaphysical side - hence the reincarnated Roman soldier bio. So, I'll give you the possibilty that your gut feeling is right on this issue. In return, I think you "owe" me the admission that there really hasn't been anything substantial to back up your gut feeling on this. See, to me, it's kind of like the guy on another thread claiming that he'd lost a lot of his rights under Bush. When pressed to name just one lost right, all he could come up with was that his customers couldn't smoke anymore inside his business. Like Bush was somehow responsible for that.

So, regarding this 'generalissimo Bush' thing, it's like show me the real evidence (not just gut feelings), and then we'll talk.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Whoever said that is wrong. We havent lost:

The right/priviledge to vote: but Diabold is picking out the presidents
The right to privacy: Nobody yet that i know of is monitoring me via my tv set

although, we are being monitored via cameras, Internet, etc.
The right to live in a free society: Although, we get the feeling that we are not so
free, again, with all the monitoring
for "terrorists"
The Constitution: Oh, its still there, but does our government follow it? Or is it
merely just there for looks


Just a couple of examples. No. We have not lost anything. But i dare say we are on the "path" of loss. That is a dark path and i hope i am wrong, sincerely. Maybe its all a figment of our overactive imagination. I hope so. But you are right. We have not lost anything.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join