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.

 

How will GW Conclude?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nextstep
It is obvious that no-one knows for sure what will happen, so anything proposed is merely speculation until the time arrives. This makes the conversation all the better though!


A comet full of nanites is'nt going to strike 3 feet from me and give me 'superpowers'
allowing for me to take over the world and force everyone to worship me as a god.


Well, strike the first part, technically that's plausible, but the second part is'nt.





I'm not betting on impeachment, as this needs Congressional support, and Pelosi is too scared she will lose her newly found power if she attempts this.


She wont, and has stated she wont because she knows she can't get the support,
the Congress is split down the middle, the Democrats only have a small majority,
and it takes a supermajority to impeach a president, and since roughly half the
Congress is Republican, they would never be able to get the majority required.




What really puzzles me, being a non-american (I don't live in the US either), is what the deal is with all this republican/democrat nonsense. I call it nonsense not out of disrespect, but while they keep you divided in a two party system, they work together behind the screens. One day the majority of the US people must begin to see this.


It's just the current way our political parties exist, historically we've gone from having
two parties, to more than two and so on, we've actually only had the current
Democratic-Republican bi-party system for at the most a century. When it comes down
to it it's based on sociopolitical ideologies, the political left believes in helping others
through social programs, taxing the rich and using it to help the poor and needy
and more personal freedoms and generally Progressive ideologies while the political
right believes in forcing people to fend for themselves and more economic freedom
with less social freedom and follows generally conservative ideologies, the two do
sometimes agree on things, but more than often they are at odds ideologically
and therefore do not stand together united very often.




Who cares what ones political choices are, I say focus on the things you have in common and do something with it.


Well, considering that the people we're talking about basically decide on foreign
and domestic policies that influence our lives, most people do. For instance,
I'm not going to vote for a Conservative Republican because there social and political
beliefs go against hat I believe.

And like I said, there are few times that both sides really have something in common
to really unify over.




A peaceful protest showing democrats and republicans united sends out a far more powerful message than when it is the democrats who want to stop the war (as an example).


Well the majority of republicans and democrats don't agree on the war, so the likelihood
of them unifying against it its pretty much nil.

People who are against the war, regardless of there political persuasion do generally
protest together, just more often than not they happen to be politically left and therefore
more likely to be democrats.




posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 03:25 AM
link   
I think that he will do the job WE elected him to do. I believe that all this conspiracy crap is only hurting the left, and Bush is doing a damn good job of protecting the United States. He has taken the fight off US soil and put it into the terrorists back yard. I think or VP has a huge ammount of respect for Bush, and he will stand by the President. After that I am willing to bet my left nut that Thompson and Romney beat Hitlery and OsamaObama....For the next 8 years we will get to hear the left bitch and cry about how middle America is full of KKK and they would not elect a woman or black man. When in reality it is the utter lack of balls and common sense the dems have. My prediction is the left looses house seats as well. The last decent dem was FDR and that is highly debateable. The current batch of dems is worthless. Just my opinion, I could be wrong



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 04:25 AM
link   
iori-komei, thanks for your reply, much appreciated and you make some good points. Perhaps my wording should have been better though, as I believe you are still missing my point somewhat.

All over the world there is left and right in the democratic societies, however in the US there are only two parties representative of these sides, whereas other nations have several. This keeps the balance of power more aligned, and allows for the people's voice to be indirectly stronger. Alignment of power and a strong people's voice are two things missing right now in the US.

What I mean with protestors from both parties demonstrating is that they could have signs saying "I'm a democrat and I don't agree with this issue (whatever it may be)", or "I am a republican and I disagree...." Having two of these signs beside eachother and hitting the news will have a greater impact than not doing so, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not trying to be right, which is why I say you make some valid points. What I am trying to do is show that by keeping you divided in these two camps, they have a carte blanche to continue their agenda, which is supported by most govt members from both parties. If this agenda is not in your best interest, is it more important to be left, or right, or to have a leader that protects ALL Americans?

Remember the war is on Terror, not on Terrorism. One may want to check out the difference, as there is a definite difference between a war based on fear, and a war based on terrorists. One is the official story, the other is the real story.

Pelosi has the power to get the people behind her to force congress to go for impeachment, as there seems to be a large majority of the public that would support that, yet she chooses not to. Plus the majority of the Senate supports escalating the Iran agenda. They're not all Republican are they? No, there are just as many democrats holding posts here.

So long as the people remain divided between political parties, your GW truly will continue to smile, and why not, the US people are letting him.

I enjoyed reading your rebuttal though, some very sharp comments, thank you.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Bush, is expendable like Agit8d Chop said.

I beleive Cheney will take over after Bush's assasination, but he will not be there long term for he is ageing and his health aint the best. I beleive they have somebody else in line to take over under their new military rule - and he'd have to be young to last the distance and be brainwashed with their neo-con policies.

Is there anybody young and determined enough within the neo-con structure to take over long term under a martial law era?

I dont know the white house that intimately.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nextstep
iori-komei, thanks for your reply, much appreciated and you make some good points.


You're quite welcome, I try my best to be helpful.




All over the world there is left and right in the democratic societies, however in the US there are only two parties representative of these sides, whereas other nations have several. This keeps the balance of power more aligned, and allows for the people's voice to be indirectly stronger. Alignment of power and a strong people's voice are two things missing right now in the US.


It just happens to be how it is right now, there was a time where there were five
political parties in the U.S., though that was short lived, but right now the majority
of people just happen to agree on the two differing ideological sides.

Technically there are other legitimate every-state parties in the U.S., those
being the Libertarian and Green parties respectively, but they don't hold anywhere
near as much sway (or any Federal Congressional seats), but they still do represent
a sizable chunk of people, not to mention that there are more independents
than there are either Republicans or Democrats.

I think though in the coming years we'll see the Libertarian party either becoming
a viable third party or perhaps replacing the Republican party.

Personally I've always liked how other countries had many political parties,
but I think the way the American government is formed, that is working as a
Federal Constitutional Democratic Republic rather than under a Westminster
or Parliamentary system, that we don't have a great deal of parties, since it's harder
to form a cooperative government with the American system than it is using
Parliamentary systems, however it's not impossible, and I do agree would be
a good thing for America, though honestly I'd prefer to not have political parties
period and just elect people based on there sociopolitical stances rather than what
letter is next to their names.




What I mean with protestors from both parties demonstrating is that they could have signs saying "I'm a democrat and I don't agree with this issue (whatever it may be)", or "I am a republican and I disagree...." Having two of these signs beside eachother and hitting the news will have a greater impact than not doing so, wouldn't you agree?


Well, it's like I said, the two sides don't agree often enough on issues where
they would actually protest together and besides that protest signs are'nt generally
planned affairs, so having a Democrat and a Republican united against or for
an issue protesting with signs like that would be pretty rare.

There are other signs like that though, I've seen bumper stickers that say things
like "I'm a Republican and I think we should be out of Iraq.", not exactly like that,
but you get the idea.




What I am trying to do is show that by keeping you divided in these two camps, they have a carte blanche to continue their agenda, which is supported by most govt members from both parties. If this agenda is not in your best interest, is it more important to be left, or right, or to have a leader that protects ALL Americans?


The thing is, that for quite awhile Americans have been united but split, into three
separate camps, Left of Center with some far leftists, Conservative right, and
Right of Center and Moderates, and because of this we only have two main powerful parties.




Pelosi has the power to get the people behind her to force congress to go for impeachment, as there seems to be a large majority of the public that would support that, yet she chooses not to. Plus the majority of the Senate supports escalating the Iran agenda. They're not all Republican are they? No, there are just as many democrats holding posts here.


That's the thing, she does'nt have the power, the Senate are the ones who preside
over impeachments, and unless a supermajority of the Senate agree to look
at impeachment hearings.

The House of Representatives, which has a large Democratic majority can pass
an impeachment bill, and indeed do have the capability to, but 2/3 or more
of the Senate have to agree to impeachment the president, since they act as the jury.

The Senate is currently 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and an independent and
a one-time-party member, both of whom caucus with the Democrats, now you
may be able to get four or five Republicans to go with it, but even than, assuming
you get all the Democrats (counting the two who caucus) and the few Republicans,
you still don't have enough to get the president impeached.

The people can't impeach the president either, since we don't generally have
no-confidence votes.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Thank you for your time and effort iori-komei, and I must say that I agree with almost everything you say (not that it matters whether I do or don't). I am missing one key element though, and that is any desire to change in a quickly changing living environment.

Just because something is the way it is, doesn't mean it should stay that way, especially when circumstances require otherwise. The US govt has only changed policy to ensure that everything stays the same. In other words, oil = power, US Dollar global market capitalization, etc, just to name a few.

When you refuse to change, you become outdated, undesired, left behind. What is the rest of the world slowly doing to the US now? It is turning its back to the US, even though the majority of the citizens are genuinely good people.

Even the majority of the youth in the US seem to favour more libertarian ideology (personally I think every party has good and bad points, the good ones just need to be filtered out and implemented, regardless of political beliefs, which is what is undermining your coutnry's development, political beliefs above all else).

This is not being embraced, rather (in general) the democrats and republicans fight over winning their vote, rather than listening to what they really want and representing the people in a way so that it happens.

With a govt that has so much power, hearing you say that this is just the way it is is not an acceptable answer for me. You can take over countries, threaten the world, spend billions on war, yet suddenly the UN says it doesn't have the 90 million necessary to feed to poor of the world.

Move past the segregation of different ideas that serve left or right, and move towards unity of ideas that serve all sides. That is what this time is telling us, not more of the same.......it will improve your and your families lives.

So if the people of the US want someone else instead of Bush or Cheney, first you need to unite. Not wanting to says something indicative.

(No animosity intended here, despite some of my wording).



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
He has taken the fight off US soil and put it into the terrorists back yard.


What what what? There was a war here? Seriously? When and why didn't anyone f'in wake me up?

Now, to be on topic, I feel there will either be a transition without hitch OR Martial Law will be declared as a means to keeping Bush in the White House.

I give the "terrorist attack" scenario about a 10% chance.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   
I wish i had your optimism, posters, i beleive all this administration has done up to now is leading to something big. Very big.
I have no idea what it could be, i can only speculate that we will have an attack of somekind and they will declare Marshall Law and the ball will start rolling from there.
Just speculation, of course, but these people dont strike me as wanting to just end their term and getting the heck out of town.

My opinion.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   
It seems to me the only people in Washington making an unconstitutional "power grab" are the democrats. They've finally got half the population believing, no matter how insane, that everything bad that happens is Bushes fault. All they have to do is wait for America to fail on any front and they're frothong at the mouth to take over.

The libs only have a short time left with their "super scapegoat" and they've been using Bush as a crutch for too long already.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
It could go a number of ways, many of which have already been stated before mine.

My thoughts are that it'll be a hard-fought, kicking and screaming tamtrum thrown by the administration in the last days in attempts to pass laws and/or regulations to benefits their "pocket buddies" — OR — there will be an event of some sort in which Bush will seize control of the government and we'll be forced to take it back from him. Many laugh at this, but he's already placed the orders into effect. It's ready to go just as soon as we have another attack.

Personally, I hope he doesn't finish his presidency. There've been calls for his impeachment time and time again ... not that I think they'll make and difference.

Hope springs eternal.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
interesting tyranny,
do you beleive he'd go to certain lengths to allow or instigate an attack should his term look like its going to expire without a fundamentalist strike?



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I've stated in another thread .....



If Jeb Bush was running in the Presidential Election (and wins, legally or illegally), I would think there might be another 8 years to play with whatever plans they have, if any. Since he is not running, that makes me believe that if anything is going to happen, it's going to happen by the election date or shortly there after. Not to mention, if something was up the Bush's sleeve, then it stands to reason that papa Bush will want to see it happen in his life time (Ego), and he's getting older by the day. haha Those are the reasons why it might happen soon.


Bush Sr. is so high up into whatever is going on, I don't think he will let anything happen to son, GW. I still have a gut feeling that either something will happen between now and the Nov. elections or shortly there after.

Something else to think about. This is kinda far fetched, but it would stand to reason that if something big is going to happen around this country, would it be helpful to watch the actions of what some of the higher ups in our government do?

What I mean is that if something was going to happen, it would make sense that certain high ranking officials in our government know what's going to happen and when? Maybe some of them actually have a conscience and would let friends know what's about to happen and for them to prepare for it. (Over abundance of politicians taking vacation out of the country at the same time, cashing in major stock options from many politicians, canceling of trips by politicians around the same time, etc.....) A vacation trip could be an excuse to move family and friends to safe underground areas??

Far fetched, yes, I know. It could also just mean they all needed a break and are really going on vacation. haha All I know is that if I was high up in the government and knew something was going to happen and I couldn't talk about it, I would certainly at least tell a few good friends so they could at least have a higher chance at survival.

This would be hard to follow or check up, but I think it can be at least a little sign that something eminent is about to happen. There has already been an large increase of Survival shows over the past few years. I'm sure you've all seen them on TV. At least here in the States. Could this be a sign? It certainly helps with the awareness of survival skills during harsh times. Or hey, maybe the producers are just on a survival show kick. Who knows.

Q



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
interesting tyranny,
do you believe he'd go to certain lengths to allow or instigate an attack should his term look like its going to expire without a fundamentalist strike?


I think it's quite possible. But, I think it comes down to politics when his time is ending. Has he accomplished enough for the global elite? How will power play out, and to whom, when his term is over? I think we've got some time and events before any decision will be made. The important thing at this time is that the strategy is implemented and waiting to be used.

I think he is waiting and praying for another "attack" from afar. I'm not sure that there could be another public attack on the scale of 9/11 without some sort of public uprising against the administration, either for ignorance or treachery. There are too many Americans waiting, just as he is, for such a thing.

It's like two medial army's faced across a battlefield, each just waiting for the other to strike first. The only thing is, Bush's army just happens to be made up of our family and friends. Let's just hope he's not so power-hungry to not see that fact.

If indeed nothing at all happens and the office is pass on to another politician or party, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see an assassination attempt of sorts on the elected official in the years to come. But, I think it all comes down to who is nominated and who chooses who for a VP. How can the reigns be retained for the future "New American Century?"

[edit on 30-7-2007 by tyranny22]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
Whatever the case, I just can't see a 2008 election happening - period.



I also keep getting that feeling. like something crappy is gonna happen before then. or like even if it does happen, it won't be a real election. Whomeverthey desire to win will win(just like Bush).



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I think about where we're going often, and I'm pretty sure that what happens within the next two years will show the status of the NWO.

All the pieces are falling together, and just by browsing this site we can see where this country is going. It is my bet, no, my guarantee (I have no involvement homeland security - this is a prediction. piss off) that there will be another attack. It will of course either be caused or allowed by our own officials, but most likely caused since we would need someone with the NWO agenda on their mind to actually perfect the plan.

With Bush's recent executive order giving him full, unbridled control of the United States (what did he call it? constitutional enforcer? my ass) in case of a national emergency, it would almost be surprising if there WASN'T an attack. Either it will be directed at the people or it will be directed at a high-ranking, but expendable US official, such as, when his 8 years are up, Bush.

The next step involves the VP (hopefully his heart conditions wont allow him to do this). Once Bush has been taken out, Cheney will do 2 things. He will execute the Order of Presidential Succession Act of 1947, taking control of the presidency. He will then utilize Bush's previous executive order, effectively making this "One Country, Under Dick".

The sheep will rally and cheer for their new President, which will lead them gallantly to war with the scapegoat. Oh there will be protests and dissents, but these will be easily silenced. Someone just attacked the Homeland for crying out loud!

The reason I don't see Bush able to retain control of office is because people, congress, and even many once-loyal Bushies have had enough of the administration. Of course, Cheney would be worse, but for the average Joe Shmuck, we have a new administration.

If Bush were to extend his stay in office, for whatever reason, including an attack on citizens, he will have a problem. Either the sheeple will go along with the official story and he/the NWO will win, or we will wake up and revolt. The NWO has come too far and are too saturated within society to risk something as nasty as a that.

Then again, a revolution WOULD be perfect for a group hoping to grab immediate power.

[edit on 30-7-2007 by pvnick]

[edit on 30-7-2007 by pvnick]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Well i cant comment on domestic political issues in the USA as i live in the UK and have not got my finger on the domestic pusle so to speak. However i will make one observation. You ie the American people are gonna have to sprt out your voting system. At the last election was there not some whoo haa about vote rigging in California and Florida ? This is not the first time this has happened, but in the last two elections. Surely as one of the most advertised democractic nations in the world you should not allow this to happen !! And secondly choose wisely in the next election so that you dont vote for GWB Mark II next time !!!


Good luck !!!



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
I think he is waiting and praying for another "attack" from afar. I'm not sure that there could be another public attack on the scale of 9/11 without some sort of public uprising against the administration, either for ignorance or treachery.


I hope this is what is playing out with GW's attempts to be able to grab complete power instead of a setup for the next false flag. People might just show their disgust this time if it happens again since security here really has been passed over. (borders, etc). He may feel he'll need martial law to save his own behind if another occurs. How bad a disaster does it take for people to force a change. Looks like it needs to be many times greater than 911.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   
How will GW Conclude?

What do you see happening?
___________________

Seems to me he'll give up power to the next US President with the same charisma and stupid goofy grin as used by this ball-busting feed the manufacturer billions to support the DE "Military Industrial Complex". President.

I suggest GW will be pretty-much shocked how fast and clean he becomes unimportant at the time of transfer (Inauguration of the new President), of Presidential powers.
Then mayhap's it will be on to serious GW Bush/Cheney corruption investigations and then, the New President giving a Bush/Cheney-Presidential PARDONS?

Dallas



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I think he will spend the remainder of his presidency continuing to focus on the Iraq siatuation and trying to instill stability there. He doesnt need to "do" anything else and anyone who is looking for that will probably be sorely disappointed. I think his departure will be fairly anti-climactic.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Maybe choke on another pretzel?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join