Bush Claims More Powers Than King George III

Bush Claims More Powers Than King George III

www.scoop.co.nz
(visit the link for the full news article)

Wonder why his ratings are down so much....Political science must not have been W's strong suit.

www.scoop.co.nz
(visit the link for the full news article)

What's most disturbing about this (at least to me) is how little resistance he met within the congressional and senatorial bodies, and of course, how the judiciary simply 'let' him get away with this sans any meaningful objection whatsoever.

This is a direct indictment of our political party system which was totally overthrown by financially motivated sponsors armed with popular press, radio, and video access. It's sad really. Our politicians are mostly dupes and tools.

[edit on 28-5-2008 by Maxmars]

And like George III, uncurious george is crazy as a bed bug.

reply to post by Maxmars

---

oh yea. no resistance at all. If anything, they provide aide and comfort to Bush and Cheney and are fully prepared to continue their agenda.

Now, THAT is sad.

I wouldnt bother to vote again- one is just as evil as the next.

ALL HAIL KING GEORGE!!

This is exactly why we need to vote all the Republistooges and all the Demistooges out of office. They are dripping with corruption and they have nothing but contempt for the voters who put them in office.
Remember people that Bush did not do this alone. He had help in the House and Senate. Let us use this upcoming election as an opportunity to really do some house cleaning and get us some government of the people, by the people, and for the people......for a change.

reply to post by groingrinder

---

While I totally agree with what you're saying, HOW do we do 'house cleaning' when we don't even have a choice to elect anyone who will go about changing things? The entire system is rigged and set up by the Corps , Private Bankers, and M.I.C. so that whoever has a chance of being elected, they've all ready been hand-selected by the above PTB that are TRULY running (and RUINing) our country.

And what is really sad is we used to make jokes about "King George" after his "Decider" comments, but in reality, he truly has taken a totalitarian position and crapped all over the civilianry, much like a ruthless king. It has been insane, the power grabs this guy has snatched up over 7 years.



[edit on 28-5-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

I believe this video says alot about Bush.

YouTube Link

He disagrees with International Law.

He keeps saying within the law...Who's law? Not Amnesty International. Bush is Scary.

It's the law according to GW. He even does that with laws that he signs. He then files a federal signing statement that reinterprets the law to fit his own plan and circumvents anything that Congress was trying to do. He doesn't even have to tell Congress that he's filed a federal signing statement. But he's filed more of them (and executive orders) than any other sitting president. He's also evoked executive privilege more than any sitting president.

Come to think of it, maybe he's just trying to break some records to create a legacy for himself? (It's not funny, really, but sometimes, you've just gotta laugh anyway)

It's pretty obvious when Bush says, "I'm not going to explain to the enemy what we're doing," that he's referring to the American public as the enemy.

How is Bush getting away with all this crap? Why are people letting him get away with it? It's... just not right....

Amnesty International?

Since when were they authorized to set US policy.

The one thing that impressed me about Bush in that interview is the way he took command of it and kept Lauer on the defensive.

I also like how articulate he was and how he refused to waiver under Lauer's repeated attempts to trip up the president.

This is not the president we see in the sound bites on David Letterman.

This is not the president that liberals love to ridicule, although the ridicule continues even in the face of evidence that Bush is a strong leader.

The Bush in that interview is the kind of man we needed to put terrorists around he world on the run and to retreat into caves in remote parts of the world.

This is the kind of man who refused stand by while our enemies planned and executed even more attacks on the US.

Bush is my kind of president.

Approval ratings won't amount to a hill of beans in twenty, thirty, or forty years from now.

Harry Truman was thought to be one of the worst presidents in history until somewhere in the 70s or 80s, when his administration was examined in a more dispassionate way by historians.

When the hate-filled bloggers have found something more important to do with their lives and when the journalists have other prey in their sites, it will be the evidence that will be examined by objective historians, far removed from the emotions of our time who will understand just how strong a leader GW Bush is.

Leadership is not a popularity contest.

[edit on 2008/5/29 by GradyPhilpott]

I am surprised that stories are still being written that act like this is a new thing for this administration? From any administration?

Sure, he is more open about it...but the blame does not come to rest on his shoulders. The House and The Senate failed us. They all, save one House rep., who gave him a tide of new power.

Although the real blame lands on the American public. We were scared and we were lied to...but we failed to do out job as a population. As the war was getting started we were willingly taken for a ride by the administration/media (difference?). Watch 'War Made Easy' (its free on this site) and at least see how easily we were all fooled.

Go and watch it so you can watch it happen all over again.

The hyper-patriotism and the blatant exploitation of fear on the American public ensured any decenting voices would be seen (and often portrayed as such in the media :mad.

Our constitution is being destroyed and we, as a nation, are only now starting to 'have a problem' with that. Still, I have to hear that I am 'un-patriotic' because I have not given the government my full trust and support.

Why trust those who lie to you so consistantly?

(sorry for the rant)

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

---

That is all fine and well. But an articulated president does not justify the blatant disregard for our feedoms, lying about...everything and conning the American public into a war which benifits nobody but those who are invested in the military industrial complex. Oh wait...thats far too many of those who pushed so adamently for the war.

He is unpopular because he has taken it upon himself to walk all over our constitution.

This is a very good point and it made me pretty curious. So I decided to look into who is currently on the Supreme Court and how they got there. This is what I found.

Chief Justice John Roberts: Nominated- George W Bush Sept. 2005

Associate Justice Samuel Alito: Nominated- George H.W. Bush Feb 1990

Associate Justice Stephen Breyer: Nominated- Bill Clinton Aug 1994

Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Nominated- Bill Clinton Aug 1993

Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: Nominated- Ronald Regan Feb 1988

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia: Nominated- Ronald Regan Sept 1986

Associate Justice David Hackett Souter:Nominated George H W Bush Oct 1990

Associate Justice John Paul Stevens: Nominated- Gerald Ford Dec 1975

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas: Nominated- George H W Bush Oct 1991

I was shocked to realize that a Bush or Clinton was involved in every single appointment for the exception of John Paul Stevens. Of course I didnt dig deeper to see who was where and at what time. Other than that you had Daddy Bush as a VP in the Regan Administration, so you would imagine he had some type of say so with any Justice appointed at that time. Considering all these people have a job for life once they are appointed, I'd say they are looking the other way as a great big collective "Thank You" and if we have Hillary in office after this "election" I'd think it a safe bet that the US Supreme Court will continue to look the other way as the Constitution is dismantled right before our very eyes using "the law"

After watching the interview again, another point must be brought up.

When a blatant breaking of internation law or the contitution is discussed the go to answer is always "we need to do what we need to do to protect you and your family" or when cornered about breaking the law the answer is along the lines of "we disagree with that interpretation of the law".

What?

Sorry officer, I don't agree that drunk in public is a law. Try it...your ass will get arrested...and you didn't even kill tens of thousands of innocents so you and your friends can get more rich.

Why should the president and the administration get away with breaking laws? They are citizens of this country too, damnit!

If we are going to act as the world police, then we should at least respect international law. It's called setting an example for the rest of the world to follow.





I missed that one....All I saw was someone puffing up his chest and dodging a simple question under the excuse of "giving up too much info to the enemy"



Waiver the President??? So asking a Very Ligitimate question regarding the direction of the US and it's tactics that are littered in controversy is an attempt to waiver him



No this one is worse, this one is a bit angry. Stupid isn't so scary when it left alone....but make it mad, and look out. The fact that you mentioned that this is the clown we normally see, should be enough for most readers.



Don't confused annoyed and arrogant with strong.



Even if said terrorist don't even exist and are used as Propoganda to start wars. Which, as a matter of fact they are being accused of right now by McClellan.

I believe it was Bush who said "I don't care about Osama Bin Ladan" several years after 9/11

Yeah he has em running for the caves Now where can we hang that "Mission Accomplished" Banner





Your right, he sat....and read a book about goats.





Well...you can have him. Take him to Paraguay already, please! And remember.....when you're living in a Dictatorship...

Bush is your kind of President.

reply to post by kdial1

---

While I agree that Georgey poo here has broken many laws (except voiding the Geneva Convention which he had the right to do) I don't think we can exactly .. just yet .. say that he was worse then George the Third.

I must say however, the Federal Government taxes American's far more then England ever did!

We went to war for less then what our current administration, past administrations, and future administrations will or have done!

reply to post by kleverone

---

Please ... explain to me what "International Law" is..

Show me the "laws" ..

Show me the legislator that put them in place..

Show me WHO enforces said laws.....

Just, you know, show me International Law. Liberals love to banter on and on about International Law like it exist, so it should be easy to prove???