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's Conspiracy To Keep Control

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   
There have been some generational changes of the guard, to be sure, but the long-term plans are virtually unchanged.

It is easy to be concerned about overt totalitarianism making its way out into the open, and consolidation of power into the federal government (where it can be more easily managed) and away from the states (where it belongs, in my opinion) increases the risk of this happening.

However -- and this is extremely important to remember -- you don't slaughter a cow that gives good milk. Tipping over the American apple cart is not the way to increase the power of those who depend on it.

Of course, there are always struggles ongoing, and some interests would profit greatly from a collapse or destruction of the U.S. Even they, however, must balance that desire against substantial losses of their own power.

Established interests that desire success have historically acquired power gradually, and thus will tend to seek it gradually. That does not mean radical action won't be taken, history is rife with it, but it does mean that those who have the most power will defend it ruthlessly, and defending it, more often than not, means defending the status quo.

Those who seek totalitarianism in America are not the powers that be, but the powers that want to be.




posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Astral City,

You have a very good point, on that, yes and old way of life and a new way of control has been brewing lately but is to obvious from people like us to ignore.

This morning I found out about the NAACP slap in the face for the third time by bush.

I live in the south and this state is very Republican but when my husband brought up the subject at work ( he works for the federal government in wish politics are not to be discuss and everybody agree with the government policies for obvious reasons) everybody voiced his disappointment at Bush, Why? because the majority is African Americans.

Both sides voice disappointment. No word about stopping election thing but the NAACP was on everybodys mind.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Bush has his reasons for not addressing the NAACP, and they are better than you might think.

And that's all I have to say about that.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Bush has his reasons for not addressing the NAACP, and they are better than you might think.

And that's all I have to say about that.


Well it make him look kind of mindless of certain minority groups don't you think It does not goes well with public oppinion, I may say.

He reason may be good but not in the eyes of the public.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Heh. He doesn't like them nor share their agenda. They don't like him, nor share his agenda. You spend most of your postings saying how dishonest he is and now you bash him for not being a hypocrite. You would rather he lie to their face rather than tell the truth about what he thinks of the hate group that the race-card players and welfare pimps have turned the NAACP into. Well, it would have been impolite to say that and would have been dishonest to say anything else, so just not going was his best possible course of action.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Ambient Sound,

This people here in the south are mostly republicans, and this is a very Republican state, most of this group are from the same loving bias religious groups that Bush identify himself with.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
If you want to debate the merits of the NAACP, you can start a thread for it. My comment was meant to point out the fact that there is a double standard in expectations of behavior. If Bush had gone, some Bush hater surely would have pointed out how much of a hypocrite he was and picked apart what he said, whatever it happened to be.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I see your point, I guess the baby kissing years for political candidates are gone with the wind.


O perhaps Bush is pretty sure that the south still belongs to him. Right?



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Well, I know how I'm going to vote. I can't speak for anyone else in the south, sorry..




posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   
AmbientSound~

Other presidents have talked to the NAACP, regardless of weather they agreed with it. In fact every president since Hoover has spoken at the NAACP, I doubt that they all shared the same agenda, but it's just one of those things you do, you know acting "presidental" and all?

But you're also right this thread is about Bush and what I believe is a ploy to keep control of the nation after November, while I apprecaite the points and oppinions, we have gotten off topic.

Majic, I never said this would be the fall of the United States, nor do I believe that Bush is interested in a dictatorship (however much he may want one) but I believe that there is a conspiracy for him to remain in the White House. I think he'd postpone it if he looks like he's going to loose big, and wait until political oppinion was in his favor. Come 2005, the goal would be for nothing to have changed, not for America to be gone.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Nothing as crude as postponing the election is required to keep Bush in office. Revolutionary tactics are not the way to maintain the status quo.

While I am ever a skeptic, it is never unwise to keep a hold on reason. In this case, I am skeptical that a stunt like this a) would work and b) would be required.

Time will tell.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Well Condi all ready said on the news that the present administration will not postpone the elections.

But the home land security is pushing the issue. So what it will be, either bush is trying to look like it is not his Idea? or he knows that home land security can do this without his help.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Majic, in theory I totally agree with you: I don't think it would work and I think it's only there as a last-ditch move.

About Rice's saying that Bush calling for a postponing won't happen, well if you were going to do this would you want your name on it? It wouldn't be the first time that Bush & Co. used a government agency to attain their goals.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Nothing is as it seems, but some things are pretty close. It is legitimate for the federal government to take measures to prevent election tampering, and it is quite clear that certain terrorist organizations are developing a track record for this.

There is deviltry afoot, but I'm pretty sure discussing postponement of elections in the event of terrorist disruption aimed specifically at them isn't it.

Having said that, it is reasonable to express concern as citizens, since it is our job to control our government, and not the other way around.

Someday, we may even do just that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join