The Day Bush became dictator

[Avatar4321]

You couldn't find your own **** if you were given a week, unless you want to call your mouth a **** I'll go along with that.

From Thomas Paines "Common Sense," which I found in less than a minute. Please note when you see written in bold, "PRESENT CONSTITUTION" Paine is referring to the Magna Carta.

FIRST. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this continent. And as he hath shewn himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty. and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power; is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies, “YOU SHALL MAKE NO LAWS BUT WHAT I PLEASE.' And is there any inhabitant in America so ignorant as not to know, that according to what is called the PRESENT CONSTITUTION, that this continent can make no laws but what the king gives leave to; and is there any man so unwise, as not to see, that (considering what has happened) he will suffer no law to be made here, but such as suit HIS purpose. We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us in England. After matters are made up (as it is called) can there be any doubt, but the whole power of the crown will be exerted, to keep this continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of going forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or ridiculously petitioning. –WE are already greater than the king wishes us to be, and will he not hereafter endeavour to make us less? To bring the matter to one point. Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern us? Whoever says No to this question, is an INDEPENDANT, for independancy means no more, than, whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have, shall tell us “THERE SHALL BE NO LAWS BUT SUCH AS I LIKE."

But the king you will say has a negative in England; the people there can make no laws without his consent. In point of right and good order, there is something very ridiculous, that a youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall say to several millions of people, older and wiser than himself, I forbid this or that act of yours to be law. But in this place I decline this sort of reply, though I will never cease to expose the absurdity of it,

The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them. For it is the republican and not the monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing an house of commons from out of their own body—and it is easy to see that when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons?

Also read the Declaration of Independance which supports Paines writings above.

Another poster bragged about reading Edmund Burke but never bothers to mention Thomas Paine's, "Rights of Man" where Paine blows Burke out of the waters. The following is taken from Paines, "Rights of Man"

I will now, by way of relaxation, turn a thought or two to Mr. Burke. I ask his pardon for neglecting him so long.

"America," says he (in his speech on the Canada Constitution bill), "never dreamed of such absurd doctrine as the Rights of Man."

Mr. Burke is such a bold presumer, and advances his assertions and his premises with such a deficiency of judgment, that, without troubling ourselves about principles of philosophy or politics, the mere logical conclusions they produce, are ridiculous. For instance,

If governments, as Mr. Burke asserts, are not founded on the Rights of MAN, and are founded on any rights at all, they consequently must be founded on the right of something that is not man. What then is that something?

...

Since the revolution of America, and more so since that of France, this preaching up the doctrines of precedents, drawn from times and circumstances antecedent to those events, has been the studied practice of the English government. The generality of those precedents are founded on principles and opinions, the reverse of what they ought; and the greater distance of time they are drawn from, the more they are to be suspected. But by associating those precedents with a superstitious reverence for ancient things, as monks show relics and call them holy, the generality of mankind are deceived into the design.

Government by precedent, without any regard to the principle of the precedent, is one of the vilest systems that can be set up. In numerous instances, the precedent ought to operate as a warning, and not as an example, and requires to be shunned instead of imitated; but instead of this, precedents are taken in the lump, and put at once for constitution and for law.

I'll stop here. You can see Burke was a clown and preached the doctrine of precedence which would go against the very reason for the American Revolution. If fact the doctrine of precedence would enslave future generations as Paine has pointed out in his "Rights of Man"

I can't help but point out the extremely obvious which of cours eis that no where in anything you just quoted from Thomas Paine is the Magna Carta even mentioned.

 

[Said1]

I can't help but point out the extremely obvious which of cours eis that no where in anything you just quoted from Thomas Paine is the Magna Carta even mentioned.

He does when he says 'present consitution'.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I've got a question. Given that you guys are begging for a king, wouldn't the lot of you make the American Revolution senseless?

I'm being serious, because when you think about it you are guys are advocating getting rid of the United States Constitution and replacing it with the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta gave the king the kind of power Junior is begging for.

I kinda hate to inform you of this, but its the liberals who declared the Constitution a "living breathing document" and hence destroyed it. We are no longer governed by the Constitution, but by a judiciary that pretends it follows the Constitution. We are a nation of laws, however.
The ones trying to restore the Constitution, as originally written are the Conservatives and President Bush by appointing judges who read the document for what it says, not what they want it to say.

 

[GeeWhiz]

I kinda hate to inform you of this, but its the liberals who declared the Constitution a "living breathing document" and hence destroyed it. We are no longer governed by the Constitution, but by a judiciary that pretends it follows the Constitution. We are a nation of laws, however.
The ones trying to restore the Constitution, as originally written are the Conservatives and President Bush by appointing judges who read the document for what it says, not what they want it to say.

Sure, in your dreams. Go get your copy of the United States Constitution and read where it says the Legislative Branch has the power to declare war. And tell us all where it says the Executive Branch has the power to declare war. No spin please, it has to be found in the United States Constitution where we can all see it. Note: trying to spin the bit about the Executive Branch being the commander in chief doesn't cut it.

If this Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch is so to the letter of the law as you claim. Please point out when the Legislative Branch declared war against Iraq.

The United States Constitution is clear about no search or seizure without a warrant. Tell us all how the Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch is doing their job forcing the Conservative Republican Party controlled Executive Branch to follow that letter of the law. Illegal wiretapping anyone?

The Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch has been a lapdog to the Conservative Republican Party controlled Executive Branch, which means we no longer have a check and balance system in our government. We have a dictatorial system thanks to the Conservative Republican Party controlled government.

The Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch stalled on the investigation into how the Conservative Republican Party controlled Executive Branch hyped up the march to war. Junior lied to the people saying he was cleared, when no investigation even got started. The Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch even tried to lie about having completed the investigation when it never even started it. The Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch got slapped down hard on that lie, they had to cry for mommy to lick their wound.

So how did that wound taste, you licked it so tell us, you know the one in their behind.

 

[trobinett]

Sure, in your dreams. Go get your copy of the United States Constitution and read where it says the Legislative Branch has the power to declare war. And tell us all where it says the Executive Branch has the power to declare war. No spin please, it has to be found in the United States Constitution where we can all see it. Note: trying to spin the bit about the Executive Branch being the commander in chief doesn't cut it.

If this Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch is so to the letter of the law as you claim. Please point out when the Legislative Branch declared war against Iraq.

The United States Constitution is clear about no search or seizure without a warrant. Tell us all how the Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch is doing their job forcing the Conservative Republican Party controlled Executive Branch to follow that letter of the law. Illegal wiretapping anyone?

The Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch has been a lapdog to the Conservative Republican Party controlled Executive Branch, which means we no longer have a check and balance system in our government. We have a dictatorial system thanks to the Conservative Republican Party controlled government.

The Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch stalled on the investigation into how the Conservative Republican Party controlled Executive Branch hyped up the march to war. Junior lied to the people saying he was cleared, when no investigation even got started. The Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch even tried to lie about having completed the investigation when it never even started it. The Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch got slapped down hard on that lie, they had to cry for mommy to lick their wound.

So how did that wound taste, you licked it so tell us, you know the one in their behind.

The problem here GW(hmmmm, wonder if that means anything)is the ONLY one dreaming is YOU.

The constitution has been fucked since the FIRST AMENMENT, after then, it became a "living document", subject to change.

I would be all for going backward in time, and following the "original" constitution, but, if we did that, the Democratic party, and the Republican party, as we know them, would find it hard to operate, tell me I'm wrong, then prove it.

I rest my case.

 

[MissileMan]

The problem here GW(hmmmm, wonder if that means anything)is the ONLY one dreaming is YOU.

The constitution has been fucked since the FIRST AMENMENT, after then, it became a "living document", subject to change.

I would be all for going backward in time, and following the "original" constitution, but, if we did that, the Democratic party, and the Republican party, as we know them, would find it hard to operate, tell me I'm wrong, then prove it.

I rest my case.

You would prefer living under a government unrestricted by the Bill of Rights?

 

[Gunny]

Sure, in your dreams. Go get your copy of the United States Constitution and read where it says the Legislative Branch has the power to declare war. And tell us all where it says the Executive Branch has the power to declare war. No spin please, it has to be found in the United States Constitution where we can all see it. Note: trying to spin the bit about the Executive Branch being the commander in chief doesn't cut it.

If this Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch is so to the letter of the law as you claim. Please point out when the Legislative Branch declared war against Iraq.

The United States Constitution is clear about no search or seizure without a warrant. Tell us all how the Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch is doing their job forcing the Conservative Republican Party controlled Executive Branch to follow that letter of the law. Illegal wiretapping anyone?

The Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch has been a lapdog to the Conservative Republican Party controlled Executive Branch, which means we no longer have a check and balance system in our government. We have a dictatorial system thanks to the Conservative Republican Party controlled government.

The Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch stalled on the investigation into how the Conservative Republican Party controlled Executive Branch hyped up the march to war. Junior lied to the people saying he was cleared, when no investigation even got started. The Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch even tried to lie about having completed the investigation when it never even started it. The Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch got slapped down hard on that lie, they had to cry for mommy to lick their wound.

So how did that wound taste, you licked it so tell us, you know the one in their behind.

You really DO have a hard time with this, don't you? YOU are making the assertion. YOU back it up. It is not for others to provide your evidence for you.

Congress has the authority to declare war; while, the President has the authority to conduct it. One can only assume you are parrotting the "illegal war" ga-ga.

Please specify which war exactly you consider to be illegal; which, means a war being conducted by the President without the consent of Congress.

Bring out your argument and we'll see who gets bitch-slapped around here.

 

[Annie]

You really DO have a hard time with this, don't you? YOU are making the assertion. YOU back it up. It is not for others to provide your evidence for you.

Congress has the authority to declare war; while, the President has the authority to conduct it. One can only assume you are parrotting the "illegal war" ga-ga.

Please specify which war exactly you consider to be illegal; which, means a war being conducted by the President without the consent of Congress.

Bring out your argument and we'll see who gets bitch-slapped around here.

considering his response earlier, I decided to ignore the fact that he was referring to Paine speaking about the Magna Carta compared to what he then hoped would happen in colonies, (no doubt, Paine was more than disappointed with the Constititution), however, GW totally ignores the references to Magna Carta being a vehicle of very limited change.

Well, no shit, comrade. It was the beginning, no more, of limits on the power for the monarch. It protected only nobility, and barely that, at that.

 

[Gunny]

considering his response earlier, I decided to ignore the fact that he was referring to Paine speaking about the Magna Carta compared to what he then hoped would happen in colonies, (no doubt, Paine was more than disappointed with the Constititution), however, GW totally ignores the references to Magna Carta being a vehicle of very limited change.

Well, no shit, comrade. It was the beginning, no more, of limits on the power for the monarch. It protected only nobility, and barely that, at that.

That's the way I always heard it. The Magna Carta was the intermediate between absolute monarchy and democracy. I think they teach something different at Liberal U these days.

 

[Gunny]

Gee, I guess he told me.

 

[MtnBiker]

The Conservative Republican Party controlled Legislative Branch has been a lapdog to the Conservative Republican Party controlled Executive Branch, which means we no longer have a check and balance system in our government. We have a dictatorial system thanks to the Conservative Republican Party controlled government.

That is one of the most hilarous, whinning and bitching statement I have read in a long time considering a freely elected congress.

Of course the next thing we will hear is the elections were rigged.

 

[Stephanie]

Of course the next thing we will hear is the elections were rigged.

Go to the Duunderground.....
You hear talk like that every day.....
:rotflmao:

 

[Gunny]

That is one of the most hilarous, whinning and bitching statement I have read in a long time considering a freely elected congress.

Of course the next thing we will hear is the elections were rigged.

What I really like is his pathetic attempt to villify the Republican Party further by adding "Conservative" to it. Guess he didn't get the memo that "conservative" and "Republican" are not mutually inclusive.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If I thought it would stop you from whining.

Its great to see you take such a grave issue seriously.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Spidey they let you have a pc down at the Salvation Army mission?

You must be getting me confused with someone else, I unfortunately don't have much time to volunteer.

Listen asshole, you guys always do this, you take something and then apply the worstcase scenario to it, its how you play to your kook base, its fearmongering at its worst, the rest of us see the glass as being half full on this bill...........but if you want it repealed win elections and get it repealed, until then................

HALF FULL = HALF EMPTY is the same damn thing.

At least you can admit the bill is halfway messed up.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What I think is funny, it took him nearly 5 years to get upset about it! Now he's telling us to 'read it.'

I'd say that's pretty quick consider how long it took the world to notice what the Nazis were doing.

 

[Hobbit]

I'd say that's pretty quick consider how long it took the world to notice what the Nazis were doing.

Seems funny how similar the two are. The League of Nations suggested sanctions against Nazi Germany, but didn't act on them. The United States started sanctions against Imperialist Japan. All the while Germany was rounding up 'undesirables,' invading countries, and declaring that he was going to take over the world. Japan was just killing their undesirables and trying to incorporate all of Eastern Asia and everything inside the Pacific Rim into its empire. We knew what was up then, but just like now, a bunch of peaceniks...LIKE YOU...kept pressuiring Congress to keep us out of foreign wars. Now, how well did that turn out?

 

[Bullypulpit]

To anyone who participated in the 9/11 attacks. Or did you miss that part?

Didja miss the part about "...persons he determines..." participated in those attacks. What are the criteria for such a decision?...Or is it on a whim? Like it was with Iraq.

 

[CSM]

Didja miss the part about "...persons he determines..." participated in those attacks. What are the criteria for such a decision?...Or is it on a whim? Like it was with Iraq.

Nope...didn't miss that part. Your on the list!

Mornin, Bully!

 

[MissileMan]

Didja miss the part about "...persons he determines..." participated in those attacks. What are the criteria for such a decision?...Or is it on a whim? Like it was with Iraq.

Would you have preferred "persons that he can prove beyond any reasonable doubt, with photos AND confessions AND a minimum 100 witnesses, and in total agreement with the UN and France AND Bullypulpit". When taken in context, the wording is perfectly fine as is. You sound like Slick..."depends on what the definition of determines is."