The Next American Revolution?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by diesel96, Jul 19, 2007.

  1. diesel96

    diesel96 Well-Known Member

    With Democrats and the majority of Americans opposing Bush’s continuance of war in Iraq and his sword-rattling over alleged nuclear materials in Iran, he has now put in place power to arbitrarily and unilaterally impose martial law, suspend the Constitution, assume virtual dictatorial power, deploy under his command military forces into U.S. cities to round up citizens declared by his regime to be enemy combatants or security threats, and to retain control of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, military personnel, law enforcement agencies, and private sector organizations until he and/or a private non-governmental parallel agency of his making deems his declared state of emergency to be over.
    With what has happened in America over the last six years under this corrupt, illegal regime, should anyone doubt that the Bush administration and its electively-doomed Republican Party is thinking seriously about imposing martial law?

    The Regime of George W. Bush to enact and sustain a "petro-war" agenda(aka--War on Terror). What remains unclear is why anyone should assume that Bush and company have any intention of relinquishing control of that agenda. A distinct possibility exists that this administration will in fact implement martial law before January 20, 2009. America Beware!!
  2. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    Sounds too much like a crappy "B" movie that could be found in the Sci-Fi section of a Blockbuster or Hollywood Video. In the VHS section of course.
  3. scratch

    scratch Least Best Moderator Staff Member

    Which George Soros website did this come off off?
  4. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    Diesel96 is ***********.
  5. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    WTF? I can't mention her name without some filter killing it?? Thats's a little much, isn't it?

  6. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    Anyhow, She Who Shall Remain Unnamed said the same thing: Basicly that there will not be a Presidential election in 08 because President Bush will declare martial law.
  7. Pollocknbrown

    Pollocknbrown Member

    Wow even my mind is not that creative....what the hell u been smoking, hook me up
  8. Pollocknbrown

    Pollocknbrown Member

    and a "petro-war" if its a war for oil why the hell am i paying 3.05 for a gallon of regular gas? i waste 6 bux a day (rounded) just going to my job and back. When you have sufficent proof that this was a war for oil, come talk to me, until then shut the hell up.
  9. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    Petro-war, Awesome! I'm all for it if it gets the gas price down.
  10. Sammie

    Sammie Well-Known Member

    So Bush simply ninja rolled his way onto the senate floor when nobody was looking. :ninja:

    You read a lot of nonsense. What he did was revise the Insurrection Act of 1807....

    last year....

    The man has no more authority than most presidents have always had but it’s being misinterpreted by democrats who are trying to frighten the public about the laws that have always been there.

    If you’re really interested in presidential powers, research Lincoln sometime. He jailed congressmen and senators and he also ordered troops and cannons to blast away at anti-war protesters in New York. And he was, of course, a Republican...
  11. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    I guess I'm not the only one that thought the scenario was foolishly rediculous. I'm not even a Bush fan but I wouldn't dare go as far as some of these left wing nuts are going with the bashing. Bush spoke today in Nashville, which is in my area, and many people were dissapointed with how he danced around, and in some cases totally dodged, some of the questions but I can safely assume that most of the dissapointed people in the crowd wouldn't come up with insane ideas such as the one presented to start this thread. It's almost laughable. I just want to know what Diesel96 had drank, smoked, or shot up, and if it was legal, before he presented us with his idea. If it involved a suppository (the movie "Trainspotting" comes to mind) than I don't want to know.
  12. Pollocknbrown

    Pollocknbrown Member

    The funny thing about democrats, FDR, granted the 4 terms was not illegal, but most of his groups he created (sorry i cannot name them because history isnt my best subject) but a good majority of those programs he created to help America were in fact ILLEGAL. So before we brand republican presidents as bad, look at the democrats, they are just as sneaky, but atleast lincoln was within his right since martial law was declared to blast away anti war protesters.
  13. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    You just became the BC resident artist IMO because you've been the most creative to say the name most forbidden here.


    And thanks for laugh too!
  14. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    And as to Diesel's original comments in this thread? Points of concern Diesel? I'll agree to that but I don't think the vision you suggest will happen with this adminstration as you suggest. Back in the 80's as FEMA was granted vast powers as a result of the grows conflict between the US and USSR, a gov't document was discovered called "Operation Gardenplot" (I think that was the name) and at the time especially in the rightwing, tax protestor so-called "Patriot Movement" the same suggestions were made of Reagan as you made of Bush.

    Oddly also at the time, not a peep from the so-called left on this as for the most part the only clarion calls came from the extreme right which seemed odd as this was considered "Reagan Country" so to speak. With the tax movement, Reagan smashed his bridges with the 1982' TEFRA Act thus raising the spector of various conspiracy theories.

    As much as I'd like for them to play this overt a game, I guess you could say from my point of view, "why pussyfoot around, let's just get it on and be done with it" these guys really are too smart to play that game and besides it really doesn't fit the public policy window at all. It's counter productive even for them if you believe in a gov't planned business model which I happen to believe.

    Now if you are just throwing out a big wet juicy baited hook to see how many mullets strike? Nice job, you just caught your limit. I love the comedy of it.

    But then again, you may have read this to set you off.

    On this one, I just disagree with the scenario for tons of good reason.

    For Starters..........


    About 99.99999% of this website just rolled their eyes, heartbeats raced and blood pressures spiked as the thought of another book was about to hit the BC pages!

    Have a good weekend suckers!

    BTW: Tie, this one is gospel, even the comedy part!
  15. diesel96

    diesel96 Well-Known Member

    Last edited: Jul 20, 2007
  16. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

  17. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    "Would you like to clarify that 9five..w/o a moderater having to filter you....I will responed to you ...promise (Susie Driver?)"

    Sorry, Diesel, I wasn't swearing at you! In one of her last posts, SHE WHO SHALL REMAIN UNNAMED said something similar to your "this administration will in fact implement martial law before January 20, 2009."

    I then found it incredulous that her nick was automatically censored. IE immediately, not by a moderator.

    I will search for the post, but I bet I wont find it.....!
  18. Sammie

    Sammie Well-Known Member

    We live in dangerous times. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to restrict the president’s ability to deploy the military and now the law allows martial law to respond to catastrophic events, natural disasters, epidemics, public health emergencies, terrorist attacks… This doesn’t sound so bad ...

    And, BTW, the revision was cowritten by Sen. Carl L (D-MI), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee and Sen. John Warner (R-VA). Sen. Teddy (D-MA) openly endorsed it and Rep.Duncan Hunter (R-CA), then-chair of the House Armed Services Committee, was a definite advocate.

    Now, the Fairness Doctrine. I thought that was still under debate… It started in the 40’s, it was revoked in the 80’s, and since then there’s thousands of outlets for news from talk radio, cable and satellite TV and the net. Sounds like free speech has come a long way. So why do Durbin, Kerry, Feinstein, Pelosi and Hoyer want to reinstate this Doctrine, especially regarding radio broadcasts? Because they’re jealous as all hell!!! Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday have given Republicans and conservatives an edge over their Democratic counterparts for the last two years and Republicans produce quality, entertaining talk radio shows that the Democrats couldn’t match in a thousand years!

    And as far as your Petro War, you don’t feel there’s any reason for US troops to continue protecting Iraq’s oil fields from falling under the control of terrorist extremists?

  19. satellitedriver

    satellitedriver Moderator

    The same issue was raised near the end of Clinton's tenure. Same story, just different political party.

    "Paranoia strikes deep
    into your heart it will creep.
    It starts when you're always afraid
    that the man will come and take you away."

    Or, as I like to say," Beat the rush, worry now."
  20. diesel96

    diesel96 Well-Known Member

    Ok,I was unaware someone brought this up already,however I did not say "in Fact" just "distinct possibility","thinking Seriously" and "beware America"....

    My vision is aware it's unlikely to happen(Wkmac),but eyebrows are being raised,bloodpressures are elevating,heart rates are excelerating not to put it past this particular rogue Administration defecating on the ideology of the majority of the American citizens.

    [quote =Sammie}
    We live in dangerous times. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to restrict the president’s ability to deploy the military and now the law allows martial law to respond to catastrophic events, natural disasters, epidemics, public health emergencies, terrorist attacks… This doesn’t sound so bad ...

    Sammie,who's to determine WHAT''S catastrophic,natural disasters,epidemic,etc.. to impose martial law?..A few in the Executive branch,?or Congress?Would'nt more heads from both political parties be better than a few heads from one party?