This story is archived
Bush Preparing for Martial Law? »
Posted by: msaleem 3 years, 4 months agoAs the congressional elections later in the year could result in the loss of Republican control of Senate and Congress, Bush is making efforts now to push through some very controversial legislation.
Read Full Story at frogstylebiscuit.com »
Submitted By:
msaleem
Please visit me at:
muhammadsaleem.com
Please visit me at:
pronetadvertising.com
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 433
-
ekklesiawarrior
Aug. 8, 2006, 9:50 a.m.Bush Admin looks more now, from Germany of 1933 to German takeover of all Civil actions of 1937.
When are Americans going to wake up? Remove this president from office now.
Should he seize control of each State's National Guard, there be no check guard.
Looks like Dictatorship to us.
-
-
ptath2
Aug. 8, 2006, 11:43 a.m.I would have to believe if the intent was to take over, that articles like these, wouldn't be allowed. I don't agree with bypassing the nations gov's. I laugh at all the people who think this began with Bush, and those who think there is a difference to be made with administrations. The consolidation of Federal power has been going on for along time starting with the income tax amendment in 1913, FDR, Clinton, Federal Government control as trend has increased over the century. The government has propped up enemies, and declared crises all the time in order to get people surrender freedoms and control over their life and assets voluntarily (war on poverty, Gun control, Drug war, The Depression, Energy Crisis). This has been a century in the making, I doubt, we are facing the climax yet, it is to soon. When it comes we will deserve it, because good intentions caused us to take our eyes of Liberyt for a Century.
-
Landarch
Aug. 8, 2006, 11:54 a.m.ptpath2 is right, although it sure seems much more blatant with this current joke of an administration. I have become very skeptical of government myself. If it worked the way it is supposed to as a representative government, it would be great, but we have congressmen making votes that do NOT represent the majority of who they represent, and that is wrong. Many are just rubber stamps for the president (it pains me to say that when referring to bush). I don't know if that will ever change. And i do believe that he and his cronies will come up with any scheme possible to keep the balanceof power from shifting. Stay tuned....
-
rushran
Aug. 8, 2006, 12:08 p.m.Maybe they will find bin-linden or come up with another big terrorist scare. The republicians are good at that scaring the public in voting for them.
-
Landarch
Aug. 8, 2006, 1:35 p.m.Good point SageParadox! Many things happening in that movie are a direct correlation to what is happening in the government now. I don't think Lucas is a bush fan.
-
Krazymk
Aug. 8, 2006, 1:36 p.m.Why does this look like 'return of the biased website'? Once again, the comparisons to Hitler come out and comparisons are sought or invented. In 2008, a new President will be elected. That will occur regardless. No one is going to let martial law be instituted, nor Bush to remain beyond his two elected terms. The fear-mongering by certain minority opinion folks are transparent.
-
Crossbow
Aug. 8, 2006, 1:47 p.m.Got to love the blatant Liberal slant of this article. Makes me glad we got control of the Congress and WH away from the Libs.
Anyone else notice that the longer the Libs have been out of power the more "conspiracies" that have popped up?
I guess some people will do anything to get their power back.
-
-
jailer
Aug. 8, 2006, 1:56 p.m.When all of this irrational paranoia about President Bush declaring martial law blows over in a few months, will any of you who have bought into this crap have the guts to come back to this forum and admit you are foolishly misguided?
-
-
Landarch
Aug. 8, 2006, 2:08 p.m.THe only nit wits are those who blindly put their faith in this moronic president! It is okay to question those in power, and it is more patriotic to want to make the country better for everyone than to just sit back and let those in power continue to screw it up!
-
Skanderbeg
Aug. 8, 2006, 2:09 p.m.As a former soldier and Police officer I would suggest you wakeup to what is really going on. Historically unpopular Govts do not tolerate the
-
Fantagor
Aug. 8, 2006, 2:10 p.m.As a matter of historical context, it is important to remember that Hitler was an elected official who took control of Germany through legal channels. Usurpers do not always storm the village on horseback while wielding a blood drenched sword. Some do their best handiwork with a pen.
-
Klittle123
Aug. 8, 2006, 2:10 p.m.Jeez, what're you talking about Bush is "always right." I watched the garbage on CNN(I beleive), and he said something about he doesn't care if his ratings go down, cause he knows he's right. What a load of crap, looking back on these past two terms of him being in office all I can say is, that I can't wait for him to leave next year. Me being a "former republican," I find it disgraceful that I even thought that this guy was going to be good in office. I think that he's killed the name of Republican's for years to come.
-
Krazymk
Aug. 8, 2006, 2:24 p.m.I love the way that some people can say to completely contridictory things in the same sentance. 'Bush is a moronic president, but he is intelligent enough to maneuver himself to maintain control after his terms are up.'
datruef, you're exactly correct. Bush is blamed because he didn't do more in Katrina...and he takes the steps to allow him to do more if it happens again, but he's still wrong. Some people just can't seem to get their story straight. Tell you what. Let's all sit down and look at what the Federal Government is supposed to do so we can blame the right people for failing, and don't have to whine when the blamed branches take steps so they can actually do something.
-
Landarch
Aug. 8, 2006, 2:25 p.m.The truth is that the opinions of you bushys do NOT represent those of the majority of the country! People are finally starting to wake up and realize that having people like bush and his cronies in charge is not to the benefit of the MAJORITY (middle class) of this country. The middle class is dwindling because of his policies (and lack thereof). Doesn't it make sense to elect someone who represents the MAJORITY of his country? One would think so!
-
ahriman01
Aug. 8, 2006, 2:26 p.m.Okay, enough! This is just going to devolve into another "cons are idiots", and "libs are fags" argument and nothing comes from it except the total bypassing of the issue while we hurl names at eachother.
Lets have some honest answers (an informal poll if you will) about what people really want this country to be. There can be no absolute freedom when there is an overabundance of security. Likewise there can be no optimal effectiveness of security if restrictions are not placed upon liberty. So which is it? Which do each of you hold most dear, freedom or security?
-
samsara15
Aug. 8, 2006, 2:27 p.m."They" don't hate Bush any more than "some" hated Clinton and Carter. Bush has made an overt grab for all the power he can get his hands on. It's naive for anyone to argue that this is no danger to the republic, even if the risk does turn out to have been overblown. That's how Caesar and his ilk gradually eroded and eventually destroyed the Roman Republic.
-
Krazymk
Aug. 8, 2006, 2:28 p.m.Klittle, you're right that Bush isn't a true conservative. There have been many things that he has done that I think were wrong. If he agrees or not is up to him. And I can understand completely not letting yourself be guided by polls. Polls (that ask a question of less than 1% of the population concerning a question that the individual likely has no background in) are not a reliable tool for governing. They're great if you want to be Prom Queen, but otherwise, they're just something for the 24hr news networks to talk about when there's nothing else new going on.
-
ahriman01
Aug. 8, 2006, 2:34 p.m.Let me kick off the discussion with my choice, freedom. I know that to live in a totally free world would be immensly dangerous, but to live in an absolutely secure one would be hazardous in itself. People cry out for security because they are afraid that their lives (the thing most precious to any living being) may be taken away at any given moment by some nutjob who straps a bomb to his chest.
But isn't liberty worth the constant risk? The people who built this country were willing to die as traitors rather than live as vassles to an overlord on some distant island. Are we all willing to submit to the rules of the state simply because it is for the good of the whole? Or, do we live our lives for ourselves, with the freedom to live without fear of having our doors knocked down because some govt. office jockey doesn't like that we checked out the Communist Manifesto at the library?
-
1-2-Oscar
Aug. 8, 2006, 2:37 p.m.What the article suggests is absurd, as are many of the comments here. You people need to get a life--or get a brain.
-
jednp
Sept. 5, 2007, 12:23 p.m.what about general Tommy Franks saying in 2003 that martial law will likely replace the constitution after the next attack or major event, threat?
-
-
ahriman01
Aug. 8, 2006, 2:37 p.m.I'd rather die free, than live in paranoia. And lets face it, there is no middle ground (luvmyprez). No matter how hard we try, it will ultimately come down to either freedom or security.
-
Landarch
Aug. 8, 2006, 2:40 p.m.Krazymk: He's also intelligent enough to bankrupt a few of his companies, as well as the United States!
-
The first 26 comments are shown. Show all 433 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
