Radicalman
(170 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-19-06 07:01 PM
Original message |
Bush Is Not A Conservative, He's A Dangerous Radical |
|
This is a re-post from General Disciussion Forum. When President Bush signed a new law, sponsored by Senator McCain, restricting the use of torture when interrogating detainees, he also issued a Presidential "signing statement." That "statement" asserted that his power as Commander-in-Chief gives him the authority to bypass the very law he had just signed. Bush has used presidential "signing statements"-- to hugely expand his power. Each of his signing statements says that he will interpret the law in question "in a manner consistent with his constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch." The term "unitary executive" seems to be first used by the radical Federalist Society. According to this theory Bush can ignore congress and the courts and their laws and interpretations of the law. This is a Texas Chainsaw Massacre - a bloody assault on the Constitution that only the likes of Alfred Hitchcock could dramatize. Not only does this dangerous and radical theory overthrow the doctrine of judicial supremacy, established first in Marbury V. Madison, but Bush is saying that he is above the law. This ignorant, dangerous man is taking the position that dictators have always taken, that either they are the law or are above the law. Bush thereby violates the principle of what mainly distinguishes a democratic republic from a totalitarian regime - the rule of law. Bush is a subversive. He seeks to overthrow the United States government by the force of unconstitutional presidential power. Unfortunately, this argument is complicated and probably above the heads of most of the voters. I''m wondering of George Lakoff or a DU member could simplify it. The voting public must understand it as one of many sound arguments as to why Bush must be impeached and convicted.
|
ayeshahaqqiqa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-19-06 07:04 PM
Response to Original message |
1. despite your user name, I'd say you're very rational |
|
and not radical like Bush at all. Kicked and recommended. Welcome to DU! :hi:
|
Radicalman
(170 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-19-06 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
Well, I guess I use the term "Radicalman" in an ironic fashion. If I had to wear a label it would be "FDR Democrat." Of course Roosevelt would be considered a very far left radical by today's standards. The true radicals of today are on the right and they want to dismantle the government by spending it out of existence (Norquist - reduce the size of gov't and then drown it in the bathtub), and with this amazing theory of the unitary executive, and sneak and peak, renditions, torture, unauthorized wiretaps, warrantless searches, etc., destroy the Constitution.
Again, thanks.
|
savemefromdumbya
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-19-06 07:12 PM
Response to Original message |
2. look who's behind Bush though |
|
Cheney and the gang are responsible for the way things are going - Bush is just a puppet prince
|
bliss_eternal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-19-06 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. I agree--he is a puppet. |
|
But I still get the sense he is also dangerous. He seems to have his own extremist ideas. He also seems to be functioning from a place of wanting someone's approval--not sure who, though. Not sure if it's his base, the very wealthy, or the extreme religious right or someone else...
|
savemefromdumbya
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-19-06 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
Cheney really calls the tune. Bush is unstable.
|
bliss_eternal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-19-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
do you think it stems from emotional imbalance or his drug and alcohol problems?
|
savemefromdumbya
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-19-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
zonmoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-28-06 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
16. he is the sociopathic puppet of a cabal of sociopaths. |
A Simple Game
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-19-06 07:23 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Back in my day(late '60s to early '70s, Bush would not have |
|
been called a radical. Radical was reserved for the very far left.
Bush, being very far right, would have been called reactionary.
That is if I recall correctly, I don't hear the term reactionary spoken anymore.
|
wryter2000
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-19-06 07:36 PM
Response to Original message |
|
To quote Dr. Dean, "He's not a Republican. He's not a Conservative. He's a dangerous radical." You been listening to Dr. Dean?
:hi:
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-20-06 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
maddezmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-20-06 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. do you have any examples of * liberalism? |
|
:shrug:
BTW, Welcome to DU. :toast:
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-22-06 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
SongOfTheRayne
(248 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-01-06 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
13. your message got deleted |
zonmoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-07-06 04:12 AM
Response to Original message |
14. Actually the best word for him is nazi just like his granddad. |
eugene5debs
(45 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-01-06 01:28 PM
Response to Original message |
15. Bush as radical actor |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun Oct 12th 2025, 12:21 PM
Response to Original message |