Common sense says that the coming midterm elections would be cancelled and thet all the liberals would be stuffed into railroad cars and headed for camps by now. Strange that none of this has happened under Bush. Now lets think, what party had a President who used tanks and such on civilians.
Democrats both times, Waco and the pension camp prior to WW2 maned by WW1 vets. FDR order the army to do what ever to move them out, clubbing, shooting and assorted violence ensued.
2006-09-29 14:43:18 · 12 answers · asked by Have gun, will travel. 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Because all liberals want to do is throw out charges and it does not matter what the truth is. It is all about the seriousness of the charge. Remember, Uncle Rush.
2006-09-30 12:34:21 · answer #1 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No i don't think of he became a stable president. history is going to be very harsh in judgments against him. The UN representative who have been in Iraq searching for WMD advised anybody and everybody who might pay attention to them that the weapons did not exist, and GW jumped the gun earlier the comments have been carried out. additionally, there became no clean shrink protection rigidity plan, only ask your self and awe, and after that short burst of skill became over, American squaddies have been placed in harms way as a protection rigidity peace retaining operation in direction of a civil conflict in a rustic with insurmountable inner issues between warring factions, The Sunni and Shiites. different errors: Blackwater and the insufferable economic rigidity positioned on our govt.
2016-10-18 05:38:12 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
our ability to go free is quickly diminishing.
here's the catch people; it's not about how close to a dictatorship we are, it's how far away we are from what america is supposed to be that matters.
and with bush's recent thing about a bill with an attachment basically pardoning him for all war crimes... along with his recent crap denying habeas corpus, this is just too far.
so neocons can sit there and talk about how free we are (for the moment), but everytime we turn around the bush administration is doing something else to change that status.
and btw, i'm not a liberal.
2006-09-29 14:53:49 · answer #3 · answered by gothhick 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What makes you think that they are free?
When either Liberals or Conservatives voice DISSENT against their government they are branded traitors or terrorist sympathizers.
This not the model of a so-called "free" democratic society. It is the begining to the end of that society. There are over 400 new prisons that are unoccupied so far, here in the United States....do you think they are for al-queda? They are for Americans.........
That, trust me, are being watched at the present moment.
2006-09-29 14:56:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Let's see Waco the only problem there was they waited a lot longer than I would have to send a tank through the place.
I think it was Hoover who sent the army in.
http://www.vawatchdog.org/new%20bonus%20army.htm
God forbid that the facts should get in your way.
I'm sure you studied that Hoover was a Republican.
2006-09-29 15:02:18 · answer #5 · answered by madjer21755 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
no you misunderstood he isn't a dictator just a war criminal
War crimes are divided into two broad categories. The first are called crimes against peace. Crimes against peace include the planning, preparation, or initiation of a war of aggression. In other words one country cannot make aggressive war against another country. Nor can a country settle a dispute by war; it must always, and in good faith, negotiate a settlement. The second category are what we can call crimes against humanity; I am including here crimes against civilians and soldiers. These are violations of the rules as to the means and manner by which war is to be conducted once begun. These include the following prohibitions: killing of civilians, indiscriminate bombing, the use of certain types of weapons, killing of defenseless soldiers, ill treatment of POWs and attacks on non-military targets.
Any violation of these two sets of laws is a war crime; if the violations are done on purpose, recklessly or knowingly, they are considered very serious and called grave breaches; Nazis and Japanese following World War II were hanged for such grave breaches.
First, I want to discuss crimes against peace and give you some sense of its application here. This prohibition is embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, the Nuremberg Charter, which is the law under which the Nazis were tried, and a treaty called the Kellogg-Briand pact. As the Nuremberg Charter defines,
Crimes against peace:
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
2006-09-29 14:46:55 · answer #6 · answered by rwl_is_taken 5 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Freedom is an illusion.
Or, Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose:
Janice Joplin
2006-09-29 14:51:37 · answer #7 · answered by F T 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Good, cutos to Franklin, I don't know who he clubbed or why, but I'm sure they deserved it!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's the difference between democrats and rich republicans, we got the balls to do what we need to to get **** done.
2006-09-29 14:49:32 · answer #8 · answered by Tammy C 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bush is a clueless a.. and to dumb to be a dictator.
2006-09-29 14:50:47 · answer #9 · answered by Magica! Star 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't think he is a dictator. Just a moron.
2006-09-29 14:45:31 · answer #10 · answered by beatnik 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋