2007-02-05 06:33:48 · 22 answers · asked by Breanna T 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Only the ignorant who don't understand the meaning of the word would consider him a tyrant.
2007-02-05 06:37:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 7⤋
He isn't a tyrant. Period. There have been no authoritarian actions from the White House.
He hasn't imprisoned the opposition, like the Democrat heroes Castro, Chavez, or Ahmadinejad have.
He hasn't shut down the free presses, like the Democrat heroes Castro, Chavez, or Ahmadinejad have.
He has put everything to a vote, per the Constitutional requirements. And while there have been many etherial bogeyman fears about legislation that has been enacted, or decisions that he has made, the fact remains that he's done nothing that has not been considered within the inherent powers of the Presidency.
Calling Bush a "tyrant" is not supported by the facts. It must be one of those irrational emotional things.
2007-02-05 06:53:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is difficult to be a Tyrant in a country where you are truly elected, and the governing body has the power to remove you from office. A tyrant would run a country with no real opposition, any who opposed would be dealt with severely. With The Mass Media and the Democratic party blaming and condemning Bush for everything from Global warming to chicken pox, I see no fear of Bush getting true tyrannical powers.
2016-03-29 06:13:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A tyrant is an totalitarian dictator. I don't know about "tyrant" since he is an authoritarian and not a totalitarian, but he earns the name Dictator Dumbya as follows...
Count one: He is UNelected. Count two: He has used "signing statements" in attempt to subvert law. Count 3: He has been openly on the record quoted to desire to be a dictator, using THAT word, several times and has supported the idea that he is a "unitary executive" which is just another name for you-know-what. Count 4: He has said that the Constitution that he has sworn to "preserve protect and defend" is just "a GD piece of paper". Count five: He has worked to overturn habeas and detain people, even citizens, by executive fiat. Want more? That's what books are for.
2007-02-05 07:33:32 · answer #4 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The main reason he's a tyrant is that he has continuously used "signing statements" - basically these are statements he writes so that he doesn't have to obey the law.
Since Bush has taken office, he's by-passed the law 750 times using these signing statements, claiming that he has the power to disobey the law if he doesn't like what it says.
Hmmmm, a leader who disobeys the law of his own country whenever he wants to.... sounds like a tyrant to me.
2007-02-05 06:52:00 · answer #5 · answered by drea376 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I suppose he's not a tyrant.
He does disregard the Congress and laws in the United States of America. I find that to be a bad precedent to set. OH and he's lied to the people by advancing the myth/ misstatement/ blatant lie that there were 'weapons of mass-destruction' any where to be found in Iraq (have we found any today?).
Not a Tyrant, just worst President ever (move over Hayes).
2007-02-05 06:41:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
He isnt. We voted for him, we ave a Congress, a Judiciary and the ability to override Presidential vetoes.
2007-02-05 06:41:41 · answer #7 · answered by Daniel 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
TYRANT: any person who exercises authority in an oppressive manner.
And your point?
2007-02-05 06:40:00 · answer #8 · answered by Hemingway 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Any decent president would not have waited 441 days before putting a commission together to investigate 9-11.
Any decent president would not have allowed the Patriot Acts to be passed! And we are still waiting for the Real IDs to take affect. Show your papers please? That is nazi-ism.
2007-02-05 06:46:59 · answer #9 · answered by TexasRose 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Lack of respect and hate-mongering
2007-02-05 10:10:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋