America as a dictatorship...implicit statement by Dems

Status
Not open for further replies.

Harold Mayo

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,073
Location
Hutchinson, Kansas
Take a look at the following AP article. I have placed my own comments in bold type. The underlined statement is really the one that infuriates me (I underlined it, btw...it wasn't emphasized in that manner in the original AP article).

Jesse Jackson Hosts Democrats in Chicago

By NEDRA PICKLER
.c The Associated Press

CHICAGO (AP) - Democrats running for president said Sunday if elected they would promote affirmative action even if the Supreme Court rules against policies that help minorities in college admissions.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule any day whether affirmative action programs at the University of Michigan are constitutional, and the case was a main topic of discussion at a Democratic presidential forum sponsored by Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.

``When I'm president, we'll have executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day,'' said Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri.

This is the single worst statement that I have heard/read a Democrat make. Gephardt just stated that he will not abide by a Supreme Court decision but will override it with executive orders. This, my friends, is what a dictatorship is all about. "Screw the Constitution!" is what Gephardt just said. And please note that he isn't just talking about the affirmative action stuff, but included "any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day". This statement really makes me fume.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich also made a pledge to put affirmative action into U.S. law.

President Bush opposes the University of Michigan's policies, and several candidates cited his position as a reason he should be voted out of office.

``We deserve a president of the United States who doesn't call fairness to minorities a special preference,'' said Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

Well...we deserve a president who treats everyone equally, not gives special treatment to any particular group...

Kerry said he was committed to have people of color in positions of power in his administration and pointed to diversity in his campaign staff.

Al Sharpton responded that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a black man who may vote against the university's affirmative action program. He said Democrats shouldn't be talking about getting more blacks in high places, but getting the right blacks.

Yes...the ones who would want to play the "race card" rather than just simply doing their jobs. I suppose that Rice and Powell aren't the "right" blacks for their jobs?

``If we doubt that, just look at Clarence Thomas,'' he said. ``Clarence Thomas is my color, but he's not my kind.''

THANK GOD FOR THAT!!!

While the forum largely focused on domestic policies, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean faced questions about his foreign policy credentials in an appearance earlier Sunday on NBC's ``Meet the Press.''

He said it is good Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is out of power, but added: ``We don't know whether in the long run the Iraqi people are better off. And the most important thing is, we don't know whether we're better off.''

Let's see...Baath party out of power, biggest single threat to the USA in terms of organized terrorist activities and large amounts of funding for terrorists gone, Iraqi people having the opportunity to elect a democratic government...I think that everyone is better off except Hussein and those suckling at the teat of the Baath party.

Dean said he was worried that if the United States ``can't get our act together in Iraq and if we can't build Iraq into a democracy, then the alternative is chaos or a fundamentalist regime.''

Well...it's really up to the Iraqi people. At least the current administration decided to do something about the threat rather than get oral sex from interns like previous administrations...

He criticized what he said was Bush's quick resort to military power.

``This president has essentially pushed aside people who disagree with him, using our military might and using threats and intimidation,'' he said. ``In the long run, that does not work.''

Hmmm...Dean's note to self: "If I get elected, push aside people who disagree with me, use military might along with threats and intimidation AND get oral sex from interns."

Under sharp questioning on the TV show, Dean acknowledged that he did not know how many people are on active duty in the military, but said it was silly for him to be expected to know such a detail at this stage in the presidential race. As president, Dean said he would have advisers who would keep him informed on the exact number of troops.

Dean, whose campaign got off to a strong start by appealing to anti-war liberals, was attempting to recast his bid with a formal announcement Monday that promises to urge voters to stand up to special interests, a Republican Party dominated by money and docile Democrats.

And Republicans have urged votes to stand up to special interests, a Democratic party dominated by money and docile Republicans (or apathetic voters in general).

In his appearance on NBC, Dean also talked about many domestic issues, including Social Security. He said he would consider raising the retirement age to 68 and letting more salary above $80,000 fall under the payroll tax.

The maximum annual earnings subject to Social Security taxes this year is $87,000. Also, 65 years and two months is the current retirement age for receiving full program benefits. That gradually rises to 67 over the next two decades. For example, someone who just turned 60 will not be eligible for full benefits until they turn 66.

Although the party's first nominating contest is not until January in Iowa, the candidates are competing in an online primary this week run by MoveOn.org.

Dean and Kerry, who have developed a fierce rivalry for the New Hampshire primary, made automated calls and urged people to help them win the Internet contest.

In Kerry's call, he asks people to press one to leave their e-mail address if they are interested in voting.

Dean has an aggressive Internet-based campaign and is expected by many to finish at the top of the online primary.

Voting on the liberal-oriented site begins Wednesday morning and lasts 48 hours. The winner could get a boost in fund raising.

Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright said when some Dean supporters notified his campaign they were getting calls from Kerry, the Dean organization decided to start making calls of their own Saturday night.
 
``When I'm president, we'll have executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day,'' said Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri.

He'll be President of the United States the same year it snows in Phoenix on Independence Day.
 
The attitude you jost identified is no great surprise. We recently deposed of a president who simply didn't recognize restraints on his behavior. He hired likeminded people. He was not concerned with details like what the law said or what was permitted by the constitution. If he wanted it done, he did it. After all, it was one of the former president's aides who said, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool, huh?" As scarey a quote as imaginable.

Then. . . . . when said president finally goes too far and the opposing political party seeks to reign him in, he gets a free pass because of certain senate leadership didn't have the stomach for confllict. Bottom line? Clinton got a free pass demonstrating there was no consequence for violaing the law.

Consequences abound today. Immediate consequence is a direct attack on federal election law. Florida's supreme court legislating from the bench. NJ Democrats take the Torch of the ballot and put in a corpse. NJ supreme court says, "What's the diff?" Democrat senators use the filibuster rules of 60 in favor to violate the constitutional requirement of a major of 1 vote. Now they are expanding to 3 more nominations and including anti-gun legislation. Texas Democrats didn't like the idea of having congressional districts redrawn by elected officials rather than judges. They feared they would lose seats to republicans. Solution to the problem? Flee to Oklahoma denying the Texas legislature a quorum.

Look for similar behavior in the future. It will only continue to grow and get worse UNTIL SOMEONE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY GROWS A SPINE AND DECIDES TO STAND FOR SOMETHING. Thus far Democrats have seen no consequences for their actions.
 
Why the far left?

I guess the conventional wisdon among the Democrats is that you have to appeal to the far left and special interest groups to wint he primary and then "re-state" your positions to appeal to the middle majority in the general election.

I watched Howard Dean this weekend deny some of his actual speeches with Tim Russert. Russert would play or show him a part of a speech and then Howard would deny he ever said or meant that. How Clintonian.

My favorite was when Russert pointed out that he has already had to apologize three times ot other candidates and he read the quotes. Dean said that "just because he used the word apologize in his reference to a comment on Graham it didn't mean he was apologizing". ("What is is", logic hard at work.)

BTW Dean stated that he believed that current gun control at the Federal level needs to be tightened up on background checks and that the individual states should have the majority of power on the issue.

They are trying to keep the gun control issue at the bottom of thelist of issues they speak on. Most of their advisors know it's a poison pill in any general election, but in the primaries expect to hear a lot of ranting on how they'll "fix" things as far as gun control goes.

Don P.
 
i read a similar article in USA Today about the Jess Jackson/Dem Pres Candidate meeting in Chitown
It also had some pretty stupid comments made by some of the candidates......like striking down Bush's tax cut once they are elected
('cause the president can just do that you know, Congress be darned! - NOT)
its enough to make me ill
Gephardt's comment is priceless though, youd think since the man has a law degree he would realize that he would be violating the Constitution......but I guess logic doesnt mean much to him when you are trying to pander to voters
the article also talked much about how the candidates spoke at length about their black connections........
"Yes, I like black people, in fact, there are some on my staff"
oh my oh my
BSR
 
This is the single worst statement that I have heard/read a Democrat make. Gephardt just stated that he will not abide by a Supreme Court decision but will override it with executive orders. This, my friends, is what a dictatorship is all about.
What if Bush signed an executive order overturning all of the Supreme Court decisions which upheld restrictions on firearms?

To make it more extreme, let's say Congress/Senate UNANIMOUSLY passed a law banning firearm possession outright, and soon after a case went to the Supreme Court, and they upheld this law; what if Bush then signed an executive order overturning the Supreme Court and this law?

Is it a dictatorship that angers you, or just a dictatorship that upholds someone else's beliefs?
 
What if...? Let's say...?

Bjengs,

What if he didn't? Let's say he couldn't. What if the Congress passed a law that stated that everybody had to recite the Lord's Prayer out loud at noon every day and the Supreme Court upheld it?

Let's say the President then overturned it with an Executive Order.

Any more "What ifs" or "Let's says"?

We have a document called the "Constitution of the United States" that clearly directs what we, the people (including Congress, the President and all elected officials), can and can't do. Just because the Congress passes a law doesn't make it constitutional. Just because the Supreme Court upholds an unconstitutrional law doesn't make it right. Just because the
President signs an Executive Order doesn't make it legal.

At some point the people are the ones that say "NO!" to dictatorships, dictators and despots.

Just my two cents worth...

Buck
 
We have a document called the "Constitution of the United States" that clearly directs what we, the people (including Congress, the President and all elected officials), can and can't do.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not a restriction on the people, they are a restriction on the government. It lists a bunch of very things that government may or may not do.

Free citizens do not need permission via the Constitution to do anything, since the Constitution merely allows delegation of some specific powers from the people to the government.
 
bjengs, what makes me angry is a dictatorship in and of itself because a dictatorship IS CONTRARY TO MY BELIEFS.

If my personal beliefs were followed, there would be no possibility of a dictatorship.

It actually irks me to think that YOU think that you made some sort of point with your post. You don't understand the implications of the attitude that Gephardt and many Democrats have (and not a few Republicans, too) toward the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. More and more, they are getting away from the foundation upon which our nation is built since they believe themselves to be somehow capable of doing better (or, actually, they probably just don't care about the rights of others and just want power for themselves). In any case, capt. nemo really pretty much said what needed to be said.
 
Democrats running for president said Sunday if elected they would promote affirmative action even if the Supreme Court rules against policies that help minorities in college admissions.
So, all of the Dumocrats have admitted that if elected, they will lie when they take the oath of office and violate the US Constitution. Especially that little part that says "protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic." After all, the function of the Supreme Court is to determine what is and is not permitted by the constitution.

What if Bush signed an executive order overturning all of the Supreme Court decisions which upheld restrictions on firearms?

He cannot do that, much less override the Supreme Court. If he could, Nixon would never have resigned. If he could, there would be no need to suck up to congress to get his legislation approved. He would have the power to disband congress and create laws as he saw fit.

There are limits on executive orders.
 
Wake up,everybody!!!

The Democrats and Republicans do not give a DAMN about the Constitution or YOUR RIGHTS, and anything they say about them are just meaningless statements to sucker you into voting for them.

The only thing the Dems and Repubs care about is securing their lock on power, and executing their agenda. The party loyalty they must exhibit to reach the positions they want requires them to sell out to a certain agenda. The only difference between them is what agenda they pick.

There are a few like Congressman Ron Paul who are audacious enough to actually READ the Constitution AND believe in it, but other than him, the rest are just feeding you a line.
 
At some point the people are the ones that say "NO!" to dictatorships, dictators and despots.
Exactly! And they also ought to say "NO!" to the Supreme Court, which has been a joke for 200 years. And they also ought to say "NO!" to Congress, which has been a joke since day one.

A lot of people take a partisan attack and pretend they're acting altruistically. They say "no war for oil!" (and I agree) yet they all stood by when Kosovo was raped...for oil. There are a bunch of liberal airheads out there prattling on about how Bush is going to be a dictator, we've got to stop it, etc. But they really aren't against dictators, they would just rather have their guy in the starring role as the American Mussolini.

bjengs, what makes me angry is a dictatorship in and of itself because a dictatorship IS CONTRARY TO MY BELIEFS.

If my personal beliefs were followed, there would be no possibility of a dictatorship.

It actually irks me to think that YOU think that you made some sort of point with your post. You don't understand the implications of the attitude that Gephardt and many Democrats have (and not a few Republicans, too) toward the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I only asked the question because it would be unfair to make an assumption about what you believed. No need to get nasty! I feel I made my point, by the way. The other posters seem to have gotten it.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not a restriction on the people, they are a restriction on the government. It lists a bunch of very things that government may or may not do.

Free citizens do not need permission via the Constitution to do anything, since the Constitution merely allows delegation of some specific powers from the people to the government.
And that is essentially my point.
 
clinton_declares_self_pres.gif


Never forget the Klinton era...
 
http://www.seebo.net/execorders.html

From the above Site:

"Note: The Constitution was suspended on March 9th 1933, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared a state of national emergency and was granted a broad range of executive powers by congress to deal with the Great Depression under the War Powers Act of 1917. No president since then has ordered a proclamation ending the the national emergency. It still exists and the Constitution remains suspended, when national emergencies or wars are declared, allowing presidential executive powers to go unchecked. This also means that the president can declare a national emergency and order martial law at anytime!"

Its certainly not a new thing.

In the ninth grade (69-70) our Civics (remember that class?) teacher was a WWII vet who had worked as one of Stuart Symington's aides and told us the story of Andrew Jackson, the Cherokee people (trying hard to assimilate into the White Man's culture and doing very well at it) and the Supreme Court telling then President Jackson that he could not and WOULD NOT relocate those peoples. He basically told the SCOTUS that he'd darned well do as he wanted, they (SCOTUS) had no army/police force to stop him and thus we have "The Trail of Tears".

Old news.

yawn

sigh

Adios
 
Last edited:
Harold, I'm going to take you up on that suggestion, but I will wait a few days and start a new thread as well. Currently busy at work, plus I don't want to derail this topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top