Rangel: An Attack On Bush Is An Attack On All Americans

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have always be taught that respect is EARNED and not GIVEN. The Office of the President has earned my respect, the person currently sitting in it is beyond my contempt. Some people would like us to believe they are one and the same, they are not. Why should I respect a President who shows no respect for the office he holds?

Its clear Bush holds the presidency in contempt, because he routinely treads on the mandate and restrictions that the Founding Fathers placed on his Office. Instead of a person who supposed to run the executive branch of the state, we have an individual that believes that 'HE' personally is the state, as Napoleon once said 'L'etat c'est moi' (I am the state). Everything else that the Constitution clearly defines (Congress, the Judiciary, the law, even the Constitution itself) is of secondary importance. President Bush believes that the power of the executive surpasses all other institutions of our government, and that they (Congress, Constitution, the law) are there to serve HIS wishes.

Personally, I consider such a person as the true enemy of the United States, far more dangerous than all the communists, nazis, and terrorists combined. and I would prefer take up arms then pledge loyality to such a person.
 
Last edited:
Chief Bones said:
Senior Chief
I demand that you show where I 'hate' the president ... not respecting him is one thing (he hasn't earned MY respect) ... hating him is another. I have NEVER hid the fact that I don't like GW or his dad ... I have NEVER on this forum done ANYTHING to earn 'your judgement' either (not that you have a right to judge me).

I have as much right to MY beliefs as you do ... and ... to make the statement that you did, means that you believe that ONLY you have earned the right of making public statements of YOUR beliefs, WHERE THE PRESIDENT IS CONCERNED.

By the way ... MY discharge reads Honorable the same as yours does, and I draw a retirement stipend the same as you do - so DON'T set yourself up as being better than I am ... I have earned the right to be respected for my service to my country the same as you did. I have NOT lost my commitment to my country ... that is one of the reasons that I do post negative and critical comments about a man, who I believe is not worthy of polishing the wood chair in the Oval Office of the President of the United States.

AND

NEITHER YOU NOR ALL OF THE COMMUNISTS IN THE WORLD, HAVE ENOUGH POWER TO TAKE MY RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES FROM ME AS YOU ARE TRYING TO DO (or to muzzle my comments in violation of the Constitution) ... SO CEASE AND DESIST.

Please don't infer that I am trying to start a flame war, this was a post that I could NOT ignore (nor) just refer to the MODS ... it demanded an answer.
Click to expand...

You demand an answer?

I demand an apology, you are calling me a communist and that ex-chief is an insult I will not stand for!
 
Last edited:
Bulldogg

Perhaps. But I simply cannot pledge loyalty to this guy, I just cannot do it. It would be like rewarding criminal behavior. Its not the fact I dislike his policies that bugs me, its the illegal manner in which he acts as President. I simply cannot standby and watch him tear down 230 years of our history.

However I am willing to wait until noon on January 20 2009. Regardless who wins in 2008, he needs to be out of office for the good of the country.
 
What's worse a congress which has relegated its authority to the office of the President to obtain plausible deniability at the polls come re-election time... or a President who in the face of their abdication takes the initiative to get things done? The President's actions do not occur in a vaccum and the other two branches have a hand in this. Congress for being sycophantic leeches who exist only to further perpetuate their own incumbancy and the Supreme court for lacking the balls to declare the President's actions illegal if they are indeed so. In my mind the greater fault lies with the Congress and that process began its erosion of responsibility with FDR.

Further refuting your argument I would offer this... in the history of our nation numerous President's have "over-stepped" the constitutional limitations of their authority to do what they considered in the best interest of the nation... Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase is the first I am aware of. THIS establishes a legal precedent and in a system of common law such as the US and 49 of the 50 individual states operate in it makes the action legal and not illegal.
 
bulldogg said:
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/when-does-free-speach-cross-t18331.html

Ask and ye shall receive... I won't bring up the fact you've posted to the thread before. :)
Click to expand...

Ahaha right then.

I saw that one when I did my search. I had thought you were talking of a different thread.

bulldogg said:
What's worse a congress which has relegated its authority to the office of the President to obtain plausible deniability at the polls come re-election time... or a President who in the face of their abdication takes the initiative to get things done? The President's actions do not occur in a vaccum and the other two branches have a hand in this. Congress for being sycophantic leeches who exist only to further perpetuate their own incumbancy and the Supreme court for lacking the balls to declare the President's actions illegal if they are indeed so. In my mind the greater fault lies with the Congress and that process began its erosion of responsibility with FDR.

Further refuting your argument I would offer this... in the history of our nation numerous President's have "over-stepped" the constitutional limitations of their authority to do what they considered in the best interest of the nation... Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase is the first I am aware of. THIS establishes a legal precedent and in a system of common law such as the US and 49 of the 50 individual states operate in it makes the action legal and not illegal.
Click to expand...


Pretty much sums things up the way I see it. You may or may not be right in your opinion/fact finding of what the President did or did not do to overstep his bounds. At the same time where are the people that are supposed to hold that Office in check? Our system is built upon checks and balances to power. If the power of one is not checked by the rest then whose fault is it? It is the fault of ALL persons involved and not the fault of one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gentlemen (Chiefs), could you please take this in PMs or discuss it in a more appropriate forum??
This thread have wandered far enough off-topic now, so please don't make me lock it.
Off-topic posts removed.

Thanks for understanding.
 
Redleg said:
Gentlemen (Chiefs), could you please take this in PMs or discuss it in a more appropriate forum??
This thread have wandered far enough off-topic now, so please don't make me lock it.

Thanks for understanding.
Click to expand...

I don't want to cause Bones ulcers. I've put him on ingore, besides the name calling went beyond what I consider appropriate.
 
mmarsh said:
I don't care about Chavez. He's a loudmouth and everybody knows it. But the truth is he was only saying out loud what most people already think, but are polite enough to keep to themselves. The part that disturbed me the most was that some people laughed and applauded when he made those remarks. Worse, Chavez little anti-US coalition is growing to include no less than 4 South American countries, he has been welcomed by Putin, by Ahamedinejab, and various other world leaders. In short, the man is gathering an audience, far greater that our incapable leader is.

When a loudmouth bully like Chavez garners more respect and appriciation then the President of the United States, there is something seriously, seriously, wrong.

I sense more trouble coming, I doubt we have heard the last of this.
Click to expand...

Yes, Chavez has an audience of a few countries searching to find an identity and Bush has the entire world sitting on the edge of their seat whenever he speaks, for better or for worse. Nice call.

When the entire world is your audience it is very hard to increase the size of your audience. When nobody is listening to you the only way to go is up.
 
Damien435 said:
Yes, Chavez has an audience of a few countries searching to find an identity and Bush has the entire world sitting on the edge of their seat whenever he speaks, for better or for worse. Nice call.

When the entire world is your audience it is very hard to increase the size of your audience. When nobody is listening to you the only way to go is up.
Click to expand...


As I predicted,

Chavez's little South American cabal is about to grow larger, I just saw on CNN that Equadors next president (I think the election is the same time as ours) could be another member of the far, far left.

As for Bush, Trust me, its not for better. There are many people here in Europe that are worried that he will finally go completely bonkers and WWIII in the Middle East, North Korea or both. Its the wrong type of attention.
 
mmarsh said:
As I predicted,

Chavez's little South American cabal is about to grow larger, I just saw on CNN that Equadors next president (I think the election is the same time as ours) could be another member of the far, far left.

As for Bush, Trust me, its not for better. There are many people here in Europe that are worried that he will finally go completely bonkers and WWIII in the Middle East, North Korea or both. Its the wrong type of attention.
Click to expand...


Chavez can build his "cabal", but somehow I think that would be like setting 5 thieving murderers in the same room with 1 million dollars and tell them the first person to walk out of the room gets it.

It seems that almost every time there is some conflict that America is involved in someone says "This is going to be another Vietnam" or "This will lead to WWIII" or some sentiment real close to that.

I would like to ask some "What If" questions and see what everyone's opinions would be.

Just remember one thing if you rememebr nothing else. If the United States of America had not gotten involved in any of the past wars or conflicts the world would not be as well off (in my own personal "rose colored glasses" opinion of course) as it is today.
 
Marinerhodes

Its not the fact that America gets into a scrap per se, its the reckless speed that the problem. Nobody had much of a problem with Bush Sr in the Gulf War or Clinton in Bosnia because these engagments were actually thought out.

The current trend is to shoot first, clean up the enormous mess that follows later. And thats whats got everybody nervous...
 
The UN had 12 years to get Saddam out of power, they failed. The US was able to succeed by use of force in a matter of weeks.

The only difference between the sectarian violence under US occupation as opposed to Saddam's dictatorship is that we gave the Shi'ites the ability to fight back against the Sunnis.

Now, what Rangel said is absolutely true and is something I have been saying for quite a while. I don't go off half cocked mocking the governments of Germany (Ollie Garchy) or New Zealand (MontyB) or any other democracy because that is mocking the people of those countries and is putting them on the spot at times forcing their hands to defend a cause they don't believe in. Which happens quite often on MilForums, someone opens their mouth to criticize my government and even if I agree with them certain statements like "Bush is so stupid." changes the entire post from being a disagreement with a government policy to a verbal attack against all Americans.
 
mmarsh said:
Marinerhodes

Its not the fact that America gets into a scrap per se, its the reckless speed that the problem. Nobody had much of a problem with Bush Sr in the Gulf War or Clinton in Bosnia because these engagments were actually thought out.

The current trend is to shoot first, clean up the enormous mess that follows later. And thats whats got everybody nervous...
Click to expand...

People have been making "what if" plans for a war with Iraq since the Gulf War. They have been in the making since we didn't make the push to oust Saddam the first time. There is no way in the world that you can make battle plans, or plans for rebuilding or establishing a solid government, years in advance and hope to have those plans workout at the time they are implemented.

Napoleon said "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy," and some genius more recently said "No plan survives contact with humanity" (quotes taken from a google search).

Well I guess history has proven both of them right.
 
Damien435 said:
Now, what Rangel said is absolutely true and is something I have been saying for quite a while. I don't go off half cocked mocking the governments of Germany (Ollie Garchy) or New Zealand (MontyB) or any other democracy because that is mocking the people of those countries and is putting them on the spot at times forcing their hands to defend a cause they don't believe in. Which happens quite often on MilForums, someone opens their mouth to criticize my government and even if I agree with them certain statements like "Bush is so stupid." changes the entire post from being a disagreement with a government policy to a verbal attack against all Americans.
Click to expand...

By all means take a crack at the New Zealand government hell chances are I will agree with you and maybe I wont but I promise you I am not so arrogant as to believe that an attack on my governments policy is an attack on me. What it boils down to is that if you make decissions that affect the world then the world has a right to make comment and in many cases it wont be flattering.
 
Marinerhodes said:
People have been making "what if" plans for a war with Iraq since the Gulf War. They have been in the making since we didn't make the push to oust Saddam the first time. There is no way in the world that you can make battle plans, or plans for rebuilding or establishing a solid government, years in advance and hope to have those plans workout at the time they are implemented.

Napoleon said "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy," and some genius more recently said "No plan survives contact with humanity" (quotes taken from a google search).

Well I guess history has proven both of them right.
Click to expand...


I believe the quote is "No battle plan survives entirely contact with the enemy".

Yes but Bush is no Napoleon, although I'm sure he thinks he is.

A Good plan can go to hell and the day can the army can still win the day. But I have never heard of a Bad plan bringing victory to a army.

Most people agree that the after-war plan was a disaster.
 
MontyB said:
By all means take a crack at the New Zealand government hell chances are I will agree with you and maybe I wont but I promise you I am not so arrogant as to believe that an attack on my governments policy is an attack on me. What it boils down to is that if you make decissions that affect the world then the world has a right to make comment and in many cases it wont be flattering.
Click to expand...

Well golly gee. I had no idea we were trading stories with the leader of New Zealand!

You just don't understand, but that comes from being what I mentioned before, an outsider looking in.
 
Senior Chief said:
Well golly gee. I had no idea we were trading stories with the leader of New Zealand!

You just don't understand, but that comes from being what I mentioned before, an outsider looking in.
Click to expand...

To coin a phrase here who died and left you in charge?

Seriously if your only input to a comment is "you have no right to an opinion" then why bother posting?

In fact how about you just add me to your ever growing ignore list as well that way we wont pester the others with pointless messages.
 
Last edited:
Why bother posting when the only thing you will accomplish is causing people to tune you out in the future?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top