I want to know something.

[Iron_Ranger]

I want to know exacly where people get off calling Bush a dictator. This is a honest, non offensive post. I am really curious why people think that.

He cant do anything with out congress passing it first. Of course congress is mainly republican now. So Bush will probably get the majority of things passed, I guess anyway. But that still doesnt let him do whatever he wants with out question.

The dictinary describes a dictator as-

One with a ruler or tyrant exercising absolute power.

And as I said, he cant do anything without congress passing it first. You can dislike Bush all you want, you can dislike his ideas, you can dislike his personality, I dont care. The majority of the american people disagree with you.

However, calling him a dictator is not right...in fact of course.

[ 01-17-2003, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

[Animal]

Although I have never called Bush a dictator, nor would I, I think it stems from the current actions of the US around the world.
No offense intended, but sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees. I do not live in the US, so I do not live under the shroud of US polices or politics.
Sometimes it's hard to understand exactly why the US is doing what they are doing.
Take a step back for a second Iron_Ranger, and look at the world from a perspective other than than US's.

[Iron_Ranger]

But Animal, even with all the stuff going on in the world, that doesnt make Bush a dictator. As I said, the dictionary describes it as One with a ruler or tyrant exercising absolute power.

It is not correct. Call him murderous if you want too, call him a war monger, but dictator is not the right word. America is free to speak out agaisnt him, you cant do that with a Dictator.

If he was a dictator, Tom Daschle would not even be in the senate. Nor would any other Democrate. Only people that agree completely with him.

[Aelia Jusa]

I personally do not refer to him as a dictator. But I imagine what people mean when they do say that he is, is not that he is dictating over the people of America; that he has absolute power over them with no congressional checks and balances, but that it might appear that America is asserting, or wishes to assert, absolute power over the rest of the world, or parts of it at least. As such, because Bush is the leader of America, he could be called a dictator under those assumptions - dictator of global policies not internal policies. That's how I make sense of the Bush is a dictator position anyway [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Animal]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: But Animal, even with all the stuff going on in the world, that doesnt make Bush a dictator. As I said, the dictionary describes it as One with a ruler or tyrant exercising absolute power. It is not correct. Call him murderous if you want too, call him a war monger, but dictator is not the right word. America is free to speak out agaisnt him, you cant do that with a Dictator. If he was a dictator, Tom Daschle would not even be in the senate. Nor would any other Democrate. Only people that agree completely with him.

And as I said, I never have nor would I call Bush a dictator, but you can see how others might.

[Ronn_Bman]

As the leader of the US, Bush is America's most recognizable political face, so for good or bad, he is sometimes seen as the sole force behind America's actions, despite the fact that a majority of Americans are in favor of his current actions, and that the actions have been authorized by the US Congress. Americans know Bush couldn't force that type military authorization(Soviet style), but the rest of the world may choose to believe he did whether it's true or not.

If 75% of Americans opposed Bush's actions, then he nor any other American president would be starting/following the current course of action.

Bush is an easy target because he's the most prominent American, but the truth of the matter is that if America is led by a dictator, it isn't a textbook dictator, it's the dictatorial power of American public opinion.


[ 01-17-2003, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Djinn Raffo]

Ok dictator is a wrong term absolutly. Can he be called a hypocrit? Can he be called a hero? is Warmonger ok? What about savior?

What can he be called without inciting resentment?

[johnny]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Ok dictator is a wrong term absolutly. Can he be called a hypocrit? Can he be called a hero? is Warmonger ok? What about savior? What can he be called without inciting resentment?

Daddy ?

[Djinn Raffo]

that might just be johnny..

Ronn Bmann talked about Americans believing in him and all that.. what about the majority of the Earth? does the population of the earth overwhelmingly support him? If not what does that tell you? and vice versa if so what does that say?

who does the population of the earth overwhelmingly support? anyone at all?,, We're all here on one planet aren't we?

whats the point of division by nation? isnt it divided we fall united we stand? why not we all vote for human leader overwhelmingly.. what is standing in the way of that?,,

bush is not only an easy target because he is a prominent american but because he is a prominent human..

and if majority of human on whole of the earth think he is good.. then power to him... continue in this path.. if most human think he is bad.. then should we not fire him and install another? majority rules right.. isn't that democracy?

[ 01-18-2003, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[The Hierophant]

In a literal sense, you're dead right. George Bush jnr. is not a dictator.
When such a large mass of people follows a leader however, it is often not the person that that the masses follow at all, but rather the image of that leader. The myth, the package, the product. Most election campaigns and the like are aimed to direct your own personal viewpoints toward identifying with the parties ideals, personified in singular, easy-to-recognize human 'face', ie: the leader. A few years ago it was 'Clinton', now it is 'Bush'. By changing the face, you give the illusion that you have changed the system, and thus you give the illusion that the voters have free will and power to direct the way their society operates. George Bush jnr. himself is a non-entity in terms of concrete political decision making, it is the collective view of the party that counts. The more resources available to the party, the better to sway your views to coincide with theirs. It's a very effective system, and has done a good job of maintaining law and order in an unprecedentedly diverse cultural melting pot whilst still delivering that all-important democratic illusion of freedom.

So no, George Bush jnr. is not a dictator. However, 'BUSH' (that personalized name and face given to the American governmental institution) could be seen as such, if viewing eyes were so inclined.

[ 01-18-2003, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]