"God Bless and Protect You All"
1/6/2010 2:12:21 AM
Yes you will be, but your moron - coup won't come, nor will your rapture.
1/6/2010 2:19:40 AM
So, by winning the election fairly, he's a dictator?
Yes, Obama won. By 10 million votes.
GET OVER IT.
1/6/2010 3:34:19 AM
"When he is no longer a dictator"
So the definiton of a dictator is a leader who has a hard time doing anything because both his own party and the oppoisition basically won't let him? That's a new one.
1/6/2010 6:21:22 AM
A dictator who won by 10 million votes on a national election. That´s new to me.
1/6/2010 7:23:43 AM
Basically, when people are stupid, they tend to use negative words to insult other people without thinking their REAL meaning. That´s why I have to hear people saying that the State of Israel is a Nazi state or Phelps a liberal. You choose.
1/6/2010 7:25:16 AM
An...elected dictator? Technically he can't be classed as a dictator until he loses the next election, but has his opposition shot and holds onto power anyway. Until then, have fun.
1/6/2010 8:39:54 AM
Yet another teabagger who lacks any proper critique.
1/6/2010 9:37:05 AM
President =/= dictator
Hell the Canadian Prime Minister is closer to being a dictator (well if he has a majority government).
1/6/2010 11:56:24 AM
Funny, I never heard about Obama becoming Dictator of the United States. And you only have to wait about 7 more years, especially if Failin' Palin runs on the Repub ticket in 2012.
1/6/2010 12:55:14 PM
He's not a dictator, he's the ELECTED president, you douche nozzle.
In about 10 seconds you can Google the election results, which were a landslide.
And you can shove god up your ass. Sideways.
1/6/2010 5:15:24 PM
HE NEVER WAS A DICTATOR YOU IDIOT!!!
1/6/2010 9:41:44 PM
Aren't Rapture Ready-ites among the ones who went to Tea Parties(tm) with rifles and racist signs to show how much they liked having a black president in office?
Be honest: would you have complained if "Shrub" had behaved the same way as President Obama is doing now? (and george W. Bush was the dictator you morons "elected" into office. TWICE.)
How's it feel to be on the losing end?
1/7/2010 4:30:23 AM
When he is no longer a dictator...
You mean like George "The Shrub" Bush as he's quoted below?
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier."
- Governing Magazine July, 1998
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator"
- CNN.com, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it"
- Business Week, July 30, 2001
1/7/2010 7:02:05 AM
I don't think you have any idea what it's like to live under a dictator, you deranged, delusional moron!
1/7/2010 3:41:56 PM
Without intending to defend WaitingPatiently in the slightest, I should correct some of you that are stating that Obama could not be a dictator on the grounds of his being elected. Dictators can and have certainly been elected to their positions. A prime example is Adolf Hitler - Hitler was legitimately elected to his position. You can most certainly be elected and be a dictator. Furthermore, once firmly in control, dictators never actually abolish elections. One of the means that they maintain the appearances of popularity is by maintaining elections, strong-arming the populace into supporting them, and rigging the vote so that they can say they are governing by the will of the people. Saddam Hussein still held "elections" up until he was overthrown. So the fact that someone is elected does not mean that the individual in question is not a dictator.
That said, it is an unbelievable stretch for these idiots to say that Obama is a dictator. Despite the unpopularity of the Bush presidency, it is a stretch to call him a dictator as well. The reason for this is that presidents in this country are still strongly limited to executive actions. They still have strong checks and balances on their power in the forms of Congress and the Judiciary, not to mention the state governments themselves.
Sadly, most Americans, Right and Left, are woefully naive when it comes to dictatorships, the means by which they gain power, and the means by which they maintain that power. The seizing and maintaining of power is exceptionally difficult and requires certain preconditions which simply do not exist in the United States - not under Bush and not under Obama.
A dictatorship is not simply something you engineer because you are evil and ambitious. It requires an environment of desperation among the populace of a nation. It also requires the presence of a strong leader who is capable of inspiring loyalty. The atmosphere of desperation has to be so great that the population of the nation in question empower that leader to do what he feels necessary to correct the course of the nation. This isn't the sort of desperation that arises from the knocking down of large buildings with planes or from a failing health care system. In a modern industrialized nation such as what we find in North America or Europe, it would have to be paradigm-shifting desperation where drastic measures are absolutely necessary to change the course of events. Dictators are most often creatures of necessity, not evil or mere ambition. They are most often highly capable and inspirational leaders who rally popular support in times where drastic and dramatic action is perceived as absolutely necessary. The "evils" of dictatorship arise because power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It's far more likely to happen here in the US than in Canada or Europe. If the sort of influential lunatics we see here on FSTDT keep having their way, the world is going to pass us by and people might feel the need to embrace drastic measures to either catch up or to maintain our sphere of influence. That is why it is so important for us to implement things like universal health care as well as other reforms- so that we never have to reach that point.
1/8/2010 6:26:04 AM
Actually, it's much less of a stretch with Bush. See: Signing statements, suspension of Habeas Corpus, turning off Denmocrats' microphones in Congress and refusal to allow them to issue subpoenas or hold hearings, illegal use of RNC email accounts for White House business to keep their communications secret, improper claims of Executive Privelege to allow staff members (Karl Rove, Harriet Myers, etc.) to evade Congressional testimony , outing a CIA agent because her Ambassador husband dared to speak publicly about his lies about Iraq, etc., etc.
1/8/2010 3:00:05 PM
Well...at least "our survival is assured". Whew.
1/8/2010 4:38:42 PM
Don't get me wrong. I am not a fan of President Bush and am well aware of his abuses of executive authority. But abusing executive authority is a far cry from being an actual dictator. Despite all the trouble he caused, he was still very much under checks and balances. I don't think that he was particularly happy that Obama (of all people) was replacing him, but at the end of the day he had to leave all the same.
Would he have liked to have been a dictator? I wouldn't dismiss it readily. Did he do things that a dictator would do? Definitely. Were fears that he would try to implement a dictatorship valid? Absolutely. Ultimately, however, he was not a dictator. At the end of the day, he simply did not have the personal ability necessary to garner the support of the populace that he would have needed to do such a thing. 9/11 was a paradigm-shifting event, but evidently not one of the scale that would be necessary for the wholesale embrace of a dictatorship.
At the end of the day, he left office in disgrace without much in the way of resistance. Dictators wield the sort of power that boosts their egos to the point where they generally do not do that, even when their ouster is inevitable.
1/8/2010 4:52:56 PM
Umm...what crimes? He hasn't actually done anything. There's also no hint that he's interested in taking away any freedoms and he seems to be more interested in letting people speak than the last guy was.
1/8/2010 6:04:41 PM
I wasn't arguing that he met the actual definition of a dictator, but he and Cheney thumbed their noses at the checks and balances time and again, with the signing statements and illegal communications. If a President says to Congress that he's not going to follow a law that they pass, but will do whatever he damn well pleases, and tells his staff to refuse to comply with subpoenas when Congress tries to investigate his administration, what's the difference in those isolated incidents between him and a dictator?
1/8/2010 8:49:16 PM
Maybe one of you Americans can clue me in.
Has Obama even done anything noteworthy yet? Nevermind something to deserve all of these people's hate.
1/9/2010 11:26:27 AM
CohibaMan: "Dictators can and have certainly been elected to their positions. A prime example is Adolf Hitler - Hitler was legitimately elected to his position."
The high water mark for Hitler's party was 33 percent, when the Nazis established a majority coalition with other right wing groups. Nazi's vote total actually fell in the next election.
Hitler later was APPOINTED as chancellor by Hindenburg, with a majority non-Nazi cabinet that they thought could control him.
1/9/2010 1:55:51 PM
Lord, if you exist, please send down a rain of dictionaries on the heads of your supposed followers so they can finally figure out what the word "Dictator" means.
1/10/2010 1:50:18 PM
Is he hiring henchmen? Will we get awesome super-villain henchmen uniforms? Will he be a member of the Guild of Calamitous Intent?
1/11/2010 3:32:48 PM