Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Consolidating power in the executive branch, while ill-advised and possibly illegal, hardly rises to the level of seeking to install a monarchy.
Arguing that it does constitutes intellectual dishonesty -- and a kind of emotional cowardice of its own.
Let's see... We have a President who interferes with the branches of government so that power is concentrated in one branch (the Executive), which is the one he 'rules.' He does this at the expense of the Legislative (i.e., the part elected by all those 'meddling' citizens) and then stacks the Judicial with people who will agree with him.
This may not fit the formal definition of a monarchy, but it seems awfully monarch-like. Certainly an effort that King Charles I (1600-1649) would have been proud of.
Let's see... We have a President who interferes with the branches of government so that power is concentrated in one branch (the Executive), which is the one he is at the top of. He does this at the expensive of the Legislative branch (i.e., the people-elected part) and then stacks the Judicial with his friends.
This may not fit the formal definition of a monarchy, but it seems awfully monarch-like. Certainly an effort that King Charles I (1600-1649) would have been proud of.
Well, let's see. His term expires next year.
Your point concerning Charles I is.....what? That you want Bush beheaded?
Your point concerning Charles I is.....what? That you want Bush beheaded?
ha! :-) The comparison is that Charles I spent a chunk of his life grappling with constitutional monarchists who wanted the king to have less power and Charles thought he was put there by divine right. Bush seems obsessed with trying to assume more power than he should have. And it also wouldn't surprise me if there were some 'God wills me to rule' notions running through Bush's mind as well.
ha! :-) The comparison is that Charles I spent a chunk of his life grappling with constitutional monarchists who wanted the king to have less power and Charles thought he was put there by divine right. Bush seems obsessed with trying to assume more power than he should have. And it also wouldn't surprise me if there were some 'God wills me to rule' notions running through Bush's mind as well.
If our government and leadership was using the military and other means to take over the country and impose their evil laws on us, such as spying and rounding up dissentors, would you lie down and take it?
I know I would be. My life and the life of my friends is more important. Don't give the government too much of a reason to suspect you, and there would be no problems. Of course, nothing would ever go back to how it was if everyone thought like me, but I would leave it up for the rebellious in the country to do their part and hopefully bring stability again.
If you are talking to Terrorists you should worry a lot........Go figure.......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
