|
Re: Is the United States becoming a Monarchy?
The points you make are nothing new, have happened before, and in many cases are even less of an issue as they were 25, 50, or 100 years ago. It's merely the way the nation and its political system operates.
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
I'm starting to get a weird feeling our country is turning into a Republican monarchy:
- George I followed by his son George II
|
John Adams was our second President, and John Quincy Adams was his son, who was our sixth President. Oh no! Stop the monarchy! The closest thing this nation ever came to a "monarchy" was the now-infamous Kennedy "Camelot," where the family could credit a President, two Governors, several Senators, and a bunch of representatives to its name.
| quote: |
- Close family like ties with another monarchy (the Saudi Royal Family) |
I suppose if you believe various far-left publications, you would think that the Bushes and the Saudis are inextricably linked. The only reason the interaction seems to be greater than with other monarchies is because the rulers of Saudi Arabia actually govern their country, so it is necessary to deal both diplomatically and politically with them. And it's a requirement that we deal because of the oil issue.
We'd have a pretty close relationship with the Queen too if she was both the monarch and the Prime Minister.
| quote: |
- Our leader dressing up in a military uniform
|
No President has ever worn a military uniform while in office, even though they are entitled to by virtue of being Commander-in-Chief. Bush has donned fatigues, Army jackets, Navy jackets, etc. but so has every other President in modern times. These are not uniforms.
| quote: |
- A President who wields unlimited powers
|
Sorry. Unqualified statement.
| quote: |
- An executive branch that rejects other branches of the government from checks and balances.
|
Every President has sought to expand the power of the Presidency. (See FDR for the prime example). But every Congress has sought to expand the power of the legislative branch. And every judiciary seeks to expand their power as well. That why we have those things called checks and balances.
| quote: |
- The mixing of religion with government
|
Religion in government is at its lowest point in our nation's history. At the turn of the century, when there was no welfare state, the government provided assistance to religious charities in order to provide basic social support programs.
Several Presidents had Sunday services for their families in the White House, and the House and Senate have always had a chaplain and an opening prayer.
Bush's "faith-based" initiatives are not a new idea. He's merely going back to an idea that hasn't been around for a while.
| quote: |
- Our President alludes to conversations with God. Just when you thought the divine right of a king was over.
|
So, he goes to church? And he takes what he learns there as guidance. So do millions of Americans on a daily basis.
| quote: |
- A weeklong funeral ceremony fit for a king
|
It's called a state funeral. We've been doing them for 200+ years, and Reagan got little more than what LBJ and JFK got at their state funerals. The only difference was that the week lasted longer because of the trips back and forth from California. But in California, those services were private. So you shouldn't concern yourself with that. Perhaps your issue is better taken up with the news media that made a big deal about covering it.
| quote: |
- And now there’s a bill in congress to replace Andrew Jackson on the 20 with Reagan |
So, what are you saying here? We should take all faces off our money? Because that's your implication. If you're saying that we should leave the faces as they are, then we're treating those already on the money as "kings." I'm sorry that you've never had a recent Democratic President worthy enough for the Democratic party to push for some lasting tribute.
___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!
Last edited by imokruok on Jun-12-2004 at 22:12
|