ashmanonar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-02-05 01:59 PM
Original message |
|
just watching the History Channel about the Tsars...scary shit...
there was someone talking about alexander romanov not wanting to give up his authority to the Dumas, bc he was "ordained by god"...
sound like someone we know?
seems to me that this is the biggest fear i have...if bush is shown to have done terrible and inexcusable things, proved without a doubt...even then, would he abdicate the presidency? i think not...
scary...
|
justinsb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-02-05 02:02 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The monkey is well trained |
|
I should stop calling him that, it's an insult to monkees, but he will do what his handlers tell him. If the Cheney's, Rumsfelds, Wolfowitzes and the power brokers behind them decide that Bush is becoming a liabilility, he will take the rap for everything that's happened, step down and life a happy (ignorance is) blissful existance on a well guarded ranch in Texas.
|
imenja
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-02-05 02:07 PM
Response to Original message |
2. all monarchs are chosen by god |
|
Edited on Sun Jan-02-05 02:15 PM by imenja
There is nothing unusual about the Russian claim to divine right other than the monarchy relinquished control later than most of Europe and the Americas. Divine right--the idea that a son's birth to an existing monarch demonstrates that he was chosen by God--is the basis by which monarchies have always claimed their legitimacy. This was true for the Tsars, the British royal family, and the Inca. The idea that men (my use of gendered language here is deliberate) rather than God should choose a leader--ie. in a republic--was a tremendously radical notion in the late 18th century when the United States and France instituted such governments.
Bush, of course, is not a monarch. Too bad he doesn't seem to realize that.
|
ashmanonar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-02-05 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. that was kind of my point |
|
Edited on Sun Jan-02-05 02:37 PM by ashmanonar
its not that the tsars thought that they had a divine right to rule, i knew that...it's that bush seems to believe the same thing...another thing, can anyone say that bush is actually still technically a president? with thought to the fraud in many states, there's no popular mandate, no electoral vote...bush is more a monarch than a president! :evilfrown:
on edit: yea, justin, i see what you mean...bush is definitely only a tool of the neocons...
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:26 PM
Response to Original message |