King vs. President

pinkmandy

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
4,232
As I look at all the candidates it strikes me that they all share one thing- they want power. We all know this but maybe we should start highlighting it as a theme? We could start compiling lists of all the things the current "king" and repub wannabe kings want to do to control the people, the power they think they should have, etc. Or maybe emperor would be better? Something easier on the ears than dictator or fascist because avg voters may dismiss those labels as extreme or whatever and the message gets lost. In today's doublespeak the idea of "leader" is pushed (and everyone loves a good leader!) but it basically means the same thing as someone who rules over you and is above the law. The distinction between the two should be made I think.


Just another angle I was pondering in attracting support for Paul. Thoughts?
 
Examples (please add more)

King/Emperor ruling over the people vs. A president elected to REPRESENT the people

NDAA
A tyrannical king throws his subjects in prison and denies them fair trials or grants trials at his own discretion (ndaa).
A president who represents the people does not and would find such a violation of the rights of the people abhorrent.

War
A king sends his subjects off to war without approval of said subjects, usually under the guise of protecting people but in reality it's to expand his territory, power and enrich his powerful benefactors.
A president executes a war once the people (congress) have voted to declare war per their constitution.

Patriot Act
A paranoid king spies on his subjects and uses secrecy by citing "national security" to keep victims from publicly speaking out against being victimized.
A president upholds the constitution and doesn't subvert the process, insisting on "probable cause" for warrants and due process to protect the rights of the people he is representing.
 
Last edited:
Of course, a king, unlike a president, doesn't necessarily want power.
 
Back
Top