Subject:
|
Re: Vote against/for...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:09:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
787 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> That is why our Founding Fathers created a government of checks and balances.
> Our executive branch has no such thing and absolute power.
Total crap -- it would be true in a constitutional or purely theoretical
system; alas, we have only the government that has been left to us.
Plus, you act as if everything going on is above board, and it is fairly
obvious that much goes on that is neither above board nor even allowed to be
known to the public at large.
Who is protected by the continued secrecy surrounding the assassination of
John F. Kennedy?
Why was poppa Bush in Dallas that day?
Was daddy Bush CIA?
Was daddy Bush the REAL power behind the Reagan administration?
Why didn't we finish the problem with Saddam years ago, seeing as how
everything was already in play?
What is the REAL national debt?
Is daddy Bush the REAL power behind the current administration.
What REALLY happened in Florida 2000?
Who bought the Supreme Court?
Does any of this matter to people up to their eyeballs in international oil
interests?
Yeah, the reason you don't know is because everything is either actually
supra-U.S., illegal and therefore secret, or because it is protected under
the guise of national security. There are a thousand ways to conceal the
evidence when people act dispassionately and with premeditation.
> But I will hold the example our world dominance today up against any other
> country in history-- show me one that has been more responsible in wielding
> that power than we have. Good luck.
This isn't a game of compare and contrast, dingus -- it's a game about
constitutional govt. I am not seeing anywhere in the constitution that
allows for an imperialistic Pax Americana.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Vote against/for...
|
| (...) A judicial branch that is beholden to the son of an ex-president doesn't seem like much of a check and balance, but in theory.... (...) I thought the X-Files was cancelled? (...) Wrong Texan (not that I'd count Mr. Preppy as a real Texan). (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Vote against/for...
|
| (...) That is why our Founding Fathers created a government of checks and balances. Our executive branch has no such thing and absolute power. A nice aphorism, but not germane. But I will hold the example our world dominance today up against any (...) (22 years ago, 9-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
