Who is the King of the U.S.A.?

Post Reply New Topic

"Let me make one thing perrrrrfectly clear.... I am all shook up!"

That is a hard thing for me to envision.

Though it is true that Nixon, and his crew, were known for having "suspicious minds".

and there was a "burnin' love" happenin' between Nixon and bebe rebozo, "way down" deep in their hearts.

Oh gawd!

Just because he was a misfit, and Bebe was the only person who enjoyed his company-you have to go implying that Nixon was gay (not that being gay is bad mind you)!

Lol!

But Elvis's maudlin hit "Old Shep" could have been used as the soundtrack of Nixon's "Checkers Speech".

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... e-1.997960
it would appear that tricky king Richie had lots of secrets.

Interesting.

Boozer, and a wifebeater, too!

Kennedy had the same woman mistress as a mobster, but Nixon was lovers with an actual mobster!

for his loyalists, a proper king for America - king Richard.

The "Big Cheese" himself, eh?

Richard the Lyin' Hearted!

And while everybody talks about how Joe Kennedy had called in favors from the Chicago mob in order to get his son elected, what's not as widely known is how Nixon had had strong ties to the New Orleans mob.

Only when profitable.

Then again, when one is as high as he was most of the time, who can say.

Regards
DL

Both theology and philosophy are basically sets of rules to live life by.

A mind cannot leave half of itself outside the political arena. There cannot be a real separation of church and state when one holds to a religion. Especially when your own pledge of allegiance has God in it.

Regards
DL

It, like all other countries, is an oligarchy.

Regards
DL

Now I wonder if youtube has that one scene from the Dark Knights returns, but instead I shall refer to how the Templars fared when they controlled the money in France. The actual king of France got rid of them with the support of the monarch of the Catholic Church. Now in a democracy (of the size we have in most countries) money does indeed have a significant influence on the decision making process. If only because election campaigns are expensive and the need for post-politics positions.



Now this off course raise additional questions. First of course is the problem that the world people in the English language is an very unfortunate translation of the word demo(s), where the lesser used term folk might be better.

Also how much meaning would a single vote have if the group of voters goes beyond a certain size. Which of course means that going with your statement that democracy only works on a small scale. Since only then a single vote might have the meaning you want it to have.

As you see from my critisism of your definition of democracy there are some problems with it. The major problem of course is that most people use the term democracy with at best only a vague idea of its meaning.



What is stopping you?



That would be king George #, since that how it goes in most monarchies.



I presume you refer to the disdain of your founding fathers to towards the notions of democracy and how it could lead to mob rule?

Well, one wonders how it would be in the United States ....after all they had a president with the name Bush and his vice-president with the nickname Dick (!). Jeez, knowing the sexual meaning behind those words are just utter amazeballs

all the better for screwing americans over.