Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
A Politician Larry Can Love
Topic Started: Mar 27 2009, 10:46 AM (665 Views)
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Mar 27 2009, 01:05 PM
That's silly, simple minded thinking Quirt, and you're capable of better. Yes, we elected him. We can choose to remove him also. You seem to be of the opinion that no matter what happens, we have to accept it. That's not democracy, and your line of logic is silly.
There is a process for removing him, and grounds for doing so. You're not talking about that. You're talking about revolution. Again, how is it possible to love your country if you are unwilling to respect the results of the democratic process?

I note that several people on your side of the aisle started a movement to do just that within hours of his election, before he had actually done anything except declare victory. It's hard to take seriously the idea that those sorts of people respect the democratic process at all.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nobody's Sock
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
QuirtEvans
Mar 27 2009, 01:09 PM
Larry
Mar 27 2009, 01:05 PM
That's silly, simple minded thinking Quirt, and you're capable of better. Yes, we elected him. We can choose to remove him also. You seem to be of the opinion that no matter what happens, we have to accept it. That's not democracy, and your line of logic is silly.
There is a process for removing him, and grounds for doing so. You're not talking about that. You're talking about revolution. Again, how is it possible to love your country if you are unwilling to respect the results of the democratic process?

I note that several people on your side of the aisle started a movement to do just that within hours of his election, before he had actually done anything except declare victory. It's hard to take seriously the idea that those sorts of people respect the democratic process at all.
no, it's just that when they don't get their way, they bitch and moan and call for a revolution.


It would be incredibly impossible to mount any semblance of a revolution in this country. Frikkin impossible.

"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
This talk of a immanent revolution in the USA is hysterical nonsense.

A more plausible scenario would be a military coup along the lines of Julius Caesar that leaves the trappings of an elected and effective legislative branch and independent judiciary intact.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Renauda
Mar 27 2009, 01:21 PM
This talk of a immanent revolution in the USA is hysterical nonsense.

A more plausible scenario would be a military coup along the lines of Julius Caesar that leaves the trappings of an elected and effective legislative branch and independent judiciary intact.
Like they did with Kennedy, you mean?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
There is a process for removing him, and grounds for doing so. You're not talking about that. You're talking about revolution. Again, how is it possible to love your country if you are unwilling to respect the results of the democratic process?


Once again - when the government that is elected isn't serving the people, we have the right to overthrow that government. So the question isn't how I can love my country, but how *you* can. You are arguing *for* the very thing our founding fathers worked so hard to make sure didn't happen. Just because they are elected isn't the litmus test for loving our country - all of them are elected. What makes our country unique, what makes our Constitution stand out from all the rest, is that we CAN toss out that government, and if our government of elected officials becomes tyrannical we don't have to stand for it.

Government is to serve the people, Quirt. Not the other way around. And the one we have elected, regardless of party affiliation - is inept, and past a point the "rule of law" becomes a hindrance to protecting the nation from them. The people have the right to overthrow an inept government when that government is endangering the nation. And our government is beyond inept.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
 

Like they did with Kennedy, you mean?

Worse. I'm sure.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Mar 27 2009, 01:32 PM
Quote:
 
There is a process for removing him, and grounds for doing so. You're not talking about that. You're talking about revolution. Again, how is it possible to love your country if you are unwilling to respect the results of the democratic process?


Once again - when the government that is elected isn't serving the people, we have the right to overthrow that government. So the question isn't how I can love my country, but how *you* can. You are arguing *for* the very thing our founding fathers worked so hard to make sure didn't happen. Just because they are elected isn't the litmus test for loving our country - all of them are elected. What makes our country unique, what makes our Constitution stand out from all the rest, is that we CAN toss out that government, and if our government of elected officials becomes tyrannical we don't have to stand for it.

Government is to serve the people, Quirt. Not the other way around. And the one we have elected, regardless of party affiliation - is inept, and past a point the "rule of law" becomes a hindrance to protecting the nation from them. The people have the right to overthrow an inept government when that government is endangering the nation. And our government is beyond inept.

Which of course begs the question as to how the majority could have elected someone who wasn't going to serve the people.

I thought the government was utterly inept during the Bush years, and that Bush and Cheney were endangering the country, and so did many others ... did that mean we had the right to overthrow it?

It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Which of course begs the question as to how the majority could have elected someone who wasn't going to serve the people.


You're kidding me, right? I mean - you can't actually believe that that is a rational question.

Quote:
 
I thought the government was utterly inept during the Bush years, and that Bush and Cheney were endangering the country, and so did many others ... did that mean we had the right to overthrow it?


If enough of the citizenry had felt that way, yes.

You keep phrasing everything according to party politics. I don't give a damn about party politics. Any government that is taking us toward a Socialist state, that is spending us into bankruptcy, and that is selling us out as a nation to stupid redistribution of wealth schemes, that is about to cause the dollar to be replaced as international currency, and all the other sh!t that's happening tight now - I don't give a damn which party it is - is a threat to the nation and its citizens.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
If enough of the citizenry had felt that way, yes.


Which leaves us squarely in the realm of the hypothetical, then. It is clear, right now, that enough of the citizenry does not feel that way.

You may not like it, but you're in the minority.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I'm not nearly as much in the minority as you think - and the tide is turning as we speak.

But unfortunately, we are still outnumbered by idiots, I'll admit that.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The trouble with revolutions is that they generally lead to even worse governments than they replace. I guess this is arguable in the case of the USA, however pretty much every other revolution I can think of led to some bloodthirsty despot taking over.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I think it's arguable that there never was a revolution in the USA in the first place. A colonial revolt led by a minority of landowners and urban bourgeois who wanted to create their own aristocracy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Renauda
Mar 27 2009, 03:51 PM
I think it's arguable that there never was a revolution in the USA in the first place. A colonial revolt led by a minority of landowners and urban bourgeois who wanted to create their own aristocracy.
Yeah... Boy, we sure are f'cked up, down here. All of us. Our history, our whole reason for ever doing anything... There's nothing noble about anyone in the US or in this country's history, and we just plain suck.

(Was this the summary you were gunning for?)
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
Renauda
Mar 27 2009, 03:51 PM
I think it's arguable that there never was a revolution in the USA in the first place. A colonial revolt led by a minority of landowners and urban bourgeois who wanted to create their own aristocracy.
No question the Founding Fathers had their own self-interests, but stating that they wanted to create their own aristocracy is far from the truth.
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
(Was this the summary you were gunning for?)


No, but that you mention it, there is a national tendency towards "it's my way or the highway" sort of impatience.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
I'm not impatient. I simply can't recall you ever having a good thing to say about the United States, Renauda. Most of the Americans here, have had good things to say about Canada, and most have expressed an interest in Russia. There has been precious little courtesy in return, and after a while, it just becomes boorish.

So yeah... If my patience seems stretched a little thin, that might be the primary reason.

I am not insisting that anyone follow "my way." In fact, most people don't have the guts or the strength, quite frankly. I don't ask that. I ask that I be treated with the same courtesy that I extend, though.

I don't think that's too much to ask. Apparently, you disagree, and that's quite a shame, really. I don't recall ever having so much as a cross word with you. :shrug:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Red Rice
 
No question the Founding Fathers had their own self-interests, but stating that they wanted to create their own aristocracy is far from the truth.


You are of course correct. They already were the colonial aristocracy....

"American leaders were the American aristocracy, men of "striking respectability and social standing." The 56 signers of the Constitution were educated men (22 lawyers, 5 doctors, 11 merchants, 12 ministers or ministers’ sons.)" [source: http://www.sagehistory.net/revolution/topics/amrevoverview.html ]

...they just weren't invited to sit in the House of Lords in London. Had George III been astute he would handed out a couple of peerages and the whole thing would have fizzled.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Frank_W
Mar 27 2009, 06:17 PM
I'm not impatient. I simply can't recall you ever having a good thing to say about the United States, Renauda. Most of the Americans here, have had good things to say about Canada, and most have expressed an interest in Russia. There has been precious little courtesy in return, and after a while, it just becomes boorish.

Nothing personal Frank.

But you're absolutely right, I should be less boorish and better behaved here. Self deprecating even.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
I'm not saying that, Renauda. :doh:

Jeez... :no:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Renauda
Mar 27 2009, 06:38 PM
I should be less boorish and better behaved here. Self deprecating even.
We wouldn't recognize you. You're my favorite curmudgeon.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Renauda
Mar 27 2009, 06:38 PM
Frank_W
Mar 27 2009, 06:17 PM
I'm not impatient. I simply can't recall you ever having a good thing to say about the United States, Renauda. Most of the Americans here, have had good things to say about Canada, and most have expressed an interest in Russia. There has been precious little courtesy in return, and after a while, it just becomes boorish.

Nothing personal Frank.

But you're absolutely right, I should be less boorish and better behaved here. Self deprecating even.
A Canuck with attitude is a wonderful thing.

After all, why deprecate oneself when there are so many richly deserving targets?

:lol:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Claude Ball
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Quote:
 
After all, why deprecate oneself when there are so many richly deserving targets?


I deprecated on myself once, but I wudn't aiming at no target. That's why I deprecated on myself - there weren't no target handy...
Dain bramage caused my peach imspediment.
Tooth? Tooth? You can't handle the tooth!
Remember: He who laughs last, thinks slowest.....
DON'T BEND OVER IN THE GARDEN, MARGARET - THEM TATER'S GOT EYES!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
Renauda
Mar 27 2009, 06:19 PM
You are of course correct. They already were the colonial aristocracy....

"American leaders were the American aristocracy, men of "striking respectability and social standing." The 56 signers of the Constitution were educated men (22 lawyers, 5 doctors, 11 merchants, 12 ministers or ministers’ sons.)" [source: http://www.sagehistory.net/revolution/topics/amrevoverview.html ]

...they just weren't invited to sit in the House of Lords in London. Had George III been astute he would handed out a couple of peerages and the whole thing would have fizzled.
Educated <> aristocracy. Meritocracy is more like it. None of the Founding Fathers believed that they should be permanently ensconced members of a ruling class with political power passing to their heirs; the very idea would have been anathema to them (excepting perhaps Alexander Hamilton).

None of them were angling for a seat in the House of Lords either. But... had they representation as Members of Parliament, many of their grievances would have been addressed.


Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
xenon
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
I'm not defending Obama's response to the whole situation, I don't much like it myself, but I find one of her quotes kinda curious:

"It won't be our children and grandchildren that are in debt. It is we who are in debt, we who will be bankrupting this country, inside of ten years, if we don't get a grip. And we can't let the Democrats achieve their ends any longer."

Where were her calls for revolution when Bush was pushing massive tax cuts while expanding government spending?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Renauda
Mar 27 2009, 01:21 PM
This talk of a immanent revolution in the USA is hysterical nonsense.

A more plausible scenario would be a military coup along the lines of Julius Caesar that leaves the trappings of an elected and effective legislative branch and independent judiciary intact.
Y'know, Ren - that is one thing I do worry about, although I don't lose sleep over it. For the first time in my life I feel like we have a president who, if he gave an order the military deemed unwise, might be disobeyed.

Obama is a smart guy and may rise to the job - I hope so. But I have seen no clear evidence of that as of yet. It may simply be that he will pay for the state of the nation at the time he took office.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2