Open thread

Sorry about the light blogging today – my heart just wasn’t into blogging anymore for the day after my last post here and at B4B

Consider this an open thread to discuss things that perhaps I should have blogged about but didn’t.

27 Responses to "Open thread"

Baklava says:

March 9, 2006 at 7:26 pm

Demagogue = A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

Is there an opposite to this word?
steve says:

March 9, 2006 at 7:42 pm

Rumsfeld told Congress today that if a civil war breaks out in Iraq, the American troops would rely on the Iraqi forces for protection. How in the world are the Iraqi forces going to protect the US forces? Support the troops, bring them home. Peace
Lorica says:

March 9, 2006 at 8:27 pm

Ya know Steve I looked at several stories today about what Rummy said to Congress, and NONE of the, repeat NONE, say anything like what you are accusing Rummy of saying. Wanna Prove what you are saying or is this just another pipe dream?? – Lorica
Severian says:

March 9, 2006 at 8:36 pm

I’d like to take this opportunity to point out how far our politicians have degenerated since the days of the Founding Fathers, by relating again the tale of George Washington and Cinncinatus.

Cinncinatus was a Roman landowner and farmer during the days of the early Roman Republic. Back then, the Romans had a provision in their government that they could elect an absolute dictator to serve for a period of 6 months in times of crisis. This man would have absolute power for that period. Rome was invaded, and they named Cinncinatus dictator. Cinncinatus defeated the enemy army in 6 weeks at the head of Rome’s armies. After which, instead of serving out the remainder of his dictatorship, to the surprise of everyone, he renounced the dictatorship and returned to his plow. He became a legend, a shining example of what a politician should be.

Fast forward to the American Revolution, the legend of Cinncinatus was well known and respected by our early Founding Fathers, perhaps most so by George Washington. At the end of the war, George Washington left the head of his armies, even though people would have appointed him king if he wanted it, and returned to Mount Vernon. He served again when called to be President, after which he again released the reigns of power and returned to his plow. King George, during a discussion of what Washington would do if he won, when it was postulated that he’d give up power and return to being a simple citizen, made the comment that such a man would be an amazing thing.

Fast forward again, to the present day, where we have old farts in congress who have been there longer than many people’s normal working lives, and who fight tooth and nail to keep their positions of power, and have forgotten what it is like to be a “normal” citizen. A time when if it wasn’t for term limits, we’s have presidential dynasties. Can you honestly imagine any of these power junkies willingly stepping away from a position of absolute power, like dictator, willingly? They won’t even step back from positions of much much less power than dictator.

No, sadly, the spirit of Cinncinatus is long extinct.
forest hunter says:

March 9, 2006 at 8:42 pm

Good luck with that Lorica! Facts have no relevance with mini-widgets. There are none in the handbook, that apply to reality in this universe, with regard to that millenarian.
forest hunter says:

March 9, 2006 at 8:55 pm

Severian, thanks for that outstanding explanation for what I mumbled and stumbled through yesterday with a retired Colonel friend of mine. We were half joking as we discussed the topic of government. It was determined that we knew enough good dictators that could rule the Nation and “setting up shop” was not the option that our current Senators are wedged into today. Each dictator would know that the revolving dictator policy would keep it real.
Lorica says:

March 9, 2006 at 9:01 pm

That brings up a very good point Sev. I have held the long time belief that our Congressional leadership is still obligated to follow the laws of the State they represent. Now if that State voted in term limits would not the Representives and Senators be forced to follow that law?? I don’t know, it is just a pet theory.

Hunter, I know that and you know that, but somebody who is just stopping by for the first time, might actually think Steve knows what he is talking about. Since my challenge will go unheeded anyone new to this blog will know that Steve is full of hot air. – Lorica
Severian says:

March 9, 2006 at 9:18 pm

Well, Lorica, I think that it’s possible state term limits might be declared unconstitutional, not sure though. I certainly know that the most virulent antagonists of such a law would be the politicians themselves.

Interesting, would it be unconstitutional? The Constitution says nothing about term limits, one way or the other, but does say that all powers not specifically allocated to the federal government are reserved by the states and people. But then again, we all know how well that has worked out in practice.
Jim M says:

March 9, 2006 at 10:21 pm

Severian, I am reading a book on the founding fathers of these United States and what they had to endure and the men that believed in the cause had to endure. Thanks for your time in you comments I think or I hope you know that I’m a firm believer in freedom and the United States constitution.

Sis “T” please don’t get discouraged I like the site you have put together better than any other political site it can be very discouraging to have a conservative stance on issues. There are things you may believe in that aren’t happening or there are times things that seam to be going the wrong way but after some logical thought and debate it may change your mind on some. You just have to follow your mind, ethical and moral beliefs you have come a long way in your thinking unfortunately 2 plus 2 equals 4 no matter how the liberals spin it and say it could equal 5 or 3 or any answer is right. Having a conservative view is not easy believe me I have been the only conservative at a dinner of 6 with questions being fired at me before I could get one word out and then after the Demogoging it was said that you/I couldn’t answer any questions. When I said I wasn’t given a chance the libs sat back and said ok answer the questions now. I like how they bombard you and you only get out “But, Wait or let me answer your questions one at a time” and after two or three firing questions at you one after another with out a break they will say look you are wrong on that issue.
Big Bang Hunter says:

March 9, 2006 at 10:56 pm

– Liberals, as a general rule are aware their statements and positions are easily defeated when they try to debate, partly because they are usually based on revisionist cart wheels of logic or projection/moral equivalency rationalizations, and partly because the real agendas are often hidden, and they simply do not what those known.

– In order for that sort of subtafuge to work, they can’t debate honestly, or listen to others ideas. They often can’t even stand to hear the oppositions words, so insecure are they. Being that ideologically driven, and closed minded, is an indication of poor self assurance and a lack of any deep convictions.

– When your opponent resorts to verbose overt speech making, and debate hijacking tactics, you’ve got them on the run.

– I have to laugh when I see that, because it always occurs to me to wonder what sort of satisfaction can you have, when all you’ve accomplished is to make the most noise. I think thats one of the reasons, among others, they all seem stressed to the breaking point. The unhinged left.

– ST understands this. We’ve had disscussions on the subject on other threads. But at times it does grow wearisome and boorish, dealing with the same nonsense and partisan lies over and over. I guess when you’re a desperate minority, out of power group, its all you’ve got. But it sure can be a pain in the pitooty sometimes. You want to really deal with the issues, but the gaggle of howling ne’er do wells constantly waste time and divert attention. Added to that you have the posers that are simply using blog sites as a place to vent and get the attention they lack in their real lives.

But truth, like oil, always rises to the surface, and so like the banner on ST blogs reminds us, that one honest man can always destroy a room full of hypocrites, given a little time and perserverence.

– Bang
CB Howell says:

March 10, 2006 at 12:23 am

Steve Said:

“Rumsfeld told Congress today that if a civil war breaks out in Iraq, the American troops would rely on the Iraqi forces for protection. How in the world are the Iraqi forces going to protect the US forces? Support the troops, bring them home. Peace”

The story can be found currently in Yahoo News under Politics, however, Steve presented the quote a bit out of context. What Rumsfeld eluded to was if civil war broke out in Iraq, the Iraqi troops would have to take care of it themselves. We would not get involved.
AJStrata says:

March 10, 2006 at 9:10 am

Hang in there Sister. This may work out still. There is not a clear sense of success on this one. And if my guess is right, those vote-desperate congressman will be aligning with the xenophobes to run around pointing at all the foreigners. In other words, they will dramatically overplay their hand.
Baklava says:

March 10, 2006 at 11:25 am

CB, So are you (a liberal) saying that Steve misused or cherry picked information?
Lorica says:

March 10, 2006 at 1:16 pm

I am sorry CB but he took it out of context by more than just abit. I read several news stories, and I read an article right out of the DoD website. No where does it say that the American Military is going to be protected by Iraqi security forces. It says that we are going to do our best to stay out of it. Steve implies a meaning to that they are going to protect us. That is so far out of context it would be like looking at the sun from pluto. But we all know which planet Steve orbits. – Lorica
sanity says:

March 10, 2006 at 1:37 pm

Believe CB pointed that out:

CB says, “The story can be found currently in Yahoo News under Politics, however, Steve presented the quote a bit out of context. What Rumsfeld eluded to was if civil war broke out in Iraq, the Iraqi troops would have to take care of it themselves. We would not get involved.
steve says:

March 10, 2006 at 1:46 pm

“eluded to”, you take your spin and the left will take it’s. Who’s side will the US troops take if a civil war breaks out? American troops are in great danger and if your spin is wrong then a bunch of them will die. The Left would like to prevent that. Peace
Lorica says:

March 10, 2006 at 1:47 pm

Hey Sev, Can term limits be found to be “unconstitutional”?? They would have to find the term limits on the presidency unconstitutional. Since term limits are already written into the Bill of Rights they would have to allow them. I think it is time for more folk to be talking about term limits and let’s just see where our representatives go with them. After all 80% of the American public was against the Dubai ports deal. They were listening to the will of the people then, why not now on term limits. Or even on illegal immigration, or on tax cuts, or on oil exploration, or on ….. does this list go on and on or what?? – Lorica
Severian says:

March 10, 2006 at 2:11 pm

I wonder if it matters where the term limits come from as to whether or not it’s constitutional. If it came from the fed side, or from the state side. BTW, where in the Bill of Rights does it mention term limits? There’s a constitutional ammendment limiting the presidents terms, but that’s not part of the BoR.
Big Bang Hunter says:

March 10, 2006 at 2:37 pm

The two term limit on the Presidency is believed to have been written in by the initial Countinental Congress framers, simply because they basically followed exactly the pattern of G. Washingtons time in office. The limit has been set aside on occasion, such as FDR, because of WAR, ect. Other than that, there are no other term limits.

– Bang
Ray Robison says:

March 10, 2006 at 4:39 pm

Arabica!! (or why we don’t like you al-Jazeera)

Al-Jazeera.com has this story at the top: U.S. history of hypocrisy: Were Arabs 1st to discover America? Yes that’s right, it seems that the Arabs found the Americas (obviously they weren’t called that back then so don’t try to jump
CB Howell says:

March 10, 2006 at 6:26 pm

1st of all Baklava, I know your drawers just get all up in a bunch if you can’t classify and catagorize…but no, I’m not a liberal. Actually, I took a “D-scale” a few weeks ago and on a scale from 1-7, 1 being communist, 7 being fascist, I came in at a nice 3.998. About as close to the middle of the road as possible….like 80% of the rest of the people in this country. And relative to steve’s comment, I was just trying to clear the air. He cherry picked nothing. He misquoted. Is that clear enough for you? There isn’t a military on the face of the planet that could protect our guys and gals better than they could themselves.

2nd, if I’m understanding the thread right relative to the term limits, there is no mention of term limits in the constitution, presidential or otherwise. The 22nd amendment however, limits the president to two four-year terms. A vice president who succeeds a president due to death, resignation, or impeachment is eligible for a total of ten years in office: two years of a president’s remaining term and two 4-year terms.

The 22nd amendment was ratified in 1950…perhaps it was ’51, as a direct result of FDR’s successful 4 election winning streak. Prior to that, although only one tried for more than two terms (Grant), no one sat for more than 8 years.

Now, relative to term limits for legislators. The only way a legislator can be limited in terms is by his/her own state. If the congress were to pass a law that limited terms, it would be unconstitutional due to conflict with the 10th amendment. (Powers not delegated to the federal govn’t are reserved by the states.)

I might be wrong on this, but I think as of last year, there are 16 states that have limited how long their legislators can remain in office. (Mine, unfortunately, isn’t one of them. )
CB Howell says:

March 10, 2006 at 6:31 pm

Further…Lorica Said: “Hey Sev, Can term limits be found to be “unconstitutional”?? They would have to find the term limits on the presidency unconstitutional.”

Term limits…as I spoke about earlier…for presidents cannot now nor ever be found “unconstitutional”. It is part of the constitution. The only way to change it would be to amend the constitution again, repealing the 22nd amendment. (Like the 18th and 21st amendments.)
CB Howell says:

March 10, 2006 at 6:43 pm

And lastly, come on Steve…”A bunch of them will die???” There are already a “bunch” of our troops dead and dying…not only in Iraq. That’s thier job. That’s what they do. I don’t think too many are excited about that specific proposition, but they all know it’s part of the description.

This is one thing I hope Rumsfield stays true on. Picking a side in a midievil civil war would be rediculously stupid. EVERYBODY knows that. You don’t have to graduate from West Point to be privey to that one.

Either way, involvement would not seriously vamp up the death toll…not our’s anyway. If there’s one thing politicians understand, it’s that the quickest way to unemployment’ville is down the road of stupid decisions that get our troops unecessarily harmed or killed.
steve says:

March 10, 2006 at 8:22 pm

If a civil war breaks out and our troops are still in Iraq they could easily become pinned down and unable to be supplied with anything including ammunition. It is time to leave Iraq now. Peace
forest hunter says:

March 10, 2006 at 8:39 pm

steve, did you know that a gross ignoramus is 144 times worse than an ordinary ignoramus.
steve says:

March 10, 2006 at 9:12 pm

If anybody knows about what it takes to be an ignoramus it would be you forest hunter. Good luck. Peace
forest hunter says:

March 10, 2006 at 9:32 pm

Was that a rock sailing past me or did you break another heel off your flip flop?

Comments are closed.