Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Palin is too much like ordinary people????

Page 3 of 3 [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age:54
Posts: 3,170

10 Sep 2008, 9:54 pm

oscuria wrote:
Obama is like Palin, nobodies who became overnight superstars.



One difference: Obama has been on the national stage for 4 years, since giving the keynote speech at the previous convention. Two weeks ago, maybe 1 in 1000 Americans knew who Palin was. Palin's first interview is scheduled 10 days after the convention, with the carefully chosen Charlie Gibson, who has avoided asking tough questions of McCain. The strategy is to make the remaining weeks about the mysteries of Palin, not about the issues facing the nation.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age:27
Posts: 14,274
Location: Omnipresent

10 Sep 2008, 10:51 pm

Dogbrain wrote:
You are free to move to a place like the People's Republic of China, where only members of a self-selecting elite are permitted by law to run the country.

Because we decided to bastardize and muck up American republicanism where we could? I mean, if you look at early America, it is pretty clear that democracy is not what the founders really wanted. They wanted the semi-elite to select the elite, not hicks to be empowered. Why must those who believe in the original American ideal have to submit to a bunch of fools who are beneath any ideal's true reach.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 Sep 2008, 11:45 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Dogbrain wrote:
You are free to move to a place like the People's Republic of China, where only members of a self-selecting elite are permitted by law to run the country.

Because we decided to bastardize and muck up American republicanism where we could? I mean, if you look at early America, it is pretty clear that democracy is not what the founders really wanted. They wanted the semi-elite to select the elite, not hicks to be empowered. Why must those who believe in the original American ideal have to submit to a bunch of fools who are beneath any ideal's true reach.


It's happened for Rome, so why not America too?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age:27
Posts: 14,274
Location: Omnipresent

10 Sep 2008, 11:49 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
It's happened for Rome, so why not America too?

Why couldn't we go the other direction? At least with an emperor there is only one office to invest my hatred into. To have to hate everyone is too alienating.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 Sep 2008, 11:55 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
It's happened for Rome, so why not America too?

Why couldn't we go the other direction? At least with an emperor there is only one office to invest my hatred into. To have to hate everyone is too alienating.


Or to have them hate one person personally is even worse!

Seriously though, Rome was a Republic for about 500 years and they had their difficulties between the Plebeians and Patricians. I don't doubt that there were some nasty things said on both sides about each other. The empire's main difficulty was that the emperor was an absolute monarch.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age:54
Posts: 3,170

11 Sep 2008, 8:04 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
It's happened for Rome, so why not America too?

Why couldn't we go the other direction? At least with an emperor there is only one office to invest my hatred into. To have to hate everyone is too alienating.


Sorry that these times are so stressful for you, AG, but I think it is fairer and more accurate to make you spread teh luv.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age:27
Posts: 14,274
Location: Omnipresent

11 Sep 2008, 8:38 am

monty wrote:
Sorry that these times are so stressful for you, AG, but I think it is fairer and more accurate to make you spread teh luv.

Bah, who cares about either?



Bozewani
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2008
Age:25
Posts: 514

12 Sep 2008, 6:19 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
JerryHatake wrote:
You realize that Lincoln suspend habeas corpus due to a rebellion (The War between the States) which is stated in the Constitution that can be done.

No, it isn't. Congress can do that, Lincoln, as awesome as his beard may be, cannot. That is the difference and it is significant. I also actually hate Andrew Jackson too.

In fact, I hate most presidents. I also really don't care about the Civil War much either.

Both of the presidents I mentioned were on a recent article on Cracked.com for their failings.
http://www.cracked.com/article_16590_6- ... anity.html


Ok, as an AI member, let me say that habeus corpus may be only suspended during wartime for a maximum of six months subject to congressional approval.