Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (151529)	12/17/2005 3:48:11 PM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 793552

Perhaps Mq was referring to his own King George II. You know, "The Madness of King George" guy? The one who lost the colonies.

To: Neeka who wrote (151529)	12/17/2005 4:41:42 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793552

M, I'm aware that the USA isn't strictly a dynastic royalty system, with fathers and sons being ruler [giggle]. Sometimes it's brothers [come in Jeb, John, Bobby, Teddy, and tribe]. I like King George II as a name as he is the second ruler named George in the same family line. Plus, if you check the Declaration of Independence you will find that there was antipathy to the usurious imposts of a foreign ruler. Some people around the world get a sense that in some subtle way, such as military occupation in more than one instance, the USA and therefore King George II are holding sway over their countries, turbocharging the American Empire, or PNAC in Americana acronym, with usurious imposts. Indeed, it was King George II who imposed such taxes which eventually induced the Boston Tea Party, odur.let.rug.nl inter alia, casus beli, ipso facto and other latin legal jargon meaning "we got really annoyed". Which was a great waste of perfectly good tea and was the reason Americans developed a preference for coffee, which hypes them up so much that they have to take Prozac and Ritalin and stuff to stabilize them. I won't look for a Google link to that as I just made it up and there won't be a link until I post this. I had a little look at English history and found that King George II was this bloke: britannia.com He died not long before the Americans got so bolshy that they wrote their declaration usacitylink.com that they weren't going to bossed around, taxed and hassled by the likes of King George II or King George III britannia.com either. They preferred to be bossed around by their own King Georges, family and courtiers [George Bush, George Bush, George Washington, Jeb, Condoleezza, Ashcroft, and other Georgetown acolytes]. Here's an interesting little description of King George II: <he was a choleric little sovereign; how he shook his fist in the face of his father's courtiers; how he kicked his coat and wig about in his rages; and called everybody thief, liar, rascal with whom he differed: you will read in all the history books; > Some would see some parallels with King George "You are either with me or against me" II. I think General Scowcroft and a few other of his father's courtiers are out of favour. I believe he prefers polite compliance and agreement and those differing are soon literally beyond the pale. People is as people does M and we are much the same around the world. Having "just a piece of paper", as some have called the USA constitution, is some protection against normal kingly behaviour. Here's a little test for you. Who called the constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper"? Hint - it was somebody whose very job is to uphold it. See answer below. I have a fair idea of your system of government, and good old Google can fill in any gaps for me. It's a kingly system of Georges, just like the good old days. Long live King George II, Mqurice the Credible. PS: Did you pass? capitolhillblue.com <Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal. GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” ... > Note the implicit blasphemy by an Armageddon-believing born-again Christian in the use of the word "goddamned".