Friday, November 17, 2006

Good Questions

A friend recently posed these questions to Mr. Webster: What do you think is going to happen and what do you hope will happen? The context was an important one - it related to how things have degenerated so much in America as to render our government increasingly ineffective and our Republic in an ever more precarious position.

The members of this space have uniformly asserted - in this and other forums - that the key to renewal as we have defined it lies in education. Now, for each person a word like renewal can conjure very different images. It's important for us to explain then, as specifically as we can, what this means when we say it.

Renewal then, to this writer, means a return to the intended balance between the spheres of government. As I have quoted time and again, Federalist 45 holds the answers. The framers of our Constitution had very clear ideas - as clear as one can be without a functioning crystal ball - about the role of each sphere of government. Although this brief description doesn't do justice to the content of that essay, generally, those areas that can be considered domestic should be the domain of the smallest spheres of government (the largest of such small spheres being the several States), while the federal sphere focuses on national security, defense, regulation of commerce, and, I would add, protection of our inalienable rights. This concept of inalienable rights is a decidedly American concept; thus, when one marries the American ideal to the Federalist system, why we consider ourselves American Federalists.

Such a renewal will take a massive education effort, which can be further divided into separate categories. This blog, for one, has as its purpose the dissemination of these ideas and principles. Hopefully, these ideas have merit (we think they do) and the readers of this blog adopt these ideas as their own. Readers then speak to their friends and family about these ideas, and more people are drawn to the blog - and maybe even some different blogs that espouse the same ideas.

All of this is meaningless without the desired effect of education: action. I can tell you that personally I have become involved - have volunteered - in local politics. My goal will be to faithfully work for the furtherance of the ideals I believe in. And like the bottle of shampoo reads: Repeat steps 1 and 2.

So what do I think will happen? I think things will continue to worsen before they improve. What do I hope will happen; or, what will be the effect of this worsening condition? I think that enough people will adopt these ideas that it will either transform a current political party or result in the creation of a new one.

Either that or the whole experiment will go straight to h*ll, but I'm sublimely confident that we're here for a reason, and that we're not done by a long shot.

As always, I welcome your comments Dear Reader, and I'm also reachable by e-mail as well, if you want to challenge me privately on these ideas (you know who you are).

47 comments:

J Wales said...

I'll have to say I think I can relate to Mr.Dear Reader. The degeneration appears to have entered the point of no return zone. The behemoth government groweth at leaps and bounds with no end in sight.

"...transform a current political party or result in the creation of a new one".

For now transforming the current parties looks futile. Now the creation of a new party sounds good to many of us. The problem with a new creation is $$money$$, millions and millions to break into the ranks. Where do you get the 10's and 100's of millions, from the big money players, then your back to the same old game owing favors, kickbacks,EARMARKS and you know the rest of the story. The big money has us in a political stranglehold, and a stranglehold on hope. Geez what a mess!

Daniel Webster said...

Mr. Hargis, if and when you make it over here, I'd like to address a couple of your points in your post at the ppb...

First, you say you didn't vote for President Bush because of his conservatism. I can respect and identify with that because I've never thought he was much of a conservative either. He's a d*mn sight more conservative than either of his opponents were/are, but that's beside the point. Both you and I voted for him basically for the same reasons - because Republicans do less damage, generally speaking, than do democrats. Okay, we have that settled, now...

In your next paragraph, you chide President Bush because he neglected his conservative duties. I think that's where you and I part ways. See, I never expected that much out of President Bush anyhow, and when I got just about what I expected, I wasn't surprised or dismayed a bit (well, maybe a little). Whereas you seem to think that he's going to go (or should have gone) against his own political impulses. Why? As you freely admit, he's not really that conservative anyway, and you've never thought so - why would you expect him to all of a sudden become more conservative? President Bush is about as conservative as the nation is. That's about the size of it.

I'm not denying that anti-Bush sentiment was a factor, I'm really just wondering why folks expect more from President Bush than what he is and always has been. He's the President, yes, but that doesn't make him less or more of a human being.

michael hargis said...

Hmmm...very good point. Nevertheless, I've been very disappointed in his use of the presidency as a bully pulpit. Sorry to keep using that term, but it fits exactly.

POTUS can hire the best speech-crafters in the country and call a press conference any time, day or night. It isn't a conservative thing that the president should do that, it's a presidential thing. I cannot believe that Bush is completely blind to the things that got the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, i.e., putting reins on governmental growth and spending. That is and always has been a major plank in the Republican agenda. Whether it's a priority with him is immaterial. Surely it ought to have flashed through his brain that massive spending increases were anathema to the Republican base.

On a side note, I've always wanted to use the word "anathema" in a sentence. One more goal accomplished, eh?

Regarding the creation of a new party, keep in mind that without a majority in the house or senate, and the committee chairs that come with the majority, a new party is close to useless in Washington.

The Monarchist said...

Mr. Hargis,

You're right about Bush's lack of Presidential... whatever. Contrast him with Reagan, who went directly to the electorate again, and again, and again... you get the idea.

And you're enough of a student of history to know that a third party can make it, but that there's got to be the right circumstances first, and that it displaces a current party which declines and dies because it ceases to remain relevant to what the electorate needs.

Daniel Webster said...

"Hmmm...very good point. Nevertheless, I've been very disappointed in his use of the presidency as a bully pulpit. Sorry to keep using that term, but it fits exactly."

Right back at ya, brother - you make some very good points yourself. And don't apologize for saying something over and over again, I assure you it don't bother me in the least, as long as it's a valid point.

Now, let's you and I take a stroll back in time, shall we...

Remember (or did you watch?) the Republican National Convention prior to the '04 election? If memory serves me (and I admit to being a little unsure about this due to the lapse in time) it was that muscle-bound governator who flexed his way on stage and started inviting everybody and their (yellow) dogs into the Republican party - to the sheer pleasure, and a round of enthusiastic applause of everyone in attendance. I think Rudy backed him up most forcefully on it. The reason I remember that particular deal is because I was literally yelling at the t.v. You can ask my wife, she had to sit and listen to me. ;) Why was I yelling at it? Because there's but one way to invite everyone into either party when ya boil it all down - you have to violate your principles.

That episode marked the beginning of the downfall of the conservative movement in this country for me. Real conservatives no longer had a party to call their own. Of course it was well underway before that episode, but that was the first time I'd actually heard (maybe because I just hadn't been listening good, which is altogether possible) the republicans saying they were ready and willing to go against their own principles just to get a few votes.

This might not set too well with ya, but I even feel for democrats sometimes. The people give 'em bare majorities, then expect 'em to work miracles with them.

BTW, I remember the first time I managed to get the word "anathema" into a sentence of my own...I thought I'd very nearly conquered the world of rhetorical speech! Congratulations are in order though for having made that summit. It's all down hill from here. ;)

Call Me Mom said...

Congratulations on "anathema" Mr. Hargis.

I've been trying to get my legislators to draft some legislation here in my state, so I'm a bit behind. I haven't had time to comment much of anywhere but the PPB. I'll try to catch up.

Daniel Webster said...

"I've been trying to get my legislators to draft some legislation here in my state, so I'm a bit behind. I haven't had time to comment much of anywhere but the PPB. I'll try to catch up."

My apologies to Mr. Hamilton for getting a little off subject here, but I'll try to swing it back around in this post. First, though...Mom, would you be willing to give us a few details as to what kind of legislation you're referring to?

Hargis, you're not saying, like J, that it's futile to work toward creating a new party are you? We understand your point about needing numbers, leadership seats, and what have you, but I can hardly see how it could be any more useless (if you wanna use that term) to do what we're proposing as opposed to hoping the country will all of a sudden shift philosophically more to the right. Last I checked it was pretty much split right down the middle (between the repubs and demos), and we can see the electoral manifestation of that in the makeup of Congress and the Executive.

Leadership positions are all well and good, but neither party is able to do anything of significance (on their own agendas) without the numbers to back them up, positions of leadership notwithstanding. That ain't necessarily a bad thing when you've got a bunch of bleeding hearts in positions of leadership.

All that aside for a moment, what do you think about (given your thoughts on conservatism being the more dominant ideology in America) the prospects of the federalist ideal resonating with the majority of the electorate - a real majority of it? The idea of "balance" in government seems to me to be one in which a lot of the populace could embrace as their own, given that it wouldn't require their giving up their particular values systems. This would take time and a lot of work to get the message out across the nation, of course, but as they say: "anything worth having is worth working for."

I work and mingle with the general public a lot, and one thing that strikes me in all my conversations with them is their common concerns about the fact that nothing really ever gets done at the national level of government - this idea of balance in government seems to me to be the most viable of our choices for effecting signifcant changes in the direction of this country - they're always expressing their desire that Congress pull together and do something for the country, but it can never do so without a common theme around which its members can wrap themselves. Might balanced government be that theme?

michael hargis said...

No, I don't think it's futile to work on creating a new party, but at the same time I'm not convinced that it wouldn't be easier to work within the Republican party. All the political assets are already in place, as opposed to having to create everything from scratch.

The federalist ideal would resonate just fine with a majority of Americans if...there was a really good salesman to sell the idea. Even great products don't always sell themselves. I'm not talking about a dog and pony show here. The essence of salesmanship is persuasion, and rather than trying to persuade people to want what you've got, you convince them that you've got what they want. It's a huge difference.

Most people have the same basic wants, even if those wants take different forms. One guy wants button-down shirts and chinos, another wants red leater mini-shorts and faux-fur tank tops. Fundamentally, they both want clothes. The point is, you persuade people that the federalist ideal is the political construct that will best allow them to have what they already want.

I don't think you have to surrender your principles to create a big-tent type party. Consider: One person wants the national government to provide both for his retirement and the education of his children. I don't. We could both be Republicans. Conservative ones, even. My main objection to those things is the lack of constitutional authority. If, however, the various states controlled those programs, he could get what he wanted and my constitutional objections would disappear. Nobody has to violate any principles.

On the other hand, if what you want is a "my way or the highway" type party, then I say get used to the sidelines because that's where you're gonna be spending your time.

Daniel Webster said...

"On the other hand, if what you want is a "my way or the highway" type party, then I say get used to the sidelines because that's where you're gonna be spending your time."

I can hardly find any room for disagreement between us in your post, Mr. Hargis, with exception of the "my way or the highway" remark, which must be the impression we, umm, I'm giving or you wouldn't have mentioned it. The point is well taken though.

My main point with regard to violating one's principles was pretty much yours - lack of constitutional authority. Whereas some folks think there is constitutional authority for those and other things, the Republican party has historically considered it, ahem "anathema" to their principles to buck the authority of the constitution in matters which properly belong to the State and Local authorities.

Working within the existing construct of the Republican party is certainly part of our plan. In fact, we've been hammering on that idea pretty hard of late, particularly just prior to the elections. The archives will bear me out on that. However, we must always keep our options open, bearing in mind that the Republican party may or may not be the future for American idealism.

The Republican party may eventually transform itself into the "American Federalist" party - that was part of Hamilton's point I think. And I think there are some historical examples to show that that's a possibility. In the event that happened, there'd be no need for starting from scratch, right?

Personally, I think we need a lot of good salesmen to sell the idea. Also, I don't mind standing on the sidelines and cheering the team on if that's where I'm most needed. Every team needs a good fan-base.

P.S. did you note how smooth I was in working in the term "anathema?" Now all I gotta do is watch that first step down, it can be a real doozy. I just gotta keep my balance, that's all.

J Wales said...

Like D. said, my generality always leaves a door open. The third party does appear futile to me purely on a logistical basis, I dont believe Americans as a whole would reject it.

I agree with your salesman ideas, but the "truly" successful salesman delivers on his promises.

Some high profile, deep pocketed salespeople would be required for sure, those with constitutional integrity, values, character and who expect nothing in return for their monetary contributions (financially or legislatively that benefit them monetarily).

The financial cost to break into the ranks will be astronomical (too me anyway). The opponents have war chests of 10's-100's of millions.

All in all I support a third party, just doesnt seem feasible.

Call Me Mom said...

Mr. Webster,
I have requested that my legislators draft a law stating that school officials and school liaison officers must have a parent present when questioning a student about a crime. (With appropriate exceptions for time sensitive cases of course.)

Call Me Mom said...

Mr. Hamilton has my e-mail address if you would care to have more info on what inspired this request. He has my permission to share it with you.

The Monarchist said...

OK, whoa, where to begin?

Mr. Hargis: Any good communicator knows that you use reason to convince and emotion to cause action. And I'm hoping you'd agree with my position that even liberals should like federalism - if you want to have big government, that's up to you, but it's going to be big local government. A city by the beach that wants every resident to own a JetSki is fine with me - as long as they pay for it themselves.

JW: Huh? Not feasible? Then what was up with your love affair with the Constitution party?

Generally, I don't give a hoot how unlikely it seems or that people think that it's going to take rich people to do it. I happen to think that's exactly the opposite of how it'll play out. Like Coach always said, the man who thinks he can do something and the man who thinks he can't do something are both right.

-AH

Daniel Webster said...

"Like Coach always said, the man who thinks he can do something and the man who thinks he can't do something are both right."

I like that'n! Reminds me of one of my favorites - There are two types of people in the world: those who say "Lord, thy will be done," and those to whom the Lord says "thy will be done."

In either case, I wanna be in the first group.

Mom, I'm very interested! I'll be contacting you.

J Wales said...

Pithy sayings are nice and all, but they dont solve the problem.

Public awareness would certainly have to top the priority list one would think. This requires radio, TV, mail,venues and high profile folk to crash the party, all of which require mucho dinero.

Your not going to build a war chest passing the hat at the local ice cream social.

Fight fire with fire, there's my pithy saying.

Daniel Webster said...

"Fight fire with fire, there's my pithy saying."

Here's mine for you, J. And take it to heart 'cause I don't care to repeat myself on it, oh ye of little faith...

"Lead, follow, or get out of the way!"

J Wales said...

Still waiting for the funding solution.

Pithy saying:

"If you want to play with the big boys, you better bring a boatload of money".

Daniel Webster said...

My friend, I'm losing my patience with you pretty fast. However, I'll give it one more shot.

How much money do you suppose Sam Walton had when he founded the Wal-Mart corporation?

If you're trying to convince us it can't be done, it ain't ever gonna work, I gotta tell ya. So what's the point?

"Can't never could do nothin'" - Dad

Daniel Webster said...

P.S. The title of this piece is not necessarily a reflection of the doubts expressed by some of the commenters. ;)

J Wales said...

Apples and Oranges comparison there D. How much would it take Sam to start Wal-Mart today?

Anyway, I'm not trying to bust your b*lls on this, just think it's a major factor in the equation.

It can be done with adequate resources.

Daniel Webster said...

"Apples and Oranges comparison there D. How much would it take Sam to start Wal-Mart today?"

No; that's not an apples and oranges comparison. Are you sure you know the difference between apples and oranges, JW? Your question isn't even relevant here. Sometimes you simply amaze me with your lack of understanding, J. Note I didn't say "surpise me," but amaze me.

Anyway, if you want a more recent example (and there is no shortage of success stories like that in these United States of America), then I give you Bill Gates and the Microsoft corporation.

Take that and stick it in your pipe.

michael hargis said...

I GOT ONE I GOT ONE!! Umm...oh yeah...Don't count your chickens until you've saved your pennies.

No, wait...A penny saved is worth two...no...umm...ah, forget it.

The best salesman I ever met, when I used to sell home improvements, was a guy who didn't know that much about construction. He wasn't a flashy dresser and he drove a mildly beat-up pickup truck. He gave the appearance of being disorganized and was a little bit flighty. What he did have was a passionate belief that he was selling the best product money could buy, and customers picked up on that.

The pointman doesn't need to be high profile or have deep pockets, but he MUST have a passionate belief in what he is "selling." All the money in the world won't make up for a lack of fire in the belly.

Constitutional integrity, character, selflessness, etc., are nice qualities, too, but let's remember we're working in the field of politics and have only human beings as resources. ;)

Call Me Mom said...

"rather than trying to persuade people to want what you've got, you convince them that you've got what they want"

May I suggest you look at TMX Elmo and Playstation 3?, at info about the wedding of Mr. Cruise? (apalling that these things get "news" coverage - but they do.)The reason these things get so much coverage is because they are limited in supply while there is a demand for them.

How much demand would there be for a party that presents highly principled, character driven candidates? Surely those are in short supply. lol.

The question you really appear to be debating here is how to create a "buzz" that surpasses the tipping point of word of mouth to gain the most "free" coverage.

May I suggest the Red Bull advertising campaign strategy. As I understand it, the strategy was "we've got something here-now you figure out what it is." It requires effort on the part of the consumer to figure it out and that invests them in the product through the action of figuring it out as well as granting them exclusivity of knowledge for a time.

Or have I missed the point?

Call Me Mom said...

May I suggest a George Washington approach to any candidates this new party may select. By that I mean reluctant, but driven to accept by a sense of duty to country.

On another note, Mr. Webster, I look forward to hearing from you, please send more than once, my e-mail system is a little cranky sometimes.

J Wales said...

"....you amaze me with your lack of understanding,.."

LOL, you totally crack me up DW. All you do is twist everything I say, give me cute sayings and comparisons, but never answer the question.

Last time:

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR IT?

The Monarchist said...

JW,

How did Lincoln start the GOP? Bank-rolled with the tens of millions he made as a Springfield lawyer?

Or maybe it was ideas...? Someone check a history book for me.

So, by your point of view, the only people who are fit for this service and the folks we need to count on to do what needs to be done are millionaires? C'mon man, I don't think you're serious. Think about it, Josey.

-AH

J Wales said...

"...the only people who are fit for this service and the folks we need to count on to do what needs to be done are millionaires?"

your putting words in my mouth A.H., I never said nobody was fit for service unless they were a millionaire.

Lincoln was in a different era with different socio-economical-political dynamics (I think that's a word, one big one).

There was no radio, Television, satellites, internet, electronic voting, bulk mailers, telemarketing and mass media as we know it.

Anyway, it's like a different set of rules than when Lincoln ran for office.

All I'm saying is a third party needs some serious financial backing in order to compete.

It's like playing poker with the high rollers, you have to be able to ante up to stay in the game.

The Monarchist said...

JW,

Hey, help me out bro. I don't ever want to assume I understood something if I didn't. I'm just going on these comments...

"Now the creation of a new party sounds good to many of us. The problem with a new creation is $$money$$, millions and millions to break into the ranks. Where do you get the 10's and 100's of millions, from the big money players, then your back to the same old game owing favors, kickbacks,EARMARKS and you know the rest of the story. The big money has us in a political stranglehold, and a stranglehold on hope."

"Some high profile, deep pocketed salespeople would be required for sure, those with constitutional integrity, values, character and who expect nothing in return for their monetary contributions (financially or legislatively that benefit them monetarily).

The financial cost to break into the ranks will be astronomical (too me anyway). The opponents have war chests of 10's-100's of millions."

"Public awareness would certainly have to top the priority list one would think. This requires radio, TV, mail,venues and high profile folk to crash the party, all of which require mucho dinero.

Your not going to build a war chest passing the hat at the local ice cream social."

And...

"Pithy saying:

'If you want to play with the big boys, you better bring a boatload of money.'"

I'm not a money-rich man, and I probably won't ever be. But I don't think trying is a waste of time, and I don't think I need Mel Gibson to do it, either.

The GOP raises tens of millions of dollars every election in $25.00 increments from regular folks all across the Republic. That model seems to work for them, despite their inferior ideas!

-AH

The Monarchist said...

Hey J,

I can't let this slide, even though I intended to...

All of the items you listed were technological innovations (radio, TV, etc.), but people still cast the votes, that much hasn't changed. Unless I'm missing your point on the different set of rules, in which case, I await your clarification.

-AH

J Wales said...

A.H.

I was merely trying to point out a dilemna here. The very thing (big money) that is part of the problem would have to be embraced to get in the game. How can it be embraced without being corrupted by it? This is a dilemna, no?

The current GOP does get contributions from $1 to millions, but the GOP has a base loyalty going back 100+ years. The two parties have kind of a brand loyalty built in, kinda like people who only buy Fords because their dad did, grandad did, great grand dad did, know what I mean?

The way things are going in Washington I dont think you have decades to work with.

Regarding the technological innovations I mentioned, these are means used today to campaign, persuade, debate, relay messages, cast votes, communicate with the public, propagate and so on and so forth. Kinda like football, the scoring is the same, but the way the game is played has evolved and changed over time. Instant replay wasnt part of the game 100 years ago, make sense?

I'm not trying to piss you guys off, just point out a major issue. Maybe it doesnt matter anyway.

Samuel Adams said...

Jay Dubya,

With all due respect--and I mean that as sincerely and nicely as it can be literally put--it is not that you are you are making us angry, it is more to the point that you seem to be quite frustratingly dense.

You have already hammered home over there at...the other place...the point that power corrupts, money talks, blah blah blah. We got it. Part of our project here is to move beyond the bitching and moaning and the mentality that the wee people can do nothing. We've had it with not only the oppressors but also with the oppressed who are merely going to the window and yelling, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!" ... only to go back to their Lazyboys for more of the same.

The Allies were surrounded once upon a winter and they were handed a kindly-worded message reqeusting that they surrender. To that they said, "Nuts!" We're being asked to surrender today, and we're probably going to end up being more wordy than they, but our efforts will not be left untried.

So, please, enough with your "they might be giants" routine. You can wander in the desert for another 40 years, we want some of them ginormous grapes!

Samuel Adams said...

Oh, and another thing ... again ...

(the problem is not washington)

michael hargis said...

I don't believe that it's necessary to have a huge warchest to compete with and defeat the Big Two. In battle, a weaker force can defeat a stronger force by concentrating its strength and outflanking the stronger force, or attacking where the stronger force's defences are lightest.

Consider talk radio. It effectively bypassed the liberal-dominated mainstream media and brought the conservative message straight to the American people, and nobody had to raise a fortune to cause it to happen. The market was already there, waiting to be taken advantage of.

At the pass at Thermopylae the Greeks chose ground that maximized their strengths (personal bravery and individual fighting prowess) and minimized the Persian's strength (overwhelming numbers). Thus did 300 Spartans litter the ground with 20,000 Persian corpses before being slaughtered themselves. Darius realized that a few more victories like that and he wouldn't have an army left. The Greeks lost that battle but won the war.

There's a lesson there for aspiring third parties.

Daniel Webster said...

"Consider talk radio. It effectively bypassed the liberal-dominated mainstream media and brought the conservative message straight to the American people, and nobody had to raise a fortune to cause it to happen. The market was already there, waiting to be taken advantage of."

The same might be said of the Fox News Channel. If one will take the time to study its history, he will find that its beginnings were quite meager. It took a lot of money to launch the project, of course, JW, but I assure you, the idea for it had been brewing long before Rupert Murdock and Co. plopped down their millions. Even so, who'da ever thunk such a risky adventure would have resulted in the crash of the big-three, or the effective crash of them? I mean, the Big-3, it seemed, had the corner market on News, not to mention a boatload of money.

Which reminds me - you're watching too much O'Reilly, J, what with all your "pithy" sayings and whatnot.

Hargis, I have on DVD "The 300 Spartans," and I break it out once in a while just to remind me that indeed that "fire in the belly" you talked about is of utmost import. But of course I can go to the Bible for similar examples of inferior numbers defying the odds. And I often do. ;)

Call Me Mom said...

Might one respectfully point out in the midst of this discussion that we are all discussing this using a fairly inexpensive medium.

This blog right here doesn't cost a whole lot and how easy is it to get an e-mail to folks who can contact thousands of others should they be convinced that it's the right thing to do.

Yes the demos and republicans have "brand name" going for them, but word of mouth is a whole lot more effective and the i-net is a huge water-cooler.

Just a thought.

Samuel Adams said...

Mom, brilliant as per usual. Why point out that which is right under our noses when we can try to expound upon the nuanced complexities there in the distance?

Without knowing, I would guess that Amazon.com started small.

But to speak of brand-name products ... I find Coca-Cola to be an adequate substitute for bile, and it's arguably the most recognizable brand name in the world.

The Monarchist said...

J,

You're not pissing anyone off, don't sweat it. Disagreements are what they are. I disagree with your premise, that's all. Big money is not the problem. It doesn't have to be embraced to be successful. Football is still about scoring more points than the other guy, instant replay be d*mned. And for all of the changes in media, human beings still vote for other human beings.

And by the way, Mom, this blog is inexpensive - it is completely free. Nice observation. Who invited the woman here - don't you guys know they use their brains more than we do??

-AH

J Wales said...

Mr. Adams,
You never cease to amaze me by starting a sentence fairly cordially and completing it with an insult.

Your project is going to require interaction with people from variously different backgrounds, opinions, upbringings, social status', ideologies, education, circles of influence and so on and so forth. You may want to brush up on your diplomacy, you never know who you will run into.

I apologize for exacerbating you on this issue.


D. Webster,

I really dont watch Bill O'Reilly. Hope your not disappointed.

Happy Thankgiving, eat drink and be merry!

Call Me Mom said...

Happy thanksgiving to all. :)

Michael Hargis said...

Webster,

The Spartans had about 1000 assorted Greeks with them at Thermopylae. Thebans, Thespians, and a few mutts here and there. They never get any credit, but they were there. One Spartan, a warrior named Aristodemus, allowed his slaves to carry him away before the battle started because illness had robbed him of his sight. Upon arriving in Sparta, he was greeted with the name "Coward" and was unable to regain his honor until the battle of Plataea, where he charged the Persian line single-handedly and died a hero's death.

The Thebans lost heart at Thermopylae and appealed to Darius for mercy, which he granted along with a brand to mark them as untrustworthy deserters. The Thespians fought to the last man.

I envy you that DVD. Maybe I'll find me a politician who'll go to Washington and create a level DVD playing field. ;)

Samuel Adams said...

J-Dub,

How have I insulted you? Are you actually not dense? Was it not clear to you that I was making the same observation that others here have made repeatedly, that your message was heard loud and clear the first time, which was about a hundred hearings ago, and that upon very very few of those hearings did you exhibit the ability to digest and synthesize our ideas in the slightest, yet in the end you return to the "Washington is too corrupt, let's cut it off" mantra.

I would agree with the notion that I have the shortest fuse of the three, which is largely why you see many more posts and comments by the other two. And, admittedly, I should have said instead that you are coming off as a bit dense instead of asking you if you are such. But, like Mr. Webster will tell you, I'm actually a nice guy, once you get past the barbed wire and the anti-personnel mines, and the doberman pinschers.

Daniel Webster said...

Hey y'all, I just wanted to say that this has been a really interesting discussion. I'd have to check the archives, but I think this topic has generated the most comments of anything we've posted thus far.

On the one hand, as Hamilton pointed out to Adams and I privately, he would prefer to have half the number of posts and double the understanding. It's a good point. However, this is still something of a learning experience for we-three in particular. And we hope above all that we can take the lessons we've learned, and continue to learn here, and apply them elsewhere in our endeavors.

J, we love ya, man. Don't you ever forget it! But we're all guilty, to one extent or the other, of getting a little short with one-another from time to time, with the possible exception of Mom - who I for one wouldn't want to get on my bad side, no way! And Mr. Adams is right. That's almost exactly what I would tell ya. Once you get past all that stuff (and they're gonna injure the flesh a little bit along the way, trust me), he really is a very nice fellow...and humble, believe it or not. ;)

Call Me Mom said...

Ahh, Mr. Webster, there is no need to get upset here. We are all entitled to our opinions and this is an excellent practice arena to develop our reasoning ability and logic skills. I have seldom seen anyone here be personally insulting, (at least not without a humorous overtone or a point to be made by it)so what is there to be upset about?

And, if I am mistaken on something, I hope you will all continue to correct me as I would rather be mistaken here and be corrected in the true spirit of constructive criticism than fail to develop an important line of reasoning for when I might need it.

The Monarchist said...

Mom:

Amen to that! Great points again, as usual, making the men look like boys!

-AH

Daniel Webster said...

"Amen to that! Great points again, as usual, making the men look like boys!"

Yeah...you know what, Mom, if you keep this up you're gonna force us into dealing with you very, very harshly.

Ya give 'em the right to vote, and the next thing you know they're showing the very reasons men weren't comfortable with doing so years and years ago - because they make us look bad! ;)

Okay y'all, I didn't mean a word of that inference about restricting their voting priveleges....it was a joke!

**should I or should I not post this...hmmmmm...OMG, there it went!**

The Monarchist said...

Oh, Webster! Must I change the settings to approve comments before posting?? LOL!

Mom, I've had some e-mail issues lately - please accept my deepest apologies, for I have not been responding to messages from you because I have not received any but your guest post a while back. I'm not sure why, but think I found the answer - something about making sure that your message isn't going to be treated as "spam" by my filter. Write me again sometime to see if it works, and I PROMISE to write back.

Yours truly,
-AH

Call Me Mom said...

Mr. Hamilton,
Apologies accepted. I shall e-mail you a test message immediately.