Monarchism?

[Baruch]

And congratulations to yourself.  You are the only monarchist wanna-be I've ever known.

I keep an open mind, mostly to let things out, rather than to let things in.  Also winners write the histories (see Churchill) but not honestly.  So I have to doubt the fairy tales we are told, even if they are good entertainment.

And once you are open to alternatives, I can see GB winning 1776 or Confederacy winning 1861 or Kaiser winning 1914.  Not necessarily what I would want under those circumstances, but not unthinkable.

My own ancestry (and we are all royal bastards one way or another) makes it clear, I would not want to be "the" monarch, but a good monarch is better than a bad commoner.

Charles I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDsAn_u70tw

Charles II
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFa4UNmdEhg

Charles III
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSob-Pyj6pM

Cromwell ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkAbOGxDF6g

The American Revolution was the revenge of religious radicals against King James I, Charles I, Cromwellians against Charles II etc.

Take care not to make bold with arbitrary legislative tyranny.  Blowback is a bitch.

[Cavebear]

I keep an open mind, mostly to let things out, rather than to let things in.  Also winners write the histories (see Churchill) but not honestly.  So I have to doubt the fairy tales we are told, even if they are good entertainment.

And once you are open to alternatives, I can see GB winning 1776 or Confederacy winning 1861 or Kaiser winning 1914.  Not necessarily what I would want under those circumstances, but not unthinkable.

My own ancestry (and we are all royal bastards one way or another) makes it clear, I would not want to be "the" monarch, but a good monarch is better than a bad commoner.

Repeating yourself are you are you?  ;)

It's OK...  It's OK.

[Baruch]

Repeating yourself are you are you?  ;)

It's OK...  It's OK.

The US armed forces swear to the Commander In Chief and the Constitution.  Not Congress.  So Nancy Pelosi should beware.

Per the old story, David wasn't elected President, but anointed King by Prophet Samuel (who was acting on G-d's behalf).

You should remember all the cat calls from 2016, how the voters are unfit to vote (if they aren't Democrats anyway).  I am simply agreeing, but also being fair.

[Cavebear]

The US armed forces swear to the Commander In Chief and the Constitution.  Not Congress.  So Nancy Pelosi should beware.

Per the old story, David wasn't elected President, but anointed King by Prophet Samuel (who was acting on G-d's behalf).

You should remember all the cat calls from 2016, how the voters are unfit to vote (if they aren't Democrats anyway).  I am simply agreeing, but also being fair.

I had to look that up.  So indeed soldiers are conflicted when a conflict arises between the Constitution and the Commander-In-Chief.  I was surprised, but I can see the cause,

It does say "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" before the part about the Commander-In-Chief though, and priority matters.  And speakig of priority, Congress mentioned before the Executive branch.  But I might argue that something had to be mentioned first and does not necessarily establish order of importance.  I've seen better arguments than the order of a list.

On the other hand, there is a reason why The Speaker of the House is 3rd in line for President.  After the President and Vice President, the Speaker of The House is the elected of the elected.  The Leader of the Senate is merely the chosen of the majority party of the Senate.  I've read that that absolutely drives them nuts sometimes...  LOL!

"Per the old story, David wasn't elected President, but anointed King by Prophet Samuel (who was acting on G-d's behalf)". 

In case you didn't notice Baruch, we aren't big on "annointing"

I don't understand what you mean about "cat calls in 2016".  Indulge me with some explanation.

[Baruch]

I had to look that up.  So indeed soldiers are conflicted when a conflict arises between the Constitution and the Commander-In-Chief.  I was surprised, but I can see the cause,

It does say "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" before the part about the Commander-In-Chief though, and priority matters.  And speakig of priority, Congress mentioned before the Executive branch.  But I might argue that something had to be mentioned first and does not necessarily establish order of importance.  I've seen better arguments than the order of a list.

On the other hand, there is a reason why The Speaker of the House is 3rd in line for President.  After the President and Vice President, the Speaker of The House is the elected of the elected.  The Leader of the Senate is merely the chosen of the majority party of the Senate.  I've read that that absolutely drives them nuts sometimes...  LOL!

"Per the old story, David wasn't elected President, but anointed King by Prophet Samuel (who was acting on G-d's behalf)". 

In case you didn't notice Baruch, we aren't big on "annointing"

I don't understand what you mean about "cat calls in 2016".  Indulge me with some explanation.

Unique to the US.  All other countries the President is civil power only.  We are that way because George Washington was uniquely qualified, and the Constitution of 1787 was a coup, and he may need to defend it.

Yes, just apes choosing based on biggest dick.

The anointing goes back to Pharaoh, who was anointed with crocodile fat (the deep origins of the word "messiah").

There were lots of complaints here, by semi-losers, that if the public were smarter, they would be atheist, gay and vote for Hillary ;-)

Yes, the cause of the oath, is Abraham Lincoln, and that he couldn't even trust a Union Congress.  And had to deal personally with Lee, who put state ahead of nation.

[Cavebear]

Unique to the US.  All other countries the President is civil power only.  We are that way because George Washington was uniquely qualified, and the Constitution of 1787 was a coup, and he may need to defend it.

Yes, just apes choosing based on biggest dick.

The anointing goes back to Pharaoh, who was anointed with crocodile fat (the deep origins of the word "messiah").

There were lots of complaints here, by semi-losers, that if the public were smarter, they would be atheist, gay and vote for Hillary ;-)

Yes, the cause of the oath, is Abraham Lincoln, and that he couldn't even trust a Union Congress.  And had to deal personally with Lee, who put state ahead of nation.

I value your opinion Baruch, but I do disagree.

George Washington was not actually a very good President, but he WAS an outstanding symbol when the first President needed to be one.  He was someone everyone else could rally around.  His dignity and composure and reputation were just what was needed at the time.  However, he wasn't very good politically when Jefferson and Hamilton created "factions" that led to political parties.

The Constitution was not a "coup".  It was made up of State Representatives who participated in the debates and writing and voted for it afterwards on behalf of their States.  And various State governments agreed to it.  So I don't think you can call that a "coup"

As to apes choosing leaders based on "the biggest dick", that is inaccurate.  According to the sties I've read it varies from ape to ape.  Gorilla male leaders are chosen by overall strength.  Alpha male chimps are chosen by a certain aggressiveness. Alpha male Bonobos seem to be chosen by the females.  I don't know much about orangutans, but they aren't tribal, so there aren't leaders.  Among us humans, there are many ways leaders are chosen/  Allow me to not mention the details...

I did not know that messiah originally meant "crocodile fat"  (reptiles have fat?) but I will have to try and purchase some.  After all, if want to rule the world as a benevolent dictator, I should probably also be a messiah in order to unite all those religious types.  There ARE a lot of them.

Hillary got a lot more votes that just from atheists and gays.  In fact, she got more than Trump did.  And if her votes came from just atheists and gays, there are a WHOLE more of one of us than I realized.  LOL!  If it was atheists, then I expect churches will be taxed soon.  If it was guys, the over-population problem will be resolved naturally.

I'm not sure what you meant about Lincoln and the oath.  Give me a little more info on that please.

Thanks, Cavebear

   

[Baruch]

You went thru US polysci in the 60s ... and don't idolize George Washington?  What kind of Fifth Columnist are you?  Isn't the Fifth Columnist one of the old style MSM guys, near the comics section?

Really, like so many people here, I think you just like to pick fights ;-)

[Cavebear]

You went thru US polysci in the 60s ... and don't idolize George Washington?  What kind of Fifth Columnist are you?  Isn't the Fifth Columnist one of the old style MSM guys, near the comics section?

Really, like so many people here, I think you just like to pick fights ;-)

No, picking fights is a bit childish.  And if I wanted that, I would just go to a theist site and annoy them like some theists like to do here.

But one can think of Washington as an important national leader without thinking he was especially skilled at being President.  Many Generals have that problem.  He was accustomed to giving commands.  And when he  gave Congress a list of things he wanted done, and they told him they would discuss it, he became quite angry.  He also reacted poorly when he addressed Congress in his first State Of The Union address.  He was a rather aloof President, mostly.

That should not have surprised him, since that is how they acted under The Articles of Confederation during the war when he was a General, but I suspect he thought it would be different as President. 

It wasn't that he was a "bad" President by any terms, just that he and everyone else was trying to figure out how things should work in the Constitution and no one had any experience with the idea.  So there was a lot of friction.

[Baruch]

I don't respect Congress either.  Given when he went thru in 1783 with an Army mutiny, I can see why.

[Cavebear]

I don't respect Congress either.  Given when he went thru in 1783 with an Army mutiny, I can see why.

Does that affect our current reality? 

[Baruch]

Does that affect our current reality?

We are in our own multiverse ... and 5 minutes from now we will be in a different multiverse ...

No, history, the real history we don't know, is constantly with us.  Remove a single butterfly from the Cretaceous Era, and the primates will have never evolved at all.

Meanwhile stick to the MSM Siren songs, and dash yourself on their rocks, unless you plug your ears with beeswax.

The future is like Scylla and Charybdis.  You will have to lose people to one or the other.   The Piper must be payed!

[Cavebear]

We are in our own multiverse ... and 5 minutes from now we will be in a different multiverse ...

No, history, the real history we don't know, is constantly with us.  Remove a single butterfly from the Cretaceous Era, and the primates will have never evolved at all.

Meanwhile stick to the MSM Siren songs, and dash yourself on their rocks, unless you plug your ears with beeswax.

The future is like Scylla and Charybdis.  You will have to lose people to one or the other.   The Piper must be payed!

Yeah, I know that story too.  Kill the idiot who stomped that butterfly in the time travel expedition.  But have you considered that the world might work better if we all had tentacles?  I don't ask lightly.  They seem pretty useful.  Maybe we would be on Proxima Centuri by now.