home

Protesting Cheney

Some of Dick Cheney's neighbors are unhappy to have him vacationing in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in part because it's just annoying.

Since his arrival here earlier this week, Cheney has come under fire from locals complaining about black helicopters, presumably part of the vice president’s security detail, flying overhead and disturbing their peace.

The helicopters may be keeping an eye on protesters who, unlike the vice president, have a sense of humor.

During the pre-march rally, a towering effigy of the vice president, carrying a fishing pole and squirting oil derrick, and smaller bust of President Bush, with red devil’s horns, was unveiled to hoots, hollers and other expressions of approval prior to performances by musicians and speakers. ...

Upon rolling the wobbly, 11-foot tall effigy over a mile to the front gate of Cheney’s residence, shouting protesters waved anti-war signs at passing and honking motorists, as U.S. Secret Service officers sitting in a black truck and sheriff’s deputies looked on, while Stanford hung a lasso around the effigy’s neck.

To the chants of “No more war,” Stanford, Spence and others toppled the Cheney effigy a second time, knocking the head off as it smashed into the pavement. The delighted crowd applauded and hollered in mock victory as a man draped in a white beach towel, waving an American flag, kicked the effigy’s head toward the busy street.

During the early days of the Iraq war, American soldiers and Iraqis memorably toppled a statue of Saddam Hussein that had stood in Baghdad.

< ACLU Letter to Gonzales on FISA | Swift Boat Support For Rudy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I couldn't help it (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:15:56 PM EST
    there was a "Spence" in your blockquote so I had to go look since Gerry Spence lives in Jackson Hole.  It is Kent Spence, son of Gerry Spence.  There's nothing like a good ole fashioned anti war protest with some good ole fashioned lawyers participating and being scrutinized by some good ole fashioned secret service agents and a good ole fashioned sherriff ......season to taste ;)  Let Freedom Ring!

    A minor quibble with the article (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:02:06 PM EST
    I'm so sick of this meme:
    During the early days of the Iraq war, American soldiers and Iraqis memorably toppled a statue of Saddam Hussein that had stood in Baghdad.
    It was a staged event by bushco and put over on Americans with a complicit press. The iraqis obviously weren't fooled.

    Children must play (1.00 / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:04:36 PM EST
    probably was taught protest songs as poetry while in school.

    What children? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:01:38 PM EST
    cheney is allegedly an adult, the protestors are adults, do you ever have any comment on the actual topic?

    America stands for and was founded on political protest, it's how we were established as a nation.

    Not by judaic law, not by christian law, not by church of england law, not by muslim law, but by rejecting religious extremeists.

    But of course an endorser of saddam and OBL would never understand that.

    Parent

    Sailor (1.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:20:39 PM EST
    For someone who claims to be a scientist I find your ability to understand to be remarkably low.

    But your attempts to smear are really quite numerous, if of low quality.

    Parent

    DA and his friends (1.00 / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 08:54:41 AM EST
    Your support for the radicalization of high school students is understandable.

    You don't want to teach the youngsters the basics, just how to protest.

    What you fail to understand is that without the basics, they are also subject to be recruited by the Far right, so what you wind up with is two groups of people who can't think for themselves screaming slogans at each other.

    Historially that hasn't worked out very well.

    Parent

    Bawahahaha ;) (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 10:20:13 AM EST
    Kids don't need instruction on protesting.  It starts at two and it goes something like "NO!" every other word out of their mouths even if you are their mom and happen to look at them crooked.  How to organize a protest though when you aren't the only person saying "NO", now that is the jewel to be taught.  Protesting isn't taught to human beings though Jim, they are born with this crazy idea that it is their right if they so choose ya goofball!  It's something that if you don't like it you are going to have to beat it out of your children.........good luck with that.

    Parent
    Tracy are you okay?? (1.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:12:15 PM EST
    Children are born with many traits that require training. Their lack of fear, for example, is apt to let them burn themselves if the parent is not viglant.

    If you think that running around protesting everything you disagree with is good, you must live an interesting life.

    Good luck!!

    Parent

    Stop trying to bluff (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 03:43:57 PM EST
    that you know much about child development and the Id.  I took it in college and aced the course and then I put it use as a mother of two.  I wish my teen daughter's Id could have at you sometimes when you really get on my last nerve ;)

    Parent
    Well, all I did was help raise two children (1.00 / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 07:38:03 PM EST
    I wonder if I could get college credit for that??

    One Grandmother raised 7, the other 6. Do you think they should have a Phd?? Masters??

    I advise you that patience is a virture. They will turn into adults before your eyes.

    Parent

    If patience is truly a virtue (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 12:56:26 PM EST
    all of us volunteering to put up with you every single day on here are Heaven bound, and I'm still waiting for you to turn into an adult right before my eyes.

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:56:28 PM EST
    Actually, the only one who is putting up with anyone is the lady who owns the blog.

    You and I don't have a vote and none of us are required to be here.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Tracy (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:57:58 PM EST
    BTW - I aplogize for being civil in my response re children. I can see that it was wasted.

    Parent
    Hmmm, is DA's lecture over? (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:14:37 PM EST
    Yawn... did he say anything new?

    No?

    That's not a surprise.

    Parent

    are you denying that you ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 08:47:28 AM EST
    ... supported the US arming saddam and OBL?

    Parent
    Sailor loves them StrawMen (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 08:57:20 AM EST
    Are you wanting to start a reasoned discussion of geopolitics? Or are you just snarking??

    Do you deny that the US supported the Soviet Union during WWII?

    An enemy of my enemy is my friend.


    Parent
    say it out loud and say it proud (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 09:06:40 AM EST
    you were a supporter of saddam and obl.

    Parent
    Sailor keeps trying. (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:06:40 PM EST
    Of course I was a supporter of OBL when he was fighting the Soviets for me.

    Of course I was a supporter of Saddam when he was fighting Iran for me..

    You would rather we used american lives and treasure doing that. Smart...real smart.



    Parent

    He'll never get it (none / 0) (#34)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 04:52:42 PM EST
    every time we arm dictators and terrorists the weapons end up being used on us, Iran is a great example, Iraq, OBL, Noriega ... etc.

    If you stand for freedom you shouldn't lie down with the forces who suppress it.

    Parent

    Your problem is you want to live in (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 07:46:21 PM EST
    Sailor's world. In that world Japan didn't attack us and Germany didn't declare war. And if they did we had an unbeatable military and didn't need the help of the Soviets.

    And Iran didn't declare their attention on controlling the ME, and if they did we still had that unbeatable military and no one minded the thosands of US soldiers dead.

    I think even you see that in most cases you have to fight the devil in front of you, and how stupid it would be to not take all the help we can get, even if it is possible they turn later.

    So I am glad you live in that world. It must be most comforting, even if it exists only in Sailor's mind.

    Parent

    As opposed to Cheney (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Al on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 09:00:51 PM EST
    who was mostly drunk.

    Parent
    No child left behind! (none / 0) (#4)
    by 1980Ford on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:10:00 PM EST
    'Nuff said.

    Parent
    You have a problem with protest songs? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:26:12 PM EST
    You have a problem with protests? How un-American!

    Mr. Spence, btw, is hardly a child. I estimate he is about 50.

     

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:34:11 PM EST
    I estimate he is about 50.

    And he never got over Woodie Guthrie and Bob Dylan.

    An entire life wasted, ruined by guitar-playing poets.

    Sad.

    Parent

    MB (1.00 / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:18:51 PM EST
    I have a problem with the miseducation of children.

    I was talking about the childhood of people, not the people who waste their time doing dumb things.

    But it is their right. Heck, some people waste their time playing golf, or blogging.

    Parent

    And pray tell how is (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 06:17:08 AM EST
    teaching children about their constitutional right to protest or the history of protest miseducation? Given that Cheney is an embarressment to the American legal system, the constitution and American values of fair play and due process, I would say anyone who can put two and two together is well educated.

    Did Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil, Ezell Blair Jr. and David Richmond waste their time? How about Ms. Parks? Did she waste her time?

    How about George Hewes and friends? Did they waste their time?

    Was Viola Liuzzo wasting her time on March 25, 1965? Did the veterans and Gold Star Mothers waste their time at Dewey Canyon III? How about these veterans? Were Albert Parsons and 350,000 workers wasting their time on May 1, 1886? How about 2000  people in Ohio on May 4,1970? How about the crowd at  Alexander Hall on May 14, 1970? The million people gathered that day on Alexanderplatz in East Berlin in November 1989? Were they all wasting their time?

    Nothing is more American than the right of protest. Why do you sneer at American values?



    Parent

    Didn't mean to slight the men in Flint in 1936-37 (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 06:25:02 AM EST
    add them to the list of time wasters too!

    Parent
    MB (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 08:47:21 AM EST
    This isnt the thirties, it isn't Germany and .... well you get the point.

    Parent
    No I don't (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 09:13:42 AM EST
    Since the 99% of examples I provided are US and they cover the spectrum of our history from 1773 through the 1970's.  All of them resulted in change- most of which, even you would agree were positive.

    I can only conlude you don't get it.  



    Parent

    You are right Jim (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 10:24:23 AM EST
    This is the 00's and it is America and.....what was your point?

    Parent
    Tracy, MB, et al (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:43:16 PM EST
    Many of the early settlers were radicals, mostly religious types who were fleeing the troubles in Europe. See New England, Cotton Mather, etc. The next wave moderated the radicals; were more interested in securing a good life.

    The country was founded by rich land and property owners. Most of the dispute with England was not over "ideas" but over taxes, commercial disputes and the belief that they were having their right of self government, which they had, taken away. Remember, England also had an elected Parliament.

    When Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death," he wasn't yelling about something he had never had. He was yelling that it was being taken away from him.

    The Constitution was very much modeled on various English institutions and ideas. The remarkable thing was that it codified a belief that rights are God given, not from the government. This empowered the lower classes, perhaps unintentionally and established a method by with the Executive could be changed on a regular basis, as well as the House. Remember the Senate was appointed, similar to the House of Lords. In addition it established a clear path on how the Constitution can be changed.

    Radicals are almost always on the fringes, and the founders were not.

    Today's radicals, on both sides, distrust the Constitution and its children, the three branches of government. Protesting and doing snarky things about Cheney may be fun, but it is useless. That time and energy would be better spent in trying to get laws passed, especially given that Cheney will be gone in a little over 16 months. It is thater. Nothing more.

    The above is not meant to condemn protest, it is their right.

    And it is not to say that protests should not be done. The Civil Rights movement was effective because of them, and because their protests were supported by the federal government and most state governments and the undeniable fact that their cause was just.

    My basic point is that we only have x amount of time. Citizen discussions, etc., are great, but the results should be in elections, not threats to burn the country down. And once the elections are over, we should move forward based on the results, not have the losing side immediately launch into attacks on the winners. That may be "democracy," but it mimics anarchy and is not conducive to self rule through a constitutional republic.

    Reason and restraint are wonderful things and in short supply in both the Left and Right. K-12 teachers who teach protest songs as poetry instead of Shakesphere scare me as much as preachers explaining that only their flock will get to heaven. By and large the preachers are self limiting. The teachers are supported by a subsidy from the government. That's scary.

    Shorter. You can teach the constitution without also trying to radicalize the students.

    Parent

    Now you profess to knowing (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:46:23 PM EST
    intimately all of our founding fathers and to being the authority in the universe that knows what everybody was thinking and what they meant  200 and 300 years ago along with knowing who is a radical and when protests are radicalized and I'm guessing when they aren't radicalized (which is when you agree with the protesting side because with you being the Godly authority in the Universe you would never be on the radical side)

    Parent
    Tracy- If you want to dispute (1.00 / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:51:52 PM EST
    that particular point, why don't you with some facts?? Instead you come with some snarky blather that is meaningless.


    Parent
    Why don't we start with you putting up some facts (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:06:13 PM EST
    to fully confirm this spiel from you..........

    Many of the early settlers were radicals, mostly religious types who were fleeing the troubles in Europe. See New England, Cotton Mather, etc. The next wave moderated the radicals; were more interested in securing a good life.
    The country was founded by rich land and property owners. Most of the dispute with England was not over "ideas" but over taxes, commercial disputes and the belief that they were having their right of self government, which they had, taken away. Remember, England also had an elected Parliament.

    This is your perception of how you want it to have been and maybe in part some of this is true but not in whole.

    Parent

    Tracy writes. (1.00 / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 03:08:24 PM EST
    This is your perception of how you want it to have been and maybe in part some of this is true but not in whole.

    Do you really know nothing of the 17th century? About the travails of the Pilgrims? About the conflict between the Catholics, the Church of England and the various protestant groups?

    Did anyone tell you that they fled their countries and came to America because their beliefs conflicted with the established order?

    Or do you think they came over to have "Turkey Day?"

    Do you know nothing of the Puritans? Have you read anything about how these groups having fled England and Europe set up their own colonies and in some cases actually denied travel between them?

    Ever heard of Salem? Witches? Cotton Mather?

    These people were radicals.

    marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : EXTREME b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>

    They came here to have freedom to practice their religion.

    But there was a second wave that came, mostly beginning in the middle 17th and into the 18th century. The results:

    The 1787 delegates practiced a wide range of high and middle-status occupations, and many pursued more than one career simultaneously. They did not differ dramatically from the Loyalists, except they were younger and less senior in their professions.[5] Thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal training, though not all of them relied on the profession for a livelihood. Some had also become judges.[6]

    At the time of the convention, 13 men were merchants: Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gerry, Gilman, Gorham, Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson.

    Six were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gorham, Robert Morris, and Wilson.

    Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman.

    Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves as did Franklin who later freed his slaves and became an abolitionist.

    Broom and Few were small farmers.

    Nine of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office: Baldwin, Blair, Brearly, Gilman, Jenifer, Livingston, Madison, and Rutledge.

    Three had retired from active economic endeavors: Franklin, McHenry, and Mifflin.
    Franklin and Williamson were scientists, in addition to their other activities.

    McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson were physicians, and Johnson was a college president.

    Baldwin had been a Protestant minister, and Williamson, Madison, Ellsworth, and possibly others had studied theology but had never been ordained.

    Washington and Robert Morris ranked among the nation's most prosperous men.

    Carroll, Houston, Jenifer, and Mifflin
    were also extremely well-to-do.

    Among those with the most straitened circumstances were Baldwin, Brearly, Broom, Few, Madison, Paterson, and Sherman, though they all managed to live comfortably.

    A considerable number of the men were born into leading families: Blair, Butler, Carroll, Houston, Ingersoll, Jenifer, Johnson, Livingston, Mifflin, Gouverneur Morris, both Pinckneys, Randolph, Rutledge, Washington, and Wythe.

    Others were self-made men who had risen from humble beginnings: Few, Franklin, Gorham, Hamilton, and Sherman.

    Their religion:

    Episcopalian/Anglican - 88 - 54.7%
    Presbyterian - 30 - 18.6%
    Congregationalist - 27 - 16.8%
    Quaker - 7 - 4.3%
    Dutch Reformed/German Reformed - 6 - 3.7%
    Lutheran - 5 - 3.1%
    Catholic - 3 - 1.9%
    Huguenot - 3 - 1.9%
    Unitarian - 3 - 1.9%
    Methodist - 2 - 1.2%
    Calvinist - 1 - 0.6%

    I repeat. These were not radicals protesting to tear down society. These were reasoned, restrained, eductated men of means and position who revolted because of first economic problems - taxes, trade restrictions and blocking of the American west to settlement - and then loss of their right to self government. The first started the fire, the latter turned into a roaring furnance.

    And the result was not like the French evolution where the mob ruled, but a constitution that established an English like governemnt.

    Tracy. Read "A History of the American People," by Paul Johnson. And if you want an easy read on the problems in England, and how they provided a blueprint for our country's founding, read "Our First Revolution" by Michael Barone. (Don't be frightened. It is extensively footnoted and doesn't mention Iraq or Bush a single time.)

    Parent

    What Nonesense you spout (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 05:33:07 PM EST
    You are being selective with your statistics and foolish with their application.

    Sam Adams was pretty radical. So was Jefferson.  Thomas Paine was even more radical. Furthermore the you men listed were radicalized by their experiences as the independence movement progressed. Only committed radicalized men would sign their death warants by signing the Declaration of Indepence. You do understand that they risked their property and their lives by signing the Declaration?  

    Only committed radicalized men would put up with 1776-1777. Washington got his butt kicked at Brooklyn Heights and Long Island. They weren't doing it for the pay- the Contiential Congress had trouble paying the troops.

    I suggest to you only througly radicalized men would push on after those defeats  to marching in the middle of the night to victories at Princeton and Trenton. It was freezing and snowing, many of the men marched on empty stomachs with no shoes or boots.

    Winter at Valley Forge 1777-78?  Again, terrible conditions, freezing cold, few blankets, clothing in tatters, food scarce, disease- typhus, typhoid, dysentery, and pneumonia -killed as many as 2,000 men. Again I suggest to you that only throughly radicalized men would put up that.

    If you stopped to consider what you are talking about, it might dawn on you that taking up arms to overthrow your government is a radical thing to do. The fact that some of these men were men of property or education or well to do doesn't change that fact. Being a self made man doesn't change that fact.

    You are extremely naive to believe that only dirty hippie types can be radical. Try opening your mind, before you condescendingly tell someone what to read.

    BTW: The Boston Tea Party was a protest against a tax cut- Shocking!

    Tea exported from Great Britain was usually subject to an export tax, but Parliament agreed to exempt the company from that duty. Lord North again refused to repeal the remaining Townshend duty on tea, still devoted to its symbolic value. But even so, the exemption from export duties would allow the East India Company to sell the tea at rock-bottom prices, undercutting smugglers. American consumers would have enjoyed a windfall: a happy influx of cheap, high-quality British tea.



    Parent

    MB Wrong again (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 07:31:13 PM EST
    As usual, you make some off the cuff comment trying to try prove that I am naive, or some other Molly Whim of the moment.

    I understand full well that you don't have to be poor or dirty hippies to be radical. In fact, the 60's proved that, and it continues today. And for proof positive all we have to do is look at the English middle and upper middle class home grown radical Moslem terrorists.

    The founders were men of substance, not a mob running through the streets. If they shouted angry words their actions were deliberate. This wasn't France, who had no experience in self government, and in effect destroyed its own revolution.

    That they were not angry radicals is what makes us so unique. With calm and reason they crafted a constitution and established a republic, not a democracy. I find that unpleasant when I am in the majority. It gives me great comfort when I am not.

    They made no extreme changes. The Parliament became the House. The House of Lords became the Senate. The King became the President.. length of service was fixed, the house would change every two  years along with one third of the Senate so the length would be six years.. The President would serve for four years, but he could be re-elected time and again. Wisely Washington set the example..The courts would review the laws.. the Bank of England became the US bank. National debt was funded... and on and on. With memories of the deaths and fights over religion, none was included, and none excluded..

    No Molly, these were not radicals demanding extreme change, unbinding and fixated on old scores to settle. They traded the sweetness of revenge for a country. For a moment of pleasure for a country and a constitution for the ages.

    We had and have a Republic.

    If we can keep it.



    Parent
    condescending and wrong (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 10:11:26 PM EST
    You should avoid being condescending, it makes you look worse when you are wrong.

    1. Old scores? Tell it to the loyalists who packed up and left that no old scores were settled. In particular see the Carolinas and Georgia.

    2. You are defining radical as angry mobs running through the streets. You don't have to be an angry mob running the streets to be radical. Your definition is nonsense and pointless. But as long as we are on the subject of mobs, do the names Crispus Attucks or Daniel Shays or the phrase Whiskey Rebellion mean anything to you? The term mob depends on whose ox is getting gored or tea dumped in a harbor-

    Scarcely noted in the British press at first, the Boston Tea Party was magnified from a simple matter of destruction of property into an intolerable insult to British authority. Chiefly responsible for the incident were Sam Adams, a tough and cunning professional politician, who was said to control two Boston mobs which he exploited for his own personal gain and glory

    Try reading some histories from the British view. You will find they thought Boston was run by angry mobs. While Mobs existed, they are not what made the Revolution radical.

    1. The president is not now, nor ever the equivalent of king. That was a radical change in head of state. You don't think limiting the term of the head of state to 4 years was radical? It doesn't seem so to you today, but in 1789...

    2. Parliment is not the equivalent of our house of representatives. If you would avoid making off the cuff comments and learn to use the google, you might have discovered that Parliment in the UK is composed of two houses: The House of Lords and The House of Commons. I knew that without looking it up, BTW. Its a petty point, but one which you richly earned slapping with.

    3. Overthrowing the government by force of arms (a point which you are rather blase about) is by definition, an extreme change.

    I could go on, but its pointless. In the future don't be so cocksure of yorself and  condescending- you'll look less like Equus asinus.

     

    Parent

    MB (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:28:27 AM EST
    Let's us define radical as I did in my comment to Tracy, something you seem to want to ignore.

    marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : EXTREME b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>

    So continue to look for justification, Molly,  but it just isn't there.

    I say again, they made no radical changes because they were not radicals. They adapted what they knew to be good to their circumstance, and made it better with additions.

    And yes, I misspoke re Parliament having two parts, which of course became the House and the Senate in America. Thanks for confirming my point. And I am sure I deserved the pay back for exposing your lack of knowledge about Medicare.

    You are seeking to claim that the founders were radicals because you want to justify radical acts. Radical acts are often associated with mobs and mobs are associated with anarchy. See Seattle late 1999.

    The American rebels were not a mob. They had an organized Army, with a chain of command, an identifiable uniform, and a civilian government in charge.

    Their acts may have been angry, some of them made angry statements, and they were rebels. But by their actions they prove that they were not radicals.

    As for what I look like, as long as I don't look you, or adopt your politics, I shall be happy.


    Parent

    Sorry DA (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:03:15 AM EST
    But you are wrong.

    I say again, they made no radical changes because they were not radicals. They adapted what they knew to be good to their circumstance, and made it better with additions

    Good day!

    Parent

    DA (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 01:43:21 PM EST
    The difficulty that you and Molly have is that you fail to understand that we have two separate events.

    The first was the Revolutionary War, which was over in 1783. The second is the Constitutional Convention which was in 1787. My information to Tracy was about the latter and came from this link.

    I have noted that they weren't radicals based on several reasons. By and large radicals aren't people of substance, and they certainly don't accept compromise very well. And the Constutution certainly had many compromises.

    Parent

    Keep digging (none / 0) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:45:08 PM EST
    you will make it eventually.



    Parent

    I really like your style (none / 0) (#41)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 10:37:23 PM EST
    I sought to reply several times to ppj and kept tearing up the photons because he was so misogynistic I kept going off topic and potentially banned.

    Thanks for saying what I couldn't find the words for.

    Parent

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 07:06:27 AM EST
    Jim is such a fountain of misinformation, I sort of feel obligated to try and set the record straight. It is hard ometimes not to follow him  down the rabbit hole.



    Parent

    I'm getting quoted and accused of writing (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 03:35:13 PM EST
    Ever thought of starting a blog?  You could quote me, it could be cool.  I have to go to a kennel club meeting and I'm bringing Chinese so I can't read all of this but I'll try when I get back.

    Parent
    I guess this is another one of those ppj (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    life lessons where patience is lacking with the rest of us and we are without virtues.