napfirst Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Ok. I'll give you the long version here, which will be my last post on the subject: What I was doing was asking Trim what it would take at this point to satisfy him. What I believe it would take to satisfy Trim, is for the Obama supporters on this board to say "You're right. We were wrong. He's the wrong man for the job, he's failing, he's way over his head, even his wife is totally outclassed as demonstrated by this unforgivable breach of etiquette. Clearly we should have elected McCain instead." That's what I believe Trim would like all the Obama supporters to say. That is what I believe would satisfy him. Therefore, I used Cindy McCain, who would have been first lady had John McCain been elected. (There, I've spelled it out for you. Now do you understand "what the hell" Cindy McCain has to do with it?) Are you with me so far? Having any trouble getting any of this? This whole damn thread is about nothing but politics. We have a popular president, who is popular not only here at home, but also abroad. So far, he is not being blamed for the mess he stepped into. So far, he is not being blamed as a failure. Unfortunately many of those who did not support him are absolutely wetting themselves trying to find something, anything, to point at as a sign of failure. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. I will mention the absurdity of Trindingman blaming FDR (that's Mies Van Der Rohe on my avatar by the way) for the current economic mess. Just incredible. If you want to cast your lot with intellect of that caliber, go right ahead. And I am done with this thread in 3 .... 2 .... 1 .... - now that wasn't so hard was it? ( no answer necessary since you're not posting on this thread anymore)...your partner Critic was taking me to task for bringing politics into this when in fact it was you.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Well Mr. Retro-man, you do have a good way with words,, my feeling's exactly. Thank you, you summed it up nicely. so you like his response.....good...no politics there...right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted April 5, 2009 Author Share Posted April 5, 2009 He must have thought that it was about gay sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 (edited) That is socialist reasoning. If A does not equal B then it must equal C. Socialists don't support the Monarchy....you don't support the Monarchy....therefore, you are a socialist. Edited April 6, 2009 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Socialists don't support the Monarchy....you don't support the Monarchy....therefore, you are a socialist. OMG, Trimmy is a SOCIALIST!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 OMG, Trimmy is a SOCIALIST!!! Well, following his own logic, it appears that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted April 6, 2009 Author Share Posted April 6, 2009 Well, following his own logic, it appears that way. That is socialist logic. I do not support the monarchy. Socialists do not support the monarchy. Therefore I am a socialist. Are there any other people who are not socialists who do not support the monarchy? That is too complicated a concept for a someone educated and indoctrinated in the Liberal Arts to grasp. I will try to give you an example to demonstrate where you err in your "logic". A bear lives in the woods. A rabbit lives in the woods. Therefore a bear is a rabbit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted April 6, 2009 Author Share Posted April 6, 2009 The way I originally put is was: If A doesn't equal B, then it must equal C. That is socialist logic. Maybe A equals something else, like 2D+5, or (6X-1)/7W. Socialists don't know that the Queen stands for more than just herself. When you touch the Queen, you are touching every citizen of the British Commonwealth. You are saying to them that you are higher than they are. If you are a politician, you are a servant to the people, so you should bow or curtsey to the Queen to acknowledge your position of servitude to the people. Regular citizens bow to the Queen to show respect for their peers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Are there any other people who are not socialists who do not support the monarchy? in theory, only a socialist would support a monarchy. There is no room for a monarchy in capitalism, fascism or communism (the other 3 economic models) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted April 6, 2009 Author Share Posted April 6, 2009 in theory, only a socialist would support a monarchy. There is no room for a monarchy in capitalism, fascism or communism (the other 3 economic models) The monarchy that is the British Commonwealth fits nicely into Democracy if you look at it the proper way. The Queen is a symbol embodying the people. The government is a step down from the people, and also the Queen, so the heads of government, when they show proper protocol around the Queen, are acknowledging this. Some politicians think that they are above the common people and find bowing down to the Queen distasteful. My objection to Canada belonging to the British Commonwealth is that I want Canada to cut all of its apron strings and be a totally independent country, like America. There are many people in Canada who have ancestrors who clashed bitterly with England. This includes some of our Aboriginal peoples, and also our founding Francophones. For many of them, having the Queen of England as their symbolic head of state really rankles. That is why they can't put their full hearts into Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 The monarchy that is the British Commonwealth fits nicely into Democracy if you look at it the proper way. democracy is a political model. socialsim is an economic model. 2 different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Ms. Obama broke protocol. As the spouse of a head of state, she should know better. Just as any visiting dignitary to the US needs to follow certain protocols as well. since we are obviously SO living in the past, Queeny should have screamed 'Off with her head.....'....come on guys, get over it, bout time she embraced PROGRESS! in fact shes probably PENT up having to conform to "protocol" ( as is being tossed around ) F the idiots that take offense, get over it, talk about a mountain out of a molehill..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Moving right along, as they say, Michelle followed up with a get-together with Carla Bruni. Gave her a limited-issue Gibson J-45. http://blog.wired.com/sterling/2009/04/here-carla-take.html After a long search, a mint, 1942 J-45 was located. Owned by renowned acoustic guitar expert and author Eldon Whitford, the guitar was perfect. It was historically significant, as 1942 was the first year of production for the J-45. The fact that the J-45 is the number one selling acoustic guitar in Gibson's history didn't hurt either! Mr. Whitford was kind enough to loan the guitar to Gibson for a painstakingly thorough examination. The guitar went through both X-ray and cat scans (((<----))) to accurately determine the bracing patterns, wood thickness. The glue and finish were chemically analyzed. To make a long story short, Gibson learned everything about that guitar. The result? The guitar you see here the "Legends Series" 1942 J-45. Smooth move, Michelle, the perfect gift, considering Carla used to be an item with ol' Slowhand, before marrying Sarkozi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 My objection to Canada belonging to the British Commonwealth is that I want Canada to cut all of its apron strings and be a totally independent country, like America. We are. It is not the British Commonwealth, is is the Commonwealth of Nations. None of the countries that belong have any power over each other. The Queen of The United Kingdom and The Queen of Canada are two separate entities, even if they are embodied by the same person. The role of Queen Elizabeth as Canada's head of state is completely separate from that of her role as The United Kingdom's head of state. We are no more tied to Britain by being a member of The Commonwealth than are we are tied to France by being a member of La Francophone (there are also republics that belong to The Commonwealth - those countries just aren't realms anymore). Our system is part of our culture and heritage and we should embrace it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefstang Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Wow. That's all... Just wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 That is socialist logic. I do not support the monarchy. Socialists do not support the monarchy. Therefore I am a socialist. Are there any other people who are not socialists who do not support the monarchy? That is too complicated a concept for a someone educated and indoctrinated in the Liberal Arts to grasp. I will try to give you an example to demonstrate where you err in your "logic". A bear lives in the woods. A rabbit lives in the woods. Therefore a bear is a rabbit. OMG!!! Trimmy is a Socialist Rabbit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 So people who don't like the monarchy live in the woods? I'd rather think about Carla. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted April 7, 2009 Author Share Posted April 7, 2009 since we are obviously SO living in the past, Queeny should have screamed 'Off with her head.....'....come on guys, get over it, bout time she embraced PROGRESS! in fact shes probably PENT up having to conform to "protocol" ( as is being tossed around ) F the idiots that take offense, get over it, talk about a mountain out of a molehill..... The Queen has devoted her whole life to performing her duties. She is over 80 years old. If she was tired of her job, she would have handed it over to her son. She knows how much she is loved and admired, so she continues in her role to please her people. I was in kindergarten when Queen Elizabeth II was coronated. I would never have believed that she would still be there when I was in my sixties. My father saw her during the war when she was a princess. I saw her in an old newsreel made during the war. She was doing mechanical work on an army truck, big smile, and grease up to her elbows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted April 7, 2009 Author Share Posted April 7, 2009 We are. It is not the British Commonwealth, is is the Commonwealth of Nations. None of the countries that belong have any power over each other. The Queen of The United Kingdom and The Queen of Canada are two separate entities, even if they are embodied by the same person. The role of Queen Elizabeth as Canada's head of state is completely separate from that of her role as The United Kingdom's head of state. We are no more tied to Britain by being a member of The Commonwealth than are we are tied to France by being a member of La Francophone (there are also republics that belong to The Commonwealth - those countries just aren't realms anymore). Our system is part of our culture and heritage and we should embrace it. We have the queen on our money, and the queen is our head of state. The English put a bounty on the Mi'qmak, and they burned and pillaged the Quebecois and Acadian civilian farmers in NS, NB, and along the St. Lawrence. There is a movement in Nova Scotia to have the name Cornwallis eradicated for attempted genocide. There is a lot of deep resentment for England in Canada. If these peoples' feelings count for less to Canada than membership in the British Commonwealth, then Canada should not be surprised if they are less than patriotic to Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 oh yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 The Queen has devoted her whole life to performing her duties. She is over 80 years old. If she was tired of her job, she would have handed it over to her son. She knows how much she is loved and admired, so she continues in her role to please her people. I was in kindergarten when Queen Elizabeth II was coronated. I would never have believed that she would still be there when I was in my sixties. My father saw her during the war when she was a princess. I saw her in an old newsreel made during the war. She was doing mechanical work on an army truck, big smile, and grease up to her elbows. I'm crossing my fingers that she passes the crown straight to William. He is more of a sense of duty like his grandmother and great-grandmother than his father or uncles do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I'm crossing my fingers that she passes the crown straight to William. He is more of a sense of duty like his grandmother and great-grandmother than his father or uncles do. I feel sorry for Charles. The guy has trained and dedicated his whole life to a job he may never get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I feel sorry for Charles. The guy has trained and dedicated his whole life to a job he may never get. in all fairness, he got paid for that training and secondly, he didn't train hard enough as evidenced by the dumb $hit he does and says Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 in all fairness, he got paid for that training and secondly, he didn't train hard enough as evidenced by the dumb $hit he does and says pretty common Royal trait no...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 pretty common Royal trait no...... Let's not forget young Harry who thought Nazis were funny. His grandmother should have had some words with him over that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.