LadyJazzer wrote: No, it wasn't a coup...But thanks for playing.
Too bad that Herbert Hoover started the Depression, and the people were fed up with the incompetence of the REPUBLICAN administration that destroyed the economy. So, they cleaned house, and kicked out all of the Republicans... Dang... That must hurt.
Could happen to the House in 2012 if the conservatives continue to ignore the people who put them there.......who are saying that the Republicans need to compromise, and that they want the deficit reduced with spending cuts AND new revenue. If the democrats can get themselves on message, the tea party movement is going to look like the obstructionists they are.
PrintSmith wrote: Coup - A brilliantly executed stratagem; a triumph.
Tell me what FDR and Congress did doesn't fit this definition from your particular point of view LJ. Go on, tell us their threatening of the court and subsequent packing of it wasn't, from you point of view, a brilliantly executed stratagem and a triumph for the progressive cause.
It was a coup......but thanks for playing.
Could you be any more disingenuous? Your pointed use of the term "coup" isn't in admiration of a brilliantly executed strategem, it's meant as a slam to evoke images of a South American banana republic military takeover.
I'm saying it's a coup regardless of which side of the political aisle one happens to associate themselves with AV. It is meant in a derogatory manner when I use it, but as the other definitions show, it is accurate in that instance as well. Now, the left may not like the association they attach to the word with a banana republic takeover, but that doesn't alter the reality that the context in which I use it is as accurate when I use it as it would be if LJ were to use the word to describe the same event from her perspective.
No matter how one views the event, coup accurately and properly describes what occurred.
PrintSmith wrote: I'm saying it's a coup regardless of which side of the political aisle one happens to associate themselves with AV. It is meant in a derogatory manner when I use it, but as the other definitions show, it is accurate in that instance as well. Now, the left may not like the association they attach to the word with a banana republic takeover, but that doesn't alter the reality that the context in which I use it is as accurate when I use it as it would be if LJ were to use the word to describe the same event from her perspective.
No matter how one views the event, coup accurately and properly describes what occurred.
What if I called you "gay" and then pointed to the dictionary to show that there were other definitions than the one you object to as justification for continuing to do so?
Because the Dictionary I looked up in had only had two definitions:
A) a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.
A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group. In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état, or coup, does not involve a mass uprising. Rather, in the typical coup, a small group of politicians or generals arrests the incumbent leaders, seizes the national radio and television services, and proclaims itself in power.
Both of which, of course, are lies in the case of FDR...
You're a liar, PS... There was no coup...But thanks for playing.
Gay would be must less pejorative, even in a homosexual context, than nearly everything LJ routinely calls me here AV. Sticks and stones. Call me anything you like, just don't call me late for dinner.
And just so we understand each other, my use of the term coup is accurate even under a banana republic understanding of the term since the coup of the court was accomplished before the packing of the court was. The threat of packing the court with justices who would rule for FDR and Congress if they persisted in overturning their laws was little more than sticking a loaded gun in the face of the current justices to compel them to raise their hands in surrender. That much is evidenced by the "Switch in Time That Saved Nine" whereby the Social Security Act was ruled constitutional by the very same court, after the threat was issued mind you, that had rejected as unconstitutional the AAA even though the financing mechanism, which was the basis for the AAA being ruled unconstitutional if you remember, was for all intents and purposes identical in nature. The only reasoned explanation for that switch is found among the definitions I provided earlier, a sudden appropriation of leadership or power; a takeover, a failure of the incumbent to prevent a consolidation of power by the usurpers. FDR's appointees didn't interpret the law according to the Constitution, what they did instead was substitute their ideology for the Constitution by torturing new meaning from the text of that document to excuse the consolidation of power within the federal government they desired it to have.
There was no coup d'etat. There was a popular president, who was elected...along with an unbreakable majority of Congress, ALSO elected, and they packed the court, as was their Constitutional right, with the judges of their choice and who were confirmed. You've conveniently ignored my reponse in a previous message:
How did he happen to HAVE that huge majority in Congress?... Oh wait... He came in after Herbert Hoover started the Depression, and the people were fed up with the incompetence of the REPUBLICAN administration that destroyed the economy. So, they cleaned house, and kicked out all of the Republicans... Dang... That must hurt.
FDR succeeded because the Republicans blew it, and the Dems took over control... How did they get control?...They were voted in by the PEOPLE who were fed up with the Republicans.
If the Republicans didn't like it, they had the same Constitutional rules to change it ... by voting their party back into office and replacing the court.... What they did was LEGAL, and Constitutional...
Ironic isn't it that the man chosen to lead the country out of the ill-informed Republican governance that brought on the Depression and Crash of 1929, elected someone they saw as their savior to the previous Hoover administration's elitism and nincompoopery. Who would have thought that the same moronic idiocy that didn't work in 1929, would be the "Call of the Righties" in 2011?
Isn't it also fascinating that this alleged "dictator", "usurper", was ELECTED to the office FOUR TIMES... I guess if the PEOPLE were so unhappy, or thought he was doing such a lousy job, or that he had somehow STOLEN their country from them, they could have run a better candidate and voted him out of office... That's how it's done... Elections... (A difficult concept for you, I'm sure...if you can't suppress the vote, play games with the ballot boxes, or find enough ways to do dirty tricks on your opponents...) But if he was so bad, why didn't they vote him out and replace him?
Sorry, Nutter, but your coup d'etat rant is so much bullsh*t. And you're still a liar.
LadyJazzer wrote: A) a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.
Tell me that the threat of packing the court was not an exercising of force LJ. What the effect of that threat was can only be accurately described as a change of government through the use of force. The application of force does not have to be illegal, hence the term "or" that appears in the definition you provided. The use of legal force is still a use of force to effect a change in government, which is exactly what FDR and his congressional cabal of Democrats did. Thank you for providing yet more evidence that coup properly describes their actions.
LadyJazzer wrote: What they did was LEGAL, and Constitutional...
Along with the use of force to effect a change in government. When a police officer shoots someone, that is always a use of force. Sometimes it is a legal use of force, sometimes it is an illegal one, but it is a use of force in every instance.
A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group. In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état, or coup, does not involve a mass uprising. Rather, in the typical coup, a small group of politicians or generals arrests the incumbent leaders, seizes the national radio and television services, and proclaims itself in power.
