And by all means, keep avoiding presenting an argument that the threat issued by FDR and Congress was not a use of force and thus consistent with the definition of coup that LJ provided us with when she dismissed the ones provided by me. I took the opposing side's argument and used material provided by them to further sustain the argument I was making instead, leaving the opposing side without a counter argument. That usually indicates a winning tactic in debating Kate, something that verbose name calling fails to do. Care now to try and defeat the argument I have offered with one of your own on whether or not the issuing of a threat constitutes a use of force?
And for the record, what I argued was that there was room for a more liberal inclusion in the list of who was a founding father based upon services rendered to an infant nation during the founding era. I also forwarded a position that the only argument against such a more liberal inclusion was that it would remove the excuse for further politics of personal destruction attacks from those that were engaging in that enterprise. As far as I know, and you can feel free to correct me if I am wrong, there is no comprehensive list of founding fathers that exists and whether or not one does or does not belong to that august body of individuals is sometimes a matter of opinion alone. For instance Andrew Jackson. He was a messenger during the Revolutionary War but is usually excluded from inclusion in the list of founding fathers even though participation in the war is one of the generally agreed upon parameters. Thus whether or not one considers him to be a founding father, which many do, boils down to individual opinion on the matter, as would be the case with JQA.
Bachmann includes him in the list because of his contributions to an infant nation and life of government service from the founding era until his death, others exclude him because of his age at the time the war began. It is hardly a black and white issue and certainly doesn't deserve the degree of criticism received because a different opinion is held except for it provided an excuse to engage in intrigue by the political opponents of Bachmann. That is the simple truth of the matter Kate, the main reason for opposing a more liberal inclusion was that it allowed the left to heap personal attacks upon Bachmann, not to preserve the purity of the list of founding fathers. I'm sorry that this reality sticks so deeply in your craw when pointed out to you, but the evidence at hand clearly supports that conclusion.
The evidence at hand also supports my use of the word coup to describe the actions of FDR and Congress as they relate to the threat issued to the Supreme Court by the other two branches of government, even using the definition provided by one who disagrees with my stated position. Now you can either attempt to show how issuing a threat is not a use of force or concede that it is a use of force and thus concede that the use of the word coup to describe the actions of FDR and Congress is properly applied, the choice is up to you. The truth is apparent regardless of whether or not you attempt to defend the indefensible, so it makes no difference to me personally, but I thought you might be interested in helping LJ salvage at least a small measure of her dignity and help her out of the hole she dug herself so deeply into.
Bachmann included him in the list because she's a moron that thinks Lexington and Concord are in New Hampshire... But, of course, this wouldn't dissuade you from seeing her as two points above pond-scum.
I don't need to tell you something that is on its face not true... Give it up, liar..
Of course, now if we are talking about the same kind of "threat of force" that the Teabagger hostage-takers in the House are using to hold America hostage to their nutjob ideology and take control of the House, I would consider that more of a "coup" than 1936...
But we both know that's a bogus use of the word, don't we.... My dignity is fine, thank you.. I'm not the mental giant who thinks Michelle Bachmann is smart, or that John Quincy Adams was a founding father, or that there was a coup in 1936--when there wasn't.
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...
LadyJazzer wrote: I don't need to tell you something that is on its face not true... Give it up, liar..
Sticks and stones LJ. Still no intelligent answer as to why issuing a threat is not a use of force I see, so you turn to the only fallback available - the calling of names. Liar, heretic, racist......all empty labels hurled in an attempt to end a discussion when the facts in evidence are contrary to the position held by the one attempting to end the discussion. That play is old, worn out, tired and totally ineffective LJ, much as the regressive policies held by those that favor a single central government are.
The same kind of "threat of force" that the Teabagger hostage-takers in the House are using to hold America hostage to their nutjob ideology and take control of the House?
I don't need to tell you something that is on its face not true... That answers your question. I don't give a sh*t if you like the answer or not.
I see LJ has provided the definition once again, but no explanation as to why issuing a threat is not a use of force or how that use of force didn't change the government of this nation. Keep digging LJ - you might get to China eventually, but it won't alter that threats are a use of force (which is why the issuance of an unlawful threat, "I'm going to kill you" for instance, are prosecuted and punished as assaults) or that the use of such force by FDR and Congress did in fact change the government of the United States, thus conforming to the specifics of the definition you provided, making it an accurate use of the term.
Logic and reason, the two enemies of the left, are not altered by your attempts to insult a person LJ. And your continued reliance upon such hollow falsities only exposes the utter lack of substance contained in your contentions. I can defend my premise using your definition, but you have no defense of yours other than continued attempts at personal attacks. What does this tell us LJ?
I see PrintSmith is just repeating the same old invalid assumption from his imaginary world that others are supposed to respond to.
I don't need to tell you something that is on its face not true... That answers the question. I don't five a sh*t if you like the answer or not.
Of course, now if we are talking about the same kind of "threat of force" that the Teabagger hostage-takers in the House are using to hold America hostage to their nutjob ideology and take control of the House, I would consider that more of a "coup" than 1936...
But we both know that's a bogus use of the word, don't we.... My dignity is fine, thank you.. I'm not the mental giant who thinks Michelle Bachmann is smart, or that John Quincy Adams was a founding father, or that there was a coup in 1936--when there wasn't.
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...
LadyJazzer wrote: IOf course, now if we are talking about the same kind of "threat of force" that the Teabagger hostage-takers in the House are using to hold America hostage to their nutjob ideology and take control of the House, I would consider that more of a "coup" than 1936...
]
Yes, the president should not have negotiated with the hostage takers. He should have sent in the Seals.
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.
