"In a typical coup" is not inclusive of every coup LJ, for the qualifier that it contains leaves out atypical coups, which perfectly describes the one perpetrated by FDR and Congress against the judicial branch of the goverment and by extension the Constitution. My use of the term is accurate and consistent with its definition. You might not like it, but what you like or don't like is not relevant to whether it is a correct use of the term.
What FDR did brings to mind the dialog between Michael and Kate during the wedding in the original 'Godfather' movie where Michael says his father made someone an offer they couldn't refuse when he put a gun to the man's head and told him that either his brains or his signature would be on the contract that released the singer, but either way the singer would be released. It is, I will admit, an imperfect metaphor, but it captures the imagery of the threat issued by two branches of the government against the third very well. FDR and Congress had a problem you see. Their Social Security legislation relied on a funding mechanism that had just been deemed unconstitutional and was scheduled for an appearance before that same court. Something had to be done, and soon, or it too would get tossed out. And so they told the court to either rubber stamp their agenda or they would put enough new justices on the court who would. One way or another the court would be populated by justices that ruled in favor of their agenda.
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... Now THERE's a coup.
LadyJazzer wrote: There was no coup... But thanks for playing.
:Snooze
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... Now THERE's a coup.
Diana DeGette voted down the current cap deal. Is she holding America hostage too? Those crazy congressional lefties are just like Stalin's Bolsheviks trying to take down democracy!
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Nah, she voted against it because it didn't have the tax increases the leader of her party demanded. And while I do disagree with her (lack of) reasoning on why she voted against it, the fact that she voted the same way as many Republicans did should tell us that both sides felt like they gave too much to the other side in order to get the measure to the desk of the executive.
LadyJazzer wrote: There was no coup... But thanks for playing.
:Snooze
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... Now THERE's a coup.
Does this mean you disagree with that sentiment; that the members of Congress elected by their constituents to stop the DC spending train are holding the rest of the nation hostage and that they are terrorists who should not be negotiated with? Because if you agree with that sentiment, and I've got a shiny Roosevelt dime that says you do, then what they are doing would indeed fall under the same definition of coup I am using to describe what FDR and Congress did. Now, we can argue about the success or lack thereof of their attempted coup, and the ramifications of it long term, but you won't find me pretending that they are not legally attempting to enact a fundamental change in the current government with regards to the addiction that DC has to spending money they don't have and have no hope of ever collecting in sufficient quantities to support their habit.
I've answered you... There was no coup...But thanks for playing...
Now, if you want to admit that what the Tealiban Terrorists have been doing is a coup on the House, then perhaps we can reach an accommodation. However, that does NOT fit the definition of "coup", as defined the Dictionary...
