LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

How many Rep'n senators will there be?

How many Republican senators [US] will there be after the votes are counted?

  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
Pure

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
Prognosticators come forth, you have nothing to lose but your credibility. Tea Partiers, angry Democrats, and frustrated socialists-- how will your cause do?

(apologies for distracting those enjoying the half dozen writerly threads, threads on miscreant priests and bishops, and puritanical menaces to artistic expression)
 
50-50 with Biden spending the next 2 years in the Senate to break ties.
 
why can't i put you on ignore where you belong.

Go back to whatever forum you moderate on and post your crap there. We don't need nor do we want it.
 
Pure, as you are a moderator on another forum, surely you can restrain yourself from putting shitty, useless, inflammatory, GB posts on this one.

Shame on you.

Tx, with the firefox plugin in my sig you can put Pure on ignore, even though the primary forum software does not want you to.
 
Authors' Hangout

A place for writers and readers to socialize and discuss the craft of writing.
 
Pure said:
Authors' Hangout

A place for writers and readers to socialize and discuss the craft of writing.
Click to expand...

Where does bullshit politics fit in that?

It sure isn't socializing and it's sure not discussing the craft of writing.

Like I said, take it to your own forum. We don't need it or want it.
 
Fox News just predicted the outcome of the Indiana Senatorial race...a plus one for Republicans.

Don't let a couple of whiney bitches sour your mood....You and I and many, many others have been exchanging thoughts on every subject under the sun and that is as it should be.

Amicus
 
10:15 pm.

i'm inclined to shade my estimate downward--48 republicans.

thank god for ms o'donnell.

a bright new face that impresses me is Rubio, cuban american and massive winner in FL-- more than Crist and what's's name combined.

a clear new voice, of amicus-like simplicity, is Rand Paul in Kentucky, who's calling for downsizing federal spending and leaving it to the corporations and bankers to solve things, 'free market' style.

obama's unwillingness to challenge the 'bankers solution' -- foreclose on you and sell, after being bailed out-- got him into trouble. we'll be hearing similar 'freedom loving' and 'founding fathers' wisdom' from mr. paul.
 
Hello, my socialist friend...been a while...my oldest son carries Rand, as his middle name, I wonder if Rand Paul was named after Ayn Rand also?
"...a clear new voice, of amicus-like simplicity, is Rand Paul in Kentucky, who's calling for downsizing federal spending and leaving it to the corporations and bankers to solve things, 'free market' style..."
Click to expand...

I take your criticisim of 'simplicity' as you intended, a pejorative, but hark! I have a contention with that.

The most magnificent and truly intellectual leap of light years came in the 1770's when an amazing and startling concept was put forth and codified, that the individual man bowed down to no Duke, no Earl (where is Earl by the way), no King, no Tyrant, no Queen, no human entity at all, but only to the almighty Creator(which I disagree with, but...).

Tribal life is simple, da Chief tells everyone what to do, ask Cloudy. Communal life is truly simplistic, no one knows anything or does anything and eventually they all die.

My dear Pure, the 'difficult' aspect of communal life, whatever you name it, is knowing just how much blood you can suck from the host before the host up & dies.:)

;)

ami
 
rand paul. american exceptionalism

pure said,

//"...a clear new voice, of amicus-like simplicity, is Rand Paul in Kentucky, who's calling for downsizing federal spending and leaving it to the corporations and bankers to solve things, 'free market' style..." //

ami replied

I take your criticisim of 'simplicity' as you intended, a pejorative, but hark! I have a contention with that.

The most magnificent and truly intellectual leap of light years came in the 1770's when an amazing and startling concept was put forth and codified, that the individual man bowed down to no Duke, no Earl (where is Earl by the way), no King, no Tyrant, no Queen, no human entity at all, but only to the almighty Creator(which I disagree with, but...).

Tribal life is simple, da Chief tells everyone what to do, ask Cloudy. Communal life is truly simplistic, no one knows anything or does anything and eventually they all die.

My dear Pure, the 'difficult' aspect of communal life, whatever you name it, is knowing just how much blood you can suck from the host before the host up & dies.

===
My present reply is as follows. No I didn't mean the term 'simplicity' applied to Rand Paul as necessarily pejorative. He's simply wrong that the corporations and banks, unregulated and under "limited government" would solve the current crisis in ways acceptable to most americans--i.e. those who have jobs, and who, under reasonable re negotiation could avoid foreclosure.

As to:
The most magnificent and truly intellectual leap of light years came in the 1770's when an amazing and startling concept was put forth and codified, that the individual man bowed down to no Duke, no Earl (where is Earl by the way), no King,

no, there was no such leap. American exceptionalism, a doctrine picked up by the Tea Partiers like mr. paul, amd political writers such as ms rand, etc. is mostly bogus.

rights of the individual, as against government, were clearly stated in Grotius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#David_Hume
Hugo Grotius


In the early 17th century, Grotius (1583–1645) introduced the modern idea of natural rights of individuals. Grotius postulates that each individual has natural rights that enable self-preservation and employs this idea as a basis for moral consensus in the face of religious diversity and the rise of natural science. He seeks to find a parsimonious basis for a moral beginning for society, a kind of natural law that everyone could potentially accept.

He goes so far as to say even if we were to concede what we cannot concede without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God, these laws would still hold. The idea was considered incendiary, since it suggested that power can ultimately go back to the individuals if the political society that they have set up forfeits the purpose for which it was originally established, which is to preserve themselves. In other words, the people i.e. the individual people, are sovereign.
=====
As far as practice, you ignore British history:


A Brief history of the Western World, by Thomas Green., p 450 [google books]

Determined to keep the new ruler in check, [British] Parliament in 1689 passed the Bill of Rights, which declare parliamentary supremacy over the crown and spelled out English civil liberties. This historic measure complete the revolution that had started in 1642. It stated that the kind could suspend laws, raise armies, and levy taxes only with the consent of Parliament.... the Bill of Rights also guaranteed every citizen the right to petition the monarch, to keep arms, and to enjoy 'due proces of law" (trial by jury and freedom from arbitrary arrest and cruel or unusual punishment.. This was a restatement of the guarantees of the Magna Carta, but they were now expressed in more specific language.

The triumph of Parliament in 1689 was important for two main reasons. It put an end to absolutism and established a governing aristocracy (of property owners; at the same time, it strengthened the exercise of indivudal freedoms for all. the wider enjoyment of civil rights led, eventually to a demand for wider sharing of political power, as well.

===

pure: so parliamentary supremacy was established 100 years before the US constitution. and you'll note the listed contents of the Bill of Rights, in bold type.

Green summarizing: the [British] Bill of Rights also guaranteed every citizen the right to petition the monarch, to keep arms, and to enjoy 'due proces of law" (trial by jury and freedom from arbitrary arrest and cruel or unusual punishment..

The American Bill of Rights, over a 100 years later, is rather clearly reflective of the rights of British citizens.

The Americans under their "Bill" passed ca 1800, gained no further rights than possessed by their brothers and sisters in Britain (which is not to deny abuses occurred in Britain).

I might mention also that the Dutch Republic, w/o a king, existed and flourished in the 17th century, and was indeed a place that emigres from Britain first enjoyed many of the freedoms they were later to enshrine in their founding documents.
 
Last edited:
Ah, Pure, let me offer an accolade for your scholarly approach to open, unfettered debate or discussion, as you wish. Your presence, even if in opposition to mine, is an asset to this forum.

With that said...heh...

put forth and codified
Click to expand...

I suspect that tens of thousands of rational thinker's, unwilling to bow before King or God, postulated the supremacy of the individual while mankind was still in the hunter/gatherer stage of evolution.

Not really 'manifest destiny', but, if the English had discovered and colonized South and Central America instead of the very Catholic Spanish, perhaps there would have been two 'new worlds' free of Kings and Gods, that mankind could have flourished in.

Europe was, and is, destined to remain an internecine miasma of conflicting cultures, religions and warfare, while North, and could be South, America, had wide open continents with no borders, save the indigenous hu8nter/gatherers, who never had a chance.

I imply, by all of that, that the time and place for the realization of human freedom was in North America, at the time and place given.

A thousand years in the future, mankind will look back and confirm my observation that American exceptionalism arose from the declaration that the individual is supreme over the herd.

Simple as that and a shame to waste a fine mind such as yours on the trivia of hive mechanics.

And...by the way, I applaud you for ignoring the perverted minority and being your, 'pure' self, on this forum.

:rose:

Amicus
 
and the winners...

it appears that huck and loring were right, assuming bennet won colorado.

that leaves murray in washington and murkowski (v. miller) in alaska with tiny leads or unknown.

assume the Rep'ns take one of those, and the total becomes 47. if Repubs take none, then 46.
 
Pure said:
it appears that huck and loring were right, assuming bennet won colorado.

that leaves murray in washington and murkowski (v. miller) in alaska with tiny leads or unknown.

assume the Rep'ns take one of those, and the total becomes 47. if Repubs take none, then 46.
Click to expand...

It does look that way, except for being ungrammatical. :)

In AK, the two people in contention are both Republicans. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

THROBBS
ABC Exhausting, though not Exhaustive
Replies
9
Views
7K
Sunlover102
Sunlover102
K
How Socialists Built America
3 4 5
Replies
108
Views
5K
KingOrfeo
K
riff
For SINthia: Deviant Behavior in Online Multimedia Communities
Replies
7
Views
1K
SINthysist
SINthysist
Back
Top