Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dæl wrote:Your constitution, I believe, can be amended to keep up with moral relativism.

Leaving aside your strange reference to moral relativism, the fact that the Constitution may be amended is likely it's best feature.

Government isn't about people, or at least shouldn't be.

That is a chilling slogan indeed.

Kilkrazy wrote:

dæl wrote:

Manchu wrote:And the preservation of the monarchy is not the stumbling block that prevents us from achieving a fair and just society.

But a head of state chosen by birth is mutually exclusive with a meritocracy, hell, it's mutually exclusive with a democracy.

Do you really believe everyone born in the USA has the same chance of becoming president?

Do you really hate soldiers?

[my question makes as much sense as yours]

Scrabb wrote:[my question makes as much sense as yours]

If KK's question was truly as irrelevant as yours, yours would still not be relevant. But KK's question is quite relevant. As for the picture, it is widely held that poor people end up in the military far more often than rich people. The DoD maintains that the American military is solidly middle class, of course.

dæl wrote:

AustonT wrote:I suppose I can forgive you because the image didn't work but no it is not the 10 commandments. It's the Twelve Tables.

Much more relevant, but still it legislated for an unquestioned hierarchy, which is a monarchy by another name. Still, I don't really know enough about them to know their benefits and failings.

Laws clearly eteched into actual stone. Just as if not more malleable than any other laws. In other words there's no such thing as laws etched in stone (metaphorically speaking)

@matty

If you were to meet the Queen there are demands on protocol which must be adhered to, noone else has the right to ask you to bow to them. You can't be incarcerated for not doing so, but still, even the request/demand is offensive, archaic and demeaning.

Exactly what right are they put there by then? Because it's always been a divine one (which as the head of a religion has always seemed a conflict of interest to me). And we are subjugated, we are beneath them, therefore are their subjects.

If you want unflinching reverence, turn on your telly, it's being inhabited by idiots.

And I have no divine right, being an atheist precludes me from one.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you really believe everyone born in the USA has the same chance of becoming president?

I believe that everyone has a chance to, maybe not the same chance, but a chance nonetheless.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you really believe everyone born in the USA has the same chance of becoming president?

You don't even have to be born in the USA.

Manchu wrote:As for the picture, it is widely held that poor people end up in the military far more often than rich people.

10 of the last 12 presidents served in the military. Only 12 presidents never served.

Manchu wrote:

dæl wrote:Your constitution, I believe, can be amended to keep up with moral relativism.

Leaving aside your strange reference to moral relativism, the fact that the Constitution may be amended is likely it's best feature.

Government isn't about people, or at least shouldn't be.

That is a chilling slogan indeed.

People pass, nations continue. But you must allow for moral relativism, say your constitution had made homosexuality illegal, that would need amending.

AustonT wrote:
Laws clearly eteched into actual stone. Just as if not more malleable than any other laws. In other words there's no such thing as laws etched in stone (metaphorically speaking)

Yes, but there is a difference between referenda on amendments, and the animal farm 'up a ladder in the dead of night with a pot of paint'

biccat wrote:You don't even have to be born in the USA.

Hawaii declared independence then?

biccat wrote:10 of the last 12 presidents served in the military. Only 12 presidents never served.

11 of the last 12 presidents were white. Only 1 president has been non-white. Can we conclude from this that all white people have the same chance of becoming president?

Manchu wrote:11 of the last 12 presidents were white. Only 1 president has been non-white. Can we conclude from this that all white people have the same chance of becoming president?

Yep.

dæl wrote:

biccat wrote:You don't even have to be born in the USA.

Hawaii declared independence then?

Not to my knowledge, why?

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:

biccat wrote:You don't even have to be born in the USA.

Hawaii declared independence then?

Not to my knowledge, why?

Figured you were inferring Obama's place of birth.

Manchu wrote:

Scrabb wrote:[my question makes as much sense as yours]

If KK's question was truly as irrelevant as yours, yours would still not be relevant. But KK's question is quite relevant. As for the picture, it is widely held that poor people end up in the military far more often than rich people. The DoD maintains that the American military is solidly middle class, of course.

I thought KK was showing us the next President. You know, white, military background and all. Maybe he can shed some light on the situation.

You and dæl were discussing the monarchy and meritocracies. Dæl claimed meritocracies and democracies were incompatable with monarchies. He never said America was a good example of a meritocracy.

I guess I'm frustrated with KillKrazy. He used to discuss things on these boards. Presumably he got tired of people misconstruing his positions and being willfully ignorant and has now given up making constructive points.

I guess the suggestion was that the absence of monarchy does not actually make a society more meritocratic. The US, sharing the same language and much of the same history as far as government goes with Great Britain, is an adroit example.

Scrabb wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Scrabb wrote:[my question makes as much sense as yours]

If KK's question was truly as irrelevant as yours, yours would still not be relevant. But KK's question is quite relevant. As for the picture, it is widely held that poor people end up in the military far more often than rich people. The DoD maintains that the American military is solidly middle class, of course.

I thought KK was showing us the next President. You know, white, military background and all. Maybe he can shed some light on the situation.

It's Prince Harry in Afghanistan.

Manchu wrote:I guess the suggestion was that the absence of monarchy does not actually make a society more meritocratic. The US, sharing the same language and much of the same history as far as government goes with Great Britain, is an adroit example.

Right, but you're guessing. KK should post a little bit more like you and Dæl. And if I remember correctly he used to do just that.

Well, with posts like biccat suggesting all the presidents but one being white means that all white people have the same chance of being president, there's an undeniable wisdom to not getting in very far.

Fair enough.

Manchu wrote:Well, with posts like biccat suggesting all the presidents but one being white means that all white people have the same chance of being president, there's an undeniable wisdom to not getting in very far.

You're seriously suggesting that not everyone has an equal chance of being president?

I suppose at some level you've got a point (you have to enter the race and get people to vote for you), but it's tenuous at best. I don't have as equal a chance of winning the lottery because I don't play. That means the lottery is inherently racist or something.

Are you seriously saying that all it takes to be president is meeting the bare constitutional requirements?

biccat wrote:

Manchu wrote:Well, with posts like biccat suggesting all the presidents but one being white means that all white people have the same chance of being president, there's an undeniable wisdom to not getting in very far.

You're seriously suggesting that not everyone has an equal chance of being president?

I suppose at some level you've got a point (you have to enter the race and get people to vote for you), but it's tenuous at best. I don't have as equal a chance of winning the lottery because I don't play. That means the lottery is inherently racist or something.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone born into poverty with parents who have drug problems (regardless of that persons race) has the same chance of becoming president as someone who comes from a very wealthy family that can afford the best schools and tutoring and whose parents have political connections?

EDIT: 3 posts of serious suggestions, we may be in need of a C-C-Combo breaker.

Manchu wrote:Are you seriously saying that all it takes to be president is meeting the bare constitutional requirements?

No. You have to be elected.

Perhaps this explains your confusion with our constitutional "fanaticism."

dæl wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that someone born into poverty with parents who have drug problems (regardless of that persons race) has the same chance of becoming president as someone who comes from a very wealthy family that can afford the best schools and tutoring and whose parents have political connections?

Yes, I do.

Considering our current president, you would think anyone can make it.

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that someone born into poverty with parents who have drug problems (regardless of that persons race) has the same chance of becoming president as someone who comes from a very wealthy family that can afford the best schools and tutoring and whose parents have political connections?

Yes, I do.

Considering our current president, you would think anyone can make it.

This is your current President, the child of an anthropologist and an economist, neither of whom were drug addicts.

biccat wrote:

Manchu wrote:Are you seriously saying that all it takes to be president is meeting the bare constitutional requirements?

No. You have to be elected.

Perhaps this explains your confusion with our constitutional "fanaticism."

I believe the Constitution does mention the president needing to be elected. I don't feel your apparent confusion is any better explained thereby, however.

dæl wrote:This is your current President, the child of an anthropologist and an economist, neither of whom were drug addicts.

No, but the president himself was a drug addict.

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:This is your current President, the child of an anthropologist and an economist, neither of whom were drug addicts.

No, but the president himself was a drug addict.

When?

Manchu wrote:I believe the Constitution does mention the president needing to be elected.

No, it provides that the president "be elected".

The Constitutional requirements for eligibility are:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:This is your current President, the child of an anthropologist and an economist, neither of whom were drug addicts.

No, but the president himself was a drug addict.

When?

High school and college.

See his (auto)biography.

AustonT wrote:

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:This is your current President, the child of an anthropologist and an economist, neither of whom were drug addicts.

No, but the president himself was a drug addict.

When?

Just after he was a time traveller and went back and stole the souls of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky.

Looked it up, he smoked pot and tried coke. The dopefiend, that's addiction in a nutshell right there. Or did you forget the distinction between user and addict?

biccat wrote:

Manchu wrote:I believe the Constitution does mention the president needing to be elected.

No, it provides that the president "be elected".

It would be insulting to children to call your line of argument here "childish." Vulgar feints aside, the question stands: you believe that race, religion, gender, and socio-economic background have no bearing on a candidate's chances of election?

biccat wrote:
See his (auto)biography.

Smoked a bit of pot in college - drug addict.

feth me.. I don't like Obama much more than you do, but really.. why even type that?

Were almost all addicts if that's the case.. I tried acid when I was 15, I suppose that makes me and Barack Cheech and Chong.

Manchu wrote:It would be insulting to children to call your line of argument here "childish."

I'm sure no one will ever accuse you of being particularly reserved.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Smoked a bit of pot in college - drug addict.

And cocaine.

edit: To head off some pedant who thinks he's witty; yes, I know he didn't "smoke" cocaine.

Scrabb wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

dæl wrote:

Manchu wrote:And the preservation of the monarchy is not the stumbling block that prevents us from achieving a fair and just society.

But a head of state chosen by birth is mutually exclusive with a meritocracy, hell, it's mutually exclusive with a democracy.

Do you really believe everyone born in the USA has the same chance of becoming president?

Do you really hate soldiers?

[my question makes as much sense as yours]

Wow! Truly your powers of debate have made mockery of the point I wished to make.