I'm just experimenting. I hate the word "blog" and am fascinated with how the net seems to nurture *everyone's* vanity.
dedicated to Evil Stormbringer and Wheeloffire
Published on January 17, 2007 By Philocthetes In Off-Topic
Evil did me right by starting his own thread on the "what's a thief" question. But a few posts later in that Grammar nazi sprawl thread, QuietlyObserving says "If we are to be a society founded on the Rule of Law, it would be prudent to maintain a healthy respect for language and the meaning of words, lest we slip into a dictatorship of unelected Judges."

This gives me a painfully beautiful opportunity to start a sister thread to Evil's, and ask you all to sink your fangs, fingers, etc., into the basic question "How does a law rule without a human to interpret and/or execute it?"

That's my latest hasty attempt at a longstanding interest in the gov't-of-law-and-not-men notion that's very popular here in the US. I've also known a few linguists and flirted with other philosphies enough to be taken aback by anyone who has too much certainty about the meaning of a particular word or phrase.

Unless you're a minor with parents who don't want you seeing PG-13 movies (I know we have some sharp youth out there, just want to respect your folks), I suggest finding and playing fword.wav before you finish a reply here.
Comments (Page 24)
44 PagesFirst 22 23 24 25 26  Last
on Jan 30, 2007
from what i have heard mexicos largest income source is the illegals and non illegals that send their money home to the families
on Jan 30, 2007
Duh, they are a country that only has a few prospering tuorist attarctions, i mean the standard of living there is average actually, but the government is just not up to scratch yet.
on Jan 30, 2007
Duh, they are a country that only has a few prospering tuorist attarctions, i mean the standard of living there is average actually, but the government is just not up to scratch yet.


Makes me wonder how a country that could fight serious boarder wars with America could fall so far behind over the years?
on Jan 30, 2007
they lost those wars

but the real tradagy is that mexico is the failed united states
on Jan 30, 2007
They were never really powerful, and America didnt really play 'by the rules' of combat in that age and time.

They havent failed, they are a work in progress.
on Jan 30, 2007
They were never really powerful


Don't be so sure about that. Remember that in those days real power was in your contries population and the ability to supply cheap crappy rifles.

Today, you can have as many troops with rifles as you like but it dousn't mean squat without air superiority.
on Jan 30, 2007
first everytime they have an election and the two leaders are strong enough
and one of them decides that the vote didn't go the way it should they have a revalution

secound of all success is measered by more than ones army

on Jan 30, 2007
the government in mexico never really cared about the people there

the government of the united states did at least until fdr assianation

since then the main concern of the government has gone from the people to the groups with the money to get them reelected

it has been a long slide down hill and in my opionion was speed up during the clinton era
on Jan 30, 2007
Thats capatalism for ya.
on Jan 30, 2007
maybe

capitalism has been running the show in this country for over 200 years
on Jan 30, 2007
first everytime they have an election and the two leaders are strong enough
and one of them decides that the vote didn't go the way it should they have a revalution


Mexican revolutions? but i don't think any mexican revolutions would have damaged that country as much as the American civil war.

Speaking of the american civil war... yet another example of how having more men with guns is true power (for that age). Even despite the incompetence of northern generals and the cunning of the southern generals... having more men with guns in the end is what decided victory.

hmmm actually i think the president sacked the incompetent generals... if he didn't, mebe the south could have won?
on Jan 30, 2007
actully it was the battle of getysburg that decided that war they lost i think 5 of their main/smart generals

of course that battle should never have taken place at least not as big as it was

the first confedarate general on the scene allowed the feds to dig in

on the other hand

the first fed. general made a mistake too he dug in

and one war compared to a war every ten to twenty years
on Jan 30, 2007
The Mexicans havent had a revolution since well the Mexican revolution. There is plently of violance there still, but i dont think its a revolution.
on Jan 30, 2007
what do you call what is going on there now

the one who lost the election is setting up a secound government and has tried to shut down the judical system in mexico

just becouse they haven't started shooting
on Jan 31, 2007
actully it was the battle of getysburg that decided that war they lost i think 5 of their main/smart generals


Acording to that latest 'newish' getysberg movie, by the time Lee got to getysberg, the situation was so desperate that lee basically ordered a hopeless attack quite knowingly. This is not the actions of a man on a winning team, prooving that they were already beaten even before the battle.
44 PagesFirst 22 23 24 25 26  Last