politicartoons | government laying a foundation for innovation

I know thing or two about his life. What you wrote just proved what I said, unless Duke of Brunswick was government himself. OG, that what's you're saying -the Duke was the government. How about Soros? Do you think Soros is the government too? Actually, you might have point there, if you know what I mean.

Do you have any idea of what you are speaking? Brunswick, an hereditary duke, was government. Soros is a massively wealthy individual. As are the Koch brothers. (Though the Koch brothers are trying to buy a large slice of government at present.)

You may have taken a history class, but it seems you failed to understand it. What bit about hereditary Aristos actually having day to day political power during this period have you missed? Brunswick could have had you whipped for failing to bow when he passed. German nobility of the period were sticklers for exactness. Poor ol' Ludwig, being a "van", not a "von" could never marry any of his loves, who were of too high a station...despite him being the Beethoven who wrote the symphonies. The middle classes, and even the wealthy weren't really enfranchised unless they were nobility or gentry.

To Aristos, you were all serfs: there is another word I could have used to emphasise this better to a white person living in America...but I'm sure you can see my point.

Now, after your explanation, I do have some ideas. I guess, then Harry Reid and Clintons are government, correct? No, incorrect again, they can't whip anybody's behind. Though, Bubba probably can, at least on Paradise Island.
Actually, as a white person living in America, I still would be a serf or more to a so called 'brown' sheikh.

No, you've missed the point again. Brunswick was government in a similar way that Saddam was government in Iraq. There weren't any meaningful elections, folk didn't step down from office: and for example the tyranny of the Ancien Regime in France needed bloody revolution to address some of the more manifest injustices of the system. Thus far, all of your American comparisons have been pretty wide of the mark, but you were getting closer with your Middle-Eastern references. I shall quote from Wikipedia, which you will no doubt find amusing:

"Charles William Ferdinand (German: Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand, Fürst und Herzog von Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel) (October 9, 1735 – November 10, 1806), Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, was a sovereign prince of the Holy Roman Empire, and a professional soldier who served as a Generalfeldmarschall of the Kingdom of Prussia. Born in Wolfenbüttel, Germany, he was duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel from 1780 until his death. He is a recognized master of the modern warfare of the mid-18th century, a cultured and benevolent despot in the model of Frederick the Great, and was married to Princess Augusta, a sister of George III of Great Britain." [My emphasis.]

Now...look up "despot" and "despotism":

"Despotism is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. That entity may be an individual, as in an autocracy, or it may be a group, as in an oligarchy. The word despotism means to "rule in the fashion of a despot" and does not necessarily require a singular "despot", an individual.

Despot comes from the Greek despotes, which roughly means "master" or "one with power", and it has been used to translate a wide variety of titles and positions. It was used to describe the unlimited power and authority of the Pharaohs of Egypt, employed in the Byzantine court as a title of nobility, used by the rulers of Byzantine vassal states, and adopted as a title of the Byzantine Emperors. Thus, despot is found to have different meanings and interpretations at various times in history and cannot be described by a single definition. This is similar to the other Greek titles basileus and autokrator, which, along with despot, have been used at various times to describe everything from a local chieftain to a simple ruler, king or emperor."

I hope that gives better meaning and therefore understanding. In Brunswick's case he was a singular though benevolent despot, both in the wielding of power, and in the historical context of despotism.

Now given this information, which you could have found easily yourself, I'd say you were making cheap, untruthful, and provocative replies, based on tolerable wit, but having little to do with the actuality of the system you chose to use as your point-of-leverage for this exchange. By all means be as partisan as you like, but please do not misrepresent or revise history in order to bolster your thesis: you will be called out on it.

Wow. I learned. Thank you.

Blimey ol' thing...just playing with the trolls...didn't expect sardonic wit. Shall I play dead?

Do you even know what you're talking about? Or you just lump together some phrases and think somebody will take it seriously?
I still like to know if Bill Clinton is a government or a man. I am very curious, was thinking about it all night, still didn't come to any conclusion.
Thanks.

Clinton was no despot, was he? Therefore, former president, and a man.

I don't know if Clinton was a despot, but my neighbor is, so he must be a government.

The slave to a brown sheik comment, it was one of the more blatantly racist ones you have made.

Let me make sure you understand what I was trying to say. If you know, much of Southern Europe was under 'brown' sheikhs for centauries. As a descendant of Christian minorities, who were their slaves for centauries, I can say that. 'Brown' is in quotation marks, because I'm trying to play your games, I personally never mention anybody's race first. If you read my comments, you would know that Arabs are considered Caucasians, and I made a point that invoking race for Middle East affairs is totally baseless.
Now, you need to apologize for jumping to conclusions.

government laying a foundation for innovation

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject