Slog Comments
Santorum Trickles Out Behind Romney
1
So the republicans are all supposed to be constitution adherents, and yet they fail big time on not understanding the nobility clause.
He’s not Governor Romney. He hasn’t been for a few years now. He’s just “Mr.” - just like “Governor” Palin and “Senator” Santorum, “President” Bush. Yet these constitution nuts can’t seem to remember that part…
He’s not Governor Romney. He hasn’t been for a few years now. He’s just “Mr.” - just like “Governor” Palin and “Senator” Santorum, “President” Bush. Yet these constitution nuts can’t seem to remember that part…
2
re: @1- I missed the "not" when I rephrased. Sorry about the extra negative.
If they failed at not understanding, that would be great. However: they aren't that bright.
If they failed at not understanding, that would be great. However: they aren't that bright.
3
@1,2: Huh? This has nothing to do the the Nobility Clause. It's simply a time-honored form of respect (for the office, not necessarily the person).
4
I'm channeling Gandhi, Buddha, Katherine Ann Porter and several others, and they ALL endorse Dr. Jill Stein for 2012.
IS THERE A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE? ? ?
Dr. Jill Stein for president.
Vote America ----- Vote Green ! ! !
IS THERE A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE? ? ?
Dr. Jill Stein for president.
Vote America ----- Vote Green ! ! !
5
@3 It does have something to do with the nobility clause. Between the Declaration and the Constitution and some of the letter of various “founding fathers”, you can see that the intent was that one’s title comes with the job. Once the job is over, the title is dropped.
By calling people by their former titles, we are conferring a level of honor to these people that was outlined as wrong. These people do not deserve a higher level of respect because they once held office. They are equal to the rest of us (white, land-owning males) and do not earn lifetime honorariums because they once got a majority of people to vote for them.
And that these professed constitution nuts allow/encourage people to call them by their former titles (without the “former”), they’re showing a lack of understanding of a pretty vital part of throwing off a monarchy (just as US citizens are not to bow to a monarch).
By calling people by their former titles, we are conferring a level of honor to these people that was outlined as wrong. These people do not deserve a higher level of respect because they once held office. They are equal to the rest of us (white, land-owning males) and do not earn lifetime honorariums because they once got a majority of people to vote for them.
And that these professed constitution nuts allow/encourage people to call them by their former titles (without the “former”), they’re showing a lack of understanding of a pretty vital part of throwing off a monarchy (just as US citizens are not to bow to a monarch).
6
Remember, this is why you don't let your friends Drunk Dial or Drunk Post.
Nothing good happens after 2 am.
Nothing good happens after 2 am.
7
@5, etc.: I always find that irritating, too, and it carries over outside elected office - I work with a lot of (former) ambassadors, all of whom insist on Ambassador as their title.
Given all the noise Paulbots have made in the past few weeks at state conventions, here's hoping Tampa is an electoral bloodbath. Unless you're a neo-con, I think we can all agree that the GOP's death-by-Paul is what's best for America.
Given all the noise Paulbots have made in the past few weeks at state conventions, here's hoping Tampa is an electoral bloodbath. Unless you're a neo-con, I think we can all agree that the GOP's death-by-Paul is what's best for America.
Comments (8) RSS