[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2015-September-16, 11:10, said:

You can't be serious....


source: https://today.yougov...-united-states/

Might be the same 43% of them that voted for Obama in hopes of their dream becoming reality? Rofl0

[Thiros]

mike777, on 2015-August-18, 18:49, said:

TWC does seem to get worse and worse.

I love the dvr options but they seldom work 100% right.
Now my old old tv in bonus room seems not to work at all...seems I need an adapter but not sure where it goes on an old tv.

Last month they increased my internet speed 50% not sure I notice the difference
In a few weeks they are increasing speed another 600%. ty google for forcing twc to improve in my home town.

This can be tracked by following their trajectory of commercials. When I was a recent arrival in the San Diego area TWC marketed themselves as the efficient alternative to mammoths like Comcast and AT&T U-verse, even putting out a spot which contained a chain of choplogic ending with the assertion that "AT&T U-verse hates puppies" (because the money you saved with Time Warner Cable would allow you to buy bags of dog food, and puppies love dog food). Since the start of the "Enjoy Better" era, they simply appear to have become the establishment that they once tried to dislodge, and don't shy away from marketing themselves that way.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2015-September-16, 11:10, said:

You can't be serious....


source: https://today.yougov...-united-states/

My answer to the headline question is that anything is possible, but the likelihood of it happening is a lot less that the 43% number the article throws around. I'd rate it at less than one percent.

We (military officers) are sworn to defend the Constitution, not the government.

When I was in England, I learned an interesting thing from one of my Royal Navy colleagues: the Royal Army's oath is to Parliament; the Royal Navy's oath is to the Queen. "If Parliament said 'do X''', said my RN colleague, "and the Queen said 'do Y', we would do Y."

There are a lot of checks and balances in our system. I doubt the military would act even to "defend the Constitution," unless all those checks and balances were to prove ineffective — and even then only with great reluctance.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-17, 05:46, said:

My answer to the headline question is that anything is possible, but the likelihood of it happening is a lot less that the 43% number the article throws around. I'd rate it at less than one percent.

Oh but the article says that 43% of republicans can immagine a situation in which they would favour it. Probably very few say that such an event is anywhere near 43% likely to happen.

Personally I can imagine almost anything. I might answer no to the question if I were polled and had the suspicion that a "yes" answer would be spinned. So my answer would likely depend on who the poller is and which other questions they asked me.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-17, 05:46, said:

My answer to the headline question is that anything is possible, but the likelihood of it happening is a lot less that the 43% number the article throws around. I'd rate it at less than one percent.

We (military officers) are sworn to defend the Constitution, not the government.

When I was in England, I learned an interesting thing from one of my Royal Navy colleagues: the Royal Army's oath is to Parliament; the Royal Navy's oath is to the Queen. "If Parliament said 'do X''', said my RN colleague, "and the Queen said 'do Y', we would do Y."

There are a lot of checks and balances in our system. I doubt the military would act even to "defend the Constitution," unless all those checks and balances were to prove ineffective — and even then only with great reluctance.

In your answer I don't see anything about allegiance to your Commander-in-Chief or about civilian control of the military. How does one determine that an allegiance to the Constitution has been violated by the government short of an attempt by a President to declare himeself a dictator (an act which, one would think, would require the assistance of the military)?

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2015-September-17, 08:52, said:

In your answer I don't see anything about allegiance to your Commander-in-Chief or about civilian control of the military. How does one determine that an allegiance to the Constitution has been violated by the government short of an attempt by a President to declare himeself a dictator (an act which, one would think, would require the assistance of the military)?

You don't see anything about those things because I didn't mention them. So?

Prior to the Nuremberg Trials after WWII "I was only following orders" was an acceptable defense to an accusation of what we now call "war crimes". Now it's not. If you're in the modern military, you're told that if you follow an illegal order, you're just as guilty as the guy who gave the order. How do you determine an order is illegal? Good question. No guidance is given (at least not when I was on active duty). Basically, you're stuck with "if you think it's illegal, do not follow it, but you'd better for damn sure be right." There is of course more to it: for one thing, by ancient military custom, refusal to obey an order given in combat would result in your instant and summary execution by the superior concerned. These days, he may have to pay a price for that, but that will be small consolation to you.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-17, 10:30, said:

You don't see anything about those things because I didn't mention them. So?

I was simply wondering where you would draw the line between following the orders of your Commander-in-Chief and your interpretation of what the Constitution says. For example, the Constitution says this:

Quote

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment

So it would seem that to abide by the Constitution would mean acknowledging that the President is the Supreme Commander of the armed forces, and it follows that impeachment would be the only legal method to remove a sitting President; therefore, any idea of military coup against the President would be antithetic to the idea of allegiance to the Constitution.

Regardless of oaths, how does one justify an illegal and unconstitutional coup?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2015-September-17, 11:27, said:

I was simply wondering where you would draw the line between following the orders of your Commander-in-Chief and your interpretation of what the Constitution says. For example, the Constitution says this:


So it would seem that to abide by the Constitution would mean acknowledging that the President is the Supreme Commander of the armed forces, and it follows that impeachment would be the only legal method to remove a sitting President; therefore, any idea of military coup against the President would be antithetic to the idea of allegiance to the Constitution.

Regardless of oaths, how does one justify an illegal and unconstitutional coup?

I agree calling it a coup may not be best, perhaps calling it a revolution. People seem to prefer revolutions to coups..

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2015-September-17, 11:27, said:

I was simply wondering where you would draw the line between following the orders of your Commander-in-Chief and your interpretation of what the Constitution says. For example, the Constitution says this:


So it would seem that to abide by the Constitution would mean acknowledging that the President is the Supreme Commander of the armed forces, and it follows that impeachment would be the only legal method to remove a sitting President; therefore, any idea of military coup against the President would be antithetic to the idea of allegiance to the Constitution.

Regardless of oaths, how does one justify an illegal and unconstitutional coup?

Where would I draw the line? I don't know. It would depend on the circumstances and the specific orders.

How does one determine if a coup is illegal and unconstitutional, if the people who should be making that determination are part of the problem?

The Commander-in-Chief is in the chain of command, and his orders should be obeyed — and will be, unless they're illegal, and maybe even then. See what I said before about "better be damn sure you're right".

[kenberg]

I would be interested in knowing how many of those who were asked simply refused to answer. From time to time someone calls with a poll question and I simply cannot say yes or no. In a case like tis, I cannot imagine answering it.

During the Korean War, Truman relieved Douglas Mac Artur of command after a very public disagreement about the war. Although both Truman and Mac Arthur had supporters, I don't recall any support for a coup.

Ok, but the question was about what a person could imagine. Some people have a more vivid imagination than others. Suppose a president decided that everyone had to attend Presbyterian church servives on Sunday mornings and further announced that if the Supreme Court objected then they were obviously under the influence of Satan and he would send the \Secret Service to arrest them all. Or work up a fantasy of your coice. Then what?

A question such as "Can you imagine...", please answer yes or no, should probably simply be ignored if there is to be any consequence to your answer.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2015-September-18, 09:32, said:

I would be interested in knowing how many of those who were asked simply refused to answer. From time to time someone calls with a poll question and I simply cannot say yes or no. In a case like tis, I cannot imagine answering it.

During the Korean War, Truman relieved Douglas Mac Artur of command after a very public disagreement about the war. Although both Truman and Mac Arthur had supporters, I don't recall any support for a coup.

Ok, but the question was about what a person could imagine. Some people have a more vivid imagination than others. Suppose a president decided that everyone had to attend Presbyterian church servives on Sunday mornings and further announced that if the Supreme Court objected then they were obviously under the influence of Satan and he would send the \Secret Service to arrest them all. Or work up a fantasy of your coice. Then what?

A question such as "Can you imagine...", please answer yes or no, should probably simply be ignored if there is to be any consequence to your answer.

Even then, such a President could be removed from office by the impeachment process. Imagining a circumstance where I would support a coup is imagining a scenario where I imagine the U.S.A. is third-world country with a totalitarian dictator at its helm. It's a bit late for coup-ness at that point.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2015-September-18, 09:32, said:

During the Korean War, Truman relieved Douglas Mac Artur of command after a very public disagreement about the war. Although both Truman and Mac Arthur had supporters, I don't recall any support for a coup.

I think if anyone had suggested a coup to MacArthur, he might well have shot them in the head.

[mike777]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-18, 22:20, said:

I think if anyone had suggested a coup to MacArthur, he might well have shot them in the head.

without a trial I would note.

He was famous for telling his generals...win or do not come back alive

[blackshoe]

mike777, on 2015-September-19, 00:18, said:

without a trial I would note.

He was famous for telling his generals...win or do not come back alive

Old school.

"Roman [sic] mothers used to tell their children 'come back with your shield, or on it'. Later on, this custom declined. So did Rome." -- Robert A. Heinlein, From the Notebooks of Lazarus Long.

[shyams]

The Solheim Cup incident today was in poor taste.

Without seeing the video, I felt that Europe had to be at fault for insisting that the hole was not conceded. Even if a player insists on using the rulebook, their captain could easily have intervened and set it right.

Atrocious stuff....

[y66]

shyams, on 2015-September-20, 11:09, said:

The Solheim Cup incident today was in poor taste.

Without seeing the video, I felt that Europe had to be at fault for insisting that the hole was not conceded. Even if a player insists on using the rulebook, their captain could easily have intervened and set it right.

Atrocious stuff....

Not a good idea to do this ever but esp. not against a Juli Inkster coached team. What a comeback!

[Al_U_Card]

The rules of golf make the game the challenge that it is. Only cheaters (ignorant or knowledgeable) think that the rules don't apply to them. She knew the rule and deserved the sanction for breaking the conditions of contest. That it was used as motivation is unfortunate no matter the result.

[shyams]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-September-20, 14:49, said:

The rules of golf make the game the challenge that it is. Only cheaters (ignorant or knowledgeable) think that the rules don't apply to them. She knew the rule and deserved the sanction for breaking the conditions of contest. That it was used as motivation is unfortunate no matter the result.

I agree with the need to adhere to the rules of golf. However, in this instance, the video shows the European pair walk away after the USA ball comes to a stop less than 2 feet from the hole.

Do they verbally have to concede the shot? Perhaps, they do as per the rules. But I'm sure its common occurrence that a "walk away" is tantamount to a concession. I think the player who objected was doing the golf equivalent of a Secretary Bird at bridge.

And if it was the right action, why was her fourballs partner (Charley Hull) in tears after? One can only surmise that even Charley felt her teammate and her captain were wrong.

[Al_U_Card]

Gamesmanship comes in many flavors by both sides in a competition. Not knowing the dynamic of the situation (had they previously always conceded verbally etc.) favors following the rules for guidance.

[y66]

There's a fine line between gamesmanship and bush league. Suzann Pettersen was on the wrong side of the line today. She lost a lot of fans, the respect of many of her peers and the Solheim Cup. You just don't do that sh*t and Suzann knows it. Good coverage here.