Thanks for the reply.

Of course, you would know who's who when it comes to posters, and I'm glad that you let critical views stand, even poorly articulated ones - especially the poorly articulated one. As I mentioned, I marvel at your ability to take the snide potshots I see from some of the posters here and let them keep posting.

Alright, enough apple shining. Back to lurk mode.

"YES! Its a bit like fencing, where one side is using the foil, and the other is using a poleaxe."

Yeah - but if you're quick enough you can get under-and-up before they can get that poleaxe swung around. Oh, and use a saber, not a foil. ;-)

"I would like to see glen [sic] greenwald in a situation where his child and wife were held captive, and about to be sodomized, have their fingers cut off, sodomized some more, and then slowly beheaded."

I bet you would. I bet you'd go through a whole box of tissues while you watched it over and over, you sick fuck.

Ironic that folks whose religion was founded by a torture victim would support torture. They must be thinking, "But Jesus was tortured, and there's no way those Moslems are better'n Jesus." Wait Scratch that.

They're just not thinking.

...Not a bad analogy. The Stewards were put in place to execute the laws of the kingdom but eventually became kings in all but name, sort of like our presidents.

Wasn't in a commenter here in UT this week or last who pointed out that the Brits kept their monarchs, but stripped them of power while we Yanks ditched the monarchy but have vested the president with kingly powers? I found that point very insightful.

Having a toothless king maybe serves as a reminder of how dangerous kings can be when they have some teeth. By keeping the symbol of power, the Brits perhaps remain cognizant of the substance of power, while we, in ditching the symbol, believe ourselves automatically immune to the substance.