Re: The Dynasty Meme

[aquart]

dynasty n. , pl. -ties . A succession of rulers from the same family or line. A family or group that maintains power for several generations:

several adj 1: (used with count nouns) of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many; "several letters came in the mail";

A dynasty definition requires MORE THAN TWO.

I know this won't stop idiots, but maybe the rest of you could think about it for a second.

[TwilightZone]

1. The "dynasty" meme also fails at the word "succession."

The possible Bill/Hillary presidencies wouldn't be in succession, unless one believes the ridiculous argument that Bush/Clinton is one family.

[Rock_Garden]

2. If we're gonna play Dynasty, then Hillary gets to be Crystal Carrington.

[Shakespeare]

3. Fine, don't call it a dynasty.

But some of us simply don't want Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. And there's nothing idiotic about that.

[JohnnyLib2]

4. I think the dynasty argument = simple thoughts for simple minds.

Saying "we don't want another dynasty." in regard to HRC. attempts to pit some vague negative possibility (at best) against more serious examination of the candidate. Sad to say, it works too often. Goofy, really.

:thumbsup:

[Occam Bandage]

5. ...

Idiot n. pl -ts. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers.


An idiot definition requires A MENTAL AGE BELOW THREE YEARS.

I know this won't stop morons, but maybe the rest of you could think about it for a second.

[parasim]

6. One might argue that the Bushes and the Clintons are part of a "group"...

hence, the definition as stated might very well be appropriate. And one might argue that the group in question could go by the moniker "neoconservative", since both the Clintons and the Bushes are arguably neoconservative.

Even with that premise, though, that still doesn't mean that they have been in power for "several" generations, since a "generation" is typically considered to be about 30 years. However, with the prospect of future Bushes (Jeb for one and a few of the young ones showing some aspirations) as well as future Clintons (Chelsea comes to mind) getting in on the action, not to mention any number of other neoconservatives waiting in the wings, it is certainly possible that this group could be in power for a very, very long time.

So, yeah, it could be said that a "dynasty" is in the works. Of course, since all of the current candidates (with the exception of Kucinich, Gravel and perhaps Ron Paul) have been described as candidates in one way or another endorsed by PNACers, then perhaps this particular "dynasty" is inevitable.

Then again, this post could very well be considered to be merely the inane ramblings of an idiot.

:evilgrin:

[Yael]

7. So the same "line" has been in place since 1980

At what point do we get to call it a dynasty?