ABC Refers to Chelsea Clinton's Pregnancy as American "Royal" Baby

Posted by Eudaimonia 10 years ago to Politics
58 comments | Share | Flag

“One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings is, that nature disapproves it otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass in place of a lion” - Thomas Paine "Common Sense"

And now consider if the parents were asses in the first place.

Enough of American royals!
Enough of their sycophantic court of "Journalists"!
SOURCE URL: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2014/04/18/abc-refers-to-chelsea-clintons-pregnancy-as-american-royal-baby-n1826235


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Stormi 10 years ago
    Royal Balby? Gag. That baby is the spawn of what can best be described as two criminal families. The Clintons and the Mezvinskys. On the one side crimes not prosecuted, and on the other side,guilty verdict. How the press gets "Royal" out of two crime families is beyond me. Are they really that jaded, or just stupid? Chelsea is an entitled political parasite. The couple is living off the ill gotten gains of criminal activity, at least by most people's definition. I am sure the child will be used to help humanize the mostly hard lined HIllary to help her in her run for president.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years ago
    American Libs have never gotten past JFK and Camelot and the introduction of a U.S. monarch. Since there are no more Kennedy kin to fit the bill, the Clinton grandkid is next. Why do humans yearn for leaders, messiahs, and kings?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ puzzlelady 10 years ago
      It is an ancient meme, going back to tribal chiefs and alpha males. Just look at people's fascination with and celebration of "celebrities" -- which actress (goddess) is pregnant, who's getting divorced, who's cheating on whom. The beautiful people revered for Darwinian selection. Ties right in with belief in gods. Someone bigger and stronger to take care of us. Hail to the chief. Salute the Fuehrer.

      And what's the antidote to such unreasoning emotionalism? Rational thought, an emerging trait not yet acquired by most people.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years ago
        I've been thinking a lot about Reason vs Emotions lately. Western Civilization has had a roughly 900 year run with Reason in the lead which has produced advances in science, technology, government, and arts that has enriched everyone's lives. Now, as you note, we seem to sinking back into the mud pre-industry pre-civilization pre-Reason.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Sgtill 10 years ago
      To make things worse, you have the Obamas and the Clintons who have aspirations of being monarchs.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 10 years ago
        The Clintons and Bush family may have aspirations of monarchy, but our current "Dear Leader" is more in line with authoritarian dictatorship. He has no desire to experience the limitations a constitutional monarch has on personal power, as evidenced by his intent to ignore the constraints attempted by Congress.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by iam124c 10 years ago
    You may be right about the "meme" thing. I think that people in general have always and will always idolize the strong among us. Perception is what fires their rockets.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years ago
    I disagree theoretically. You might be able to isolate the genes for leadership and integrity and create a line of monarchs who would be genetically predisposed to be good leaders.

    That being said, the current situation does tend to reflect Paine's sentiment, not the theory I propose above.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Mimi 10 years ago
      I don’t think you could isolate the gene. A good leader is someone who isn’t consistently pragmatic and occasionally takes risks. This type of person on a bad day could possibly make a good candidate for a bi-polar diagnosis.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 10 years ago
        At minimum a gene cluster, I agree. And if you are correct, then a slimy politician would be better than a brilliant bipolar ruler on a bad day!

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by IamTheBeav 10 years ago
      @ jlc - I am sure it was not intentional, but the moment I read your post, I got a serious case of the creepy crawlies. If it is all the same to you, I'll leave the genetic theories to the Eugenicists and "Master Race" loving Nazis. The very concept of some artificially created superhuman ruling over me makes me ill. You're welcome to it, but I like my elected leaders fallible and above all, human.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 10 years ago
        Thank you for disagreeing so gently. No gene will protect against fallibility, so we are all save from that future. But there is no advantage to having a second rate leader. Let me rephrase this: If we could have a line of rulers who were like the mythical King Arthur (insofar as being good and incorruptible) would that be worse than being governed by some of the politicians we have been discussing on this list?

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years ago
      I don't know Jan-we're volitional.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 10 years ago
        There are aspects of a person that are totally environmental - such as 'which language a person speaks'. There are other aspects that seem to be 80% genetic - such as 'how well that person speaks their language'. Given that the environmental aspects are volitional, the genetic factors are, at the least, limiting: If you have genes for 'high language skills' you may decide not to be the next poet laureate, but if you have 'low language skills' it does not matter if you want to be the next poet laureate, you do not have the ability to succeed. (If you have 'kinda-sorta highish language skills' then a great desire can make up the difference.) This is seen most readily in sports, where body type determines what you can excel at.

        The place where 'volition' makes the most difference is where people choose to use the skills they do have, or choose not to use them. ( I have genius friends who boast of their lack of motivation, for example.)

        We are heading into a future of genetic choice and deliberate manipulation of alleles. I think we need to look squarely at these issues. (And, no, I do not think that they are all negative.)

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 10 years ago
          I agree we need to look squarely at them. :) But there are plenty of super talented individuals who choose to be grifters. Plenty low IQ ndividuals who choose to be honest and forthright. Integrity as a gene I don't buy-but I'll listen..
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jlc 10 years ago
            I did not think that 'religiosity' could be genetically inherited, but supposedly it does have a high genetic correlation. (I think it is likely to be more than one gene - heck! even hair color is a 4 or 5 gene complex.) I do not say, note, that integrity is a gene, but I do posit a possibility that it is.

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ puzzlelady 10 years ago
              Jan, it's not a gene. It's a meme. Integrity is a concept, not a molecule. My own formula on rulers is:
              "Neither a leader nor a follower be,
              And it must follow, as the night the day,
              You will not then be slave to any man."
              (With apologies to Will Shakespeare)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ jlc 10 years ago
                Puzzlelady - It is your theory that integrity is a meme not a molecule. I make the counter, however, that if as vague a notion as 'religiosity' could be genetically inherited (for which there is some evidence) then it is not impossible that 'integrity' could be genetic as well. I have absolutely no evidence integrity is genetic - let me be clear about that. It is not beyond imagining that it might be, though, and so I posed the argument that it might be possible to make the 'folly of hereditary kings' not a folly...or at least less of a folly. It would be a general improvement, in my opinion, if one were to merely be able to eliminate the 'asses'.

                Jan

                (from memory)

                The friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
                Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel,
                But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
                Of each new-hatched, unfledged, comrade.
                Beware of entrance to a quarrel but, being in it,
                Bear it that the enemy shouldst beware of thee!
                Give each man thy ear, but few thy voice,
                Accept each man's council, but reserve thy judgement.
                Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
                But not expressed in fancy: Rich, not gaudy,
                For the apparel oft proclaims the man.
                Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
                For a loan oft looses both itself and friend,
                And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
                And this above all: To thine own self be true.
                And it must follow, as the night the day,
                Thou canst not then be false to any man.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ puzzlelady 10 years ago
                  Breeding a line of kings not given to folly--in brief, incorruptible benevolent dictators--is not my idea of an individualist's free society. I would not care to be anyone's "subject". I will continue to make the case that values are formed as memes, not produced in the genes. The genes just supply the machinery in which the software develops.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 10 years ago
    Wow, what might happen if it was "O's" and "M's" baby coming right from the big house? Could they rule for decades?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ puzzlelady 10 years ago
      Dynasties are laughable, admired only in fairytales. They are no longer effective ways to run a land. After a few generations of inbreeding, their original genetic superiority wears out. Ruling families are an idea whose time has passed. Selective breeding for power (did you read "Dune") wants to corral the wealth. In today's world meritocracy is the new aristocracy... or ought to be.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 12 months ago
    "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and that that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Declaration of Independence, Jefferson
    I see no room for royalty there. Kind of makes you sick doesn't it?
    Locke also destroyed any notions of traceable lineage for hereditary right in kings in his first treatise on government.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo