The Watering Hole, Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015: Watery Tart, Eh?

Hmm…do some of these lines from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” seem familiar?

Woman: Oh. How do you do?

King Arthur:  How do you do, good lady? I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Whose castle is that?

Woman:  King of the who?

King Arthur:  King of the Britons.

Woman: Who are the Britons?

King Arthur:  Well, we all are. We are all Britons. And I am your king.

Woman:  I didn’t know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.

Dennis:  You’re foolin’ yourself! We’re living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working class…

Woman:  Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.

Dennis:  Well, that’s what it’s all about! If only people would…

King Arthur:  Please, please, good people, I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?

Woman:  No one lives there.

King Arthur:  Then who is your lord?

Woman:  We don’t have a lord.

Dennis:   I told you, we’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week...

King Arthur:  Yes…

Dennis:   …but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting…

King Arthur:  Yes I see…

Dennis: …by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs…

King Arthur:  Be quiet!

Dennis: …but by a two thirds majority in the case of…

King Arthur:   Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

Woman:  Order, eh? Who does he think he is?

King Arthur:  I am your king.

Woman:  Well, I didn’t vote for you.

King Arthur:  You don’t vote for kings.

Woman:  Well how’d you become king then?

[Angelic music plays… ]

King Arthur:  The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.

Dennis:  [interruptingListen, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony…Oh, but you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.  [emphasis mine]

I dunno – right now in these “United” States, it seems as good a system as our own.  So…

watery tart

This is our daily Open Thread – go ahead, sound off!

67 thoughts on “The Watering Hole, Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015: Watery Tart, Eh?

  1. I don’t have anything against strange women lying in ponds distributing swords, but I still think that executive power should be derived from a mandate from the masses when it comes right down to it.

    • That may be the best news so far this day week year decade century. Imagine it — support for a non-war solution! The MIC must be changing their diapers by now!

      My response to Obama: “Fascinating, captain.”

  2. ‘Watery tarts’ made me think of the marquee in front of Fawlty Towers, where the letters would always be re-arranged, and the episode that had them say ‘Flowery Twats’. 😀

  3. No difference between some ‘moistened bint lobbing a scimitar’ and the Clown Car declaring that ‘God has chosen me to run for President’….. I have the same reaction to both …

  4. Of course, the way to start having our “supreme executive power” actually derived from “a mandate from the masses” is to kill both Citizens United and the Electoral College. Neither of them do anything for a representative democracy.

    • I agree with that!

      I wonder how the dissolution of the Electoral College would actually work. I know that the Constitution set the specific process by which Senators were appointed, because that was overturned by the 17th Amendment.

      But the Electoral College doesn’t come from the Constitution. I don’t know enough about it to say what the legal basis for it does come from, but perhaps we would need another Amendment to allow for the direct election of presidents.

      Maybe in the form of a popular vote? Whichever candidate gets the most popular votes across the country wins … how does that sound?

      • “Maybe in the form of a popular vote? Whichever candidate gets the most popular votes across the country wins … how does that sound?”

        Wow, what a thought…. that’s only the way everyone else does it…. there’s that ‘exceptionalism’ on display – is this case it means – ‘no you don’t get government of the people by the people – what-the-fook were you thinking, peasant?’

      • There is a way to do this without amending the Constitution and it’s called the National Popular Vote.

        The way it works is to take advantage of the Constitution’s rule that the states determine the outcomes of their elections, and they can award their electoral votes anyway they wish. So, the individual states pass resolutions that say whichever candidate wins the national popular vote will get that state’s electoral votes. The new way of awarding these votes only goes into effect when enough states to reach 270 electoral votes pass the NPV bill. That way the other states’ electoral votes won’t matter because the winner of the national popular vote will get at least 270 electoral votes. (I’m sure it’s worded to automatically adjust for new States entering the Union, such as Puerto Rico, some day.)

        The beauty of it is that no Constitutional Amendment is needed, and EVERY VOTE COUNTS! Most of the time they don’t.

          • So do I. And it’s perfectly Constitutional, too. And it guarantees that everybody’s vote matters because even if your state went for the other guy, if your vote was for the eventual popular vote winner, the states entered into this agreement will award their electoral votes to the person you voted for. It also means that candidates will have to campaign in more than just a handful of key states.

    • Found this tidbit in another article
      “Davis, who says she is denying marriage licenses to gay couples “under God’s authority,” has served as Rowan’s county clerk since November. She succeeded her mother, Jean Bailey, who held the position for 37 years.”
      Inbred Hick syndrome.

      And, once again, His Rudeness nails the shit out of the Sharia Court of Kaynetukki

          • Reminds me of the old joke from about 40 years ago. Guy on TWA airplane replies to stewardess who asked him what he’d like to drink. His answer, “Hmmm. I was thinking of TWA Coffee, but now for some reason I’m thinking I might prefer some TWA Tea. Which do you recommend?”

            Yeah, I know. *groan*

  5. And, in today’s Klown Kar circus parade, Marco Rubio demonstrates his utter lack of military knowledge.
    “When I’m president of the United States, we will reimpose those sanctions on Day 1, and then I will go to Congress, ask them even to increase sanctions more, and I will back that up with a credible threat of military force,” Rubio said.”

    He may not know that our current technology does not allow us to penetrate facilities buried deep in mountain bunkers. Perhaps he’s talking about nuking Tehran?

    • Also, I don;t believe the POTUS has the authority to unilaterally impose sanctions on any country. It must be an Act of Congress. He must understand this if he knows he has to go to Congress to get more sanctions. What he is counting on is his low-IQ low-info voters not knowing that, and he;s probably right. So even though it sounds great to them, he knows fully well he can’t do it. This kind of lying must be exposed.

      • Wayne, you are such a spoiled sport! The Repubs believe they’ll be crowned as King/Queen and not have to deal with those pesky Congresspeople!

      • Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t ALL Republican voters “low-IQ low-info voters”? I know that’s a wide brush, but OTOH, I don’t remember ever running across any Republican that didn’t fit that definition. (I’ve only lived in Minnesota, Iowa, Arizona, Missouri, and Colorado, so my sample is fairly small. But still . . .)

    • The “morally upright” have no clue. No common sense. They better be pure in thought, word, and deed or dissection of life will ensue!

    • She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second husband.

      This chronology is just a bit fantastic, even for the South.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s