Posted on 10/01/2007 4:42:16 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Bill invites Rush to appear tomorrow night...should be good!
The entire Congress has become part of a corrupt system, in which politicians buy votes with taxpayer money.
As practiced from the 15th to 20th centuries in Western societies, a duel was a consensual fight between two people, with matched deadly weapons, in accordance with rules explicitly or implicitly agreed upon, over a point of honor, usually accompanied by a trusted representative (who might themselves fight), and in contravention of the law.
The duel usually developed out of the desire of one party (the challenger) to redress a perceived insult to his honor. The goal of the duel was not so much to kill the opponent as to gain “satisfaction,” i.e., to restore one’s honor by demonstrating a willingness to risk one’s life for it.
Duels may be distinguished from trials by combat, in that duels were not used to determine guilt or innocence, nor were they official procedures. Indeed, duels were often illegal, though in most societies where dueling was socially accepted, participants in a fair duel were not prosecuted, or if they were, were not convicted. Only gentlemen were considered to have honor, and therefore qualified to duel. If a gentleman was insulted by a person of lower class, he would not duel him but would beat him with a cane, riding crop, or whip or have his servants do so. [citation needed] Dueling is now illegal in all but a few countries around the world.
Duels could be fought with some sort of sword or, from the 18th Century on, with pistols.[1] For this end special sets of duelling pistols were crafted for the wealthiest of noblemen.
After the offense, whether real or imagined, the offended party would demand “satisfaction” from the offender,[2] signalling this demand with an inescapably insulting gesture, such as throwing his glove before him, hence the phrase “throwing down the gauntlet”. This originates from medieval times, when a knight was knighted. The knight-to-be would receive a ritual slap in the face, said to be the last one he ever had to accept without retaliating tenfold. Therefore anyone being slapped with a glove was considered like a knight, to accept the challenge or be dishonored. Contrary to popular belief, hitting one in the face with a glove was not a challenge, but could be done after the glove had been thrown down as a response to the one issuing the challenge. Each party would name a trusted representative (a second) who would, between them, determine a suitable “field of honor”, the chief criterion being isolation from interruptions. Duels traditionally took place at dawn, for this very reason. It was also the duty of each party’s second to check that the weapons were equal and that the duel was fair.
At the choice of the offended party, the duel could be
* to first blood, in which case the duel would be ended as soon as one man was wounded, even if the wound was minor:
* until one man was so severely wounded as to be physically unable to continue the duel;
* to the death, in which case there would be no satisfaction until the other party was mortally wounded;
* or, in the case of pistol duels, each party would fire one shot. Even if neither man had been hit, if the challenger stated that he was satisfied, the duel would be declared over. A pistol duel could continue until one man was wounded or killed, but to have more than three exchanges of fire was considered barbaric, and somewhat ridiculous if no hits were achieved.
Under the latter conditions, one or both parties could intentionally miss in order to fulfill the conditions of the duel, without loss of either life or honor. However, to do so, “to delope”, could imply that your opponent was not worth shooting. This practice occurred despite being expressly banned by the Code Duello of 1777. Rule 13 stated: “No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case... therefore children’s play must be dishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.” Practices varied, however, and many pistol duels were to first blood or death. The offended party could stop the duel at any time if he deemed his honor satisfied. In some duels there were seconds (stand-ins) who in the event of the primary dueler was not able to finish the duel would then take his place. This was usually done in duels with swords, where one’s expertise was sometimes limited. The second would also act as a witness.
For a pistol duel, the parties would be placed back to back with loaded weapons in hand and walk a set number of paces, turn to face the opponent, and shoot. Typically, the graver the insult, the fewer the paces agreed upon. Alternately, a pre-agreed length of ground would be measured out by the seconds and marked, often with swords stuck in the ground (referred to as “points”). At a given signal, often the dropping of a handkerchief, the principals could advance and fire at will. This latter system reduced the possibility of cheating, as neither principal had to trust the other not to turn too soon. Another system involved alternate shots being taken—the challenged firing first.
Many historical duels were prevented by the difficulty of arranging the “methodus pugnandi”. In the instance of Dr. Richard Brocklesby, the number of paces could not be agreed upon; and in the affair between Mark Akenside and Ballow, one had determined never to fight in the morning, and the other that he would never fight in the afternoon. John Wilkes, who did not stand upon ceremony in these little affairs, when asked by Lord Talbot how many times they were to fire, replied, “just as often as your Lordship pleases; I have brought a bag of bullets and a flask of gunpowder.”
[edit] History
Reid is a moron. That much is obvious. He’s not equipped to win a battle of wits with a mushroom, let alone with Rush. This will backfire as these things always do when the rats try to frame someone on a stack of lies.
Thanks mware, I don’t get cable so I hope I can get a good update here at FR.....stike that....I KNOW I will get a good update here at FR.
Every time O’Reilly challenges someone to a debate, he winds up looking like an idiot. Never fails.
BOR was not confrontational about the Rush story.Said that it is time to confront Media Matters and the smear merchants.
I tried to call just now(8:15pm edlt) the Reid number listed above and got “the mail box is full” and disconnected.I will start calling in the am.Hopefully all will call.
It’s so sad indeed as I’m going to be a Grandmother for the first time and drat the thought of my precious grandchild coming into a world where evil seems to have a stronghold. Seems God, faith and family are the only things left! God help us all!
Opening a Black & Tan, and microwaving some popcorn for this one!
Two draft dodgers/chickenhawks dueling. That’d be interesting NOT.
I don’t like O’Reilly, and I’m not watching O’Reilly, but I doubt he’s inviting Rush on to attack him.
O’Reilly’s being smeared, so is Rush, but Rush is MUCH bigger then O’Reilly. O’Reilly doesn’t have Republicans on he Hill putting resolutions together to defend him after all.
Having Rush on the show would be good for his ratings, sure, but it would also draw more attention to the smears O’Reilly has been experiencing and help him clear his name while a huge audience is turning in just for Rush.
Whether Rush would agree to it I don’t know. I don’t get the sense O’Reilly is a favorite of his, even though he has defended O’Reilly from these smears, Rush has a huge audience, bigger then anything O’Reilly has. And Rush could pretty much get booked on any show he wanted to confront the liars on the hill. If he does agree I can only assume he firgures it would be advantangeous to kill two smears with one appearance.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3645227
In case this wasn’t seen prior to Rush’s remark. I don’t hear Harry all over ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3645227
In case this wasn’t seen prior to Rush’s remark. I don’t hear Harry all over ABC News
How the hell does this man continue to lead the d(s)? I’m just overwhelmed at his stupidity. Doesn’t he know not to get into a war of words unless he’s armed? $100 on Rush for this round!
You are so correct in your statement @19. I remember those days also when things just made sense. Now, confusion, obfuscation and absurdity rules the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.