Posted on 04/08/2014 1:50:48 AM PDT by lowbridge
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Monday said Democrats’ counterattacks on billionaires Charles and David Koch will be effective in this year’s election.
In an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Schumer cited a poll that found 48 percent of the U.S. public doesn't know of the Koch brothers. Schumer said that by October, 90 percent of the country will.
Schumer said Democrats must pursue a “positive agenda” on top of their strategy to expose the Koch brothers’ efforts to fund conservative campaigns and political ads.
“We also have to have a shield that protects us from these ads, and I think the Koch brother thing will work,” he said.
The billionaire donors are spending $40 million or $50 million in ads that are focused on eliminating regulations on corporations and cutting taxes, said Schumer, adding “that demands a response."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Reprinted from “American Duels and Hostile Encounters,” Chilton Books, 1963.
The Code Duello, covering the practice of dueling and points of honor, was drawn up and settled at Clonmel Summer Assizes, 1777, by gentlemen-delegates of Tipperary, Galway, Sligo, Mayo and Roscommon, and prescribed for general adoption throughout Ireland. The Code was generally also followed in England and on the Continent with some slight variations. In America, the principal rules were followed, although occasionally there were some glaring deviations.
Rule 1. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offense, and then (after one fire) B may explain away the retort by a subsequent apology.
Rule 2. But if the parties would rather fight on, then after two shots each (but in no case before), B may explain first, and A apologize afterward.
N.B. The above rules apply to all cases of offenses in retort not of stronger class than the example.
Rule 3. If a doubt exist who gave the first offense, the decision rests with the seconds; if they won’t decide, or can’t agree, the matter must proceed to two shots, or to a hit, if the challenger require it.
Rule 4. When the lie direct is the first offense, the aggressor must either beg pardon in express terms; exchange two shots previous to apology; or three shots followed up by explanation; or fire on till a severe hit be received by one party or the other.
Rule 5. As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore — the offender handing a cane to the injured party, to be used on his own back, at the same time begging pardon; firing on until one or both are disabled; or exchanging three shots, and then asking pardon without proffer of the cane.
If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed; or until, after receiving a wound, and blood being drawn, the aggressor begs pardon.
N.B. A disarm is considered the same as a disable. The disarmer may (strictly) break his adversary’s sword; but if it be the challenger who is disarmed, it is considered as ungenerous to do so.
In the case the challenged be disarmed and refuses to ask pardon or atone, he must not be killed, as formerly; but the challenger may lay his own sword on the aggressor’s shoulder, then break the aggressor’s sword and say, “I spare your life!” The challenged can never revive the quarrel — the challenger may.
Rule 6. If A gives B the lie, and B retorts by a blow (being the two greatest offenses), no reconciliation can take place till after two discharges each, or a severe hit; after which B may beg A’s pardon humbly for the blow and then A may explain simply for the lie; because a blow is never allowable, and the offense of the lie, therefore, merges in it. (See preceding rules.)
N.B. Challenges for undivulged causes may be reconciled on the ground, after one shot. An explanation or the slightest hit should be sufficient in such cases, because no personal offense transpired.
Rule 7. But no apology can be received, in any case, after the parties have actually taken ground, without exchange of fires.
Rule 8. In the above case, no challenger is obliged to divulge his cause of challenge (if private) unless required by the challenged so to do before their meeting.
Rule 9. All imputations of cheating at play, races, etc., to be considered equivalent to a blow; but may be reconciled after one shot, on admitting their falsehood and begging pardon publicly.
Rule 10. Any insult to a lady under a gentleman’s care or protection to be considered as, by one degree, a greater offense than if given to the gentleman personally, and to be regulated accordingly.
Rule 11. Offenses originating or accruing from the support of ladies’ reputations, to be considered as less unjustifiable than any others of the same class, and as admitting of slighter apologies by the aggressor: this to be determined by the circumstances of the case, but always favorable to the lady.
Rule 12. In simple, unpremeditated recontres with the smallsword, or couteau de chasse, the rule is — first draw, first sheath, unless blood is drawn; then both sheath, and proceed to investigation.
Rule 13. No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offense; and the challenged ought, if he gave offense, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore, children’s play must be dishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.
Rule 14. Seconds to be of equal rank in society with the principals they attend, inasmuch as a second may either choose or chance to become a principal, and equality is indispensible.
Rule 15. Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the party to be challenged intend leaving the place of offense before morning; for it is desirable to avoid all hot-headed proceedings.
Rule 16. The challenged has the right to choose his own weapon, unless the challenger gives his honor he is no swordsman; after which, however, he can decline any second species of weapon proposed by the challenged.
Rule 17. The challenged chooses his ground; the challenger chooses his distance; the seconds fix the time and terms of firing.
Rule 18. The seconds load in presence of each other, unless they give their mutual honors they have charged smooth and single, which should be held sufficient.
Rule 19. Firing may be regulated — first by signal; secondly, by word of command; or thirdly, at pleasure — as may be agreeable to the parties. In the latter case, the parties may fire at their reasonable leisure, but second presents and rests are strictly prohibited.
Rule 20. In all cases a miss-fire is equivalent to a shot, and a snap or non-cock is to be considered as a miss-fire.
Rule 21. Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the meeting takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits, as specified.
Rule 22. Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily make the hand shake, must end the business for that day.
Rule 23. If the cause of the meeting be of such a nature that no apology or explanation can or will be received, the challenged takes his ground, and calls on the challenger to proceed as he chooses; in such cases, firing at pleasure is the usual practice, but may be varied by agreement.
Rule 24. In slight cases, the second hands his principal but one pistol; but in gross cases, two, holding another case ready charged in reserve.
Rule 25. Where seconds disagree, and resolve to exchange shots themselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals, thus:
If with swords, side by side, with five paces interval.
N.B. All matters and doubts not herein mentioned will be explained and cleared up by application to the committee, who meet alternately at Clonmel and Galway, at the quarter sessions, for that purpose.
The brothers should expose them. Refer to harry as paleface like the mob calls him on the fbi tapes in their next interview.
The History of Dueling in America
Dueling might, just might, curtail politicians from running their yaps as freely as they currently do.
These Rats had better start praying for the continued good health of the Kochs. If any violence were to befall them, their families would have a pretty good case for incitement.
Schumer, I think what you and the democrat party are about to do reaches a new low. It is morally wrong and bankrupts your party. This is nothing but a totalitarian tactic that requires a response that shuts it down in its tracks. Or we face the victimization by jack-booted thugs in the streets.
My post stated yesterday that it would no longer be safe to be a conservative, republican or member of a Tea Party/912 group.
Expect to be attacked physically, slandered at every turn, and heaven forbid you need to go to a hospital or ER.
I fear for my country and elections this year. I have fully anticipated we would not see another Presidential election past 2012 and if Schumer’s projection is correct, this November may be the very last election ever.
As to those FReeper’s who keep saying we will respond, no we won’t. We are weak and terrified at what is happening. Like the good Germans at the dawning of Hilter’s time, we will stand in awe of what takes the place of republican freedom.
May God have mercy on us,
for no one will come to our rescue.
Our only rescue and refuge,
Rests in the Lord our God.
There is no great bastion left,
and the American promised land,
has squandered her riches.
Woe be unto her people,
whose voice is like the rushing water,
May God have mercy on us,
for no one will come to our rescue,
We shall walk through this valley of death,
And it is by God’s grace
we shall fear no evil.
So THIS is how congress got to, “My esteemed and learned colleague on the other side of the aisle .. “
Yes, and the truth is that attacks on politically “involved”, but not elected officials end up making the attacker look a lot like Capt Ahab.
At least to the general public. The Dem’s nutcase base will eat this sort of thing up, believing that it “shows” the Dems are putting up a fight. Which is why it’s really intended for their consumption. And if the Dems are doing this sort of thing to motivate their base, it means they know they are in deep, deep trouble.
I am a smart, pretty well informed guy. But I could pick a Koch brother out of a line up. When I hear the name, it simply sounds like “KochBushChenneyreagan”
More often than not, it comes out sounding like teacher in the Charlie Brown Cartoons.
Could not pick him out of a line up.
Hey upchuck, remember the article where most Americans could not name a single US senator? What makes him think the average Joe cares who the Koch brothers are when the US is going down the tubes.
Schmuckie you are so full of sh-ite that you can't see straight.
The money spent by Unions (forcibly taken from the dues of working citizens) and George Soros dwarf the money spent by the Kochs or any other U.S. citizens.
Your Alinsky treatment of the Kochs is gonna backfire on you ... BIG TIME!
Why exactly again are DEMOCRATS choosing to attack and these two particular American citizens and make them public enemy number one?
Republicans should counter with ads of the Democrat richies in Congress....what they were worth when they took office and what they are worth now. And what laws they passed made them richer.
Schumer, the position of Crazy-Lady-Of-Washington is already taken by Pelosi. Please come up with another idea.
If any member of the Senate has cojones bigger than a mustard seed, every speech libeling the Koch Brothers should be followed by one denouncing George Soros and Penny Pritzker.
But that would be asking too much of the pillars of courage./s
Is Soros so powerful that he intimidates all the Republicans?
I never see much info about his devious influence outside of FR.
Schmuckie drinks his own urine.
Lord! Democrats are certainly arrogant B*stards. However, their arrogance is warranted by their continuing conquests in the media, education popular culture and political fields. With the huge influx of Democratic voters from Mexico and Asia they may clean our clocks this mid term election cycle.
The rest of us wish that we had never heard of Chuckie, that instead he was a nobody without power or influence and had not been one of the major factors in the housing & financial crash.
Not intimidation. They are on his payroll too.
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.