So I guess the one that fits is: 2. a person of very good background, education, and refinement.
Don't see how that should be a negative thing. On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Eric Roberts < ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > Patrician certain fits... > > pa·tri·cian /pÉËtrɪÊÉn/ > <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>Show > Spelled[p > uh-trish-uhn] > <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html>Show IPA > noun > 1. > a person of noble <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/noble> or high > rank; aristocrat. > 2. > a person of very good background, education, and refinement. > 3. > a member of the original senatorial aristocracy in ancient Rome. > 4. > (under the later Roman and Byzantine empires) a title or dignity conferred > by the emperor. > 5. > a member of a hereditary ruling class in certain medieval German, Swiss, > and > Italian free cities. > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:30 PM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > nobleman - patrician - noble? > > > > Miss that part? > > > > We have no aristocracy in America. > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Eric Roberts < > > ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > They were very much the American aristocracy. They were rich white > > > guys...most of whom inheritied it. Some earned it. Most inherited. > > > Besides, what of your definition denies that they weren't? They were > > > members of the American aristocracy...making them aristocrats. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:21 PM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > *a·ris·to·crat*/ÉËristÉËkrat/Noun: > > > > > > > > 1. A member of the aristocracy: "an aristocrat by birth". > > > > 2. Something believed to be the best of its kind: "the trout is the > > > > aristocrat of freshwater fish". > > > > > > > > > > > > Synonyms: > > > > nobleman - patrician - noble - peer > > > > > > > > > > > > So no, they weren't. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Eric Roberts < > > > > ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keeping in mind that with all the nobility of most of thier > actions, > > > > these > > > > > were all also artistocrats... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:15 PM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, so whats the solution? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, and I'm sure you would > disagree, > > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > > > Not that either of them will likely be on my ballot, so I will > > likely > > > > > write > > > > > > in a candidate. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Eric Roberts < > > > > > > ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would agree with Maureen...if you are not part of the > > > > solution...you > > > > > > are > > > > > > > part of the problem... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Maureen < > mamamaur...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I repeat, even thought I am sure it is a waste of time, > > all > > > of > > > > > > > > those candidates have supporters and contributors in your > group > > > of > > > > > > > > "decent people". If they did not they would not have won any > > > > > > > > primaries or election. Not everyone who vote for a > candidate > > > does > > > > > so > > > > > > > > because they don't like the opponent. Santorum, Romney and > > Obama > > > > all > > > > > > > > have rabid supporters. Are you denying that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Jerry Barnes < > > > > critic...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "All of those megalomaniacs have supporters, contributors > and > > > > > voters > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > your pool of decent people." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maureen, I don't know how I can explain it any clearer. > I'll > > > > try, > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > though I am pretty sure it'll be a waste of time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's take Rick Santorum. Many people voted for him > because > > he > > > > was > > > > > > NOT > > > > > > > > > Mitt Romney. Now, that Romney has pretty much wrapped up > the > > > > > > > nomination, > > > > > > > > > many people will vote for him because he is NOT Obama. > They > > > are > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > "supporters" in the traditional sense. They are choosing > the > > > > > lesser > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > evils (in their opinion at le > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:350007 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
