>Instead of saying something in the ball park of "what about the politics of war", please, listen to me and give that crap a rest.
>
>Think critically rather than automatically.

This whole thread is more or less stool, and that's exactly the ingredient you don't make the cake of.

With all of our back and forth I can't remember what was this about :).

>>>>And your trying to portray the appearance of dynasties as "families competing in politics" is futile.
>>>
>>>What else would they be?
>>
>>Dynasties. Show some respect for the meaning of words and use the ones that best describe the matter.
>
>I do.
>
>Dynasty as it relates to ruling families in the history of Europe, Asia, and Africa, is all about war.
>
>Dynasty as it relates to NFL Football is all about winning super bowls. Three or four times usually.

Does not compute - I have no clue about that particular branch of showbiz/pottery, so I'll just trust your word here.

>Dynasty as it relates to American politics is all about winning elections.

And maintaining the stash money for the forthcoming ones in the family.

>Of course, you can argue that the legacy of Bush's dynasty and others have been built on wars.
>
>But that's still pretty different than how warfare was used by non-democratic dynasties.

Ah, maybe therein lies the rub. These are democratic?