What the hell were they thinking?

tonyb

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Thomas Jeffferson was a prophet. To bad we failed to heed his words.

Indeed....so much of what we failed to heed comes at the expense of putting too much trust into others for our own well being and security. Individual responsiblity has gone the way of the dinasaur.

goofyGAguy

Polkersince85 wrote: »

Thomas Jefferson, who penned the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, wrote roughly 40 years later, in 1816, to Samuel Kercheval:

Jefferson also wrote this:

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

I think it's about to start raining.

kevhed72

Fascinating...

zane77

T Jefferson, my hero!

Timothy Smith

goofyGAguy wrote: »

Jefferson also wrote this:

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

I think it's about to start raining.

I don't want us to be the generation that sold out their liberty 236 years after independence for "free" health care.

Count me in.

But, realistically, I will probably be in the basement listening to music on old stereo equipment when the revolution starts, so you will have to ring the door bell a lot or knock really hard before I hear you.

steveinaz

goofyGAguy wrote: »

Jefferson also wrote this:

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

I believe this country is headed for another revolution, and it's coming sooner than we think. There's some serious frustration out there, and I believe it's directed more towards political beliefs than the politicians themselves. I think of it like this; you have the kid who diligently saves his allowance each week, looking at a big purchase, and you've got the kid who blows his allowance as soon as it hits his hand. One thinks about the future, the other lives for the moment. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Timothy Smith

steveinaz wrote: »

I believe this country is headed for another revolution, and it's coming sooner than we think. There's some serious frustration out there, and I believe it's directed more towards political beliefs than the politicians themselves. I think of it like this; you have the kid who diligently saves his allowance each week, looking at a big purchase, and you've got the kid who blows his allowance as soon as it hits his hand. One thinks about the future, the other lives for the moment. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

....and the irresponsible kid that blows his allowance turns to the frugal/practical one to bail him out every time he needs something, and then publically and privately demonizes him as stupid, un-caring, greedy, and likely racist and sexist to boot.

tonyb

Timothy Smith wrote: »

....and the irresponsible kid that blows his allowance turns to the frugal/practical one to bail him out every time he needs something, and then publically and privately demonizes him as stupid, un-caring, greedy, and likely racist and sexist to boot.

......because that fits his needs for the moment, but he never realizes that he's chopping off the hand that feeds him. He soon decides it is his right to take from others, that you have no say in the matter and should just sign a blank check whenever asked. He has a good old time off the fruits of others labor, while those who actually do the labor watch every penny scrimp and save, because the rest is taken away.

Question is.....how long can it continue before you run out of people to take from ? Or before everyone is in the same class ? Could be the end game all along too.

newrival

steveinaz wrote: »

I believe this country is headed for another revolution, and it's coming sooner than we think.

Are you implying a civil war or violent civil uprise is immanent?

rooftop59

I find it very illustrative that this is now a conversation taking place among folks who all seem to agree with each other... which isn't much of a conversation is it?

steveinaz

Isn't that the essence of human nature though? Don't you feel the frustration level out there is higher than it's ever been?

steveinaz

I can understand and respect that other people have their opinions as well---and I understand the concept of differing platforms; insofar as how do we fix problem "A" and the compromises that may be required to get it done. Where I come unglued is when someone wants changes to the basic principles/values that America was founded on; as a method of fixing problems. On those topics, I have little patience with people of a different political affliation.

rooftop59

Well Steve we just disagree and that's why I bowed out of this conversation long ago. Although I am very grateful for this country and many of its founding principles, there are others that I believe need to change. Your hero Jefferson declared that "All MEN are created equal" and he most definitely meant white men of Anglo-European descent. And those men could buy, sell, beat, and rape their African American slaves, and those men's wives could not own property, vote, or get an education, and those men could eradicate entire populations of native Americans just because they lived on land that those men wanted. That is NOT the America that I want.

I agree with a certain president that what we should strive for is "a more perfect union," one that combines the best principles of the past with new ideas and principles. This might require things like women's suffrage, or the civil rights movement, major changes that lots of conservative folks vehemently abhorred at the time. And I think that there are more changes that will have to happen to achieve that more perfect union where ALL PEOPLE - not just white men - are equal. That's the "more perfect" principle that I want to see achieved.

Timothy Smith

rooftop59 wrote: »

Well Steve we just disagree and that's why I bowed out of this conversation long ago. Although I am very grateful for this country and many of its founding principles, there are others that I believe need to change. Your hero Jefferson declared that "All MEN are created equal" and he most definitely meant white men of Anglo-European descent. And those men could buy, sell, beat, and rape their African American slaves, and those men's wives could not own property, vote, or get an education, and those men could eradicate entire populations of native Americans just because they lived on land that those men wanted. That is NOT the America that I want.

I agree with a certain president that what we should strive for is "a more perfect union," one that combines the best principles of the past with new ideas and principles. This might require things like women's suffrage, or the civil rights movement, major changes that lots of conservative folks vehemently abhorred at the time. And I think that there are more changes that will have to happen to achieve that more perfect union where ALL PEOPLE - not just white men - are equal. That's the "more perfect" principle that I want to see achieved.

Wow.

Go read your history.

Abraham Lincoln was.....a Republican.

Martin Luther King......a Republican

Women's suffrage was passed by....Republicans

The Civil Rights ammendment was passed by....Republicans

Yes, those damn white racist, sexist Republicans.

BlueFox

rooftop59 wrote: »

I find it very illustrative that this is now a conversation taking place among folks who all seem to agree with each other... which isn't much of a conversation is it?

That is the way all these threads start, and end up. The vocal conservative minority just pat each other on the back with their platitudes since only they with their infinite wisdom understand the issues, and only their solutions are correct. It always amazes me how the least educated seem to feel they know everything. I guess that helps to explain their disdain for education. :rolleyes:

goofyGAguy

BlueFox wrote: »

That is the way all these threads start, and end up. The vocal conservative minority just pat each other on the back with their platitudes since only they with their infinite wisdom understand the issues, and only their solutions are correct.

Just an F.Y.I., conservatives are hardly the minority, as much as you wish it were so...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx

steveinaz

I really respect Wolf Blitzer, the guy believes that disagreements can be had, in a civil manner. I believe the same. It's good that we think differently; in the words of Gen. George Patton Jr. "If we're all thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."

Bluefox, these threads end up closed because of comments like yours, intended to be inflammatory and purposely controversial.

Getting back to the original topic, I'm upset at the fact that we don't have Supreme Court justices that are capable of being completely unbiased. Seems to me that would be the NUMBER ONE requirement for the job. Afterall, they are ''suppose" to be looking at the Constitutionality of issues, NOT the politics of issues. When Roberts flipped because he feared the SCOTUS would look "one-sided" he totally neglected is duties as a Justice. It is not the job of justices to "appear" fair, make the masses happy, be a great guy; it's their job to interpret law. It's obvious that more than a few of them don't have what it takes to do the job as intended.

Timothy Smith

BlueFox wrote: »

That is the way all these threads start, and end up. The vocal conservative minority just pat each other on the back with their platitudes since only they with their infinite wisdom understand the issues, and only their solutions are correct. It always amazes me how the least educated seem to feel they know everything. I guess that helps to explain their disdain for education. :rolleyes:

Nope.

I think that conservatives, regardless of their level of "edjumacation" just try to make agruments based on facts, logic, understanding of human nature, experience,and the lessons of history.

I think that many, if not most, liberals are logical, smart, and nice people, but unfortunately they are trapped in an ideology that is often not logical, not very smart, and not very nice. They tie themselves into pretzels trying to explain how their positions make sense, and why their theories fail in the real world. That makes for some very angry people who feel the need to call others who disagree with them "uneducated", "racist", "sexist", "greedy"

theupstater

Wow, my first topic/thread to read as a new member...

Looks like the "Rules" aren't too strict in here.

On the bright side-I'm a raging right wing lunatic, or as Homeland Security Chief puts it-a TERRORIST!!

Timothy Smith

theupstater wrote: »

Wow, my first topic/thread to read as a new member...

Looks like the "Rules" aren't too strict in here.

On the bright side-I'm a raging right wing lunatic, or as Homeland Security Chief puts it-a TERRORIST!!

Welcome Upstater:

Everything should be cool, just don't mention Bose or expensive interconnects and speaker wires.

steveinaz

and FWIW I believe in giving credit where due---SCOTUS did call (most of) the Az immigration issue correctly. YES you heard the conservative right; I said they called it correctly. Jan Brewer knew, as well as most Arizonans that the Fed controls border policy--we were attempting to "shame" our Government into taking action by embarassing them into doing so. That was the whole purpose of that clause---to send a message--keep neglecting issues important to us--and we'll act on our own.

theupstater

I have never and will never own any $ose product and love higher end RCA's, XLR's, and preterminated speaker wires

rooftop59

An interesting read for those of you looking for a deeper - and perhaps more scientific - understanding of why we disagree so adamantly on these issues:

"When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize" http://cbdr.cmu.edu/seminar/Haidt.pdf

Timothy Smith

theupstater wrote: »

I have never and will never own any $ose product and love higher end RCA's, XLR's, and preterminated speaker wires

....Shhhhhhhhhhh.......

Oh man you're gonna blow it.......and on your first day.

Let people get to know you first before they hate you.

rooftop59

Steve, I guess I am just wondering what an unbiased supreme court judgment would look like. Most psychological research shows that it is perhaps impossible for humans to be objective. We always have something we care about - often unconscious - that motivates our decisions. Now I'm not defending Roberts, who knows what influenced his decision.

now I do agree with you that a justice should be able to be fair and balanced and sometimes even make decisions against their preferences because that decision had the best argument or lines up with the established principles of the court or whatever. But I just don't know if Roberts did or did not do this.

steveinaz

While I agree it's impossible for anyone to be completely unbiased, we can certainly find much better qualified people. This current crop of judges wear their politics like a badge of honor---scary in my book.

Let me give you an example that I can draw direct experience from, from my time in the Army. The Army is made up of a vastly varying people. As a supervisor, I was confronted with making decisions that impacted soldiers that could be jewish, atheist, mormon, catholic, lutheran, church of christ, muslim, the list goes on and on. You might think "wow man, that must have been a challenge." In reality, it truly wasn't---did I have to utilize some sense of social justice? Absolutely, but keeping things simple, and NOT LETTING religion even enter the conversation kept things on track. I was hard, firm, but fair; and my soldiers responded well to my way of supervising. I think people who are genuine, have little to no problem communicating with nearly anyone, anytime. Sure, you may make a cultural blunder here & there, but when you're genuine, people see it as a mistake, not an offense.

My point is, a large part of remaining as unbiased as possible---is being a genuine person from the start, and don't have a hidden "agenda."

theupstater

Timothy Smith wrote: »

....Shhhhhhhhhhh.......

Oh man you're gonna blow it.......and on your first day.

Let people get to know you first before they hate you.

Wait till some people find out what equipment I have (or at least some of it)...

amulford

My point is, a large part of remaining as unbiased as possible---is being a genuine person from the start, and don't have a hidden "agenda."

My point exactly. Modern politics are obscenely and pervasively corrupted. Even the branch of our government supposedly immune to any type of politcal influence has shown itself to wear it affiliations on it's sleeve. Damn right it's scary.

The thing is that now it's getting to the point that the agenda's are so thinly veiled they might as well be the emperor's new suit.

And yes, it scares the hell out of me too, because we no longer have a government of for and by the people. We now have a self preserving ever growing hydra which bends to the whim of whomever is willing to fill campaign coffers.

And you can thank the SCOTUS for that, too...

DMara

amulford wrote: »

And yes, it scares the hell out of me too, because we no longer have a government of for and by the people. We now have a self preserving ever growing hydra which bends to the whim of whomever is willing to fill campaign coffers.

That's also because most of us nowadays are selfish, only looking out for our own family, not for others, and obviously not for the country. So one can't just blame everything on the government. Gone are the days of patriotism.

DMara

Timothy Smith wrote: »

I want to thank the "powers that be" or the mysterious entity known as "he who closes the threads", for keeping this one open.

Here we are at 159 replies and still going (and I had my doubts around the early teens mark).

Lots of smart people on this blog, and it is interesting to see opinions discussed on controversial subjects.

Thank goodness this thread wasn't opened by PFB :biggrin: