Have you read the Declaration of Independence?

[haymarket]

slaves were not considered people but property,

They were people who were considered as property. How does that negate that reality that they still are part of mankind?

 

[Master PO]

:they still are part of mankind?



stupidity abounds!

 

[haymarket]

stupidity abounds!

comments devoid of any intellectual substance like the one above prove your statement.

You chose to attack instead of responding intelligently to the statement that yes indeed some people were considered as property - but that in no way shape or from negates the reality that they still were people and part of mankind and thus were MEN who were entitled to the very so called "natural rights" that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence. .

 

[American]

I think that if one look at the list of grievances in the Declaration they'll be surprised at how familiar and contemporary they seem.

My other point is related - independence is neither the recognition of ills needing redress nor the declaration of independence from them - but begins with the assertion (declaration) and the commitment TO redress them by parting from the agency responsible for them. It was another 6 or 7 years after we declared our independence from Britain that we actually secured it.

July 4th is a reminder to us of the requisite will and determination a nation needs to both become free and to remain free.

Nothing new here; this has happened throughout history. This is why they were trying to set up self-government. Self-government starts with each citizen governing him/herself. When you behave righteously, you need little policing. Consequently you need much smaller government to govern people who naturally control themselves. This is why many Founders believed in the benefits of religion, because they felt religion would set a high standard of behavior for each citizen. The Founders understood the nature and character of men, and knew well the natural corrupt tendencies of men given power.

 

[Master PO]

comments devoid of any intellectual substance like the one above prove your statement.

You chose to attack instead of responding intelligently to the statement that yes indeed some people were considered as property - but that in no way shape or from negates the reality that they still were people and part of mankind and thus were MEN who were entitled to the very so called "natural rights" that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence. .

you have constantly ..over and over, have declared that the DOI...is only a birth certificate and thats all....now you make it a document for you own brand of racism.....your position shifts like the ocean tides.

 

[haymarket]

you have constantly ..over and over, have declared that the DOI...is only a birth certificate and thats all....now you make it a document for you own brand of racism.....your position shifts like the ocean tides.

Nice attempt to run and hide moving the goal posts from your previous claims. But lets simply stop you and call you out on that attempt and get back to the issue: how is the legal designation of some people as property a negation of the reality that they are people just the same?

 

[Master PO]

Nice attempt to run and hide moving the goal posts from your previous claims. But lets simply stop you and call you out on that attempt and get back to the issue: how is the legal designation of some people as property a negation of the reality that they are people just the same?

just stick to your birth certificate story....

 

[haymarket]

just stick to your birth certificate story....

Its nice to see you back EB. ........... and once again in a tight corner that you painted yourself into trying to defend conditions under slavery and the refusal of the sainted Founding Fathers to extend to ALL MEN the so called natural rights that they claimed belonged to ALL MEN but they themselves denied to ALL MEN because they inconveniently owned many of those same ALL MEN themselves.

 

[Master PO]

Its nice to see you back EB. ........... and once again in a tight corner that you painted yourself into trying to defend conditions under slavery and the refusal of the sainted Founding Fathers to extend to ALL MEN the so called natural rights that they claimed belonged to ALL MEN but they themselves denied to ALL MEN because they inconveniently owned many of those same ALL MEN themselves.

Hay you are funny, you use radio personalities and people born in the 20th century, and call them experts on our founding documents,....yet!... you say the founders don't know the DOI or the constitution...LOL.

 

[haymarket]

Hay you are funny, you use radio personalities and people born in the 20th century, and call them experts on our founding documents,....yet!... you say the founders don't know the DOI or the constitution...LOL.

Feel free to quote me and then I will speak to your attempted point.

 

[Master PO]

Feel free to quote me and then I will speak to your attempted point.

:lol:...in denial again....you better go listen to YOUR thom hartmann, who you call an expert on our founding documents

Thom Hartmann Streaming Live Radio, Video & Television on the web | Thom Hartmann

 

[code1211]

I feel it needs to be pointed out that July 4th is NOT a celebration of independence. Rather, it is a celebration of an ASSERTION OF INDEPENDENCE, of the right to independence.

I would urge everyone to read it this July 4th. Takes maybe all of 5 minutes: Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

I would also like to point out that in the Declaration of Independence is a "list of grievances" of which I feel every American needs to be aware - and more than merely "aware" but savvy to how, in so many cases, such grievances could be legitimately ascribed to our current governmental minions.

It has resonated to our time and Earth shaking in that time, because it stated the rights of the individual. The notion that an individual had rights was a new idea that had been incubating in the minds of the intelligencia of the time.

We now remember the first words as that statement of rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

It is notable that the rights of the individual are stated in one sentence and the need for a government to protect these rights is stated in the next.

The list of grievances follows, but the two sentences is the part of the document that resonates.

The rights of the individual are not awards from men. Each person is created with these rights included and accorded by a higher authority.

We assume this today, but it was assumed at that time that the divine right of kings was the pre-ordained nature of things and, in a far more corporate way, the rights were, then, passed along at the pleasure of the king to those he wished to favor and could remove that favor at any time.

This first part had to be established BEFORE the list of grievances held any standing in any way. The first part is the part that matters after the revolution is done.

 

[CrabCake]

I feel it needs to be pointed out that July 4th is NOT a celebration of independence. Rather, it is a celebration of an ASSERTION OF INDEPENDENCE, of the right to independence.

I would urge everyone to read it this July 4th. Takes maybe all of 5 minutes: Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

I would also like to point out that in the Declaration of Independence is a "list of grievances" of which I feel every American needs to be aware - and more than merely "aware" but savvy to how, in so many cases, such grievances could be legitimately ascribed to our current governmental minions.

Every one of those issues revolves around the idea that those policies are being forced on a people who have no say in it. The argument is that the British lack "consent of the governed" from the colonies because they are ruling over them without giving them any voice or vote within the government that imposes all of these rules on them. None of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence make any sense any more once you add consent of the governed through the establishment of a republican government.

I'll show what I mean by picking three at random (I'll go with 3, 6, and 9 to stick with the pattern of "3" rather than have to use some truly random method):

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
[consider the ability of our judicial system to routinely declare laws passed by the people null and void at their whim or in total disregard of the Constitution proper]

This complaint had to do with the British crown refusing the States the right to create their own judicial systems. This no longer applies because the States now have the right to create their own judicial systems directly and are able to change the federal system through the legislative process. Consent of the governed has been achieved in this area.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
[consider the militarization of our police forces across the nation]

The militarization you speak of has occurred with the consent of our legislatures. It's very telling that for you to make an argument on this one you have to actually pretend the last part of the sentence (which I bolded above so others won't miss it) isn't there. It's actually the linchpin for the whole thing. They didn't so much have a problem with standing armies, in fact both Hancock and Adams who signed this document supported the idea of the USA having its own standing army. The problem was that it was being done without the consent of their legislatures.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
consider the multitude of taxes, fees, penalties, and other "assessments" having been imposed upon us without our vote (consent)]

In order for your argument on this one to make any sense you have to change the meaning of consent to vote. That's not what consent means. It would be a bit challenging to properly explain Locke's concept of consent of the governed, which the founders were channeling here, in a concise manner so I'll link to it below instead. But suffice it to say that consent of the governed does not imply every person gets to vote on every issue, it implies that the system of government is one that the people put their trust in and have a say in; it isn't being pushed on them through a show of power, the threat of death, or some notion of "divine right", it is the result of a democratic process wherein the will of the people is ultimately what controls the structure of the government.

The number of taxes, fees, penalties, and assessments that are levied in the US without consent is zero. Consent is build into the republican system the founders went on to develop after winning independence.

Locke: Government

 

[haymarket]

:lol:...in denial again....you better go listen to YOUR thom hartmann, who you call an expert on our founding documents

Thom Hartmann Streaming Live Radio, Video & Television on the web | Thom Hartmann

Feel free to quote me and then I will speak to your attempted point.