• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On this Fourth of July, Thomas Jefferson is weeping

the thread was that jefferson would be weeping, becuase of government actions, and again i get a thread of slaves.

i mentioned in another thread republican government or mixed government which the constitution is, and i got slaves.
Yes, I'm sorry for my part of that. I just really ruffles my feathers when I read something like post #5.

From what I know of Jefferson, I think he was one of the greatest free thinkers ever born, and I think we are blessed to have him live when and where he did.
 
Of course is his cuz supposedly Napollitano is Jefferson reincarnated. For some reason im guessing Napollitano is wrong in his opinion cuz this country has survived a very long time..

really?... the government is not killing americans, the government is not spying on us which is the main theme here, yet you dont address that , instead you go off into your own idea of reincarnation........why!
 
Though I do agree with some of Napolitano's statements, I do wonder. Why should it be wrong to seek out and kill a murderer that cannot be arested? Probably we should redetermine the criteria and controle mechanism for such acts. There should be a court involved. But in general we do have to protect ourselves against criminals.

every person according to the Constitution has to be given due process of law, .....now if the government killed them while they were engaged in an attack that would be legal, ......however driving down a road , and the government dropping a bomb on them is not legal.
 
Yes, I'm sorry for my part of that. I just really ruffles my feathers when I read something like post #5.

From what I know of Jefferson, I think he was one of the greatest free thinkers ever born, and I think we are blessed to have him live when and where he did.

i feel the same way about Madison.
 
It's not ridiculous. He didn't want black people to even live here.

Correct, he felt whites would never accept blacks and that blacks could not just forget slavery. He also held racist beliefs that black people were different than white people in meaningful ways. His beliefs on race fit with common folk beliefs about race of the time.

If we look at Jefferson in the context of modern day, he would be a huge racist, though there's a question of whether he would hold the beliefs he did if not for the societal backing which surrounded them. But for his era, he was on the right side of the issue.

I'm sorry that society hasn't always been enlightened about race, but that doesn't mean people weren't opposed to slavery, as Jefferson was.
 
the thread was that jefferson would be weeping, becuase of government actions, and again i get a thread of slaves.

i mentioned in another thread republican government or mixed government which the constitution is, and i got slaves.

It's easier to address then the actual point.

It's somewhat odd how inappropriate so many people are with early America. When studying history, one is supposed to hold historical figures and societies to their own standards, not ours, because they did not exist to please our standards. Most people seem to understand this in history, and people when talking about Plato don't always bring up his dangerous positions in Republic or, well, every major historical figures' ownership of slaves for thousands of years. We can have a perfectly reasonable conversation about their philosophy and ideas, but dare you not bring up Washington or Jefferson, cause they didn't magically separate themselves from the rest of society and declare an end to slavery with a civil rights act to boot, even though they did take a controversial stance against it.
 
*yawn* Conservatives put words in the mouth of 300 year old dead guy.

Let me guess...Jefferson/Washington/Adams and ever other founder would of voted Romney.
 
Holy crap, I thought Sunday was August 4th. My calendar is a month ahead!
 
*yawn* Conservatives put words in the mouth of 300 year old dead guy.

Let me guess...Jefferson/Washington/Adams and ever other founder would of voted Romney.

Romney, they would have rejected him as much as obama, and be outraged by both men.
 
It's easier to address then the actual point.

It's somewhat odd how inappropriate so many people are with early America. When studying history, one is supposed to hold historical figures and societies to their own standards, not ours, because they did not exist to please our standards. Most people seem to understand this in history, and people when talking about Plato don't always bring up his dangerous positions in Republic or, well, every major historical figures' ownership of slaves for thousands of years. We can have a perfectly reasonable conversation about their philosophy and ideas, but dare you not bring up Washington or Jefferson, cause they didn't magically separate themselves from the rest of society and declare an end to slavery with a civil rights act to boot, even though they did take a controversial stance against it.


you cant look back into history, to today's eyes.
 
Romney, they would have rejected him as much as obama, and be outraged by both men.

I think the founders wouldn't of seemed so great if there were TV camera's and they had near the scrutiny politicians have now-a-days. Jefferson would of been kicked out in disgrace for banging a slave girl, Franklin would of come out as philanderer and the "moral majority" would crucified him and ended his career...Madison would of been a flipp flopper...he ran against the National Bank but signed into law the continuation of it during the war of 1812. We can go down the list because I'm sure there's tons of things not covered about these politicians and every decision they ever made. I'm not sure why there's this belief that men were just great back in the day rather than realizing there's always been grey area and problems with human beings.

It's just that in the 1700's most people didn't know about him. Oh...lets not forget the evil "back door" deals that were commonplace in Congress for hundreds of years. The tri-cornered hat folks would be railing against "closed room deals" and "compromise" not to mention life time politicians like virtually every founder.
 
I think the founders wouldn't of seemed so great if there were TV camera's and they had near the scrutiny politicians have now-a-days. Jefferson would of been kicked out in disgrace for banging a slave girl, Franklin would of come out as philanderer and the "moral majority" would crucified him and ended his career...Madison would of been a flipp flopper...he ran against the National Bank but signed into law the continuation of it during the war of 1812. We can go down the list because I'm sure there's tons of things not covered about these politicians and every decision they ever made. I'm not sure why there's this belief that men were just great back in the day rather than realizing there's always been grey area and problems with human beings.

It's just that in the 1700's most people didn't know about him. Oh...lets not forget the evil "back door" deals that were commonplace in Congress for hundreds of years. The tri-cornered hat folks would be railing against "closed room deals" and "compromise" not to mention life time politicians like virtually every founder.

but one thing many people over look , "we did not live in those times, and we cannot measure everything they did, becuase we dont know the situation first hand.

100 years from today people are going to criticize us for what we did, and people today would say ,why i didn't do anything, well those people of the past didn't think they were doing any wrong either.
 
but one thing many people over look , "we did not live in those times, and we cannot measure everything they did, becuase we dont know the situation first hand.

100 years from today people are going to criticize us for what we did, and people today would say ,why i didn't do anything, well those people of the past didn't think they were doing any wrong either.

Those are all things that are people would be angry about during their own times. In fact some of those things were worse back then. Banging a slave girl? That would only be an issue back than. Do you think protestants in the north or south would be happy with Franklins lifestyle? The ant-federalist were already angry about Madison's flip flop. Imagine if the "Anti-Federalist" news station had 24/7 hour coverage with the powdered wig wearing equivilent of sean hannity yelling about the national bank and how he's going creating a super government that will control banking.

Back room deals were necessary for compromise. Do you think any side has ever wanted to compromise? Imagine these guys making the very very tough compromises they had to make with 24 hour news and talking heads beating the drum for them to get primaried.

My point isn't that these guys were bad people. My issue is that we shouldn't glorify them anymore than any elected official that has had to deal with difficult circumstances.

There's also an issue of mis-construing individuals stances and creating caricatures of the founders. Jefferson was a radical. He talked about the re-writing of the constitution ever couple of decades because he didn't like the idea of people being governed by ideals of previous generations. He talked about the common man...the farmer which is today's equivalent of the working poor. How do you know he wouldn't be a Marxist? Alexander Hamilton was the quintessential big government guy. Leader of the Federalist and pretty much the architect of everything that came into being. He was also pro-industry and pro-big business. Using some colonial caricature you'd say he'd be a Democrat but there's a case he could be a hardcore Republican.

I don't think they would criticize the President. I think they would of done what every previous major elected official has done. realized how tough the oval office and governing is and respect the people that follow them.
 
but one thing many people over look , "we did not live in those times, and we cannot measure everything they did, becuase we dont know the situation first hand.

100 years from today people are going to criticize us for what we did, and people today would say ,why i didn't do anything, well those people of the past didn't think they were doing any wrong either.

Also..I'd like to point out..they'd probably be amazed at how more democratic things have turned out without everything turning into anarchy.
 
Those are all things that are people would be angry about during their own times. In fact some of those things were worse back then. Banging a slave girl? That would only be an issue back than. Do you think protestants in the north or south would be happy with Franklins lifestyle? The ant-federalist were already angry about Madison's flip flop. Imagine if the "Anti-Federalist" news station had 24/7 hour coverage with the powdered wig wearing equivilent of sean hannity yelling about the national bank and how he's going creating a super government that will control banking.

Back room deals were necessary for compromise. Do you think any side has ever wanted to compromise? Imagine these guys making the very very tough compromises they had to make with 24 hour news and talking heads beating the drum for them to get primaried.

My point isn't that these guys were bad people. My issue is that we shouldn't glorify them anymore than any elected official that has had to deal with difficult circumstances.

There's also an issue of mis-construing individuals stances and creating caricatures of the founders. Jefferson was a radical. He talked about the re-writing of the constitution ever couple of decades because he didn't like the idea of people being governed by ideals of previous generations. He talked about the common man...the farmer which is today's equivalent of the working poor. How do you know he wouldn't be a Marxist? Alexander Hamilton was the quintessential big government guy. Leader of the Federalist and pretty much the architect of everything that came into being. He was also pro-industry and pro-big business. Using some colonial caricature you'd say he'd be a Democrat but there's a case he could be a hardcore Republican.

I don't think they would criticize the President. I think they would of done what every previous major elected official has done. realized how tough the oval office and governing is and respect the people that follow them.

some want to say i glorify the founders, which is not true.

i use the founders and their words.... not my own, becuase who knows more the founders or me.....they of coarse.

no USSC judge knows more on the original constitution then madison, and the constitution has not change very much in over 200 years.
 
Also..I'd like to point out..they'd probably be amazed at how more democratic things have turned out without everything turning into anarchy.

well you dont see it.... but i do, heading in that direction.

when people on here believe they can vote on other people rights, and dictate to them.

when people believe they can control other peoples money.

when people believe they can tell others how to behave morally.........disaster awaits.
 
some want to say i glorify the founders, which is not true.

i use the founders and their words.... not my own, becuase who knows more the founders or me.....they of coarse.

no USSC judge knows more on the original constitution then madison, and the constitution has not change very much in over 200 years.

But the world has changed, and so has our interpration of the constitution.
 
But the world has changed, and so has our interpration of the constitution.

Where is it stated in the Constitution that it is subject to interpretation? If there are changes that need to be addressed it provides a mechanism to do so...
 
But the world has changed, and so has our interpration of the constitution.

how can the interpretation change if the wording has not changed........

the right to keep and bare arms.....does that mean you can own a firearm in 1787, but cant in 2013........becuase you have some people today saying there is no right to bare a firearm.
 
some want to say i glorify the founders, which is not true.

i use the founders and their words.... not my own, becuase who knows more the founders or me.....they of coarse.

no USSC judge knows more on the original constitution then madison, and the constitution has not change very much in over 200 years.

That constitution existed because of compromise and changes and dealing and give and take. It's a document to govern a country not the 10 commandments.
 
That constitution existed because of compromise and changes and dealing and give and take. It's a document to govern a country not the 10 commandments.

It allows for amendments, not "interpretation"...
 
It allows for amendments, not "interpretation"...

How on earth would you govern a country if everything not expressly mentioned in the constitution required an amendment process. Jesus...talk about anarchy and gridlock. It's also just not true because since the beginning the founder interpreted the constitution.
 
How on earth would you govern a country if everything not expressly mentioned in the constitution required an amendment process. Jesus...talk about anarchy and gridlock. It's also just not true because since the beginning the founder interpreted the constitution.

All that's required is following the governing document when Congress takes action. It's not that difficult. Mot issues were intended to be left to the individual States...
 
How on earth would you govern a country if everything not expressly mentioned in the constitution required an amendment process. Jesus...talk about anarchy and gridlock. It's also just not true because since the beginning the founder interpreted the constitution.

that is becuase the founders wanted the supreme law, to be agreed on by all the states, ...not by elected officials.

it is the states who makeup this compact...not the government.
 
Back
Top Bottom