- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,567
- Reaction score
- 22,191
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Yes, I'm sorry for my part of that. I just really ruffles my feathers when I read something like post #5.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.
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..
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.
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.
It's not ridiculous. He didn't want black people to even live here.
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.
*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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It allows for amendments, not "interpretation"...
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?