[stosh]

Sometimes I'm amazed at the foresight the founding fathers of this country had.

I almost wish that people would still pay attention to what they started.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."


I've been wondering where he would stand during all the current economic strife.

 

[JohnE]

ALL of the Founding Fathers would **** themselves and flip their powdered wigs if they saw the crap that is going on these days.

Limbaugh would call for Jefferson to be crucified...

 

[Samirol]

"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 it's 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."

Nuke the south in the name of the founding fathers

There is a certain unhealthy love for the founding fathers, they were significant, but we shouldn't be afraid to govern how we decide is best. Ideals evolve over time, and a lot of people pick and choose which founding father quote to use to back up their side. This is dangerous to politics, because instead of what is rational, right, and logical, we run into situations where progress is impeded by the past.

Hamilton would love what was going on.

 

[X3pilot]

...great quote...

There is a certain unhealthy love for the founding fathers, they were significant, but we shouldn't be afraid to govern how we decide is best. Ideals evolve over time, and a lot of people pick and choose which founding father quote to use to back up their side. This is dangerous to politics, because instead of what is rational, right, and logical, we run into situations where progress is impeded by the past.

Hamilton would love what was going on.

So you support that the framing documents are living and should be subject to modern interpretation and even change?

I think that the Constitution should be a constantly viable and changing document but the basis of it have to remain in tact and enforceable. But then again, look at how it's been drug through the mud the last 75 years..

 

[Samirol]

So you support that the framing documents are living and should be subject to modern interpretation and even change?

I think that the Constitution should be a constantly viable and changing document but the basis of it have to remain in tact and enforceable. But then again, look at how it's been drug through the mud the last 75 years..

Yes, I was more referring to how a lot of people express admiration for all things about the founding fathers, but the founding fathers disagree with them on countless things, especially the powers of the federal government.

 

[JohnE]

There is definitely a love of convenience (sp?) for them. When our friends in Washington need them, they cite them all day long. But how would they be regarded today if they were around?

We like to talk about the founders of the MTB movement, but we certainly dont use all of their designs anymore...

 

[stosh]

There is a certain unhealthy love for the founding fathers, they were significant, but we shouldn't be afraid to govern how we decide is best. Ideals evolve over time, and a lot of people pick and choose which founding father quote to use to back up their side. This is dangerous to politics, because instead of what is rational, right, and logical, we run into situations where progress is impeded by the past.

I couldn't disagree with you more.
I think that the general public has become exactly what Thomas Jefferson was warning about. We ARE lethargic, we are apathetic, we are oppressed by our government and big business.

People are afraid they can't pay their Credit Card bills or they won't have health insurance if they rise up.

People pick and choose what they want out of the bible and entire religions are based on interpretation, same thing is done when looking back at our founding fathers.

 

[Samirol]

But how would they be regarded today if they were around?

In the 50s, the HUAC would have had a nice, long, chat with them

I couldn't disagree with you more.
I think that the general public has become exactly what Thomas Jefferson was warning about. We ARE lethargic, we are apathetic, we are oppressed by our government and big business.

I completely agree, but they should be mad because the government is oppressive, not because Jefferson said that government is oppressive.

 

[JohnE]

So you support that the framing documents are living and should be subject to modern interpretation and even change?

I think that the Constitution should be a constantly viable and changing document but the basis of it have to remain in tact and enforceable...

Wasnt that the point of the system of amendments?

 

[JohnE]

In the 50s, the HUAC would have had a nice, long, chat with them

Today, they would be secretly wiretapped and dragged into Gitmo...and get the cockmeat sandwich...

 

[stosh]

My interpretation of the founding fathers is that for as strict and unyielding as they were I think that they all still managed to see not only in black and white but also the grey in the middle.

Even Abraham Lincoln's view on black people changed over the years and even during his presidency. I don't feel like Bush or many of the people who have been elected to represent us can ever see a middle ground. Life is not black and white, politics aren't black and white, just like the constitution people need to bend and sway and I just don't see that anymore.

 

[Samirol]

My interpretation of the founding fathers is that for as strict and unyielding as they were I think that they all still managed to see not only in black and white but also the grey in the middle.

Even Abraham Lincoln's view on black people changed over the years and even during his presidency. I don't feel like Bush or many of the people who have been elected to represent us can ever see a middle ground. Life is not black and white, politics aren't black and white, just like the constitution people need to bend and sway and I just don't see that anymore.

Lincoln was actually fairly black and white, he believed in doing anything and everything to keep the US together and in one piece. The difference is that the neocons manufacture enemies if none are present.

 

[stosh]

I completely agree, but they should be mad because the government is oppressive, not because Jefferson said that government is oppressive.

Ok I see your point there. I'm saying that not only the general public but the people in office need to look back and take some inspiration from the people who started this great country. They did it for a reason, the decisions they made weren't made in 3 days like the president wants congress to do with the bailout. We rushed into iraq, we rushed to bail out AIG, etc, etc, if we don't take our time now we all will be taking our time when we're out of jobs.

The silver lining is once we're out of jobs and don't have health care and go bankrupt we will finally have time to revolt.

 

[Samirol]

Ok I see your point there. I'm saying that not only the general public but the people in office need to look back and take some inspiration from the people who started this great country. They did it for a reason, the decisions they made weren't made in 3 days like the president wants congress to do with the bailout. We rushed into iraq, we rushed to bail out AIG, etc, etc, if we don't take our time now we all will be taking our time when we're out of jobs.

The silver lining is once we're out of jobs and don't have health care and go bankrupt we will finally have time to revolt.

I see it similar to morality and religion, people should be moral and do good things because it is the right thing to do, not because the Bible says to be moral and do good things.

 

[stosh]

I see it similar to morality and religion, people should be moral and do good things because it is the right thing to do, not because the Bible says to be moral and do good things.

Agreed, to bad greed has gotten in the way.

 

[rockwool]

I think that the Constitution should be a constantly viable and changing document but the basis of it have to remain in tact and enforceable. But then again, look at how it's been drug through the mud the last 75 years..

Agree, and everything with it should be changing, it's the way of nature. Only non-living things and afraid humans don't change. That's why conservativism is wrong, it's meant to keep our societies in this semi-feudal world. Pull sh't out toghether with the root, I say.

Ok I see your point there. I'm saying that not only the general public but the people in office need to look back and take some inspiration from the people who started this great country. They did it for a reason, the decisions they made weren't made in 3 days like the president wants congress to do with the bailout. We rushed into iraq, we rushed to bail out AIG, etc, etc, if we don't take our time now we all will be taking our time when we're out of jobs.

The silver lining is once we're out of jobs and don't have health care and go bankrupt we will finally have time to revolt.

No we won't, that's what TV is for. To pacify us with easily digested distractions.

 

[Samirol]

 

[rockwool]

The guvnah o' California?

 

[Samirol]

The guvnah of California?

Well, former governor of California, Reagan. It is a joke off of "ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer", a nazi slogan.

 

[rockwool]

Well, former governor of California, Reagan. It is a joke off of "ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer", a nazi slogan.

Oh yeah, I know it, I just didn't connect in english.. Good one!

 

[Defenestrated]

Jefferson was an egalitarian extremist (that is very left for those who don't know).

 

[JohnE]

(I heard he was actually a liberal Muslim, bent on taking our guns, raising our taxes, and raping our women...)

 

[rockwool]

Jefferson was an egalitarian extremist (that is very left for those who don't know).

Egalitarian extremist, is that one of those words, what do you call them, like military inteligence, american culture, etc? How can one be extreme on equality? Equality is a norm that should be strived for, the perfect condition, like what 37degrees C is for the human body, so it can't possibly be extreme, right? Anything polirized from equality is extreme.

I'd like to plant my tomahawk in whom ever coined the word 'egalitarian extremist' and then take his scalp and leave him to be eaten by ants alive.

 

[ohio]

Egalitarian extremist, is that one of those words, what do you call them, like military inteligence, american culture, etc? How can one be extreme on equality? Equality is a norm that should be strived for, the perfect condition, like what 37degrees C is for the human body, so it can't possibly be extreme, right? Anything polirized from equality is extreme.

Depends on how you define equality. What aspects does it apply to? In the United States, it is defined as equal opportunity. In other societies it may mean equal standard of living. Under some idealist philosophies it means equal capability. These are very different things.

I do think we have strayed tremendously from equal opportunity, but I also think that equal opportunity is the correct ruler, NOT equal standard of living.

 

[rockwool]

Depends on how you define equality. What aspects does it apply to? In the United States, it is defined as equal opportunity. In other societies it may mean equal standard of living. Under some idealist philosophies it means equal capability. These are very different things.

I do think we have strayed tremendously from equal opportunity, but I also think that equal opportunity is the correct ruler, NOT equal standard of living.

Wouldn't you say that you belong to the category that is the least affected from inequality? I mean, you're a man, white, not a senior citizen or too young, healthy and not disabled, highly educated, from a big city, hetero, and perhaps blessed with good looks. Then, you will definately be less prone to complain about unequal opportunities. If we lack those experiances then we have a hard time imagining how it is for those people. Human shortcommings..

Doesn't equal opportunity and capability go into each other in practicality?

 

[Defenestrated]

Rockwool, you can be extreme on equality because the world is such an unequal place.

 

[Samirol]

Doesn't equal opportunity and capability go into each other in practicality?

In some twisted way, people justify it as equal opportunity to be unequal, it is a bastardization of egalitarianism.

 

[rockwool]

In some twisted way, people justify it as equal opportunity to be unequal, it is a bastardization of egalitarianism.

If some people can bastardize the meaning of peace to actually mean war...egalitarianism is a very long word, people will be lost by the second sylable....

 

[Samirol]

Egalitarianism? Is that something to do with eagles?

 

[ohio]

Wouldn't you say that you belong to the category that is the least affected from inequality? I mean, you're a man, white, not a senior citizen or too young, healthy and not disabled, highly educated, from a big city, hetero, and perhaps blessed with good looks. Then, you will definately be less prone to complain about unequal opportunities. If we lack those experiences then we have a hard time imagining how it is for those people. Human shortcommings..

Doesn't equal opportunity and capability go into each other in practicality?

As I stated in my first sentence, I'm in no way claiming that the United States has achieved equal opportunity. If anything, we have moved further and further away from it in the last 8 years. I'm also under no illusion that I have been blessed with more than my fair share of opportunities and they have made a tremendous difference in my current lot in life (although, I am not from a big city, nor a child of wealth). At the same time, there were many that had my same opportunities or more that have not achieved the same things, nor should they have. My lament is that there are so many who COULD have achieved the same or more, but did NOT have the same opportunities as me.

Where we differ is that I believe the former camp have received precisely what they have earned and deserve. Where we agree is that I think as a nation we have failed the latter camp.

 

[rockwool]

As I stated in my first sentence, I'm in no way claiming that the United States has achieved equal opportunity. If anything, we have moved further and further away from it in the last 8 years. I'm also under no illusion that I have been blessed with more than my fair share of opportunities and they have made a tremendous difference in my current lot in life (although, I am not from a big city, nor a child of wealth). At the same time, there were many that had my same opportunities or more that have not achieved the same things, nor should they have. My lament is that there are so many who COULD have achieved the same or more, but did NOT have the same opportunities as me.

Where we differ is that I believe the former camp have received precisely what they have earned and deserve. Where we agree is that I think as a nation we have failed the latter camp.

I understood you the first time, I was just pointing out some major things that alienates us from the experiance of others. Some things that I forgot to mention were things like different levels of smartness, some are born luckier than other. ADHD, if you have that you are having serious troubles attaining information, both through reading and listening, as your consentration, and therefore memory, is focketed.

Our human shortcommings fail us to see things when viewing over the equality of others compared to our selves. That's the point I was trying to make.

 

[ohio]

Our human shortcomings fail us to see things when viewing over the equality of others compared to our selves. That's the point I was trying to make.

I don't think that's true by definition. I think that it's often the case.

I also don't believe that we have a right to achievement, which you seem to believe we do. You lump together "smart" and "lucky." It depends on how you define lucky, but I don't see those two as belonging in the same category. For me, I separate what is innate and what is circumstantial. Those that have beneficial innate characteristics (e.g. are smarter and work harder) should achieve more in my opinion. For circumstance, I use the converse, those that *lack* beneficial circumstances should be able to achieve equally to someone equal innate characteristics but superior circumstances.

You misjudge me if you think I'm unable to put myself in the shoes of someone less fortunate, that I lack empathy for that position. I believe strongly that we should have equal access to education and information. That we should have equal access to treatment for disorders that reduce our achievement such as ADHD (which I have, by the way) or depression. In fact, I would go beyond well beyond your list, by stating that we should strive to have equal role models of achievement. We should do everything we can to make sure everyone in our society is as capable as possible, and understands what they can do with that capability should they have the motivation. We are a far cry from that, and I understand quite clearly how difficult this makes it for some people and groups to escape from cycles of poverty and self-destruction. I understand that it is a sound investment on our part to break that cycle. I also understand that a providing a basic standard of living is likely a necessary part of that investment, to ensure people are healthy enough to educate themselves and provide for their families. However, I do not agree that simply being alive gives the right to achievement equal to those that are smarter and harder working.

Another area I'm sure we differ is in the difference between achievement and standard of living. We accumulate wealth largely to pass it to our children. We should not be able to pass onto them a standard of achievement if they lack the innate characteristics to achieve it themselves, but we should be able to pass onto our children a standard of living.