Jump to content

Typical!?!

Serendipity

Recommended Posts

Bisharoo Advanced Member

Bisharoo

Posted
Posted

May we be able to soften the hearts of those who hate individual human rights. They need to be able to learn to have compassion and not hatred.

I would love to hear some hard questions asked of these stateists, but our media is entirely complicit in the perpetuation of and increase in the tyranny currently sweeping the US, former home of the free and the brave, now the home of the masters and the enslaved...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kingdiamond Advanced Member

Kingdiamond

Posted
Posted

When are the voters going to wise up and see how hypocritical it is too claim you want small federal government but then push for controlling the use of a harmless plant in the privacy of your own home?

Votes mean nothing when politicians make up new rules to nullify how the public voted. :notfair:

 

 

Politicians are the worst vermin on earth. :thumbsd:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RevThad Advanced Member

+RevThad

Posted
Posted

:thumbsu:

 

For those who have read the Beard thesis you know what our country was really founded on.

His thesis may be partially correct, but he stopped well short of asking the important question that most poli-sci types do. As they find a correlation they stop and conclude that it must be causation. Without further looking at the nature vs nurture dichotomies in relation to those findings, one must take such claims with a grain of salt.

 

Know what I mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
420Atheist Advanced Member

+420Atheist

Posted
Posted

His thesis may be partially correct, but he stopped well short of asking the important question that most poli-sci types do. As they find a correlation they stop and conclude that it must be causation. Without further looking at the nature vs nurture dichotomies in relation to those findings, one must take such claims with a grain of salt.

 

Know what I mean?

 

Yes but I still find much truth in the conclusions. The evidence was there not just in actions but in quotes from the founding fathers. I'm sure like most things the truth is a little more center than his conclusions. But most things are like that but people just can't seem to find there way to only being partially correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RevThad Advanced Member

+RevThad

Posted
Posted

I agree with you mostly. It is the old saying there are 3 sides to a story, his, hers and the truth.

 

I just have issues with trying to apply modern re-constructionist thinking to studies of different periods of history. Or worse trying to judge ancient civilizations by modern western values...

 

His 2 statements were fairly accurate, and if he had just taken that next step he would have seen that the basis of his thesis was not provable much less the whole picture. One must consider the other things added or changed in the constitution in light of the articles of confederation, and what else was going on in the country post war. Further, if his thesis was true, why include an amendment process to the constitution the way it is structured...

 

Most folks that argue his thesis is sound, also argue that our constitution is a living breathing document that needs to be changed via changing of words and their meanings in the judicial arena. I could list a few examples, but I am sure you know exactly 2 of them that I would point to at the outset. ;)

 

Great discussion as always, I love seeing your insight on these various things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
420Atheist Advanced Member

+420Atheist

Posted
Posted

I agree with your analysis. I can't defend Beards Thesis as well as he must have had to. :D I agree that applying modern thinking to historical text will only lead to misinterpretations. :lol: ZING Some things are pretty clear even in light of historical context. The truth probably is in the middle but I suspect our founding fathers were human and surly had a little of their own best interest in mind during the writing.

 

I am one of those people who is in the middle of the constitution interpretation issue. I don't care for activist judges who interpret things they way they want and not the way the law intended. But I equally understand that not everything is the way it was 200 years ago and that has to make a difference in some cases. Some things like the 4th amendment need to go back to the original meaning. Too many activist judges have whittled away at what was intended. Our founders would be rolling in their graves if they knew the abuse of power that our police are currently engaged in.

 

I too enjoy our conversations. It is really fun to discuss these issues in an intellectually honest and not emotionally charged manor. It is too bad more people don't see that is the path to understanding complex issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...