Why Don't They Post This Jefferson Quote?

Threedee said:
So you can see, then, that not every new economic aspect of globalisation is automatically a net benefit, then.
Click to expand...

No....the net benefit comes when our "Capitalists" realize that when they only think of themselves and their self preservation.....that in the long run, they only hurt themselves.

That apparently either hasn't been learned yet, or has been forgotten over the years.
 
Things like this happened pre-capitalism, under the mercantilist system. How many ordinary British benefited from the crown's monopolistic charters to such companies as the Musgrove Co, East India Company, and the other companies that were set up around the globe?
 
Howey said:
But I thought you guys favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Or even the Bill of Rights?

Could Jefferson's words apply even to the Second Amendment?


Ouch. That hurt you, didn't it?
Click to expand...

No strict interpretation of Jefferson’s words even comes close to suggesting any change in the Second Amendment. Only a corrupt crooked fucking leftist gun-nut could even present such a weak and absurd suggestion.
 
Threedee said:
Things like this happened pre-capitalism, under the mercantilist system. How many ordinary British benefited from the crown's monopolistic charters to such companies as the Musgrove Co, East India Company, and the other companies that were set up around the globe?
Click to expand...

Oh....you're right. Never denied that. But you'd think that we'd have learned by now that, when the "everyman" in a country is doing reasonably well....has enough food to eat, a solid roof over their heads and some money in their pockets to save, and yes.....spend, that it makes that country stronger.

It makes for a stable, growing economy and it also increases the tax base so that public projects, works and programs that benefit ALL citizens can take place without the massive debt we've been accumulating.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No it's not a bullshit argument. It's an argument that has historically been used to oppress people and deny others the blessings of liberty. Slavery and Jim Crow laws are the most obvious examples. When the nation moved to abolish those constitutionally their defenders argued both that the Federal Government was going beyond its proscribed constitutional powers (while hypocritically opposing constitutional reforms) and defended States rights to continue those odd institutions.
Click to expand...
Obviously they who argued that the federal government was going beyond its constitutional powers by enforcing the bill of rights were full of shit. Again, my position on limited government has nothing to do with your bullshit argument.
 
Steelplate said:
The Federalist papers hold absolutely ZERO bearing on much of anything. That's the problem with you folk you take ONE of our many founding fathers' OPINION.....and embrace it as a unfailing schematic of the Constitution. Hamilton was not on an Island onto himself....Not even close.
Click to expand...

Threedee said:
Well, the Constitution was written first, so it has bearing on them. They, however, were written about each concept and facet of the Constitution, so reading them is like reading a lenghthy dissertation about what it means. Hamilton did grow up on an island, away from the other Founders, so that is actually pretty close. :D
Click to expand...

The Constitution was drafted first, the Federalist papers were a series of article written by several of the Founders to "sell" the document to the public so it would then be signed into law. As such, the arguments presented in the Papers are an important tool to understanding the mindset of those who wrote the Constitution.

Again, I advocate a plain language reading of the Constitution and that's that. But when someone attempts a "creative interpretation" to expand federal power, I simply point them to the appropriate argument in the Federalist to correct them.
 
DamnYankee said:
The Constitution was drafted first, the Federalist papers were a series of article written by several of the Founders to "sell" the document to the public so it would then be signed into law. As such, the arguments presented in the Papers are an important tool to understanding the mindset of those who wrote the Constitution.

Again, I advocate a plain language reading of the Constitution and that's that. But when someone attempts a "creative interpretation" to expand federal power, I simply point them to the appropriate argument in the Federalist to correct them.
Click to expand...

Well....you can advocate all you want. You can say the Constitution is the third Testament of God, was divinely inspired, and should be read with the same reverence that a Fundamentalist reads the Bible.

It's a Free Country. But unless a great majority feels the same way? You're pissing into the wind.
 
Steelplate said:
Well....you can advocate all you want. You can say the Constitution is the third Testament of God, was divinely inspired, and should be read with the same reverence that a Fundamentalist reads the Bible.

It's a Free Country. But unless a great majority feels the same way? You're pissing into the wind.
Click to expand...

Surely there can be no doubt that a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution is just ”pissing into the wind” these days but I shall submit that’s precisely why we have so many fucking unconstitutional, undeclared wars including the fucking absurd Drug War. It’s also precisely why we have a 17 trillion $ national debt and rising. It’s also precisely how we got the fucking Patriot Act and now all of the violations of our right to privacy. It’s precisely why we have so many bankrupted unconstitutional socialist programs and unconstitutional corporate subsidies and fucking bailouts. It’s also why we have so, so many lying fucking bastard politicians and cheap Chicago crooks in our federal government.
 
Threedee said:
We have embraced the global economy considerably. Have you noticed our appetite for outsourcing and importing foreign manufactures?
Click to expand...

So are you stating that even though we are one of the more advanced countries in the world we should hold our standards down because otherwise our Corporations can choose a third world outsource?


Because I tend to think that any regulation we make should be held on products brought in and not just on American soil.

The Right had a chance to fight illegal immigrants under Bush but didn't take the chance because they like cheap labor. History repeats itself.

If we have regulations on American workers such as minimum wage, we have to hold those standards on American companies who otherwise could simply outsource to a less successful Country. China dumps toxic chemicals into the ground and air on large scale and they have children who will work for next to nothing. It's why everything is made in China.

Is that success due to Corporate success or Corporate greed?

SAME REGUALTIONS WHEN OUTSOURCING
 
Howey said:
How many times do we need to explain this to you? Enlighten yourself. You might want to start with the rudimentary education. Something commensurate with your education level. May I recommend Schoolhouse Rock?
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with Schoolhouse Rocks. If the second amendment is a problem for most, nothing prohibits amending it. Go for it.
 
open mind said:
Now that statement I like. But everyone's farts smell and none admit it. We need an agreement that some smell lingers with everyone's statements, so others are allowed the distance of the smell of their own farts. We must start respectful argument. I know some answers, but not all. Perhaps you know a few. Could we find the common ground, please.

This country is in such trouble. We have the highest disagreement quotient since Reconstruction. The only period with less general agreement went from 1852-1865. We might be wise to avoid a redoing of that period. As honorable people, interested in the welfare of our nation on the anniversary of its founding, let us take a new oath in the name of civility and the common good, that we will seek first for common ground.
Click to expand...




the reason is the right wants this country to die.

Its why they sign the Grover pledges.


How do you deal with people who follow a man who wants to drown this government in the bathtub?
 
Nope it goes back further than that.

they want to hand the control back to the wealthy.


They don't like the people having power
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top