Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
Hmmm. I'll have to look into this. Sounds interesting. Suggested reading?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
The Story you won't See
- Thread starter tarzan1888
- Start date
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
This also speaks to the manipulation of language. The Bolsheviks were by no means in the majority when they pulled their society-wrecking stunt.
The Federalists pulled this at the Founding also. At the Founding, the words federation and confederacy were synonymous. Prior to the Constitution we had the Articles of Confederation. That's right. It was already a federation, a federal-ity.
The delegates to the Constitutional convention were authorized only to improve the Articles of Confederation. We already had a federation. Yet, they called themselves Federalists. Leaving the opposition to be called anti-Federalists. Ouch!! So, if you happened to see the seeds of big government in the Constitution, and hollered about it, you got branded with a name that implied you were opposed to individual state sovereignties forming a federation.
Yes, there were people who predicted the big, over-reaching federal government even in 1788.
Doug Huffman wrote:
This also speaks to the manipulation of language. The Bolsheviks were by no means in the majority when they pulled their society-wrecking stunt.
The Federalists pulled this at the Founding also. At the Founding, the words federation and confederacy were synonymous. Prior to the Constitution we had the Articles of Confederation. That's right. It was already a federation, a federal-ity.
The delegates to the Constitutional convention were authorized only to improve the Articles of Confederation. We already had a federation. Yet, they called themselves Federalists. Leaving the opposition to be called anti-Federalists. Ouch!! So, if you happened to see the seeds of big government in the Constitution, and hollered about it, you got branded with a name that implied you were opposed to individual state sovereignties forming a federation.
Yes, there were people who predicted the big, over-reaching federal government even in 1788.
Felid`Maximus
Activist Member
imported post
The Bolsheviks (meaning majority) were the minority among the reds in Russia, and the Mensheviks (meaning minority) outnumbered them. And I believe the reds as a whole were a minority compared to the whites.
The Bolsheviks (meaning majority) were the minority among the reds in Russia, and the Mensheviks (meaning minority) outnumbered them. And I believe the reds as a whole were a minority compared to the whites.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
I don't have anything solid to back it up at this point. It's basically my take on history based on stuff I've read and historians' lectures and so forth. If I run across something nect time I'm digging in my bookcase I'll let you know.
So, yes, folks, in other words, this may be considered my opinion at this point.:?
Citizen wrote:
I don't have anything solid to back it up at this point. It's basically my take on history based on stuff I've read and historians' lectures and so forth. If I run across something nect time I'm digging in my bookcase I'll let you know.
So, yes, folks, in other words, this may be considered my opinion at this point.:?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Well, yes. I knew that. But darned if you haven't piqued my interest. You don't strike me as the sort of fella who invents his opinions out of thin air. I was guessing you had done more than a little reading to lay out those ideas.
I'll just have to wait for the bookshelf excavation.
Tomahawk wrote:
Well, yes. I knew that. But darned if you haven't piqued my interest. You don't strike me as the sort of fella who invents his opinions out of thin air. I was guessing you had done more than a little reading to lay out those ideas.
I'll just have to wait for the bookshelf excavation.
sjhipple
Regular Member
imported post
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Ben Franklin
Democracy is the idea that wrong becomes right when 51% of people agree. It brings about stupid arguments like, "well, the people have spoken." Liberty is the fact that people have rights no matter what. Liberty, and the Constitution that protects it, are very, very, very anti-democratic. As anti-democratic as the founders who believed in them
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Ben Franklin
Democracy is the idea that wrong becomes right when 51% of people agree. It brings about stupid arguments like, "well, the people have spoken." Liberty is the fact that people have rights no matter what. Liberty, and the Constitution that protects it, are very, very, very anti-democratic. As anti-democratic as the founders who believed in them
I_Hate_Illinois
Regular Member
imported post
ama-gi wrote:
ama-gi wrote:
+1
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Interesting discussion. While I am no fan of democracy for its own sake, let me play devil's advocate:
If the majority is not qualified to determine what is right, who is? How do you choose the minority who does get to decide?
I am of the opinion that there are [nearly] objective facts about human nature that can be used to determine what a right is or isn't, through a process of logic.
But if the majority doesn't understand your logic, what then?
I see the purpose for the electoral college, but it's neither a fool proof guard against stupidity nor is it easy to explain to people.
Interesting discussion. While I am no fan of democracy for its own sake, let me play devil's advocate:
If the majority is not qualified to determine what is right, who is? How do you choose the minority who does get to decide?
I am of the opinion that there are [nearly] objective facts about human nature that can be used to determine what a right is or isn't, through a process of logic.
But if the majority doesn't understand your logic, what then?
I see the purpose for the electoral college, but it's neither a fool proof guard against stupidity nor is it easy to explain to people.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
The root of this argument is subjective truth or objective truth. Does 'truth.' like Rights, exist apart from humans.
I believe 'yes,' truth is an ideal that exists apart from our efforts to bend it to our will. This is an aspect of Platonism.
The Decalogue is a fine objective truth, YMMV.
Once a subjective truth is allowed the debate on whose ox is AlGored begins.
A reliable guide to 'truth' is to listen to who squeals the loudest.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA-AHSA KMA$$
The root of this argument is subjective truth or objective truth. Does 'truth.' like Rights, exist apart from humans.
I believe 'yes,' truth is an ideal that exists apart from our efforts to bend it to our will. This is an aspect of Platonism.
The Decalogue is a fine objective truth, YMMV.
Once a subjective truth is allowed the debate on whose ox is AlGored begins.
A reliable guide to 'truth' is to listen to who squeals the loudest.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA-AHSA KMA$$
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
Did I miss the beginning of this thread? How the heck did the OP get to this discussion? Talk about thread hijacking.
Did I miss the beginning of this thread? How the heck did the OP get to this discussion? Talk about thread hijacking.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
Legba wrote:
Legba wrote:
I think it got hijacked long before then.:lol:
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
PT111 wrote:
What do *you* think the OP is about, then? Make a constructive contribution.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA-AHSA KMA$$
PT111 wrote:
What do *you* think the OP is about, then? Make a constructive contribution.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA-AHSA KMA$$
tarzan1888
Regular Member
imported post
color of law wrote:
:shock: Yea ......I want a re-count.
Tarzan
color of law wrote:
:shock: Yea ......I want a re-count.
Tarzan
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
The OP was about delegates, which led to a discussion about the electoral college, which brings back the old debate about direct democracy vs. protection from mob rule.
From the specific to the general, and after hashing out the general we use our new perspectives to re-examine the specific. And maybe learn something along the way.
That's why discussions like this interest me.
The OP was about delegates, which led to a discussion about the electoral college, which brings back the old debate about direct democracy vs. protection from mob rule.
From the specific to the general, and after hashing out the general we use our new perspectives to re-examine the specific. And maybe learn something along the way.
That's why discussions like this interest me.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
The best observation in a loong time! Well said!
The best observation in a loong time! Well said!
Erus
Regular Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Is there any other wayactual LEARNING gets done?
"...Thanks to great leaders such as.. socratic method, the world is Full, of history!" -Ted Theodore Logan
Sorry for the silly quote/obscure, twisted referencing, but I can not agree with you more Tomahawk. This is thebest reason worth having/contributing to any conversation, IMO.
Erus
Tomahawk wrote:
+1,000,000+
Is there any other wayactual LEARNING gets done?
"...Thanks to great leaders such as.. socratic method, the world is Full, of history!" -Ted Theodore Logan
Sorry for the silly quote/obscure, twisted referencing, but I can not agree with you more Tomahawk. This is thebest reason worth having/contributing to any conversation, IMO.
Erus
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
The original title of this thread was "The Story you won't see" which a C&P of a CNN web page. The only unusual thing about the page was that it showed Tarzan getting no delegates, otherwise it was a story that millions have access to. I fail to see how Tarzan not having any delegates so far ties into the Electoral College or Open Carry of weapons. Threads on this site have been deleted for being not related to Open Carry that were much closer than an argument over whether to contribute a quote to Winston Churchill or Ben Franklin.
The original title of this thread was "The Story you won't see" which a C&P of a CNN web page. The only unusual thing about the page was that it showed Tarzan getting no delegates, otherwise it was a story that millions have access to. I fail to see how Tarzan not having any delegates so far ties into the Electoral College or Open Carry of weapons. Threads on this site have been deleted for being not related to Open Carry that were much closer than an argument over whether to contribute a quote to Winston Churchill or Ben Franklin.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Lincoln prosecuted a war against the Southern states.
From the US Constitution, Article 1 Sec. 8: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; (emphasis mine)
The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution authorizes the fed's to suppress insurrections. But nothing in it authorizes preventing secessions.
Nor, are the states are not prohibited from seceeding.
The 10th Amendment reserves to the States any powers not given to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States.
Now I understand why the federal government treated the Southern states as rebels. And called it a Rebellion (insurrection). They were authorized to put down insurrections, not secessions. They HADTO call it a rebellion.
Yet, the South wasn'trebelling. They were seceeding.
Deliberate misuse of language, looks like to me.
Tomahawk wrote:
Perhaps you have some insight into this next one. It falls in the category of misusing language. Its new to me.
Lincoln prosecuted a war against the Southern states.
From the US Constitution, Article 1 Sec. 8: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; (emphasis mine)
The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution authorizes the fed's to suppress insurrections. But nothing in it authorizes preventing secessions.
Nor, are the states are not prohibited from seceeding.
The 10th Amendment reserves to the States any powers not given to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States.
Now I understand why the federal government treated the Southern states as rebels. And called it a Rebellion (insurrection). They were authorized to put down insurrections, not secessions. They HADTO call it a rebellion.
Yet, the South wasn'trebelling. They were seceeding.
Deliberate misuse of language, looks like to me.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Well, now we're definitely off-topic, but I see what you're saying. I'll have to look up the word, but does insurrection mean the same thing as rebellion?
And what is secession if not a rebellion? Is it not saying, "we no longer accept your rule, so we're going our own way"? Isn't that a rebellion?
Never mind for now. I think this should be in a different thread.
Citizen wrote:
Well, now we're definitely off-topic, but I see what you're saying. I'll have to look up the word, but does insurrection mean the same thing as rebellion?
And what is secession if not a rebellion? Is it not saying, "we no longer accept your rule, so we're going our own way"? Isn't that a rebellion?
Never mind for now. I think this should be in a different thread.