-
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.
Should we consider other's opinions?
- Thread starter swine
- Start date
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
swine wrote:
I'm hardly aligned with Republicans and the right, Mr. Conclusion-Jumper.
You should have read up on your opponent a bit before slinging that. All you did was discredit yourself with other readers who are actually familiar with my writings.
Hahahahahahahahahahaahaaa!
swine wrote:
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!
I'm hardly aligned with Republicans and the right, Mr. Conclusion-Jumper.
You should have read up on your opponent a bit before slinging that. All you did was discredit yourself with other readers who are actually familiar with my writings.
Hahahahahahahahahahaahaaa!
B
Bikenut
Guest
imported post
swine wrote:
swine wrote:
virginiatuck
Regular Member
imported post
swine wrote:
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee
"Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried and proved not to promote the good of the many, and that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams
"Men have differed in opinion and been divided into parties by these opinions from the first origin of societies, and in all governments where they have been permitted freely to think and to speak. The same political parties which now agitate the U.S. have existed through all time. Whether the power of the people or that of the [aristocracy] should prevail were questions which kept the states of Greece and Rome in eternal convulsions, as they now schismatize every people whose minds and mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And in fact the terms of Whig and Tory belong to natural as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams
"The division into Whig and Tory is founded in the nature of man; the weakly and nerveless, the rich and the corrupt, seeing more safety and accessibility in a strong executive; the healthy, firm, and virtuous, feeling confidence in their physical and moral resources, and willing to part with only so much power as is necessary for their good government; and, therefore, to retain the rest in the hands of the many, the division will substantially be into Whig and Tory." --Thomas Jefferson to Joel Barlow
"The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette
"Nature has made some men monarchists and tories by their constitution, and some, of course, there always will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin
"The common division of Whig and Tory... is the most salutary of all divisions and ought, therefore, to be fostered instead of being amalgamated; for take away this, and some more dangerous principle of division will take its place." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short
"I consider the party division of Whig and Tory the most wholesome which can exist in any government, and well worthy of being nourished, to keep out those of a more dangerous character." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry
"To me... it appears that there have been differences of opinion and party differences, from the first establishment of government to the present day, and on the same question which now divides our own country; that these will continue through all future time; that every one takes his side in favor of the many, or of the few, according to his constitution, and the circumstances in which he is placed... that as we judge between the Claudii and the Gracchi, the Wentworths and the Hampdens of past ages, so of those among us whose names may happen to be remembered for awhile, the next generations will judge favorably or unfavorably according to the complexion of individual minds and the side they shall themselves have taken; that nothing new can be added to what has been said by others and will be said in every age in support of the conflicting opinions on government; and that wisdom and duty dictate an humble resignation to the verdict of our future peers." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams
"Wherever there are men, there will be parties; and wherever there are free men they will make themselves heard. Those of firm health and spirits are unwilling to cede more of their liberty than is necessary to preserve order; those of feeble constitutions will wish to see one strong arm able to protect them from the many. These are the Whigs and Tories of nature. These mutual jealousies produce mutual security; and while the laws shall be obeyed, all will be safe. He alone is your enemy who disobeys them." --Thomas Jefferson
"The Tories are for strengthening the Executive and General Government; the Whigs cherish the representative branch and the rights reserved by the States as the bulwark against consolidation, which must immediately generate monarchy." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette
"I had always expected that when the republicans should have put down all things under their feet, they would schismatize among themselves. I always expected, too, that whatever names the parties might bear, the real division would be into moderate and ardent republicanism. In this division there is no great evil -- not even if the minority obtain the ascendency by the accession of federal votes to their candidate; because this gives us one shade only, instead of another, of republicanism. It is to be considered as apostasy only when they purchase the votes of federalists, with a participation in honor and power." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper
"The duty of an upright administration is to pursue its course steadily, to know nothing of these family dissensions, and to cherish the good principles of both parties." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan
swine wrote:
I really despise the "left" and "right" political adjectives. They have different meanings depending on which country you are in, what year it is, and what your agenda is at any moment.
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee
"Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried and proved not to promote the good of the many, and that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams
"Men have differed in opinion and been divided into parties by these opinions from the first origin of societies, and in all governments where they have been permitted freely to think and to speak. The same political parties which now agitate the U.S. have existed through all time. Whether the power of the people or that of the [aristocracy] should prevail were questions which kept the states of Greece and Rome in eternal convulsions, as they now schismatize every people whose minds and mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And in fact the terms of Whig and Tory belong to natural as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams
"The division into Whig and Tory is founded in the nature of man; the weakly and nerveless, the rich and the corrupt, seeing more safety and accessibility in a strong executive; the healthy, firm, and virtuous, feeling confidence in their physical and moral resources, and willing to part with only so much power as is necessary for their good government; and, therefore, to retain the rest in the hands of the many, the division will substantially be into Whig and Tory." --Thomas Jefferson to Joel Barlow
"The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette
"Nature has made some men monarchists and tories by their constitution, and some, of course, there always will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin
"The common division of Whig and Tory... is the most salutary of all divisions and ought, therefore, to be fostered instead of being amalgamated; for take away this, and some more dangerous principle of division will take its place." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short
"I consider the party division of Whig and Tory the most wholesome which can exist in any government, and well worthy of being nourished, to keep out those of a more dangerous character." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry
"To me... it appears that there have been differences of opinion and party differences, from the first establishment of government to the present day, and on the same question which now divides our own country; that these will continue through all future time; that every one takes his side in favor of the many, or of the few, according to his constitution, and the circumstances in which he is placed... that as we judge between the Claudii and the Gracchi, the Wentworths and the Hampdens of past ages, so of those among us whose names may happen to be remembered for awhile, the next generations will judge favorably or unfavorably according to the complexion of individual minds and the side they shall themselves have taken; that nothing new can be added to what has been said by others and will be said in every age in support of the conflicting opinions on government; and that wisdom and duty dictate an humble resignation to the verdict of our future peers." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams
"Wherever there are men, there will be parties; and wherever there are free men they will make themselves heard. Those of firm health and spirits are unwilling to cede more of their liberty than is necessary to preserve order; those of feeble constitutions will wish to see one strong arm able to protect them from the many. These are the Whigs and Tories of nature. These mutual jealousies produce mutual security; and while the laws shall be obeyed, all will be safe. He alone is your enemy who disobeys them." --Thomas Jefferson
"The Tories are for strengthening the Executive and General Government; the Whigs cherish the representative branch and the rights reserved by the States as the bulwark against consolidation, which must immediately generate monarchy." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette
"I had always expected that when the republicans should have put down all things under their feet, they would schismatize among themselves. I always expected, too, that whatever names the parties might bear, the real division would be into moderate and ardent republicanism. In this division there is no great evil -- not even if the minority obtain the ascendency by the accession of federal votes to their candidate; because this gives us one shade only, instead of another, of republicanism. It is to be considered as apostasy only when they purchase the votes of federalists, with a participation in honor and power." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper
"The duty of an upright administration is to pursue its course steadily, to know nothing of these family dissensions, and to cherish the good principles of both parties." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
swine wrote:
Reputable source? Christ sakes, even the Brady Bunch knows there are more open carry states then the list you generated. But anywho....
I can't speak for other members here at OCDO, nor do I have any "evidence" that may suggest the "People" do or do not support open carry. I can reasonably say however that when you consider the population of the U.S.at approximately 300 million, it's a safe bet themajority of the "People" would not support open carry. Furthermore,manyfirearm owners who havecarry permits/licenses do not support open carry.
swine wrote:
Reputable source? Christ sakes, even the Brady Bunch knows there are more open carry states then the list you generated. But anywho....
I can't speak for other members here at OCDO, nor do I have any "evidence" that may suggest the "People" do or do not support open carry. I can reasonably say however that when you consider the population of the U.S.at approximately 300 million, it's a safe bet themajority of the "People" would not support open carry. Furthermore,manyfirearm owners who havecarry permits/licenses do not support open carry.
erichonda30
Banned
imported post
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
virginiatuck wrote:
Anyway, in the context of today's politics in America the leftists fear and distrust the people, preferring to vest power in the hands of a wise few, and the rightists prefer to devolve power, realizing that, although the masses are not necessarily wise, they make decisions, as a whole, that turn out to be wiser than the few wise leftists would.
virginiatuck wrote:
Jefferson had more faith in the honesty of those who would centralize power than I do. I firmly believe that most of them want this power, not to do good, but simply to have the power. Such selfishness cannot rationally be attributed to those in government who struggle to remove power from themselves and return it to the people.
Anyway, in the context of today's politics in America the leftists fear and distrust the people, preferring to vest power in the hands of a wise few, and the rightists prefer to devolve power, realizing that, although the masses are not necessarily wise, they make decisions, as a whole, that turn out to be wiser than the few wise leftists would.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
SpringerXDacp wrote:
Disclaimers:
1. This is an opinion.
2. I don't give a rat's behind what "most people" think. We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. We are a nation of laws and not of men. The right to defend ourselves, embodied in OC, may not be taken away as a matter of policy by majority rule.
SpringerXDacp wrote:
Actually, I believe that, given sufficient time and the facts of the matter and asked to rationally decide, most Americans would support OC.
Disclaimers:
1. This is an opinion.
2. I don't give a rat's behind what "most people" think. We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. We are a nation of laws and not of men. The right to defend ourselves, embodied in OC, may not be taken away as a matter of policy by majority rule.
virginiatuck
Regular Member
imported post
I ask you, swine, how is open carry any different than concealed carry as it pertains to those law-abiding, good people who may be around someone who is armed? The only real difference that I see is that with open carry, people may know that someone is armed. With concealed carry, virtually nobody knows. Is open carry dangerous? I ask because I wonder if your question is one of pragmatism, or of ignorance or intolerance?
As it does not infringe on anyone else's rights, the 'People' have no right to deny the right to 'Open Carry.'
How do you define "the people?" Do you mean, the majority? As has been said in this thread already, the Consitution of this Republic protects minorities and individuals from the "tyranny of the majority." Obviously there are people who support 'Open Carry,' as it's being done across the Nation. Evidence of this can be found in personal testimony in threads throughout this forum. Would you be implying that the reports and stories of 'Open Carry' are all written by one lonely person from his basement bunker?
I ask you, swine, how is open carry any different than concealed carry as it pertains to those law-abiding, good people who may be around someone who is armed? The only real difference that I see is that with open carry, people may know that someone is armed. With concealed carry, virtually nobody knows. Is open carry dangerous? I ask because I wonder if your question is one of pragmatism, or of ignorance or intolerance?
As it does not infringe on anyone else's rights, the 'People' have no right to deny the right to 'Open Carry.'
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
virginiatuck wrote:
virginiatuck wrote:
Oh, yeah! Great idea, Tuck! Call them all deniers! Including, and especially, swine.
virginiatuck
Regular Member
imported post
eye95 wrote:
However, the difference between the "left" and the "right" really depends on the issues at hand. Sometimes leftists are like Whigs; other times they are like Tories. Sometimes rightists are like Tories; other times they are like Whigs. I would define "left" in the U.S. as a set of arbitrary beliefs; and "right" as a different set of arbitrary beliefs.
edit: struck 'issues' and replaced with 'beliefs'
eye95 wrote:
You, then, would be a Whig. :celebrate
However, the difference between the "left" and the "right" really depends on the issues at hand. Sometimes leftists are like Whigs; other times they are like Tories. Sometimes rightists are like Tories; other times they are like Whigs. I would define "left" in the U.S. as a set of arbitrary beliefs; and "right" as a different set of arbitrary beliefs.
edit: struck 'issues' and replaced with 'beliefs'
Haz.
Regular Member
imported post
All whowould define "left" in the U.S. as a set of arbitrary beliefs; and "right" as a different set of arbitrary beliefs should try and keep;
All whowould define "left" in the U.S. as a set of arbitrary beliefs; and "right" as a different set of arbitrary beliefs should try and keep;
Repoman
New member
imported post
virginiatuck
Regular Member
imported post
-- Lewis Mumford
"A certain amount of opposition is a great help to a man. Kites rise against, not with, the wind."
-- Lewis Mumford
virginiatuck
Regular Member
imported post
Haz. wrote:
Haz. wrote:
In the U.S., yes that's the way it is today. The way it is and the way it ought to be do not often coexist.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
virginiatuck wrote:
Those described as "right" tend to devolve power, but not as exclusively as leftists tend to centralize it. Their selfish reason is different, though. I think that power is corrupting them, causing them to stray from the ideals that motivated them before gaining some power.
The best examples of this phenomenon are the Republicans who came to power in '94 on a promise of term-limiting themselves. Once in power, for the good of the people, they kept running.
So, I see the fuzziness of the left-right paradigm as not so much a function of poorly defined terms, as it is a function of the selfish flaws of human beings. We'd face precisely the same problem if we defined the spectrum with "statist"on one side and "individualist" on the other.
virginiatuck wrote:
Actually, it is my experience that those who would be described as "left" in this country almost exclusively work to centralize power. On rare occasions they will stray from this tendency, however a selfish reason is almost always at the root of a seeming inconsistency. Many leftists are "pro-gun" simply because, if they tried to centralize control over gun ownership and carry, they'd be out on their butts.
Those described as "right" tend to devolve power, but not as exclusively as leftists tend to centralize it. Their selfish reason is different, though. I think that power is corrupting them, causing them to stray from the ideals that motivated them before gaining some power.
The best examples of this phenomenon are the Republicans who came to power in '94 on a promise of term-limiting themselves. Once in power, for the good of the people, they kept running.
So, I see the fuzziness of the left-right paradigm as not so much a function of poorly defined terms, as it is a function of the selfish flaws of human beings. We'd face precisely the same problem if we defined the spectrum with "statist"on one side and "individualist" on the other.
imported post
Bikenut wrote:
Odd that you would confuse "leftist" with the "left"..... But then, I suspect that you aren't confused about the difference between a "leftist" and those who are left of center in their beliefs at all and are just hoping to Saul Alinskyize the discussion with your dazzling intellect off into an area that serves your agenda?
--------------------------------------------------------
Well, if you're detecting a 'dazzling intellect', it's not coming from me, so it must be coming from your own sense of inferiority. All I'mdoing isresponding in kind to the arguments I'm getting from other members againstmy assertion that most'People' don't support Open Carry. What my 'dazzling intellect' is detecting is a lot of bafflegabintended to blow smoke at the fact that nobody here can come up with any evidence that the 'People' DO support Open Carry.
Would you care to prove me wrong instead of piling BS up on top of all the other BS that's blowing my way?
Bikenut wrote:
Odd that you would confuse "leftist" with the "left"..... But then, I suspect that you aren't confused about the difference between a "leftist" and those who are left of center in their beliefs at all and are just hoping to Saul Alinskyize the discussion with your dazzling intellect off into an area that serves your agenda?
--------------------------------------------------------
Well, if you're detecting a 'dazzling intellect', it's not coming from me, so it must be coming from your own sense of inferiority. All I'mdoing isresponding in kind to the arguments I'm getting from other members againstmy assertion that most'People' don't support Open Carry. What my 'dazzling intellect' is detecting is a lot of bafflegabintended to blow smoke at the fact that nobody here can come up with any evidence that the 'People' DO support Open Carry.
Would you care to prove me wrong instead of piling BS up on top of all the other BS that's blowing my way?
Haz.
Regular Member
imported post
swine wrote:
As an expert in BS you can dissern that all thats coming your wayis onlyBS after it assists you in getting the freedom and peace and sanity that comes when you see that it's all BS. My great grandmother, and expert in telling BS storiesonce used a thorn to remove a thorn from my palm. Then, she threw away both thorns.
Is it possible that a person could dream up the most outrageous, absurd, unbelievable BS imaginable? Is it also possible that theperson could then present that outrageous, absurd, unbelievable BS to people conditioned to listen toBS. Is it also possible that people trained to listen toBS could then believe an outrageous, absurd, and totally unbelievable pile of BS. When your near to drowning,neck deep in BS, sanity usually kicks in and one does ones best toclimb out of it. If we, as you suggestareheapingBS upon you in container loads, why do you continue to wallow in it?
"And the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." Haz.
swine wrote:
As an expert in BS you can dissern that all thats coming your wayis onlyBS after it assists you in getting the freedom and peace and sanity that comes when you see that it's all BS. My great grandmother, and expert in telling BS storiesonce used a thorn to remove a thorn from my palm. Then, she threw away both thorns.
Is it possible that a person could dream up the most outrageous, absurd, unbelievable BS imaginable? Is it also possible that theperson could then present that outrageous, absurd, unbelievable BS to people conditioned to listen toBS. Is it also possible that people trained to listen toBS could then believe an outrageous, absurd, and totally unbelievable pile of BS. When your near to drowning,neck deep in BS, sanity usually kicks in and one does ones best toclimb out of it. If we, as you suggestareheapingBS upon you in container loads, why do you continue to wallow in it?
"And the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." Haz.