Thomas Jefferson - still relevant
 

I was rereading Jefferson's first inaugural address.

Translation: The Constitution guarantees the right to speak and write freely. Some people aren't used to this. Just because the majority rules, they aren't allowed to be jerks about it.

Translation: If there are those who confuse democracy (actually a republic) with weakness and pine for the good old days of the monarchy, don't beat them up.

I have this image of Jefferson striding into the studio during one of Glenn Beck's pseudo-educational rants and basically telling him that he's got it all wrong but not to worry - the Constitution enshrines and protects every man's right to be an idiot.

Very entertaining and remarkably veracious commentary ;)

Since we're quoting Thomas:

"If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered."

Sorry WHIP, Snopes says this quote is false

I'm not sure there were things called "corporations" in his time,
but then maybe there were. Something to check out.

There are dozens of Jefferson's quotes, that state the exact same thing.
Just as George Washington did, Thomas warns future American's of the situation American's are now living in

""The system of banking we have both equally and ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens.""

Snopes claim that is is false, seems to be false

The following of course, is that of a constitution, who's purpose, has not been upheld.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms"

Strange, Snopes doesn't seem to have this quote at all

But I did find it in another source... Hooray !

One more, just to digest his points

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Obviously, the USA failed.

Don't forget Jefferson did not speak for the nation, or even the government, his opinions were his own.
Prior to 1800, Washington was the one that held the government together, while these competing factions, primarily Federalist and Democratic-Republicans, vied for the direction the nation would evolve. When Washington retired, it was open warfare for a chance to push one of the factions into a position where they could lead the nation in their direction.
Jefferson tied with Burr, but was given the presidency by electors still not chosen by the people. So it was his faction, which also included equally powerful men, that hammered out policy. The result is not everything Jefferson expounded in his speeches/writings became law, or even official policy.

Oh, and it was another hundred years, 1913, before the Federal Reserve was established to screw us completely.

It is this very difference between a democracy and a republic to which Jefferson is referring to.

Yep it was good guys (Jefferson) vs bad guys (Hamilton) and in the long run the bad guys won because the good guys compromised their integrity on stuff like human bondage and developing a landed aristocracy.

Yep, I had a political discussion with someone recently who opined that voting should be limited to property owners. I couldn't figure out where this atavistic notion came from, until a month or so later I saw some talking head spout the same lunacy.

Add to this the chatter about actually redefining or repealing Section 1 of the 14th amendment and there seems to be an ugly trend towards advocating disenfranchisement.

In other words, the idea that being a Republic is not enough, and that we must somehow measure the fitness of citizens to vote.

It's ironic that this idea is being spouted amongst some conservatives, when some of them are already incensed over the election of a President with whom they disagree. The idea that in the midst of these people are others who hold the view that some of them should not be allowed to vote is ironic.

There is a basic contract implied in Jefferson's writings - that in exchange for a representative government, the people shall not take up arms. That even if you disagree with an administration, you can redress your grievances at the ballot box. If that right of these people is abridged, then that contract is broken.

From the time I was able to vote at 18, I believe that I voted for less than half of the presidents who took office. While I disagreed with them, and while I believe that one of them was the worst president in the past 80 years (I stopped at Harding), I tempered my disagreement with the knowledge that I was able to make my choice.

I can't even imagine what it was like to be living under Jim Crow and technically be allowed to vote but be cheated out of the opportunity. And now some idiots are proposing two discredited ideas that will take us 50 or a 100 years backward.

I was watching Condoleeza Rice explain why she became a Republican. It was mostly because Southern Democrats denied her father the right to vote. How ironic is it that there are voices coming from within her own party that would take us back to that time and those practices.

You've said a lot there Rich. Deciding fitness to vote would be an amazing can of worms. It is obvious to partisans left and right that certain segments of the opposition are unfit to vote. Young people are too inexperienced, old people are too addled, god focused, godless... it could go on and on.

Accepting the results as valid is crucial. Bush v Gore came damn near to sinking that acceptance. The birther silliness only exacerbates the problem. If you believe that stuff try not being surprised when the other side finds that your duly elected official lacks credentials. I've attended my right wing Christmas events and the righties seemed leavened in their contempt for the President by the Congressional change. Now that they have a stake in the game they'll have to actually take positions other than "No". Hopefully some sense of balance will develop.

Rich... very well said.
Griff...also

That lunacy comes from the intent of our founding fathers. Only chosen white men who owned property should be allowed to vote. That we have learned from their mistakes falls on extremist deaf ears - when convenient.

Back then, the issue was religious extremism. An idea that religion should be divorced from government was a controversial issue. Founding fathers escaped from nations that promoted religious hate. Therefore advocated a first of so many enlightened principles - separation of church and state (that even Christine McDonnell could not understand). Today, so many (including McDonnell and so many like her) are backtracking. Even the Catholic Church orders Catholics to impose Catholic doctrine on all Americans. What America needs - more pedophiles and religious intolerance.

Buy back then, women were inferior creatures who could not be trusted to vote.

Back then, slavery was an irrelevant issue because the negro was not considered intelligent or American.

Back then, only those who owned property were citizens and could be trusted to vote.

Strange how the advancement of mankind is so often lost on extremists who would impose Christian doctrine (including hate of Muslims) on all others. Advocating repeal of the 14th Amendment is how some enemies of innovation and tolerance would impose their hate and dogma.

Extremism would even use government to impose religion on all others - ie stem cell research. Conveniently ignore a founding father's intent to separate religion from government. Selectively citing history identifies a political agenda.

It took almost 100 years (July 1868) for America to learn a citizen is not just a white man with birthright, property, and a gun. Since we must reestablish our founding father's mistakes, then we should only empower White Power? At what point does hate, routinely promoted by extremism, become so obvious?

Man I have to tell you, I haven't heard of any white racist extremists trying to take away the vote of blacks in this country. Are you saying that all persons who disagree with the idea that we should give illegal aliens the right to vote and or citizenship are white racist extremists? That would be a pretty broad stroke of the brush...:rolleyes:

Well stated. I find the birther movement to border on lunacy. Who frigging cares already, he already got elected by an overwhelming majority. The same majority that just kicked out a huge number of incumbents in Congress. That is how it is suppose to work.

I suspect RichLevy was speaking to the children born here in the US of parents who were illegal alients. These children are US citizens by birthright.

There are some who are not accepting of the 14th Amendment and who do want to disenfranchise these American citizens.

Calling them "white racist extremists" are Merc's words, but if it walks like a duck....

What if it walks like a dick?

No, no, you're making it overly complicated. It's blatantly obvious the only people fit to vote are the ones that agree with me. See how simple I... I mean it, is. :D

OK xoB, but you've got to stop being so wishy-washy

Are you saying that all persons who disagree with the idea that we should give illegal aliens the right to vote and or citizenship are white racist extremists? Or just those who want to prevent the children of illegal aliens from becoming US citizens white racist extremists?

We didn't have a problem when Japs were mowing the lawn.

When we lived in Hawaii all the Filipinos did the yard work, everywhere. They don't have a problem there either. :) All the Japs owned all the property.

I haven't yet said anyone was a "white racist extremist". Those are your words.
My words were "if it walks like a duck..."

There have been 3 groups in this thread, so far:

a) illegal aliens which (I assume) refers to "adults"
who made the decision to enter the US illegally

b) children of (a) who were brought into the US with those adults, and
since they were children they could not make their own decisions.

c) children of (a) who were (or will be) born here in the US, and so are US citizens,

And it would not surprise me if there were other situations or groups.

I believe RichLevy's post, and certainly my mine above, were in reference to (c).

Which group do you wish to talk about ?

Rich made the tie between your choice c) and white racist extremists in this statement:

I was asking if he viewed those who oppose c) as being the same kind of people. I asked you the same question. And you implied you agreed with your "walks like a duck" statement, and yet you refuse to answer. Which is it?

As specifically related to (c), I prefer RichLevy's words to yours.
"If it walks like a duck... " is up to each person's own interpretation.

Let me ask...
Do you agree that all current and future children in group (c) are now and should always be citizens of the US ?
Or, do you advocate changing that ?

Answer the question first. Why are you guys refusing the obvious. You are beginning to box yourself into the answer you refuse to acknowledge.

OK, Merc.
I'm not into calling names

I can easily say that I oppose the idea of changing the 14th Amendment
to disenfranchise the citizenship of anyone born in the territorial USA (i.e., group (c))

I don't know the skin color, the racial motives, or how extremist the person is who wants to change that,
so I won't go down the "white racist extermist" name-calling road with you, if that is your intent.

As to the other issues of US immigration policies, such as groups (a) and (b),
my feelings (right this moment) are that if a person can't deal with group (c),
there's not going to be a whole lot of rational discussion to follow.

Is that enough from me, or what is it you really want to know or show ?

So basically if a Prego woman pays a human smuggler to get her across the border before she has birth you are ok with that, and so you support human smuggling operations South of the Border which exploit people? Wow, I would not have expected that of an avowed liberal.

I did not bring it up so don't try to displace it on to me, Rich made the connection. You bought into it with your "duck" comment. All of that is on the two of you guys, not me....


I really can't believe that you can continue to not answer the questions put to you....

Why do you avoid the question? Wow.... I really expected more out of a more mature person than what you are currently avoiding... :rolleyes:

Awww Merc, that's a sad ploy.

I'm confused. which post comes first, #16 or #18 ?
It might be helpful to re-read RL's post before answering.
I don't think his post contains the words "white racist extremist",
but unfortunately they are in #16

Sorry I didn't come up to your expectations... twice.
We should both try harder next time because the immigration policies could be a good discussion.

Sad ploy? That's reality, pregnant women crossing the border, having babies here.

Wasn't it white racists that enacted, and enforced with vigor every day, all those Jim Crow laws?

OK, so the pregnant woman is "reality".
The sad ploy is Merc's attempt to divert our discussion off to yet another, different, political issue.

RichLevy's first sentence (in what Merc quoted) did refer to Jim Crow times, and RL wrote it in a past tense.
But his second sentence spoke to current activities in the politics of US immigration policies.
Subsequently Merc has tried to impose his "white racist extremists" on these current immigration issues.

I believe we can have a much better discussion without the use of such epithets, and I hope we will.

But if it walks like a duck, call it a fucking duck, that's honest discussion.

No it's not honest discussion to have someone force you to say words you don't intend to use.

You have to decide if your discussing philosophies and concepts, or reality. If it's the latter, then it doesn't walk like a duck, it's a fucking duck.

This discussion is getting overly complex because xoB's issues
come from separate postings in this thread.

And as I posted earlier...
It's the reader's option to interpret when it is walking like a duck,
and thereby adopt Merc's epithet language

Now the reader has the option to decide if it's reality or not,
and thereby adopt xoB's new action-figure. :rolleyes:

I leave it to others to chase after Merc's "sad ploy"
that lead to this drift into the differences between
"philosophies, concepts, and reality"

Well duh, that's why it's called a thread, posts don't stand alone. Except for an occasional off topic, most posts should relate to the topic at hand. If the thread drifts, try to follow along, or at least point out what post you're responding to.

That's the problem, how the fuck can we discuss an issue if you don't make it perfectly clear what you saying?

No, not "Duh", xoB. There's your epiphany !

We now see that since it wasn't perfectly clear which posts
you were responding to with regards to your animated "duck",
and which post(s) you were responding to with regards to "reality",
you got sucked right into Merc's "Sad Ploy".

So while we've had a bit of fun, it has not been very illuminating,
and as you point out we've not been able to discuss any more issues.
Maybe things will go better next year.

Happy New Year to all, and to all a Good Night.

It's not been illuminating because you keep dancing around the issues.

Clearly you are posting about TheMercenary. Obvious because he is doing the dancing and evading. And because your post did not start with "Originally Posted by ..." with the relevant quoted sentences.

At any cost, defend the guy who walks like a duck. The enemy of our enemy is our friend.

Friends like that, who needs enemas?

Happy New Year, tw, long may you rave. :haha:

I'm too old for those kind of parties.

My point exactly.

And don't draw parallels between people who enacted Jim Crow Laws, White Racist Extremists, and those who are opposed to illegal immigration. Stop dancing around the issue and using comparisons that have nothing to do with each other, because those who enacted the Jim Crow laws were White Racist Extremists, and those who oppose illegal immigration are nothing of the kind.

I agree, just don't call those who oppose illegal immigration something like those who enacted Jim Crow Laws, who were by and large White Racist Extremists.

Wait, I am confused, which is it? A sad ploy that is not relevant or a "reality".

I'm following you Lamplighter and not having any problem with your direction.

For the pregnant women crossing borders thing to have any weight in this discussion, you need to show that some significant percentage of children born to aliens come from border jumping women for that express purpose.

Otherwise the issue is just a distraction from the original topic. Which was, I think, Lamplighters meaning when he called it a ploy. He caught Merc palming a card.

It was not "palming a card", it was a question of degree. You support A, does that mean you support every extreme of the situation?

Here is a video for you...
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4000446n

Or you can read this article
or this one

read what you like here as well

Lastly I'll offer you this piece
...all done with a simple Google search in under 10 minutes.

Nothing new - this has been going on for over a decade.

Personally, I do not see this as a ploy by Merc, definitely one used by some illegal illegals though. It is just an inconvenient reality for some.

I agree, but with the exception of the actually "drop and stay". :D Or "stay and drop", which ever you prefer...

Bottom line is this:

I see it more as another wedge issue by Republickins but it has validity if you have concerns about stemming the tide of illegal immigration, which I do, and if you do not support whole scale amnesty programs, and I do not.

(all from link #4 above)

No, you only have to show there are kids being born to women that are here illegally, and thats pretty easy because there's a shitload of them. It's impossible to separate the ones that jump the border when they're due because they want an anchor baby, from the ones that want free & better hospital care.

Easy cure, just keep a van at the hospital and as soon as they discharge mom, drive her ass to the border. But the kid's a citizen, you say? Right, we'll be keeping the kid. We could rent them to child molesters until they're old enough to work, then sell the surplus in the middle east. I have a feeling this plan is not sustainable though.

I would also add that we should bill their home country for the care they receive. Because they do not have insurance and generally cannot pay for the care, so bill their government.

Makes no sense that illegals are automatically treated to the standard drugged up 2 day stay at border hospitals to begin with. If I can drop a kid drug-free and leave within 12 hours of arrival why can't most of them? Save the hospital stay for the ones that actually need it. Makes at least 10 thousand dollars difference per mom right there.

Good question. Most of them don't go drug free, and most moms do not deliver drug free anymore. Most get an epidural. Oh and they all watch The Baby Channel and think they are going to have the perfect delivery, it just usually does not happen that way. Hell, the newest thing it the Designer C-Section, to "preserve the pelvic floor". They are all the rage in South America, if you are affluent, and if you request one here, there are a bunch of OB-GYN's that will do them.