Give me a call when you get ready to move to the coast, I'll be glad to come help.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
I think the point is he won't have to move to the coast. It will move to him.
The whole thing is a troll. Why else would you roll back that kind of policy other than to send a middle finger to environmentalists?
Tom Jefferson summed it up well -- please note that "free healthcare" is not listed.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
it's the summer of 2016 all over again. these dumbasses didnt learn a thing. i love it.
There's no specific "rights" listed in that statement. If we're going to whittle-it-down to 3 rights- Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness- then specifying what they mean is going to be even more subjective than what we already have.
And, I can even agree with "Creator." That's pretty all-encompassing, as Gods go. It's kinda like 12-stepper's understanding of God. The Creator, the Source, or Origin, the Universe, whatever. There's no specific reference to the God of Abraham as being the one-and-only God, supreme God, or whatever.
And, Jefferson was being literal, almost, with ALL MEN are created equal. It was a land-owning white male patriarchy... make no mistake about that. Native Americans, African-descent people, women of all races, were not recognized in that document. It has taken another 220 years to be more inclusive. So, "God" is evolving just like we are.
2 against 1, so far.
Women, people of African descent, and "Indians" were probably not on his list of "All Men"... hopefully the "probably" part can align with your assertion of "not completely accurate." It's pretty damned close. We can completely agree that none of those were included or represented among the land-owning white males who drafted, agreed and signed those documents. I guess it's possible that Abigail Adams was consulted in private discussions with her husband, who knows. Women weren't holding office or voting. There may have been some exceptions for the men of color in a state like Massachusetts... huge emphasis on MAY HAVE. It's not flattering by today's standards, but it's pretty clear that our founders were old white guys. I was trying to put more emphasis on the God part. I screwed that up.
Well, like most things Jefferson's feelings on slaves was complicated. His original draft actually mentioned something about slavery being forced by the king. He did own slaves, but was also in favor of gradual emancipation. He did write legislation to try to expand voting beyond land owners as well. I think he most likely thought that white men were better, but I think that he at least would say others had a right to life (maybe not Indians). He was also a big proponent of the jury system, which would seem to indicate a right to liberty. I think in spirit he was for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all, but not necessarily in practice.
There was a huge anti-slavery passage in the Declaration of Independence that they deleted. They knew exactly how hypocritical most of the document sounded when you see the large number of signers that had slaves.
Jefferson's relationship with slavery is pretty interesting. He fought for the abolishment of it a few times as a young lawyer. He was in love with a slave later in life. Yet he's known as our most famous slave owning, pro-slavery President.
Was it that, or was it because the southern states would never agree to sign on with that in there?
Not sure it's an either or. They were hypocritical, they knew they were hypocritical, and the reason they did it was for the one you mentioned above. It was absolutely done so they could unify the colonies at a time when it was completely necessary to do so.
No unity = no United States of America.
What's interesting is when you think would blacks have been better off if we lost the revolution? We don't unify, we lose but I'd assume as British subjects we'd get some concessions on representation and a compromise on taxing us. Blacks are now free in 1833 instead of 1863. Or are they? Would Britain abolish slavery that early if they were still making all that money from the Southern colonies? Lots of interesting what ifs.
I would certainly like to think that an educated, and apparently highly intelligent man like Jefferson knew that the African slaves were, in fact, human beings, and capable of advancing themselves as far as their ambitions would take them. We can really only speculate as to how each one of them thought about slaves, and women, for that matter. It was a different time, with completely different social parameters than what some of us take for granted now. It's really a shame that chattel slavery was so profitable and such an accepted aspect of society. I think it's obvious they were conflicted at least a little. Maybe breaking from a monarchy was the primary focus at the time. No more Kings, or recognition that one's family lineage made them superior to anyone.
The profits of chattel slavery was the hardest thing to overcome! When you don't have to pay for labor... and you get to buy and sell THEM as property (it pays twice, or more), then it's easier to find justification to keep them ignorant, uneducated and seen as property. The biblical interpretations did their part in making sure it was God-ordained and sanctioned.
It's interesting how time can change societies perspective. A person would consider that ok at the time because people considered it ok at the time. It was similar to a mob mentality.
It makes me wonder what we do today that will be considered horrible 200 years from now. Farmers hiring illegals because they can pay them less and don't have to pay FICA taxes on them is considered ok by most people. They came over here to get a job and they are given a job. The farmer gets more money for him and his family. Win win. But 200 years from now, people might consider them just as bad as slave owners because they weren't paid minimum wage and weren't getting credit so they could get a social security check. Then we would be horrible people for not speaking out.
I don't think he, or you, are authoritarians (I just like to mess with you from time to time).
Last edited:
The President cancelled his meeting with an ally because they won't sell him a part of their country.
Pretty crazy that the bar is so low that headlines like that don't even move the needle anymore.
Pretty crazy that the bar is so low that headlines like that don't even move the needle anymore.
The President cancelled his meeting with an ally because they won't sell him a part of their country.
Pretty crazy that the bar is so low that headlines like that don't even move the needle anymore.
Denmark checked his credit score I guess.....
The President cancelled his meeting with an ally because they won't sell him a part of their country.
Pretty crazy that the bar is so low that headlines like that don't even move the needle anymore.
His name is Jaaaaaaaaaaames Cameron, the bravest pioneer!
Not only am I fine with abortions (and capital punishment), but I think if you're on welfare or certain other types of public assistance, you should be required to get an abortion if pregnant.
Well, that's a consistent perspective.
Anti-gun people discussing guns. This is friggen hilarious, and it's also why Bill Maher shakes his head at anti-gun advocates.
They wouldn't accept him because they don't have self-destructive immigration laws like we do.
Not going anywhere until I get my share of all this winning that’s being handed out.
Just heard through the grapevine that RBG has stage four pancreatic cancer. It hasn't come out in the news yet, but I have a buddy who works with the government and supposedly it's so bad that she's missing votes. Again, it could be nothing, but she's had issues with this in the recent past and you don't hear or see her anymore.
She made a mistake by not retiring at the beginning of Obama's second term. She didn't want a republican to appoint a replacement. Now there is a good chance that is what will happen.
Similar threads
