Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Balance

In response to It is possible.... posted by pink101:

The questions of States Rights deal with the issue of Civil Rights. Which holds precedence over the other?

This has been a issue from the beginning. Many in the founding era believed that holding people in slavery was the clearest violation of one's God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They were right, of course, but others didn't see it that way. The "others," btw, weren't just in the South.

So the solution from the original Constitution's adoption until the Civil War was to let the STATES decide whether slavery should be permissible.

Same thing when it came to voting rights. Until the 19th amendment, the STATES decided whether women should vote or not. Some states allowed it. Others didn't. It was a state decision, until the Constitution was amended to nationalize female suffrage.

So...it's been a tug-of-war from the beginning.

Now, I sense that the tug-of-war is going global. Should individual nation-states retain their sovereignty and autonomy or should they be compelled to surrender some power to global or regional governments? THAT debate is being played out on the international stage TODAY - and it's very similar to the debate between the states in the American founding era over the power and reach of the central government.

» pink101 - Balance

In response to Balance posted by BrianTubbs:
.
What part did the Northwest Ordinance play in the ideas of slavery.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Balance

In response to Balance posted by BrianTubbs:

.
This has been a issue from the beginning
.
And it has been settled. It is part of my point that so-called conservatives keep wanting to revisit the argument on the Bill of Rights or maybe I should just talk about natural rights?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Partly settled

In response to Balance posted by pink101:

I agree that the issue has been PARTLY settled - or perhaps I should say that some of the issues have been settled.

For instance, a state can't do something that violates the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

BUT...there are OTHER matters of state rights, Pink. For example, should the US government be allowed to impose a uniform drinking age, a national speed limit, uniform laws on fishing and hunting, etc., etc.?

Those are just random and only a few. There are many, many issues that play into this question. I for one believe that the federal government SHOULD insure that the constitutional rights of America's citizens are protected across state lines.

HOWEVER...that doesn't mean that the federal government should be able to do anything it &%^$ well pleases to do. I would submit that the federal government has gotten too big and too powerful.

» Brian Tubbs - Anti-slavery victory

In response to Balance posted by pink101:

Largely an anti-slavery victory. It indicates that the momentum was swinging AGAINST slavery in the founding era. You after all had, at THAT time, southern slave owners like Thomas Jefferson campaigning AGAINST slavery.

However, with the invention of the cotton gin, things began to change. By the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the battle lines had been drawn between North and South - with the DEEP South firmly, passionately, and appallingly committed to slavery.

» pink101 - Partly settled

In response to Partly settled posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Something happened in the 1970s as I recall.
.
The telephone company wanted to get certain rules passed into law. The idea that a corporation did not possess certain political rights was paramount. So, instead of the Bell System paying for ads, the financing was done by employees of the phone companies. It was an example of the debate over rights.
.
I'm not sure of the rights involved in that situation; but, it is obvious that the ideas of rights are on the table. The entire package of free trade agreements is about corporate rights and that leads to the rights of empire. What I see is that our rights are being taken away from us as individuals and being given to international corporations some of which may not even be American based.
.
Lawyers are figuring out how to circumvent our laws in order to serve the interests and desires of their corporate clients.
.
Conservativism? Give me a break. It's a rapacious attack on us as individuals. We are losing our voice as the representative democracy we live in is becoming more and more representative of BIG MONEY.
..
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Conservatism

In response to Partly settled posted by pink101:

You attack many of the spinoffs of conservatism, but I'm not sure it's fair to attack the core philosophy.

Conservatism OVERALL refers to a desire to safeguard the worthy traditions and the values of our heritage. This normally translates into decentralized government, less taxes, a strong national defense, a commitment to Law and Order (strong police, capital punishment, prisons, etc), and traditional family type values.

The above is conservatism - overall.

NOW....this overall philosophy of conservatism has some unfortunate and tragic spinoffs. Some "conservatives" support rampant, unchecked capitalism and corporate excess. Some "conservatives" support (or did support in the past) segregation or policies close to that. Some "conservatives" support sexism. And so on.

But these are extreme spinoffs from what is, at the root, a good, strong, commendable political philosophy.

» pink101 - Conservatism

In response to Conservatism posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Conservatism OVERALL refers to a desire to safeguard the worthy traditions and the values of our heritage.
.
So, in retrospect, a Liberal would be a person who is opposed to the "worthy traditions and the values of our heritage" and that is a crock.
.
No, that is NOT a good definition of what is a Conservative because it assumes that a Conservative defines "worthy traditions and the values of our heritage" by default. The same thing can be said about Liberals.
.
Your next line, This normally translates into decentralized government, less taxes, a strong national defense, a commitment to Law and Order (strong police, capital punishment, prisons, etc), and traditional family type values., points up the type of hubris that drives a wedge between Americans and creates the division with which we're now living. Capitalism has been driven into the mind of unsuspecting Americans in such a way that they think it is synonymous with democracy and American values. It is an imposed value.
.
Conservatism is the school of thought that claims the status quo is best over all other ways. It is a resistance to change and is opposed to any rearrangement for the economic status of the classes. It has often used religion as a lever to make its points.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Washington raised...

.
Retired Gen. George Washington Criticizes Bush's Handling Of Iraq War
.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/ret...
.
"WASHINGTON, DC - Breaking a 211-year media silence, retired Army Gen. George Washington appeared on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday to speak out against many aspects of the way the Iraq war has been waged.
.
[Photo caption: Washington likens Vice President Cheney to controversial British Chancellor of the Exchequer and Stamp Act architect George Greenville.]
.
"Washington, whose appearance marked the first time the military leader and statesman had spoken publicly since his 1796 farewell address in Philadelphia, is the latest in a string of retired generals stepping forward to criticize the Iraq war..."

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Washington raised...

In response to Washington raised... posted by Migisi:

.
:~)
.

-- posted by pink101