Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Washington raised...

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

Yeah, The Onion puts out some funny stuff here and there. This is a good one.

» Migisi - Washington raised...

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

.
I thought it was a good satire too.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - THESE Are Dangerous Times For America

In response to Washington raised... posted by Migisi:
.
It is interesting in the study of American History that there was such heavy discussion regarding the inclusion of a bill of rights to the Constitution.
.
The situation was, it seems, quite complicated.
.
Part of the problem was mixed into the idea that the people believed in self government and had done so for over a hundred years at the time of the final establishment of the United States in 1791.
.
A bill of rights was seen as a compact between a group of people and their ruler--in that case, the king. So, seeing that the people were the authority it was seen as unnecessary for there to be a bill of rights within any constitution as the people retained all the rights.
.
Ahah! If you give that a little thought, you--in 2007--begin to see the flaw in that thinking; but, the people in 1780s didn't.
.
But, there was a problem and it was gigantic. Here, on one hand, you have Patrick Henry advocating and calling for bills of attainder. What did HE think that was as far as the people retaining any rights? WHAT--did he think--was the meaning of the idea of The People? Was it the State of Virginia he had in mind or was it all the people who lived in Virginia, each and every one of them as individuals?
.
When these founders came together in convention, did they think they each represented a people separate from the people represented by the others? Was that the problem in that they thought in terms of individual states rather than in terms of individual Americans?
.
The questions just keep coming to the surface in your study of those founding days.
.
And, I feel we are being thrown into the same arguments again by the present surge in States Rights advocacies being brought to the forefront by Southern Conservatism.
.
THESE are dangerous times for American democracy.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Patrick Henry

In response to THESE Are Dangerous Times For America posted by pink101:

I think you're misrepresenting Patrick Henry's position on the bills of attainder. He and Thomas Jefferson were known to have supported such a bill BEFORE the US Constitution was written and passed. However, I think it was only in one case. And I don't know enough about the circumstances to render a harsh judgment of Mr. Henry or Mr. Jefferson.

Here's an academic article available at the Colonial Williamsburg website on this subject..

http://www.history.org/foundation/journa...

Pink, as much as a rabble-rouser as you are for freedom to the people, I think you are firing your guns in the WRONG direction when you go after Patrick Henry. The man was a champion firebrand for popular freedom. Your kind of guy, except he was a southerner instead of a Yankee.

» Brian Tubbs - REMEMBER

Pink and whoever else is following these discussions....

REMEMBER, REMEMBER, REMEMBER that the main, underlying reason the anti-Federalists opposed the US Constitution was that they feared a strong, central government.

They were afraid that a strong, centralized government would eventually eradicate the states and trample on the rights of the people. It's ironic that you (Pink) and Migisi and Wendell and several others here are saying that the present US government is doing just that!!!!

The anti-Federalists wanted to keep the power of government as close to the people as possible.....and that meant power to the states. They wanted power to be DECENTRALIZED.

Were they right?

Like I said, I'm a Federalist. But I don't think it's very honest or fair to MISREPRESENT where the anti-Federalists were coming from. They had some valid concerns and fears -- some of which HAVE come true.

» pink101 - REMEMBER

In response to REMEMBER posted by BrianTubbs:
.
You are misreading me, Brian.
.
My post was filled with questions--that's all.
.
I made no accusations.
.
But, I think you're a little off on your idea that the anti-federalists were afraid of the centralized government because they thought it would detract from the rights of the people. Using the idea of "the people" here in 2007 is not the same as was thought to be "the people" in the years preceding the ratification of 1791. At least as far as the States Rights (anti0federalists) advocates were concerned.
.
Instead, it appears that the anti-federalists wanted to keep all vested powers in the individual states. And, the various states' representatives were not so interested in a democratic distribution of rights as they were in the rights of the upper classes. Historical records are quite strong on that point.
.
But, there was a strong force that wanted individual rights protected and they saw that as the primary force of a centralized government. That's what Jefferson, Adams, and Madison kept up the good fight. Don't you think?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - REMEMBER

In response to REMEMBER posted by BrianTubbs:
.
They were afraid that a strong, centralized government would eventually eradicate the states and trample on the rights of the people. It's ironic that you (Pink) and Migisi and Wendell and several others here are saying that the present US government is doing just that!!!!
.
The present US President is doing just that, Brian.
Reposted from the 'American Freedom' thread:
.
George Bush's Power Grab ... Is Martial Law Coming?
MAY 25, 2007 C-SPAN WASHINGTON

.
http://www.ichblog.eu/index.php?option=c...
.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - REMEMBER

In response to REMEMBER posted by Migisi:

.
That was a good program. I watched it live.
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - REMEMBER

In response to REMEMBER posted by Migisi:
in response to the video.. the government achieved this coup through the "fiasco" of New Orleans... (a planned and created hurricane).. the purpose was to federalize all military for use during "national emergencies"....
its all now in place.... the time is near.... (good video! and, to make mentions.. WND (World Net Daily) is a very good online news source!...
Something additional: News has been made of the Join chiefs and the firing of the latest and the replacement.... Its all now military in position.....
The patriots that have attempted to fight this split within the government has all but failed, and, the result is the coming NWO that is now in place and ready for operation.... It cannot be stopped - no matter what... To think otherwise is suicide and futile, even dangerous. the question is, how will you (whoever) act living within a totalitarian police state? Will you simply submit... True patriots are always the vast minority... these are the few who take matters into their own hands and make change possible...

ladies and gentlemen - the republic has been lost...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - Deserves Another Thread

In response to REMEMBER posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Your comments open a discussion that deserves another thread.
.
It points up my repeated comments that there is a strong force seeking to revisit the debates and arguments of the 1780s in order to reassess what it means to have a Bill of Rights in our society.
.
But, it also puts an end to learning about the nature of the debates and arguments that took place in those founding days of the society in which we live. And, THAT is part of the danger with which we exist--that we forget our history.
.
I know that history has a negative connotation to some of us and THAT, again, is problematic. Unless we are well founded in understanding our past, we are adrift at sea and at the whims of those who hold control of our government.
.
WHAT!!
.
Is this "takeover" you believe is a done deal going to have a soldier assigned to ever single one of us to make sure none of us gets out of line? Do you honestly believe the "conservatives" are going to sit by once they see what you're predicting has come into fruition? Do you actually believe the military will go against the people of the United States? That is when you would actually see a true failure of government and there would be anarchy. Other powerful forces such as those in China would step up to the plate in a minute. All hell would break loose.
.
So, maybe you're saying that Bush heads up a nihilistic force? Some theorists do claim that nihilism is necessary to save the planet--it would decimate the world's population down to small enclaves scattered here and there on the planet.
.
.

-- posted by pink101