Posted on 02/10/2009 2:59:24 PM PST by nickcarraway
Please stop being mysterious and say directly what you are talking about. You post your message about July 23 on a public bulletin board and then refuse to explain yourself. Or are you implying the existence of some sort of conspiracy?
Who the heck is forbidding you from speaking? Free Republic is not a site that should be used to pass along coded messages or it will be closed down.
Good post and yes, the Republican party failed miserably and we have all allowed it or we wouldn’t be where we are now. Maybe it’s time for a new party. I’m not sure the Republican party can be saved soon enough. There are too many RINOS that have been infiltrating it for years. I’m not convinced they are even republicans, some may be Democratic plants.
Yay!
Seriously.
(The RNC should buy 40,000 copies and put them in every public library in the nation)
You also have a selective memory, in that you chose to venerate the fighting more than the debate. This nation wouldn’t exist without either. But The United States would not exist, period, without its Constitution. It would just be a collection of states fighting each other, rather like the duchies of Europe before they were unified in modern nations.
How is it “politically correct” to value the creation of our nation through the Constitutional Convention and the resulting ratification? Patriotism is more than the reverence of war.
Ohhhhhhh... so then, the American Revolution never took place?
The United States of America exists today because our forefathers understood that armed conflict was necessary in their pursuit of liberty. They could have had ten dozen Constitutional Conventions; without the courage to use force, the British army would still be in control of the American colonies.
We live in a nation of laws. Laws only work if all members of a society agree to abide by them. If one group decides that they will go outside the law to achieve a political goals, then the existing system of laws can no longer respond in kind to that threat. Moreover, if one group holds absolute control over the political (and thus lawmaking) system, that course of action is commonly referred to as tyranny.
The last time we faced that kind of naked agression, we didn’t negotiate our way out of it using fervent debate. Are we at that point now? I don’t think so... but we are getting too goddamned close for comfort.
some people live in la la land and just can’t envision that freedom has cost many the ultimate price.
When the United States came into being, the world had been through the dark ages, and was still fighting the oppression of the Church of England. People came here for a fresh start. The new nation was developed, and the founding documents the best a nation could hope for.
It was a new continent, a new time dawning on humanity.
All of a sudden, the rights of the individual actually stood up not just equally, but in a superior position to the rights of the government.
We have spent 232 years proving the merits of these rights. I think it’s clear, the founding principles were solid, but man cannot help himself, turning even this nation into something it was never intended to be.
I don’t know what to tell you. I have the same inclinations you do. The question is, do we expose our homes, loved ones and associates, to the certain annihilation that would result if we did take up arms?
We flatter ourselves that we are willing to die. Are we willing to die for certain defeat? Are we willing to die to turn our loved ones and associates into enemies of the state, and nothing more?
Think of what the government has at it’s disposal, and what you have at yours. We’re not talking about one young man and one huge man. We’re talking about the most incredible fighting force the world has ever seen, up against a rag tag group of people who would bicker themselves into oblivion before the first shot was fired. If you’ve ever tried to lead a Conservative group in a straight line, you’ll know what I mean.
Honestly, this is not the way to go.
I alluded to a test. I am a religious person. I believe that man flatters himself that he can govern reasonably over the long haul. I am convinced he can’t.
I don’t know when the end of times will come, but when it does, it must look something like this.
It will come at the end of a time of promise. It will come when something so bright is revealed to be victim of the same fate all of man’s other attempts did.
It will be a time, when God can say without an objection, that man has clearly demonstrated that he does not possess the wisdom to govern himself.
That will be when men on earth and beings from other planets will see the wisdom of putting an end to sin once and for all.
There is a time when man will find it more wise to place his fate in the hands of God, than the stock of a gun.
When man on a global level is unable to defend himself against evil, the test will be over. Good righteous men will receive their just reward.
Is that time now? I feel rather strange even asking it, but I guess someone should.
“You also have a selective memory, in that you chose to venerate the fighting more than the debate.”
Ok, I’m guessing Edison University here. I am not venerating “fighting”, I simply see the reality that there is no US, nor a US Constitution without the armed Revolution that took place.
“How is it “politically correct” to value the creation of our nation through the Constitutional Convention and the resulting ratification? Patriotism is more than the reverence of war.”
You really need to learn the history of our country first.
After that I’d suggest a course in logic or argumentation and debate, preferably both. Because you cast conclusions on me that I’ve never mentioned.
I have about 8 books in my library on nothing but the US Constitution. Most from top scholars. So, before you bring your simplistic straw-man down upon me, I suggest you prove your allegation that “I revere war”, (ugg what a liberal sounding allegation) over democratic debate.
I’ll save you the review of the thread, you won’t find it. What you’ll find is posts that accept the reality that our Founders organized and committed to armed Revolution to start our country. It is our lineage.
I do not understand why anyone wants a tatoo.
I have enough scars already.
No we don’t talk like that now, but I am not sure about the think like element.
From the perspective of a libertarian (little L) leaning Republican it is not that foreign. I simply want to be left alone to live my life without unnecessary government intervention. That is the proper state of mankind, in my opinion.
Diminishing moral values and genuine religious faith have contributed greatly to the mess we are in.
Since 1976 I have been a history student. That was the year that I read “The Bodyguard of Lies” by Anthony Brown. For about 10 years I studied WWII Sig/Intel history. That book came about as a consequences of the Freedom of Information Act. These things were not talked about since WWII.
The fog of War and lack of perception of context when an event takes place makes History frustrating. (I think God intends that, like he did at the tower of Babble) It is normally many years before a clear perception of how it all interacted takes place, and by then we have the distortion of spin that criples clear understanding.
History is like viewing a Mosaic image, up close it is not clear, but away the pieces seem to fit better. One book on a period give little context, but several reinforces perception.
Enough of that.
Have a good evening my friend.
Texas Fossil
bkmk
You impugn my education, my ability for rational thought, and my foundation of knowledge, because I do not interpret American History as you do. It seems from your comments that the physical struggle of the Revolution is more noble in your eyes than the intellectual wrangling of the Constitutional Convention and all the debates that followed it.
I also have many books about the founding of our nation and the Constitution, also by “top scholars.” I believe we can both be highly informed on this topic and yet disagree. I recognize the armed rebellion that the Colonies pursued. But I believe that we are revered as a nation not because of the violent rebellion; there have been many across recorded history, yet those nations are not so respected. We are respected because of the Constitution and its vision of resolving disputes through the political process rather than through violence.
That is what I am advocating - using the political process to resolve differences.
Perhaps your response will be to insult and ridicule me again. All I can say is that such responses never convince your opponent of anything except that it is a waste of time to talk to you. Do you really believe that we can win our political arguments by insulting each other, much less our fellow Americans who are Democrats? But perhaps you do not want to persuade anyone.
You’re welcome. You are a voice of reason, I’ve always appreciated your comments.
Thank you Kim. I appreciate your comments.
Thank you for your reason among many. Just read your profile page and have been given good words. Thank you D.O.
“Perhaps your response will be to insult and ridicule me again.”
My goodness. It really irks me when the Muzzies attack Israel and then cry and whine when the Israels strike back at them.
You do the same.
You insinuate, without any evidence whatever, that I revere the Revolutionary War, but not the US Constitution and the debates that precede it. All False. Then when I impugn your education and ability to think logically I’m the bad guy.
LOL. Ok, you win I surrender to the repetitiveness of your attacks, since you choose to rehash this lack of logic again without any evidence. “It seems from your comments...”
No, you conclude from a body of evidence that includes my specific response to another poster who seemed to think our Founders were intellectual pacifists. Thus it would make sense to the reasonable thinker that my response would be directed to the reality of their armed Revolution. But somehow, this alludes you. Now I could make assumptions that because of this (since you have done this to me) that you think the overthrow of British rule was not required to have an effective Constitution. Fear not, I won’t make those assumptions about you. I would logically think that the US Constitution and it’s remarkable story is just of specific interest to you. It would be nice if that benefit of the doubt were given to me instead of assumptions that are just incorrect.
Re: using constitiutional remedies. What is the constitutional remedy for a president who did not present his qualifications for office and a congress and court which will not act upon same?
/Salute
Recall, if you will, the nitwit with the SKS outside the White House a few years ago, as if a 7.62 X 39 round has any chance of getting through the walls.
roger that
Bravo !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.