Politics and the un-initiated... - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Fitz · #16 01-10-2010, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Ann Coulter presents herself as a right wing christian conservative in her public persona.....when associated with 'christian' since neither term is used in their religious texts). In the extreme a christian conservative could be a theocrat.

Kerry has relegated Ann Coulter to the status of lower-case "c" Christianity. If only she knew, I'm sure she'd be devastated.

Billybob · #17 01-10-2010, 08:27 PM

My reference to the Federalist papers was not an endorsement of any particular view or the view of any particular man. It is the best collection of essay’s in which the authors during the course of their arguments intentionally and inadvertently pro and con their own positions and the positions of their political adversaries. Their value is as an insight to these arguments when they took place, not as reinterpreted by later historians.

Also interesting; but not nearly as cohesive a discourse; is the compilation of Borden’s Anti-Federalist Papers his attempt to juxtapose arguments in contemporaneous relevance. Unfortunately they where not authored as direct counterpoints but actually collected and arraigned almost 200 years later by Morton Borden.

#18 01-10-2010, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

My reference to the Federalist papers was not an endorsement of any particular view or the view of any particular man. It is the best collection of essay’s in which the authors during the course of their arguments intentionally and inadvertently pro and con their own positions and the positions of their political adversaries. Their value is as an insight to these arguments when they took place, not as reinterpreted by later historians.

Also interesting; but not nearly as cohesive a discourse; is the compilation of Borden’s Anti-Federalist Papers his attempt to juxtapose arguments in contemporaneous relevance. Unfortunately they where not authored as direct counterpoints but actually collected and arraigned almost 200 years later by Morton Borden.

I agree, they are worth reading to gain some insight to the thoughts of folks involved with drafting the constitution. It's unfortunate that the actual congressional sesions did not leave a record. We now tend to think of the founding fathers as having a unified vision, it's interesting to also see the disagreements.

johnjzjz · #19 01-10-2010, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Leo

Oh yeah, that's a stamp of approval.

Jeez, any time someone signals for a right turn, the conservatives think it is a mandate from the voters.

just looking at it in a capitalist view < and BTW i have done well in my life living its freedoms

its all about the money stupid < is not directed at you but the premiss that it does not matter

the books that today are written by all those who have taken up the cause < and its all about the cause > are schling gold as i have read in the open

do you like money i do and they do sooooo good for them its not political its about money -- jz

johnjzjz · #20 01-10-2010, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitz

Kerry has relegated Ann Coulter to the status of lower-case "c" Christianity. If only she knew, I'm sure she'd be devastated.

disrespect is all about looking down on someone elses beliefs

if it were to be done on purpose

and what is it when,

someone points it out as if it were,

what are they in the real world -- hope i am not being to heavy for ya - jz

okyoureabeast · #21 01-10-2010, 08:52 PM

I try and avoid most of the political conversations here.

tonkovich · #22 01-10-2010, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

Not having any idea as to the extent of your present interest or your past experience or education the best thing you could do is read the Federalist Papers. These are the collection of essays contemporaneously written by some of the incredible thinkers and contributors to the US Constitution; Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay as they made their case for ratification to the people of NewYork State, published in 1787-1788.

The vision of the founding fathers was the minimum government and the maximum freedom and liberty of individuals, groups of people as states would be the laboratories where the balance between governance and liberty would be examined. The founding fathers fundamentally understood that individuals instinctively act in their own self interest and the differences in the ways and degrees that states responded to that intrinsic force would determine what balance would be the most successful. States that responded with oppressive interference with individual liberty would not prosper and loose inhabitants and states that responded with negligent intervention would have chaos and the same loss of inhabitants, because the US Constitution prevented government from interfering with people moving to find circumstances that better suited their interests.
States that balanced governance and liberty which allowed the maximum life liberty and the pursuit of their inhabitants happiness would attract people who where not satisfied elsewhere.

The beauty of this logic is that ultimately the collective decisions of all Americans acting in their own best interests was viewed as superior to any higher political authority deciding.

Many people find reading the Federalist Papers and the ideas and ideally articulated within as very close to there own personal feelings rather than the threads of political discourse of their own day and time.

how can it be the "vision of the founding fathers" when only three people are involved?

(and of course, haven't we learned a lot since 1787? when women were property and so were all black people? and native americans had no rights? or even citiizenship)

sure, tell this guy to read the federalist papers. but do admit how limited they are.

RichC · #23 01-10-2010, 09:26 PM

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom; worthy of a free man, gentlemanlike, courteous, generous"[1]) is the belief in the importance of individual freedom. This belief is widely accepted today throughout the world, and was recognized as an important value by many philosophers throughout history.

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, to "save" or "preserve")[1] is a political attitude and philosophy that advocates institutions and traditional practices that have developed organically,[2][3] thus emphasizing stability and continuity.

-----------------------------

Ann Coulter's books

Coulter, Ann H. (1998). High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton. Washington, DC; Lanham, MD: Regnery Pub. and distributed to the trade by National Book Network. ISBN 0895263602. OCLC 39380711.

Coulter, Ann H. (2002). Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right. New York, NY: Crown. ISBN 1400046610. OCLC 49673076.
Coulter, Ann H. (2003). Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. New York, NY: Crown Forum. ISBN 1400050308. OCLC 52133318.
Coulter, Ann H. (2004). How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter. New York, NY: Crown Forum. ISBN 1400054184. OCLC 55746549.
Coulter, Ann H. (2006). Godless: The Church of Liberalism. New York, NY: Crown Forum. ISBN 1400054206. OCLC 69594152.
Coulter, Ann H. (2007). If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans. New York, NY: Crown Forum. ISBN 9780307353450. OCLC 156784826.
Coulter, Ann H. (2009). Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America. New York, NY: Crown Forum. ISBN 9780307353467. OCLC 230728938.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Its my opinion that Coulter is an example of ultra right ultra religous insanity.

Skippy · #24 01-10-2010, 09:28 PM

The quiz below can help you get started. It seems to be biased in favor of libertarians, but after you get the brief breakdown on major viewpoints at the end of the quiz, you can go from there and research whichever ones look interesting to you.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

Billybob · #25 01-10-2010, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonkovich

how can it be the "vision of the founding fathers" when only three people are involved?

(and of course, haven't we learned a lot since 1787? when women were property and so were all black people? and native americans had no rights? or even citiizenship)

sure, tell this guy to read the federalist papers. but do admit how limited they are.

I'll repost this here again for you!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

My reference to the Federalist papers was not an endorsement of any particular view or the view of any particular man. It is the best collection of essay’s in which the authors during the course of their arguments intentionally and inadvertently pro and con their own positions and the positions of their political adversaries. Their value is as an insight to these arguments when they took place, not as reinterpreted by later historians.

Also interesting; but not nearly as cohesive a discourse; is the compilation of Borden’s Anti-Federalist Papers his attempt to juxtapose arguments in contemporaneous relevance. Unfortunately they where not authored as direct counterpoints but actually collected and arraigned almost 200 years later by Morton Borden.

Ara T. · #26 01-10-2010, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitz

Kerry has relegated Ann Coulter to the status of lower-case "c" Christianity. If only she knew, I'm sure she'd be devastated.

Oh noes my religion isnt capitalized!!1

tonkovich · #27 01-10-2010, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

I'll repost this here again for you!

well, thanks so much, but i read it the first time.

some people (like say, the three branches of government over the last 200+ years) have shown that the constitution is an imperfect document, that needs constant updating and correction, because humanity (well, at least some of it) has learned a bit since 1787.

its nice to idealize a certain group of people in a certain time; let's be honest, they were quite human, and their ideas common in the intellectual and political circles of their time.

#28 01-10-2010, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonkovich

well, thanks so much, but i read it the first time.

some people (like say, the three branches of government over the last 200+ years) have shown that the constitution is an imperfect document, that needs constant updating and correction, because humanity (well, at least some of it) has learned a bit since 1787.

its nice to idealize a certain group of people in a certain time; let's be honest, they were quite human, and their ideas common in the intellectual and political circles of their time.

It's definitely worth reading to understand the thought process at the time. However, there is something to be said for Jefferson's suggestion that the constitution be rewritten every 20 years. Someplace he wrote, "the future belongs to the living" (I think that's pretty close to the quote).

Skippy · #29 01-10-2010, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonkovich

some people (like say, the three branches of government over the last 200+ years) have shown that the constitution is an imperfect document, that needs constant updating and correction, because humanity (well, at least some of it) has learned a bit since 1787.

It's only been changed 28 times in 222 years, most recently in 1992 (by an amendment first proposed in 1789). I wouldn't call that constant updating and correction. I'd say the folks who wrote the Constitution did an awfully good job. Now if we'd resume following the thing, we'd be a lot better off.

Diesel4me · #30 01-10-2010, 10:12 PM

According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is...

LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal

matters, but tend to support significant government control of the

economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation

of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,

defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action

to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.