User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 129

  1. #51
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I've got some sympathy with what you're saying.

    Although I've also got a personal and speculative sympathy with socialism.
    Me too. It's just that lately it's always "We need to do something" but that something is never really a suggestion. It's more like a blank check for change of any kind.

    I noticed the very conspicuous fact that even though the writer suggests doing away with the Constitution, he does not suggest how things would be handled without it. That happens far too often of late and doesn't sit well with me.

  2. #52
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    @Mia.
    I don't disagree.

  3. #53
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    misleading title. not gonna lie, my Fi flaired up like a cobra at the site of it, but it wasn't quite as extreme as I was expecting
    however, I still disagree with him. we need The Constitution because they are a concrete foundation that has protected us for 100s of years. just look at American history compared to European history for the duration of it's existence. one thing that comes to mind immediately is on dictators.

    honestly, maybe this is my 6 wing talking, but the idea that views like this are becoming common place makes me question the future of national security (I'm gonna be honest, I hate using the term "national security" but it couldn't be more relevant here).
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  4. #54
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mia. View Post
    document of unparalleled success
    It didn't even make it 75 years before it irredeemably failed. We had a war over it. They rubber-stamped the 13th, 14th and 15th to fix the problems without the input of nearly half the states. The Supreme Court constantly has to stretch it to its bitter ends just to make it moderately relevant to the present day.

    If it's successful in anything, it's that the core text managed to go relatively unchanged. The meaning's been flipped all over the place since then.

    No it isn’t. Our nation wasn’t founded on breaking the rules. At least not in the sense being talked about here in this thread.
    Yes, it was. Our nation was founded on high treason against its rightful king.

  5. #55
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Yes, it was. Our nation was founded on high treason against its rightful king.
    Hardly. It wasn't about so much about the king, as it was about the people. That's not a small distinction. Calling it "high treason" is assuming the laws and kingship were valid to begin with. In their minds, they were not valid, and they appealed to higher/natural laws. The whole Declaration of Independence is a testament to this, so I don't have to repeat it. They didn't even declare war or rebellion at first. They declared independence, and towards the end of the document, basically amount to saying they simply didn't want to be bothered anymore.

  6. #56
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Hardly. It wasn't about so much about the king, as it was about the people. That's not a small distinction. Calling it "high treason" is assuming the laws and kingship were valid to begin with. In their minds, they were not valid, and they appealed to higher/natural laws. The whole Declaration of Independence is a testament to this, so I don't have to repeat it. They didn't even declare war or rebellion at first. They declared independence, and towards the end of the document, basically amount to saying they simply didn't want to be bothered anymore.
    The Declaration of Independence, great and seminal document it is, was propaganda, a support piece to justify what they knew was, by law, high treason. And British law was "the rules."

    It had nothing to do with the validity of the Crown's sovereignty, nor natural law, nor any philosophical principle. It had everything to do with the British Army being unable to suppress the rebellion.

  7. #57
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    The Declaration of Independence, great and seminal document it is, was propaganda, a support piece to justify what they knew was, by law, high treason. And British law was "the rules."

    It had nothing to do with the validity of the Crown's sovereignty, nor natural law, nor any philosophical principle. It had everything to do with the British Army being unable to suppress the rebellion.
    I see it more like a beaten wife finally saying that she's going her own way to her abusive husband.. and then he declares that she can't and that he owns her. So the wife runs for her life and gathers some friends, in the hope that they can kick his ass. They then write out a restraining order, based on laws that champion humanitarian restraint, rather than the random whims of one person. It had everything to do with philosophical principal. The whole world was getting tired of this shit at that point. Philosophical principles were the theme of the day. France took it a step further and killed their king.. and everyone else he partied with.

    Americans had no interest in taking the king's throne though, or manipulating English politics in any way. They just wanted to be responsible for their own destiny. So it isn't a typical treason at least. Treason is usually offensive in nature. This was defensive.

  8. #58
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mia. View Post
    NPR
    Aww come on now. Now I'm arguing against both sides. NPR is cool.

  9. #59
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I see it more like a beaten wife finally saying that she's going her own way to her abusive husband.. and then he declares that she can't and that he owns her. So the wife runs for her life and gathers some friends, in the hope that they can kick his ass. They then write out a restraining order, based on laws that champion humanitarian restraint, rather than the random whims of one person. It had everything to do with philosophical principal. The whole world was getting tired of this shit at that point. Philosophical principles were the theme of the day. France took it a step further and killed their king.. and everyone else he partied with.

    Americans had no interest in taking the king's throne though, or manipulating English politics in any way. They just wanted to be responsible for their own destiny. So it isn't a typical treason at least. Treason is usually offensive in nature. This was defensive.
    More that the woman claimed she was beaten because her husband laid down an ultimatum - she was going to have to pay for bailing herself out of jail every time she got into a fight with the American Indian woman next door, she couldn't deal drugs out of the house anymore, and that she wouldn't need to, anyway, because his pharmacist brother would give her a drastically cut price on her pain medication.

    Then, when she started slapping him, he restrained her wrist, until he got sucker punched by the Frenchman down the street who she'd been cheating on the husband with.

  10. #60
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    More that the woman claimed she was beaten because her husband laid down an ultimatum - she was going to have to pay for bailing herself out of jail every time she got into a fight with the American Indian woman next door, she couldn't deal drugs out of the house anymore, and that she wouldn't need to, anyway, because his pharmacist brother would give her a drastically cut price on her pain medication.

    Then, when she started slapping him, he restrained her wrist, until he got sucker punched by the Frenchman down the street who she'd been cheating on the husband with.
    You lost me somewhere, but that Frenchmen sounds pretty cool.

Similar Threads

  1. Taking it again from the top: Root defintions of the functions
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 11-25-2017, 04:55 PM
  2. George McFly from "Back to the future"
    By Malcontent in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-08-2011, 11:21 AM
  3. Taking Communism away from the Communists: The Origins of Modern American Liberalism
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-15-2009, 01:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO