25 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe Founding Father created documents for us to be governed by and, at the same time, protecting our freedoms That is why I am proud to be an American. Now if this had been done else where, I guess I would be proud of that government.
So what is the meaning of "being proud of America" if you now claim that you are simply proud of anyone who has done good things in your view?
25 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyBut how is that different from being proud of having read Tolkein? You whinge and whine about how your own country is no longer what your Founding Father's wanted, ad nauseam. So what is the nature of this 'pride'? It sounds like something verging on a psychological condition. A delusion. An endless depressed nostaligia. A seemingly clinical aversion to dissent, diversity, change. Rather than something concrete.
The Founding Father created documents for us to be governed by and, at the same time, protecting our freedoms That is why I am proud to be an American. Now if this had been done else where, I guess I would be proud of that government.
25 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyConsidering the standard of living is higher in several other places, it has been done elsewhere - and better.
The Founding Father created documents for us to be governed by and, at the same time, protecting our freedoms That is why I am proud to be an American. Now if this had been done else where, I guess I would be proud of that government.
Do you think slavery should be reinstated?
25 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeythey did do that yes, but still, those freedoms didn't apply to african-americans and other minorities for a long time.
The Founding Father created documents for us to be governed by and, at the same time, protecting our freedoms That is why I am proud to be an American. Now if this had been done else where, I guess I would be proud of that government.
the founding fathers were a bunch of hypocrates.
25 Jul 09
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFThe Founders understood that the greatest threat to liberty is an all powerful central government. That is why they attempted to have the three branches of government police each other as well as giving power to the individual states. However, as we have seen over the years, these checks and balances are vanishing. For example, now we have nonelected czars who rule and reign over us. So do our elected officials even bother worring about the Constitutionality of such officials? Why should they when they seek to empower the state more and more as they strive for a utopian state? For the statist, the individual pursuits impede the objectives of this utopian state and so does the Constitution which declares their freedoms. The Constitution must then either be ignored or reinterpreted to fit their agendas.
But how is that different from being proud of having read Tolkein? You whinge and whine about how your own country is no longer what your Founding Father's wanted, ad nauseam. So what is the nature of this 'pride'? It sounds like something verging on a psychological condition. A delusion. An endless depressed nostaligia. A seemingly clinical aversion to dissent, diversity, change. Rather than something concrete.
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhodeys role and every other citezens role is to preserve the constitution. So far we have done that but there will be more troubled times ahead. Whodey has defended the constitution here on this site more than most. You can bet he is defending it in the real world as well. I am proud of whodey and people like him. I am proud of america which is the people, regaurdless of race. We have problems to deal with but it is the best country on the planet. That is something to be proud of. The current Government and its foreign policies is another matter.
What was your role in the creation of the constitution?
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by joe beyserI know that you and Whodey are not going to like this and it sounds like sacrilege to say this, but at some point, you have to suck it up and say that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. Otherwise, we just have 300 million different versions of what the Constitution means and it's one big mess.
Whodeys role and every other citezens role is to preserve the constitution. So far we have done that but there will be more troubled times ahead. Whodey has defended the constitution here on this site more than most. You can bet he is defending it in the real world as well. I am proud of whodey and people like him. I am proud of america which is the peopl ...[text shortened]... is something to be proud of. The current Government and its foreign policies is another matter.
26 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76That is true to a certain point. It isn't only the supreme courts duty to defend it. If it gets jacked all out of shape it is possible the people will demand resignations. As the country merges with the one world order and they find it necessary to eliminate it, or totally rewrite it it will get interesting. Right now at least one of the justices says torture isn't against the constitution. Basicaly his stance is that it isn't cruel and unusual punishment as they haven't been sentenced and are not in the punishment stage. Imagine if this were the case and the police started thumping heads on a lot of folks that were considered terrorists just because they have a Ron Paul bumper sticker or something. It would provoke a fight.
I know that you and Whodey are not going to like this and it sounds like sacrilege to say this, but at some point, you have to suck it up and say that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. Otherwise, we just have 300 million different versions of what the Constitution means and it's one big mess.