"The Tea Party is here to stay,” [anti-tax advocate] Ben Cunningham is quoted as saying. “This is the beginning. We’ll be back and we’ll be watching.”
Fine, we'll bring the sugar and cream.
Posted by "localboy"
I always find it ironic like that as well Nemo. It's a good litmus test;
Does your religion require you to twist arms in order for people to go along with it's plan? If so you might be a form of hypocrite.
Same with politics; Does your scheme for great planning require a lot of arm twisting to get people to go along with it? Well then it might be the opposite of consent of the governed.
It's funny to send an army to enforce freedom on someone else. Billy Bragg, one of my all time favorite songs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUh2f7jT5UI
I may have posted that one before, excuse me if so. Apparently I don't align with Bragg too much on politics but that song helped me develop a lot of my thinking. A healthy dose of skepticism goes a long way.
"Does your scheme for great planning require a lot of arm twisting to get people to go along with it? Well then it might be the opposite of consent of the governed."
Yeah...getting the Constitution ratified didn't require any arm twisting, did it? lol
Captain Nemo on 1/13/11 at 10:48
It does not matter how many time you say God So Loved and how big you print it, it want save a black hearted soul.
Well, oh yeah of little faith. Are you capt nemo or capt god-no. For GOD SO LOVED . . . . and hearts and souls are not black - they are light! Once people see the light, it's hard not to believe. After all, who holds your hand through dark and stormy seas? Let your light shine; it might show someone else the way.
Your negative comments tend to inspire - "in - spire" as in breathe in new life into my spirit through God who loves me.
Arms were twisted and the Constitution was ratified. But the reluctant compromises failed over time. Amy has a point. When we force compromises, instead of genuinely agreeing on them in principle, we run the risk of the party's reneging on the deal, over time.
But Gd has a point too, the ratification was a good thing and arm-twisting was needed to get the job done. That's part of the democratic process, IMO. It's the old carrot and stick idea...you gotta get the blend right.
"Nice post, antisocialite. I would add that primitive religion (and we could go on for hours about how the Bible lifted most of it's "morality" from pre-existing concepts) was the means of keeping power in the hands of the few.
And isn't it always about power?"
Reminds me of my two favorite James Madison quotes, both from A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.
"What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people."
"Experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
I think the term compromise would fit better than arm twisting.
Brrrrrrk - I've asked gg that many times and have never been answered.
^^^ That was in reference to coming up with the US Constitution.
Brrrk, we could really use Madison and Jefferson today, don't you think?
Semantics, Amy. My point stands. Seldom, save a few examples of "receiving the spirit", do people suddenly and willingly adopt new beliefs, especially in politics.
Yes, the ratification process required stenuous arm twisting and the conclusion was very much in doubt.
Yes, the Constitution was when it was written, but it is now being ignored.
I wonder if more arm twisting was at the state levels, it look a long time for some hold outs.
Then again, mostly for the better, we got a printed Bill of Rights. Without that I'm not sure what status freedom of speech would have today.
Sorry, someone is working in my house and interrupted me. I left our the word "signed" when it was written.
"Yes, the Constitution was when it was written, but it is now being ignored."
You're right, the right wing consistently ignores the militia clause of the 2nd amendment.
I can only presume you know more about the Constitution today than the Founders knew when they were writing it.
It isn't just one party ignoring it. Its both, especially the two BIG'UNS in office.
To get a slight bit of information of our country today I suggest you go to GOOGLE, ot Bing and check 'Busted - Orlando Mosque Finances Hamas Fundraiser' and listen to George Galloway.
When you are on YouTube you might also be able to hear the Kenyan Ambassador speak about Obama's memorial being built.
Brrrk, I take that as yogi admitting he has no idea what you're talking about...lol
"Brrrk, I take that as yogi admitting he has no idea what you're talking about...lol."
Yogiman, using a line like 'I can only presume you know more about the Constitution today than the Founders knew when they were writing it.' doesn't seem very effective to me. The constitution is very obviously a living, changing document, if it weren't the founders (who I'm sure you will admit were extremely smart men) would not have allowed for amendments.
1. The act of changing for the better; improvement
2. A correction or alteration, as in a manuscript.
"I can only presume you know more about the Constitution today than the Founders knew when they were writing it."
No, but I do know that our Founders were men OF the written word and that when something was set to paper it was done so with the greatest of deliberations. The only means that they had (outside of talking) of conveying ideas was through the written word.
Having said that, I find it ironic that we have those that argue for adhering to the Constitution while at the same time selectively ignoring clauses that have real meaning. The militia clause of the 2nd amendment being a perfect example.
Sorry I'm not as brilliant as you folks. I'm sure you know about the meaning of the Constitution than our Founders (at least you think you do).
They knew at the time there would necessarily be changes in it. That's why there has been 27 so far in its existence. I'm sure there will be more. One I would like to see is the repeal of the 17th Amendment. Place the election of the senators back to the state legislatures. It would stop them from being bought out by the lobbyists.
The Tea-Bag Party will find out that teabags are not sandbags...when you build a fortified redoubt, you need sandbags, not teabags. They are under rhetorical fire right now and they are taking casualties. I think General Palin has been hit, so to speak.
How quickly we jump from mourning the loss of a 9-year old and others, to dogging a politicians. Well, the dems did say "never miss a chance to capitalize on a tragedy" and now they (dems) are saying Obama's speech is his best and boosted his ratings. How shallow.