Printable View
I am glad you think this Bruno but admitting such means that you have to admit that our forefathers may have had good intentions at heart instead of grumbling on about how they are just men and had no such goodness in their hearts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
So now we know that it is possible that the framers of the constitution were moved out of goodness and the best of intentions! Even Bruno admits it:D
Very, very few people are conciously evil. I am perfectly willing to admit that the framers may have had goodness at heart. However, they also had their share of human failings, like being susceptible to the misconceptions and worldview that was accepted at their time.
People are still like that. Take Obama and Bush. Neither of them thinks of himself as an evil man. Neither is likely to spend his evening in an armback chair with expensive booze, a cat on his lap and going 'Muhwahahahahaaaa' everytime he thinks about his evil master plan. Both are motivated to align society to how they think is good. Both think of themselves that they are right.
So in the end, even if a group of smart people try do do something 'for good', their actions will be colored by their experiences and their world view.
When it comes to war, propaganda and grassroots support are important. It is much easier to sell the general public on something if there is any way in which you can claim the moral high ground.
I'm just glad you can admit when you are wrong Bruno. That you admitted that the framers could be motivated by goodness is a huge step.:D Maybe we should try to work on your ideas of conservatism next.;):D
Afaik, I did not change my view, and I most certainly did not admit I was wrong :D (except for that incomplete Lincoln quote) I never denied that they could be motivated by goodness. I just indicated that they are not different from us, and certainly not the all-knowing sages that some people hold them to be. My slavery example was meant to highlight that. It was not meant to paint them as bad or selfish people.
I don't see how this is at all relevant to heath care.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Also, did you actually listen to what he said? He said nothing of the sort that you claim. Seriously, listen to it. If you don't want to listen again, he's a transcript from Fox News:
Transcript
Read the whole transcript, not just the blurb and scary titles on the audio link. If you really think he's a scary communist from this... you're just hearing what you want to hear.
Anyway, WHO CARES? This is a bill going through congress. It's just like any other bill. It's not going to radically change our society, and it can be changed again in the future. Do you really think Obama is a super mastermind who is setting us up for a commie future through provisions in a heath care bill???? I mean, really, you're giving him (and any president) too much credit here.
Direct quote from the trancript:
" but the supreme court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the warren court it wasnt that radical 40;30 it didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constituion at least as it has been interpreted and the warren court interpreted it generally in the same way that the constitution is a document of negative liberties 40:43 says what the states cant do to you says what the federal govt cant do to you but it doesnt say what the federal govt or state govt mst do on your behalf and that hasnt shifted and i think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that 41:01 the civil rights movement becaem so court focused i think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities 41:12 on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change 41:20 and in some ways we still suffer from that"
You don't see how the nationalization of healthcare is the first step toward his stated goal of redistribution of wealth? (and that is a stated goal of his. He wants to take from X and give to Y) You also don't see that he wants to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constituion" ?
It seems to me that an unconstitutional nationalization of healthcare is a first step toward his goal of redistribution of wealth.
As stated, Rome wasn't built in a day, and it also didn't fall in a day.
Your points are well taken. However, I would rather give my $750 to Georgia than to any federal programs. Most research is bull$&@" to begin with, but the only major beneficial research is privately funded anyway. Plus the military spending is not going to the soldiers or their care. It goes to defense contractors and people who only make profits. As for social programs, let the states handle them, that way the people get a vote and not a group of beurocrats trying to get elected. You are right, the society I live in would be different, and much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by treydampier
So where do you think almost everything we have today came from? No one researched anything like, the precision of lasers? The accuracy of laser use in manufacturing? The quality control behind circuit boards? The electronics used to make the computer you are typing on? Of course not. It was trial and error.
No one researched microbiology? The types of antibodies your body creates? Their response to viruses? How to emulate a live virus to stimulate this response? The vaccine in the end to help humanity? Of course not. Once again, trial and error.
Research is all bull**** apparently...
Lol. I'll agree Europeans are more realist, not jaded. This "love and hope for what's right" has lead to an immense propaganda campaign in the US- euphamised by some as "revisionist history". Basically its where instead of reporting facts- like Lincoln's statements about black/white equality- they report things like the Gettysburg address- which freed slaves in rebel states (and since they were rebel US law did not apply) so effectively it freed no one. But it sounded good and allowed people to ASSUME Lincoln was against slavery. Revisionist history is not wrong, but allows some to make conclusions that may not be true. Thanksgiving is another one. "Look how peaceful and loving our bond with native Americans was! We got together with them to share a meal!" Before brutalizing them, kicking them out of their homes, shipping them off to reservations or marching them out west. etc etc etcQuote:
Originally Posted by JMS
And yet, because of the system the Founders established for America the door was opened, directly leading to the abolishment of slavery in America and the granting of suffrage for women.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Give credit where credit is due.
(And when you say that they, meaning the founders, didn't mean to abolish slavery, I don't believe that history will support that view. And as for women's rights - like I said before, I think the world had to catch up with the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution. And obviously, for the most part, at least in America, it has.)