In New York there is a law that is up that will ban smoking in resturaunts and places of this nature. What the heck is next? When this nation was founded it was found on principles of the common man, but now we are getting this screwy commune aura that wants to take what we have fought for and bled and died for and take it away. And this isn't just about smoking. Its about school vouchers, its about affirmitive action, its about all the screwy laws we are getting that says you must allow a certain ammount of women and minorites into an establisment. Do we need another revolution? I sure hope not, but after eight years of having an idiot in office our country has gotten corrupted and driven off track about what is was found for.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Whatever happened to Free enterprise
- Thread starter Job_38
- Start date
Actually many of the founding fathers were quite frightened of the common man; that's one reason they made it so hard for him to vote. It's also one reason the Constitution was written, as a means of giving the government enough teeth to hold commoners (like the ruffians in Massachussetts) in check. It is easy enough to use history as a form of moral blackmail when you don't like something about the present, but that usually requires a rather deliberate inattention to detail. If your purpose is to oppose the law, then perhaps you should argue your case without all the baggage, but I do agree with you about one thing; the country has yet to recover from 8 years of Ronald Reagan.
Upvote
0
Oh I find that quite hilarious. If the founding fathers were so "afraid" of the common man, then why so many rights given to us?
And I find that last statement rather lame. Please tell me what Ronald Reagen did wrong. The only thing I disagree with is affirmitve action, even though the intentions were good it was corrupted by democrats.
Also explain how they made it so hard to vote.
And I find that last statement rather lame. Please tell me what Ronald Reagen did wrong. The only thing I disagree with is affirmitve action, even though the intentions were good it was corrupted by democrats.
Also explain how they made it so hard to vote.
Upvote
0
Laugh all you want, but it's a fact; they took steps to deny commoners the vote. That was one right they did not think should belong to commoners. They also associated democracy with mob rule (this lasted up until about the time of Andrew Jackson), and they frequently spoke of a natural aristocracy. Washington's administration was largely devoted to building up an elite class within American society; this being the point behind Hamilton's well known proposals. But I suppose such details are irrelevant to you aren't they. I mean why spoil a pet generalizatoin with facts?
You still haven't made a real case against the anti-smoking ordinance.
Two words: Iran-Contra.
You still haven't made a real case against the anti-smoking ordinance.
Two words: Iran-Contra.
Upvote
0
Yes of course they are irrelevant to me.(sarcasm)
Please do not make judgements about someone you dont know.
Would you please give me the sources of infomation.
And instead of giving me two words, how bout a full explanation.
Please do not make judgements about someone you dont know.
Would you please give me the sources of infomation.
And instead of giving me two words, how bout a full explanation.
Upvote
0
- Mar 24, 2002
- 12,089
- 624
- 76
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Brimshack,
I enjoy the way you go at a point, it's fun stuff to read. I agree with you on most of the history points you made but I don't agree with the conclusion you draw from it. There are two models that I can think of whereby governments were established for the good of the common man. In every case where they have been tried, they worked, all the people achieved the target status.
I enjoy the way you go at a point, it's fun stuff to read. I agree with you on most of the history points you made but I don't agree with the conclusion you draw from it. There are two models that I can think of whereby governments were established for the good of the common man. In every case where they have been tried, they worked, all the people achieved the target status.
Upvote
0
OK, I'll lay off the sarcasm, but it is the pattern of free-floating generalities to which I am most opposed. Evidence for that approach is clearly present so far, but perhaps that doesn't reflect your normal outlook.
Sources? Just about any survey text would give you most of what I have claimed here. It'll take a minute, but I'll look through one.
Sources? Just about any survey text would give you most of what I have claimed here. It'll take a minute, but I'll look through one.
Upvote
0
- May 18, 2002
- 6,133
- 105
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
All hands on deck!! We got us a Ronald Reagan basher, lol.
I believe Ronald Reagan was an excellent president as is President Bush at present.
I was very disgusted and ashamed of our last President, the Clintons.
The last insult to injury was when Clinton a draft dodger and war protester of the Vietnam War(While at Oxford) went to Vietnam before he left office. It was Clinton's last slap to the face of the Vietnam Vet.
GySgt James
Upvote
0
Oh and there are more. I suggest you and all who want to know to read "The Last Days", it is about the Clinton Administrations last desperate abuse of power. Also "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" it is about CLintons impeachment.
BTW Gunny, what did you do while in service?
BTW Gunny, what did you do while in service?
Upvote
0
Cool. I have a big interest in the millitary, gonna join up after high school. Sorry, but I'm going Army, 82nd Airbourne and then Ranger. Scaring me to death thinking about it, but that pushed me to train harder.
Upvote
0
Hi Elder, you are right that the founding fathers intended the nation to benefit the common man, and they did afford more rights than most had previously. I am only interested in dispelling the notion that the principles of the common man were somehow the yardstick by which the founding fathers, many of them wannabe aristocrats, measured the value of a given law. They could be quite paternalistic.
Job 38:
For the moment I will work with John Mack Farragher, et.al. "Out of Many: A History of the American people." This is a fairly run-of-the-mill text, not exactly left wing revisionism, and you should be able to find comparable sections in just about any survey text. I would add that Federalist 10 will give you a good account of the fear that wealthy statemen felt towards the propect that the impoverished masses might rise up and take away the wealth.
On Democracy in America, see pages 195-6. This describes 3 typical state constitutions.
Pennsylvania (the most radically democratic) opened it's assembly up to all free male taxpayers. Maryland (the most conservative) required sufficient land to narrow the eligible white male population to 10% in the lower house and 7% in the Senate. New York had 'siff' property requirements' for the Senate, but not for the House, and the governor (with veto power) was elected by property owners. The latter two states illustrating the measures taken to minimize the influence of commoners.
As to my comments in the U.S. Constitution being created to control commoners, i am of course referrring to Shay's rebellion, and the massive fear of democracy that it inspired (p. 201-2 of my text).
As to Washington's administration, I am of course referring to the assumption of the debt at full value (a plan deliberately intended to benefit bankers at the expense of common soldiers); the creation of a National Bank (a plan also deliberately intended to enrich the same set of bankers), and the report on manufacturing. Hamilton won most of these battles, and when pressed on the elitism, he didn'tbat an eye. He argued that the country would only succeed if it was backed by an elite comparable to the nobility of Europe. (Farragher's book, 215-16)
But this is actually my point, there is no general trend away from time honored principles here. the anti-smoking legislation stands or falls on its own. If that is what is bothering you, then that is what we should be debating. If the bulk of your argument rests on a grand historical theme, then you are building a house in the sky.
Iran Contra was not an attempt to save hostages, and could never be, for reasons that conservartives have explained themselves many times. When you bargain with terrorists, you give them an incentive to take more hostages. they may have obtained the release of individual hostages, but in doing so they helped to create a market (hey, a free market) for hostages. In addition, the policy was quite literally an attempt to create a shadow government that would be beyond the control of democratoic processes. Talkk about contempt for the common man. Add to that the fact that part of the attempt to continue funding this policy included running drugs into the country [see William J. Chambliss, "State organized Crime" Criminology 27 (2) 1989], you have a President that shows outright contempt for the American people.
Job 38:
For the moment I will work with John Mack Farragher, et.al. "Out of Many: A History of the American people." This is a fairly run-of-the-mill text, not exactly left wing revisionism, and you should be able to find comparable sections in just about any survey text. I would add that Federalist 10 will give you a good account of the fear that wealthy statemen felt towards the propect that the impoverished masses might rise up and take away the wealth.
On Democracy in America, see pages 195-6. This describes 3 typical state constitutions.
Pennsylvania (the most radically democratic) opened it's assembly up to all free male taxpayers. Maryland (the most conservative) required sufficient land to narrow the eligible white male population to 10% in the lower house and 7% in the Senate. New York had 'siff' property requirements' for the Senate, but not for the House, and the governor (with veto power) was elected by property owners. The latter two states illustrating the measures taken to minimize the influence of commoners.
As to my comments in the U.S. Constitution being created to control commoners, i am of course referrring to Shay's rebellion, and the massive fear of democracy that it inspired (p. 201-2 of my text).
As to Washington's administration, I am of course referring to the assumption of the debt at full value (a plan deliberately intended to benefit bankers at the expense of common soldiers); the creation of a National Bank (a plan also deliberately intended to enrich the same set of bankers), and the report on manufacturing. Hamilton won most of these battles, and when pressed on the elitism, he didn'tbat an eye. He argued that the country would only succeed if it was backed by an elite comparable to the nobility of Europe. (Farragher's book, 215-16)
But this is actually my point, there is no general trend away from time honored principles here. the anti-smoking legislation stands or falls on its own. If that is what is bothering you, then that is what we should be debating. If the bulk of your argument rests on a grand historical theme, then you are building a house in the sky.
Iran Contra was not an attempt to save hostages, and could never be, for reasons that conservartives have explained themselves many times. When you bargain with terrorists, you give them an incentive to take more hostages. they may have obtained the release of individual hostages, but in doing so they helped to create a market (hey, a free market) for hostages. In addition, the policy was quite literally an attempt to create a shadow government that would be beyond the control of democratoic processes. Talkk about contempt for the common man. Add to that the fact that part of the attempt to continue funding this policy included running drugs into the country [see William J. Chambliss, "State organized Crime" Criminology 27 (2) 1989], you have a President that shows outright contempt for the American people.
Upvote
0
- May 18, 2002
- 6,133
- 105
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I respect greatly Army Rangers. I knew some Rangers that served in Nam.
Very well trained, indeed.
I know that the Lord shall be with you as you serve our great country, these United States.
God's speed be with you!!!
GySgt James
Upvote
0
I'm not interested in defending Clinton. He betrayed every cause he stood for and every one that voted for him, mostly by providing conservatives with a chance to regain the moral high ground. But if anyone thinks Clinton showed unusual levels of corruption, they are conveniantly forgetting about much about a number of republican preseidents. i also find it rather amusing that no-one gives Carter any credit for running a comparatively decent presidency. It appears to me that most seem to regard the man's honesty as a liability that we should never have allowed into the office.
Upvote
0
I've never heard anyone describe Manhattan as a place with a 'commune aura.'
That's probably the last thing I'd say about my experience living there.
Upvote
0
- May 18, 2002
- 6,133
- 105
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I have always respected Jimmy Carter. I really do believe he is a good Christian man.
GySgt James
Upvote
0
Originally posted by mac_philo
I've never heard anyone describe Manhattan as a place with a 'commune aura.'
That's probably the last thing I'd say about my experience living there.
I am not talking just about New York. When I say aura, I guess I should be clear. I mean more goverment involvment in small business, or just more big govt involvment in alot of things.
Thanks gunny, I have been praying about it and feel that it is something I need to do. Besides, if I am going to serve my great country, I want to do it the best way possible.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
