...and no, you libs do NOT revere Jefferson. He was the antithesis to you collectivist, wealth-stealing loons.

(06-28-2011 09:10 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  "Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson

The founders realized times would change and the constitution should change with it, ie slavery. However, Jefferson was not saying that the foundational beliefs on which the constitution is based, should change. You can find those foundational principles in the Declaration of Independence.

Bottom line, Jefferson's wasn't making the point that government should be granted more and more power should a future generation wish it to.

And I got news for you UM, no father of the democratic party would have said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Doesn't exactly sing Nancy Pelosi.

So finally had a chance to finish the article (frickin RI's, but i digress). He did fairly well at measuring both sides of the issues he presented and clearly did research to provide background context (namely the 14th amendment impressed me), but his conclusions are where you realize his disdain for the true role of the Constitution. Two quotes at the end that were huge red flags:

Quote:The Constitution works so well precisely because it is so opaque, so general, so open to various interpretations.

Quote:We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle...

I truncated the second one because it really doesn't matter how he ends the sentence. As soon as you start considering the Constitution an obstacle to ANYTHING legislative/governmental, then you are effectively undermining its whole purpose, which is (in a nutshell) 1) to establish our framework of government, and 2) establish that which government cannot touch (rights). To think of the Constitution as some outdated relic demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of how the Framers intended it to be used, namely the concept of Amendments.

(06-28-2011 09:55 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-28-2011 09:10 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  "Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods.

REVISION fool, there's an amendment process for that.

You idiot libs don't seem to care too damn much about that because you are always trying to find ways to silence your opposition. Want to change it? Grow some fuken balls and go through the amendment process. There's a REASON it was made so damned hard to amend.

Hey, idiot, I know this is too hard for you to grasp since you only have a partially functioning brain, but Jefferson advocated for a constitution that expired every 20 years. He strongly felt that the current generation should craft and construct their own government. Read some history, you dolt.

(06-29-2011 06:43 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(06-28-2011 09:55 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-28-2011 09:10 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  "Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods.

REVISION fool, there's an amendment process for that.

You idiot libs don't seem to care too damn much about that because you are always trying to find ways to silence your opposition. Want to change it? Grow some fuken balls and go through the amendment process. There's a REASON it was made so damned hard to amend.

Hey, idiot, I know this is too hard for you to grasp since you only have a partially functioning brain, but Jefferson advocated for a constitution that expired every 20 years. He strongly felt that the current generation should craft and construct their own government. Read some history, you dolt.

Well, Jefferson was wrong. He also advocated that natural laws be reviewed, revised every generation, some 19 years. If he hadn't included the constitution in that endeavor, the review, revised part of law could have gotten some legs. And we would be in a society of less stupid laws on the books, that never expire.

(06-29-2011 06:43 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Hey, idiot, I know this is too hard for you to grasp since you only have a partially functioning brain, but Jefferson advocated for a constitution that expired every 20 years. He strongly felt that the current generation should craft and construct their own government. Read some history, you dolt.

Your last sentence is worthy of parsing. If you sanctimoniously claim history to be on your side without the support of facts, then there is no real need to read, to cite, or to accurately state what a historical figure did in fact advocate, because there is no real place for accountability if you make outrageous claims based on a snippet you found on some blog.

Now, if you set your sense of moral superiority aside and decide that you do actually want to read history, you might be surprised to find that in the preceding paragraph, Jefferson stated "I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions". Setting aside that your conclusion isn't at all supported by the part of the letter that you cut and paste, you might also want to consider the what Jefferson actually said that might be relevant to the context of this whole discussion, which is Thomas Sowell's thesis:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...10381.html Wrote:More than a hundred years ago, so-called "Progressives" began a campaign to undermine the Constitution's strict limitations on government, which stood in the way of self-anointed political crusaders imposing their grand schemes on all the rest of us.

Jefferson's letter actually addresses the topic pretty directly:

To Samuel Kercheval, Monticello, July 12, 1816

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-...ision=div1 Wrote:I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.

Is it the least bit ironic that the very reason that Jefferson advocated a process of constitutional amendment "so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time" is very specifically that what would later become the progressive agenda is so very anathema to his sense of government, freedom, and the very nature of human existence? You've been p0wn3d by someone who's been dead for nearly two hundred years!

Jefferson couldn't even keep his own estate out of debt.

(06-30-2011 09:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Jefferson couldn't even keep his own estate out of debt.

Most of the founding fathers died penniless. They pledged their fortunes to the country.

(06-30-2011 09:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Jefferson couldn't even keep his own estate out of debt.

Yeah, cause that's relevant to the topic at hand.

(06-30-2011 09:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Jefferson couldn't even keep his own estate out of debt.

linky

(07-01-2011 01:11 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(06-30-2011 09:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Jefferson couldn't even keep his own estate out of debt.

linky

I was referring to his comments about debt. Was that so hard to comprehend???????? Seems like "Owl" posters have a certain sense of arrogance that is spreading.

Maybe you're just too used to people responding with personal attacks on this board rather than responding to the topic, and assumed that's what I was doing. As if I have anything against Jefferson.

Anyway, most of the people on this board seem to be scared already, so this would just be superfluous.

(07-01-2011 01:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 01:11 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(06-30-2011 09:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Jefferson couldn't even keep his own estate out of debt.

linky

I was referring to his comments about debt. Was that so hard to comprehend???????? Seems like "Owl" posters have a certain sense of arrogance that is spreading.

Maybe you're just too used to people responding with personal attacks on this board rather than responding to the topic, and assumed that's what I was doing. As if I have anything against Jefferson.

Anyway, most of the people on this board seem to be scared already, so this would just be superfluous.

Pointing out that TJ has personal debt speaks to his personal flaws and character. It does nothing at all to diminish his argument that when one generation leaves unfathomable debt to subsequent generations, it has tremendous negative consequences. As such, it seems to me that countering his argument by bringing up personal flaws qualifies as textbook ad-hominem (it's more polite than calling him an idiot or dolt). If you disagree, you're free to make that argument. I just didn't see it as a direct response to the topic.

That argument about public debt is one central argument that he made in his 1816 letter, and the actions of progressives 100 years later are the source of what looks to be the demise of our country that we are now experiencing.

I generally do not call people names, but when someone is at the same time spectacularly wrong, sanctimonious, and rude as UM2001GRAD was, then I'll respond as I did.

I understand I'm not making friends among most of the NIU crowd, but I've found most of your posts to be generally reasonable and have tried to respond to you with respect.

(07-01-2011 02:31 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 01:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 01:11 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(06-30-2011 09:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Jefferson couldn't even keep his own estate out of debt.

linky

I was referring to his comments about debt. Was that so hard to comprehend???????? Seems like "Owl" posters have a certain sense of arrogance that is spreading.

Maybe you're just too used to people responding with personal attacks on this board rather than responding to the topic, and assumed that's what I was doing. As if I have anything against Jefferson.

Anyway, most of the people on this board seem to be scared already, so this would just be superfluous.

Pointing out that TJ has personal debt speaks to his personal flaws and character. It does nothing at all to diminish his argument that when one generation leaves unfathomable debt to subsequent generations, it has tremendous negative consequences. As such, it seems to me that countering his argument by bringing up personal flaws qualifies as textbook ad-hominem (it's more polite than calling him an idiot or dolt). If you disagree, you're free to make that argument. I just didn't see it as a direct response to the topic.

That argument about public debt is one central argument that he made in his 1816 letter, and the actions of progressives 100 years later are the source of what looks to be the demise of our country that we are now experiencing.

I generally do not call people names, but when someone is at the same time spectacularly wrong, sanctimonious, and rude as UM2001GRAD was, then I'll respond as I did.

I understand I'm not making friends among most of the NIU crowd, but I've found most of your posts to be generally reasonable and have tried to respond to you with respect.

I suppose the way I worded my post could have been better - looking at it again, it looks like I was attacking Jefferson, but really I was just pointing out that having an opinion of how things should be done, as he did, does not necessarily mean you're going to do it that way. Like with everything else, debt control is easier said than done.

(07-01-2011 02:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I suppose the way I worded my post could have been better - looking at it again, it looks like I was attacking Jefferson, but really I was just pointing out that having an opinion of how things should be done, as he did, does not necessarily mean you're going to do it that way. Like with everything else, debt control is easier said than done.

You're absolutely correct. But, that doesn't mean it's not a desirable thing to do.

(07-01-2011 03:11 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 02:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I suppose the way I worded my post could have been better - looking at it again, it looks like I was attacking Jefferson, but really I was just pointing out that having an opinion of how things should be done, as he did, does not necessarily mean you're going to do it that way. Like with everything else, debt control is easier said than done.

You're absolutely correct. But, that doesn't mean it's not a desirable thing to do.

True. But nobody seemed to care when Reagan was deficit spending. He still has a halo over his head, apparently.

(07-02-2011 09:11 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 03:11 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 02:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I suppose the way I worded my post could have been better - looking at it again, it looks like I was attacking Jefferson, but really I was just pointing out that having an opinion of how things should be done, as he did, does not necessarily mean you're going to do it that way. Like with everything else, debt control is easier said than done.

You're absolutely correct. But, that doesn't mean it's not a desirable thing to do.

True. But nobody seemed to care when Reagan was deficit spending. He still has a halo over his head, apparently.

Just so we're clear: Because previous presidents spent like a crack whore with a stolen American Express card, it's okay for current/future presidents to do the same?

I'm just wondering when an appropriate time to reel it in would be.

To paraphrase the Reverend Jackson, "If not now, when?"

Justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

(07-02-2011 09:24 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-02-2011 09:11 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 03:11 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 02:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I suppose the way I worded my post could have been better - looking at it again, it looks like I was attacking Jefferson, but really I was just pointing out that having an opinion of how things should be done, as he did, does not necessarily mean you're going to do it that way. Like with everything else, debt control is easier said than done.

You're absolutely correct. But, that doesn't mean it's not a desirable thing to do.

True. But nobody seemed to care when Reagan was deficit spending. He still has a halo over his head, apparently.

Just so we're clear: Because previous presidents spent like a crack whore with a stolen American Express card, it's okay for current/future presidents to do the same?

I'm just wondering when an appropriate time to reel it in would be.

To paraphrase the Reverend Jackson, "If not now, when?"

No, to you guys on the right, it just becomes and immediate problem when a Democrat is in office.

(07-02-2011 10:42 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-02-2011 09:24 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-02-2011 09:11 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 03:11 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 02:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I suppose the way I worded my post could have been better - looking at it again, it looks like I was attacking Jefferson, but really I was just pointing out that having an opinion of how things should be done, as he did, does not necessarily mean you're going to do it that way. Like with everything else, debt control is easier said than done.

You're absolutely correct. But, that doesn't mean it's not a desirable thing to do.

True. But nobody seemed to care when Reagan was deficit spending. He still has a halo over his head, apparently.

Just so we're clear: Because previous presidents spent like a crack whore with a stolen American Express card, it's okay for current/future presidents to do the same?

I'm just wondering when an appropriate time to reel it in would be.

To paraphrase the Reverend Jackson, "If not now, when?"

No, to you guys on the right, it just becomes and immediate problem when a Democrat is in office.

I had similar criticisms of Bush, though you won't believe that, I'm sure.

And nice deflection to avoid answering the question.

(07-02-2011 09:11 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 03:11 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 02:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I suppose the way I worded my post could have been better - looking at it again, it looks like I was attacking Jefferson, but really I was just pointing out that having an opinion of how things should be done, as he did, does not necessarily mean you're going to do it that way. Like with everything else, debt control is easier said than done.

You're absolutely correct. But, that doesn't mean it's not a desirable thing to do.

True. But nobody seemed to care when Reagan was deficit spending. He still has a halo over his head, apparently.

that's a valid criticism. He shared the same fault as every other president of my lifetime, but he still did more than any of them to work against the tide.