Story Comments
Posted by: populist 1 year, 4 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
93%
populist1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's what James Madison had to say on the issue:
Reply
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. "
"In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."-
92%
BravoSierra1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Absolutely. And the US is headed into an era of perpetual warfare by declaring EVERYTHING a war...war against terror, war against drugs, war against this and that... It's being done for corporate power and profits just as it was used by the British East India company to further their power and profits at the expense of England. Go read up on it...Bush may as well be the CEO of the British East India Company selling the Citizens of the US out to create a perpetual state of war for the purpose of securing corporate profits rather than the good of the nation.
Reply
Please to read the history of the root causes of the American Revolution and you will find that what our leadership is doing today is what cost the Crown the American Colonies. It will cost us allies and resources in the world and it will cost us our personal liberties and standard of living as we become foot soldiers and cannon fodder for the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us against as he left office.-
-
100%
AnteUp1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BravoSierra ~
Reply
How true! When - and IF - they ever finish the game they are playing in the Middle East, they have already staked out their next areas of
conflict. Take a look at our involvement with Colombia and our continual disruption in Bolivia and Ecuador.
One day I stumbled across a reference to United Fruit Company and their dealings in Latin America. I was spellbound! I remember seeing the demonstrations about "Yanqui Go Home" - but never knew what that was all about. Well, all the way from United Fruit - to Iran-Contra, and on to the Bush policies now in that region.
It becomes quite clear that you cannot assist the elites to steal from the many and give to the few, nor can you build a truly
self-sustaining and PROFITABLE military machine if you don't have that one essential ingredient ..........continual conflict.
"Liar,liar - World on fire" - doesn't just apply to Bush - he's just been extrordinarily successful in selling the concept (through FEAR)
and changing our Constitutional structure to facilitate it.
-
-
83%
splitrch1 year, 4 months ago
-
-
50%
ChefEOD1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree on one level but to use the term terrorist with such a broad brush does not match the actions of the two. Please do not tell me that the three mentioned used attacks on civilians or attacks designed to produce civilian deaths to advance their cause - that is a huge difference between then & them to what occurs today.
Reply -
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, they weren't terrorists. The Declaration of Independence is a legal document that addresses international law of the period and specifically the conditions under which the ruled are obliged to rebel against the ruler. The legal premises were laid out by Friar Francisco Suarez and others in the 1600s and were ratified by the Catholic Church and later were adopted and expanded upon by international law and treaty. They were rebels. Now, according to Bush's definition of a "terrorist" they were terrorists but under international law they were not. The Declaration makes point of addressing all the conditions and principles laid out in international law of the time required to embark on a "just" rebellion. Just as there are principles for what defines a "just war" under international law, there are also principles that define a "just rebellion" or resistance.
Reply -
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
populist ~
Reply
Reading the Kenneth Roberts series of books about the American
Revolution, years ago, it became clear to me why Samuel Adams
was called a "rabble rouser". In today's lingo he would be
branded as an enemy combatant, or an insurgent ,at the least.
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Madison wrote a bunch of stuff I do not agree with.
Reply
I tended to like Hamilton's stuff a little more.
Madison was quite cornered about the "Mob rule" of a democracy, and wrote about the populist opinion that put Socrates to death and then built statues for him.
He is a hero of Karl Rove, because he tended to think we should be more of a republic than a democracy, and saner minds could temper the Mob if there was a bit of isolation in place. I kind of think he represents the thoughts of Republican conservatives when the principle has been rendered down to the basics.
None the less both of the Federalist Papers authors spent a lot of words describing and warning about the dangers of a huge military machine.
They both felt that the federal branch should maintain a strong Navy and have a small group of elite warriors.
They Strongly opposed the concept of large standing armies (no more than 2 years). There are words still in the Constitution about how the states can decide about officers.
Hamilton Basically stated that the country would freak out if the military machine became huge. We did not.
I think it is fair to say that we cover about 1/2 the bill for military expenditure for the entire world.
It also speaks well for the folks ,that have served this country, that in spite of the power they are capable of wielding, they still answer to our chosen civilian leaders.
The Business Plot: The Bonus army was offered the opportunity to overthrow Roosevelt. They where ****** off soldiers, but they let their honor shine.
I still prefer Hamilton, too bad he got shot.
Maria Reynolds-
100%
populist1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interesting perspective, and thank you for writing all that, although I strongly disagree. Maybe that's best left for another thread, though!
Reply
Anyway, if anyone's interested, there's a book coming out soon that discusses just these issues. (well, more from my point of view!)
It's called "Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today"
http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution-Americans/dp/0307382842
Ok, I'll try to stay on topic now!-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cool that you disagree!
Reply
Sorry to pull a tangential thread.
Thanks for pointing out the book, If I was a better man I would read it.
I do think that many of the words that are attributed to Jefferson where Ghost written by Hamilton.
I am not that smart or well educated, so I was just kind of trying to share what I "felt" when I was cruising The Federalist Papers.
-
-
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republic or Democracy is irrelevant to the principles in international law that justify rebellion of the ruled against the ruler. The form of government selected by the founding fathers was founded on legal principles that were the principle cause of the new government being formed in the first place. Whether a democracy of republic is in place, if the government violates the legal principles of the social contract between the ruled and the ruler under the concept of "natural law", then, under international law, the ruled have the obligation to rebel and bring the government down. Any violation of the principle cause for the rebellion and formation of the government in the first place violates the social contract and everything the government claims a right to is nullified ab initio...or from the beginning.
Reply-
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I recommend that you back up to prior to Madison, Adams, Hamilton, etc and study Friar Francisco Suarez and the founders of international law at the time of the Age of Enlightenment. These are the principles that the Declaration of Independence addresses and makes a legal defense for rebellion based upon. Any law in the Constitution or any subsequent interpretation of our laws and liberties in violation of these earlier principles is invalid ab initio. Debating them is a moot point if they are invalid. Rove violated the legal definition of natural rights laid out in the Declaration and thus violated the law in many of his actions. Indeed, many of the Bush administration's positions are illegal, not because they violate the Constitution (which they do) but because they are contrary to the natural rights and freedoms accorded to the INDIVIDUAL ABOVE ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT as stated in the Declaration. Most people unfamiliar with international law think the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the basis of US Laws and rights afforded citizens and thus they bicker over the "Constitutionality" of laws, executive privileges, etc. What they fail to recognize is that the Declaration of Independence is the first legal definition of the individual rights of US Citizens and that is is not a philosophical document but that it in fact strictly addresses international laws in place at the time of the American Revolution. It is Washington and the other rebel's legal defense that they would have presented in the courts of Europe and to the British Parliament had they lost. If they had lost, there is a fair chance they would have been exonerated. The British Parliament had already declared the British East India Company to be verging on treason to the Crown and had declared them immoral and incompetent governors of the Crown's possessions. Washington may well have been exonerated and officers of the British East India Company and other governors may well have been hanged for the crimes laid out in the Declaration. If that's what it would have taken to resolve the revolution peacefully and keep the colonies as part of the Empire I suspect that Parliament would have eaten its own. As it was, Washington won.
Reply -
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I recommend that you back up to prior to Madison, Adams, Hamilton, etc and study Friar Francisco Suarez and the founders of international law at the time of the Age of Enlightenment. These are the principles that the Declaration of Independence addresses and makes a legal defense for rebellion based upon. Any law in the Constitution or any subsequent interpretation of our laws and liberties in violation of these earlier principles is invalid ab initio. Debating them is a moot point if they are invalid. Rove violated the legal definition of natural rights laid out in the Declaration and thus violated the law in many of his actions. Indeed, many of the Bush administration's positions are illegal, not because they violate the Constitution (which they do) but because they are contrary to the natural rights and freedoms accorded to the INDIVIDUAL ABOVE ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT as stated in the Declaration. Most people unfamiliar with international law think the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the basis of US Laws and rights afforded citizens and thus they bicker over the "Constitutionality" of laws, executive privileges, etc. What they fail to recognize is that the Declaration of Independence is the first legal definition of the individual rights of US Citizens and that is is not a philosophical document but that it in fact strictly addresses international laws in place at the time of the American Revolution. It is Washington and the other rebel's legal defense that they would have presented in the courts of Europe and to the British Parliament had they lost. If they had lost, there is a fair chance they would have been exonerated. The British Parliament had already declared the British East India Company to be verging on treason to the Crown and had declared them immoral and incompetent governors of the Crown's possessions. Washington may well have been exonerated and officers of the British East India Company and other governors may well have been hanged for the crimes laid out in the Declaration. If that's what it would have taken to resolve the revolution peacefully and keep the colonies as part of the Empire I suspect that Parliament would have eaten its own. As it was, Washington won.
Reply
-
-
-
-
loading ...
berkeley
Ratskii
sinophil49
rumple4skin
Charlson
2sidestoeverything
jordan11
miklkit
globalwarmer
ind06
Beau7890
fsev41
splitrch
icono1
mesodude
flyonthewallzz
bruhaha
dissent
sumptuousdigs
Francisca
TheRealizer
bluetexasvalley
ConsAreNonGrata
automan909
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.