| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 11:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
dialetical materialism or conspirancy theory written large. If that is Marx's great contribution : oh well! Borrowed from others I am afraid, Proudhon, Smith beat him to the punch.
The constitution was written to establish government, to describe and delineate the responsibilties and limits of the branches of government. It did not nor was it written to address social issues of the day , such as slavery. It defined the government ,period. The bill of rights was an attachment.
This is a good discussion because of the provision within it , to change it if nessacary. Now to get a large enough group to agree on how to change it in what ways . Jefferson in a letter expressed concern about the rise of powerful business interests being able to subvert the constitution.
The revolution : it should be catered, some salmon would be nice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Wai Mian
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Location: WE DIDNT
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
[
And Wai Mian believes people treat the Constitution as divine revelation. That's exactly the kind of characterization to which an Adaptivist would object. Adaptivists/Developmentalists construe the document in a meaning that would make sense to today's American. Whereas Wai Mian's criticism of the Constitution is Marxist in the sense that it would obsessively derail a discussion on, say, Aristotle's Politics to launch into how Aristotle was a slave-holder and didn't clearly and obviously repudiate slavery and thus should be entirely discarded. |
Aristotle was a philosopher and had nothing to do with the foudning of the United States, nor is he invoked in modern political discourse. The Founding Fathers were politicians and businessman and are routinely invoked as sacrosanct figures by the reactionary segment of American society. Apples to Oranges |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Heh, I think they are regarded well by most people across the political spectrum. There is an awesome letter from Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln talking about he was sure the hopes of the working man were better represented by America then any other nation. It's a sweet letter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wai Mian
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Location: WE DIDNT
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Heh, I think they are regarded well by most people across the political spectrum. There is an awesome letter from Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln talking about he was sure the hopes of the working man were better represented by America then any other nation. It's a sweet letter. |
Well for sure, they're all very fascinating people on a personal and historical level. I was just noting that they're not invoked in everyday political speech by the left as some kind of sacred fountainhead of political wisdom for solving issues in 2010. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think Jefferson is. Granted though, not nearly to the degree that the "founders" have a following on the right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wai Mian wrote: |
| I was just noting that they're not invoked in everyday political speech by the left as some kind of sacred fountainhead of political wisdom for solving issues in 2010. |
You're right. The patron saints of the Left are more obscure diversity firsts, MLK, FDR, and JFK.
I think I prefer the Founders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wai Mian
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Location: WE DIDNT
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Wai Mian wrote: |
| I was just noting that they're not invoked in everyday political speech by the left as some kind of sacred fountainhead of political wisdom for solving issues in 2010. |
You're right. The patron saints of the Left are more obscure diversity firsts, MLK, FDR, and JFK.
I think I prefer the Founders. |
Why not? They're way easier to mythologize, and the right loves their political fantasy, infused as they are with "a narcissistic sense of victimization, an egomaniacal belief in one's own rightness and purity, a willingness to distort the truth so that every conflict becomes a contest of pure good versus pure evil."
Sounds like it's right of KJI's playbook actually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wai Man honestly. Reread what you just wrote. Just replace "right" with whatever group you want and it makes about as much sense. That is the human condition. Both the founders and the modern statesmen that Happy warrior mentioned are worthy of respect, but not adoration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wai Mian
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Location: WE DIDNT
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Find me a major national Democratic figure alive today that invokes FDR as much as Beck invokes Jesus, Reagan or the Founding Fathers.
I know it's supposed to be a mark of a sophisticated political thinker to say "it's just the human condition, politics is a dirty business no matter which side of the isle", but I think the GOP is far dirtier and deluded, and it's mostly in the legions of retirees who are scared crapless and just want to hold on to their entitlements and retirement funds, to hell with everyone else. This is where it gets its 'party discipline' from. Whether Southern populists or Western libertarians, it's an old white party that doesn't want anything to change in the least if it doesn't involve more cops and less taxes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Matthews is constantly invoking leftist historical figures. Granted he is loudmouthed fool who constantly berates his guests, but he still counts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Whereas Wai Mian's criticism of the Constitution is Marxist in the sense that it would obsessively derail a discussion on, say, Aristotle's Politics to launch into how Aristotle was a slave-holder and didn't clearly and obviously repudiate slavery and thus should be entirely discarded. |
Aristotle's Politics weren't simply some document that incidentally failed to repudiate slavery! Aristotle's Politics present a political view in which slavery is a fundamental and inseparable part of the system; one can allow for Aristotle's treatment of women as incidental, but not his treatment of slaves. There's no derailment there, although I suppose I can hypothetically understand why someone with an affection for ancient philosophy would wish to delude themselves into believing otherwise, since it's easier to pretend someone talking about slavery is doing Aristotle an injustice rather than try to seriously address such matters.
To be honest, I'm not even sure how one is supposed to take seriously the notion that addressing slavery is a derailment of a discussion on the Politics. Are you just being facetious right now?
| Wai Mian wrote: |
| Aristotle was a philosopher and had nothing to do with the foudning of the United States, nor is he invoked in modern political discourse. The Founding Fathers were politicians and businessman and are routinely invoked as sacrosanct figures by the reactionary segment of American society. Apples to Oranges |
He's not making that comparison. Some time back, a few of us had a discussion about Aristotle. He's somewhat enamored of the philosopher in question, and isn't happy about my unwillingness to simply shrug off Aristotle's decidedly pro-slavery stance and the important role it plays in his political ideology. He's expressing that unhappiness now, not making a serious point about you. Given that conversation was at least two or three months ago, I guess he's had it bottled up for a while. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Exigente
Joined: 10 Sep 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wai Mian wrote: |
Find me a major national Democratic figure alive today that invokes FDR as much as Beck invokes Jesus, Reagan or the Founding Fathers.
I know it's supposed to be a mark of a sophisticated political thinker to say "it's just the human condition, politics is a dirty business no matter which side of the isle", but I think the GOP is far dirtier and deluded, |
Please spare me the partisan crapola. The GOP is just as dirty and deluded as their Democrat enablers. They are just two wings on a bird flying in one direction.
Anyone can say anything or invoke anybody. Rather look at what they actually do once in office, and you will see little difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People !! People !!! We are trying to plan a revolution herenot debate Aristotles thing for young slaves. Its blood we want and lots of it.
When applying modern mores to historical personages be careful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wai Mian wrote: |
I know it's supposed to be a mark of a sophisticated political thinker to say "it's just the human condition, politics is a dirty business no matter which side of the isle", but I think the GOP is far dirtier and deluded, and it's mostly in the legions of retirees who are scared crapless and just want to hold on to their entitlements and retirement funds, to hell with everyone else. This is where it gets its 'party discipline' from. Whether Southern populists or Western libertarians, it's an old white party that doesn't want anything to change in the least if it doesn't involve more cops and less taxes. |
Way to stoke the flames of racial hatred, cause we all know only 'old white folks' want lower taxes and cops on the streets, right?
You want to raid other peoples' retirement funds, get your hands on other peoples' money, eh?
Feck off!
Maybe we should bring back property requirements for voting.
At the very least not let welfare recipients vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
Maybe we should bring back property requirements for voting.
At the very least not let welfare recipients vote. |
People who take money from the state: welfare, social security, government workers, paid officeholders, contractors, professional military etc ... should not be allowed to vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
