"Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou Shalt Not Covet," and "Thou Shalt Not Steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free." — John Adams
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it. Abraham Lincoln
I love when people have a hard time finding their own thoughts to frame how they feel. I wonder how many people that leave comments on this blog really know or understand the complexity of a country founded on the backs of so many innocent people. The real and true American history is far different then what is painted by a couple dead white presidents. The real conversation should be who has been excluded from the white male country club and why. I could personally care less what most of you think because it appears your ignorance has clouded your ability to be a critical thinker and every comment on here is just some childish way to prove a point that is not even a point worth proving. Let's have a debate not just some bullshit trying to bash MARKADELPHIA.
I've been trying to do that for awhile now, Bubba. Sadly, I have been unsuccessful. My view is that this is all they have left. The general tactics used here mirror the ones used in general by the Right all over the country. Of course, this goes back to Nixon and destroying people personally rather than having a debate on ideas. They don't want to solve problems. They want to bitch, win arguments, or increase the size of their mailing lists.
Fortunately, none of it is working anymore as we can see after several election losses. Since they are adverse to change and are, in many ways, doubling down on the crazy, there will likely be more victories for the Democrats in the future.
Your point about our history is an interesting one. One of the struggles I have with history textbooks is they tend to focus on heroification, or assigning glory when someone does something good, but not on the bad things that happen which seem to be no one's responsibility. I think that's the issue you are speaking to here, right? Responsibility?
Mark, "real conversation" is not possible when you refuse to interact, preferring to argue with the Voices In Your Head. If you were actually interesting in having a "real conversation" you would answer these questions:
My comment was simple and included M-Del that folks need to look at every angle of the history behind the United States. Bashing folks without critical analysis is sad. Its also sad when people don't look in the mirror and understand what M-Del might be saying since this is his blog and at the end of the day he can say whatever the fuck he wants. He can also respond to folks however he deems fit. Really who gives a fuck about - Is the Constitution law or Is "false" equal to "truth"? You can debate that millions of different ways. Lets start with this just for shits and giggles 1- laws change 2-false's become truth's. WTF, grow a pair!
t folks need to look at every angle of the history behind the United States.
Students do as well. That's the real problem with nearly all of the history texts that are out there now. It's a very sanitized version of history. One text that I used to work with actually had a section on what sort of clothes were worn by Lincoln and Douglas during their debates. Who the fuck cares?
The good news is that most instructors are moving away from the textbooks, even bucking their districts and state standards, and teaching with more primary sources and original texts.
Ahh, the return of "primary sources". I presume you've memorized the definition by now? What primary sources would those be? Surely you're not pitching those poor children straight into Das Kapital without at least a brief intro into the far more concise Manifesto? ;-)
Oh, and Mr. The Bubba T, you need to work harder at differentiating your words from Mark's. Grading software suspects plagiarism. Minor changes don't cut, you need a new gestalt. And slurping up to him like this is just plain embarrassing outside of the Castro.
Ahh, the return of "primary sources". I presume you've memorized the definition by now? What primary sources would those be? Surely you're not pitching those poor children straight into Das Kapital without at least a brief intro into the far more concise Manifesto? ;-)
11 comments:
"Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou Shalt Not Covet," and "Thou Shalt Not Steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."
— John Adams
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.
Abraham Lincoln
I love when people have a hard time finding their own thoughts to frame how they feel. I wonder how many people that leave comments on this blog really know or understand the complexity of a country founded on the backs of so many innocent people. The real and true American history is far different then what is painted by a couple dead white presidents. The real conversation should be who has been excluded from the white male country club and why. I could personally care less what most of you think because it appears your ignorance has clouded your ability to be a critical thinker and every comment on here is just some childish way to prove a point that is not even a point worth proving. Let's have a debate not just some bullshit trying to bash MARKADELPHIA.
I've been trying to do that for awhile now, Bubba. Sadly, I have been unsuccessful. My view is that this is all they have left. The general tactics used here mirror the ones used in general by the Right all over the country. Of course, this goes back to Nixon and destroying people personally rather than having a debate on ideas. They don't want to solve problems. They want to bitch, win arguments, or increase the size of their mailing lists.
Fortunately, none of it is working anymore as we can see after several election losses. Since they are adverse to change and are, in many ways, doubling down on the crazy, there will likely be more victories for the Democrats in the future.
Your point about our history is an interesting one. One of the struggles I have with history textbooks is they tend to focus on heroification, or assigning glory when someone does something good, but not on the bad things that happen which seem to be no one's responsibility. I think that's the issue you are speaking to here, right? Responsibility?
Mark, "real conversation" is not possible when you refuse to interact, preferring to argue with the Voices In Your Head. If you were actually interesting in having a "real conversation" you would answer these questions:
----------
Simple questions Mark refuses to answer:
Is the Constitution law? (41 days and counting)
Is "false" equal to "truth"? (3 days and counting)
----------
Oh, and Bubba? It's okay for Mark to quote dead white guys, but horrifying when conservatives respond in kind? Double-standard much?
My comment was simple and included M-Del that folks need to look at every angle of the history behind the United States. Bashing folks without critical analysis is sad. Its also sad when people don't look in the mirror and understand what M-Del might be saying since this is his blog and at the end of the day he can say whatever the fuck he wants. He can also respond to folks however he deems fit. Really who gives a fuck about - Is the Constitution law or Is "false" equal to "truth"? You can debate that millions of different ways. Lets start with this just for shits and giggles 1- laws change 2-false's become truth's. WTF, grow a pair!
false's become truth's
I rest my case.
t folks need to look at every angle of the history behind the United States.
Students do as well. That's the real problem with nearly all of the history texts that are out there now. It's a very sanitized version of history. One text that I used to work with actually had a section on what sort of clothes were worn by Lincoln and Douglas during their debates. Who the fuck cares?
The good news is that most instructors are moving away from the textbooks, even bucking their districts and state standards, and teaching with more primary sources and original texts.
Ahh, the return of "primary sources". I presume you've memorized the definition by now? What primary sources would those be? Surely you're not pitching those poor children straight into Das Kapital without at least a brief intro into the far more concise Manifesto? ;-)
Oh, and Mr. The Bubba T, you need to work harder at differentiating your words from Mark's. Grading software suspects plagiarism. Minor changes don't cut, you need a new gestalt. And slurping up to him like this is just plain embarrassing outside of the Castro.
Ahh, the return of "primary sources". I presume you've memorized the definition by now? What primary sources would those be? Surely you're not pitching those poor children straight into Das Kapital without at least a brief intro into the far more concise Manifesto? ;-)
Post a Comment