If you believe in the founding principles

[franktangredi]

If you are sick and tired of where the current administration is leading this country, then I would urge you to sign up for The 912 Project.

http://www.the912project.com/

Out of curiosity....

Is the George Washington quoted here the same one who led federal troops to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion ... which occurred when a bunch of farmers didn't like the idea of a tax being levied so that the federal government could assume the states' war debts?

Is the Thomas Jefferson quoted here the same one who declared "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law" and who advised "Question with boldness even the existence of a god"? Not sure he would go with #2, which is probably why he isn't quoted there.

Which of the 'founding principles' of the country are you upholding? The ones in the Constitution? A lot of our Founding Fathers didn't like the Constitution very much, you know, because they felt that it betrayed the very principles of the Revolution itself. Do you prefer Jefferson or Hamilton? They both had a lot to do with establishing our founding principles, but they didn't agree a lot on what those principles were.

By all means, pick and choose which founding principles you want to tout. We all do it -- it's hard to find someone who is equally passionate about the right to bear arms and the separation of church and state (though you won't find too many people nowadays who favor the founding principle that a slave is 3/5 of a person).

But be careful that the people you choose to quote as supporting your principles don't rise up and bite you in the ass.

[Jeemie]

<SNIP>It's hard to find someone who is equally passionate about the right to bear arms and the separation of church and state.</SNIP>

No it's not.

I'm one of these. And there are plenty of people like me out there.

You just revealed that you believe in the stereotype that gun-lovers are "God-fearin' hicks!"

[TheCalvinator24]

it's hard to find someone who is equally passionate about the right to bear arms and the separation of church and state

Only thing is. One of those is stated in the Constitution. The other is not.

[Jeemie]

it's hard to find someone who is equally passionate about the right to bear arms and the separation of church and state

Only thing is. One of those is stated in the Constitution. The other is not.

It is...people just differ over what the word "establishment" means.

[franktangredi]

it's hard to find someone who is equally passionate about the right to bear arms and the separation of church and state

Only thing is. One of those is stated in the Constitution. The other is not.

I was hoping somebody would say that.

You're right. It was stated by Thomas Jefferson.

And none of the quotes given on that link were from the Constitution either.

[Jeemie]

it's hard to find someone who is equally passionate about the right to bear arms and the separation of church and state

Only thing is. One of those is stated in the Constitution. The other is not.

I was hoping somebody would say that.

You're right. It was stated by Thomas Jefferson.

And none of the quotes given on that link were from the Constitution either.

I don't think even Glenn Beck is explicitly saying they're stated in the Constitution- just that they informed the Founders' thinking.

And we can debate that until the cows come home.

[franktangredi]

<SNIP>It's hard to find someone who is equally passionate about the right to bear arms and the separation of church and state.</SNIP>

No it's not.

I'm one of these. And there are plenty of people like me out there.

You just revealed that you believe in the stereotype that gun-lovers are "God-fearin' hicks!"

No, I do not. And, for the record, I am also a church-goer.

Maybe "hard to find" was the wrong phrase. Or maybe I should have said "equally vocal" rather than "equally passionate."

I don't think there is any doubt, however, that as pundits go ... and as voting blocs cluster .... people who very vocally advocate gun control and people who very vocally advocate the issues associated with the Christian right tend not to vote for the same people.

I think that takes care of that detail of my overall post.

[TheCalvinator24]

it's hard to find someone who is equally passionate about the right to bear arms and the separation of church and state

Only thing is. One of those is stated in the Constitution. The other is not.

It is...people just differ over what the word "establishment" means.

No, it's not. I chose my words very carefully.

[NellyLunatic1980]

Why are we talking about Glenn Beck anyway?

That dude has CRACKED, man.

I'll repeat what I said several days ago: Glenn Beck is a bimbo.

[wintergreen48]

By all means, pick and choose which founding principles you want to tout. We all do it -- it's hard to find someone who is equally passionate about the right to bear arms and the separation of church and state (though you won't find too many people nowadays who favor the founding principle that a slave is 3/5 of a person).

But be careful that the people you choose to quote as supporting your principles don't rise up and bite you in the ass.

Just a nit, but I don't think that any of the founders took as a principle 'that a slave is 3/5 of a person.' What they did do was provide that representation in the House of Representatives would be apportioned among the states based upon each state's population, for which they would count all 'free Persons' and 3/5 of all other persons other than 'Indians not taxed.' That has the effect of counting the slave population at 3/5 of the rate of all white folks and all free blacks, but it does not hold that slaves were only 3/5 of a person, just how you would count them.

Of course, that was a compromise, in which the compromisers compromised based upon inherently contradictory positions: the slave holders (I refuse to call them 'slave owners' because I refuse to acknowledge that one person can 'own' another), who probably did not think that a slave was a person at all, wanted to count the slaves at 100%, because counting the slaves at 100% would give the slave holders more representation/power in Congress, while the non-slave holders (at least SOME of whom probably considered that slaves were actually real, honest-to-God human beings) did not want to count the slaves at all, because basing any representation upon the number of slaves would give the slave holders more representation/power in Congress. So they compromised, and (probably because slave-holding Virginia was the most powerful of the states at the time) the slave holders got a little more than half.

It is ironic that the people who now criticize the 'three-fifths' compromise as being offensive to the humanity of the slaves, and who argue that each slave should have counted as a 'full person,' are actually arguing on the same side (albeit with different motives) as the slave holders.

My folks, who no doubt are related somehow to BobJuch (EVERYONE is no doubt related somehow to BobJuch), were on the right side of this from the get go. In California, PA, our family house was a way station on the Underground Railroad, and, last time I looked, it was still known by our family name, because of that history. We always counted everybody.

[MarleysGh0st]

Of course, that was a compromise, in which the compromisers compromised based upon inherently contradictory positions: the slave holders (I refuse to call them 'slave owners' because I refuse to acknowledge that one person can 'own' another)

I believe a war was fought (in part) over that issue, but if you wish to continue your grammatical protest, you might also consider the usage of third person plural pronouns in place of third person singular pronouns, when gender obfuscation is in order.

[Jeemie]

Of course, that was a compromise, in which the compromisers compromised based upon inherently contradictory positions: the slave holders (I refuse to call them 'slave owners' because I refuse to acknowledge that one person can 'own' another)

I believe a war was fought (in part) over that issue, but if you wish to continue your grammatical protest, you might also consider the usage of third person plural pronouns in place of third person singular pronouns, when gender obfuscation is in order.

???

[MarleysGh0st]

Of course, that was a compromise, in which the compromisers compromised based upon inherently contradictory positions: the slave holders (I refuse to call them 'slave owners' because I refuse to acknowledge that one person can 'own' another)

I believe a war was fought (in part) over that issue, but if you wish to continue your grammatical protest, you might also consider the usage of third person plural pronouns in place of third person singular pronouns, when gender obfuscation is in order.

???

That was a semi-gratuitous reference to ghostjmf's usage of "they". But it was also semi-on-topical, since wintergreen was making a grammatical protest to a historical fact.

[Rexer25]

...

But it was also semi-on-topical, since wintergreen was making a grammatical protest to a historical fact.

...

Semi-ontopcosity?

[MarleysGh0st]

...

But it was also semi-on-topical, since wintergreen was making a grammatical protest to a historical fact.

...

Semi-ontopcosity?

I guess.

I confess there was no cause to drag ghostjmf into this thread as the target of a pointy stick, but I couldn't think of another Bored reference that fit.

[Rexer25]

...

But it was also semi-on-topical, since wintergreen was making a grammatical protest to a historical fact.

...

Semi-ontopcosity?

I guess.

I confess there was no cause to drag ghostjmf into this thread as the target of a pointy stick, but I couldn't think of another Bored reference that fit.

If you can't say something nice...

[Clem's Groupies]

......

Semi-ontopcosity?

I guess.

I confess there was no cause to drag ghostjmf into this thread as the target of a pointy stick, but I couldn't think of another Bored reference that fit.

If you can't say something nice...

If you can't say something nice, don't talk about clem!

[ghost's bestest buddy]

...

But it was also semi-on-topical, since wintergreen was making a grammatical protest to a historical fact.

...

Semi-ontopcosity?

I guess.

I confess there was no cause to drag ghostjmf into this thread as the target of a pointy stick, but I couldn't think of another Bored reference that fit.

They are being mean to someone again!

[Sisyphean Fan]

...

But it was also semi-on-topical, since wintergreen was making a grammatical protest to a historical fact.

...

Semi-ontopcosity?

Learn how to spell!!!!1

Now that's ontopicosity.....ha!

[Rexer25]

...

But it was also semi-on-topical, since wintergreen was making a grammatical protest to a historical fact.

...

Semi-ontopcosity?

Learn how to spell!!!!1

Now that's ontopicosity.....ha!

Learn how to punctuate correctly...hold down the shift key until after you let up on the 1...ha ha!

[Sisyphean Fan]

......

Semi-ontopcosity?

Learn how to spell!!!!1

Now that's ontopicosity.....ha!

Learn how to punctuate correctly...hold down the shift key until after you let up on the 1...ha ha!

For your information, I make a concerted effort to let up on the shift key before I let up on the 1...... Sometimes I go all the way to 11, but that's just for special (ask Luuucy). Maybe some day you'll get an 11.

And you have one too many has. Ha!

[Rexer25]

Learn how to spell!!!!1

Now that's ontopicosity.....ha!

Learn how to punctuate correctly...hold down the shift key until after you let up on the 1...ha ha!

For your information, I make a concerted effort to let up on the shift key before I let up on the 1...... Sometimes I go all the way to 11, but that's just for special (ask Luuucy). Maybe some day you'll get an 11.

And you have one too many has. Ha!

I thought the occasional 11 was for Christie. And my ha count is my business...ha ha!!2

[christie1111]

Learn how to spell!!!!1

Now that's ontopicosity.....ha!

Learn how to punctuate correctly...hold down the shift key until after you let up on the 1...ha ha!

For your information, I make a concerted effort to let up on the shift key before I let up on the 1...... Sometimes I go all the way to 11, but that's just for special (ask Luuucy). Maybe some day you'll get an 11.

And you have one too many has. Ha!

Can I have an 11?

I like 11s.

[littlebeast13]

Learn how to punctuate correctly...hold down the shift key until after you let up on the 1...ha ha!

For your information, I make a concerted effort to let up on the shift key before I let up on the 1...... Sometimes I go all the way to 11, but that's just for special (ask Luuucy). Maybe some day you'll get an 11.

And you have one too many has. Ha!

Can I have an 11?

I like 11s.

lb13

[Jeemie]

I believe a war was fought (in part) over that issue, but if you wish to continue your grammatical protest, you might also consider the usage of third person plural pronouns in place of third person singular pronouns, when gender obfuscation is in order.

???

That was a semi-gratuitous reference to ghostjmf's usage of "they". But it was also semi-on-topical, since wintergreen was making a grammatical protest to a historical fact.

I got the point.

However...maybe I'm blind, but I don't see where it applies in the passage you quoted, Marley.

And no- wintergreen was not making a grammatical protest, either.