It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What would Thomas Jefferson do?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Okay,

I'll bite, I must first find out some more information on this topic. By the way, has anyone here been "rounded up by the government" yet?

-- Boat

Edit: Spelling.

[edit on 16-12-2005 by Boatphone]




posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Well first I think they would be in utter shock that their experiment with a bunch of little rebel colonies grew into arguably the most powerful nation that ever existed on earth. I think they would be exceedingly happy that Europe is not ruled by a bunch of Kings and Queens anymore. They Knew that wasnt the way to go it just took longer for most of the world to figure it out.

I personally think they would spark another revolution and start it all over again. Heck look what they did over alittle tax on Tea. These were smart guys they knew future tyranny was a real possibility with any goverment. They gave us some rights that could help us fight back though like the Second amendment. They didnt included that for Hunting or sport any anything eles people often use as a defense to own guns. They created it because they knew one day the US could very well fall under Tryanny of its own and they wanted the people to be able to take their goverment back.

Sadly its power is chipped away everyday. I can bet you theres alot of people in the goverment right now that wish the founding fathers didnt included that as they would have taken away that right along time ago if they didnt.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Okay,

By the way, has anyone here been "rounded up by the government" yet?


so are you saying we dont have the right to gripe or question our leaders UNTIL we are being rounded up?

just a yes or no will work



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
So fighting for our freedom is okay, but fighting for people who are getting shot and killed for having certain beliefs is wrong?

You said it.


I would rather go over there and help those people out than sit here and read about it.


Go then. Bye.



This is a great topic, and I, just like Advisor and Amuk, wish that we could vote mods way above. That said, let me tell you what I am really thinking.

I am getting so tired of sitting around talking about all this, but what can anyone do? Let’s be realistic. If we as free thinking people weren’t so afraid of really speaking of the solution it would be done with already. The fact that the solution which must not be spoken of, must not be spoken of, says volumes about what old TJ and his buddies would do. Just the fact that we can’t speak of it (the solution) necessitates the need to for "it".

So what will happen? "It"? I think not, "it" cannot be organized, because I must call it "it". Even if you could discuss “it”, who would you trust? Not me, for sure. Who am I? Do you know for sure? Am I writing this from the headquarters of “them”? Is that where you are responding from? Who knows?

We all know what Jefferson would do, and we all know we would stand with him. Problem is, Jefferson today would have been killed by a "drunk driver" or locked up before he was able to make a difference.


No solution. No action. I’m getting depressed.


Well, I guess if there are still people left in our nation that talk about this stuff and get upset about it enough to get physically ill and shed a tear (and I promise you there are) than I guess there is still is chance.

How many are waiting? Who knows? Hope we don’t wait too long, I’m getting old.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by truttseeker
At least we still have writs of habeas corpus. Everyone whines, but a lot of rights are still here, and during wars things have been a lot worse.


and at least the slaves didnt have to worry about food and housing but I dont think they liked it



2000 troops isnt bad. we lost 20000 in antetem in like two hours during the civil war. But in conclusion jefferson would make it better.


where did I mention this? I would accept a million dead in the cause of freedom but one dead just to meddle in another countries affairs is too many


Very Very well said Amuk


If our Fore fathers were alive and well today they would most likely be marching to the white house side by side and holding Old Glory up high...And I would be walking right next to them.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
So fighting for our freedom is okay, but fighting for people who are getting shot and killed for having certain beliefs is wrong?


If you are talking about Iraq I have to disagree with you...If the Iraqis wanted freedom so bad then it should have been up to them to fight for it...just as our ancesters here in the U.S.A. did.



Sorry for going off topic on your thread Amuk



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   
TO the orginal question.

Jackson, Madison, Franklin, and Washing ton, would all be for the Goverment controlling your lives.
Remember Madison and Jackson both wanted a elite ruling system over the poor. Jefferson wanted a goverment for the people. We got Hamiltons version though. We have a elitist goverment.

So only Jefferson would say a revaloution was good. The rest would want to keep telling you what to do.

Hamilton said. "The working poor practily enslave themselves." "THey need to be told what to do"

Sad to say sometimes I think he was right


[edit on 16-12-2005 by Snowman9]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
How about ask: Is not Madison or Hamilton or Washington part of the gang of "Founding Fathers"? At any rate, allow me to counter your Jefferson mention with: What would Madison do or Hamilton or Washington do or say or think? I do think that they, especially Madison and Hamilton, would be quite opposite of what Jefferson would do, say, or think; a real eye opener.

Thomas Jefferson is definitely my favorite of the founding fathers. He authored the Declaration of Independence and James Madison was his protege. Madison did not oppose Jefferson's beliefs in general (I'm sure they butted heads on some things, but not like Hamilition and Jefferson). True, he believed in a central government, but he also believed it should be severely limited in its authority.

I'm not a fan of Hamilton, though I'm sure he was a good man. The fact that he was a major proponent of policies including the funding of the national debt, and the incorporation of a national Bank of the United States, sort of makes me question some of his motivations. Hamilton also argued that implicit powers such as the chartering of a corporation were valid provided that they were used to pursue explicitly authorised ends such as the collection of tax revenues (IRS?).

Back to Madison though, here are a few of his thoughts on various problems he faced in the beginning of our nation's founding:

"[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people." —Constitutional Convention June 29, 1787

"Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S." — from the "Detached Memoranda


Eye opening indeed.

For good measure here are a couple of my favorite Jefferson quotes:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression"

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. "

"I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too. "

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux
If you are talking about Iraq I have to disagree with you...If the Iraqis wanted freedom so bad then it should have been up to them to fight for it...just as our ancesters here in the U.S.A. did.


I think a bunch of Iraqis tried that before and it didnt fair to well. Many Iraqis tried to overthrow Saddam after the Gulf War. If the US didnt allow Saddam to fly Gunships after the war they might have succeeded. They didnt fair to well against thoose.

If the American Colonist tried to revolt and where crushed by the British would you then say they didnt want freedom?



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
jezebel,
Let me assure you that Madison and Jefferson were quite opposite in their political views on national government. I have studied both Madison and Hamilton academically, reading 4-5 biography's of each and other works on them and their governmental philosophies. Those quotes are selective and only present the view you wish to give, thank you very much.


Madison would have supported what Jefferson would have opposed and vice versa, in regards to what this topic asks and postulates.
And Hamilton once stated that if King George III would ever renounce his crown in England and come to America, he would support anything that would make George III the king of America. Hamilton would have supported the same views as Madison, if not in a more extreme context.

Coincidence aside, I am far from the only one who feels and believes such. The problem is getting people to admit such, because of course, we are told that the Founding Fathers had the same beliefs and concepts regarding America and the national government. They did not. If some of the Founding Fathers were around today, namely Madison and Hamilton, many here would be perplexed and astounded in what they would say and do, in regards to this topic, be assured of that.






seekerof

[edit on 16-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux
If you are talking about Iraq I have to disagree with you...If the Iraqis wanted freedom so bad then it should have been up to them to fight for it...just as our ancesters here in the U.S.A. did.


I think a bunch of Iraqis tried that before and it didnt fair to well. Many Iraqis tried to overthrow Saddam after the Gulf War. If the US didnt allow Saddam to fly Gunships after the war they might have succeeded. They didnt fair to well against thoose.

If the American Colonist tried to revolt and where crushed by the British would you then say they didnt want freedom?


Not at all...I wasn't aware the Iraqis tried before...See it's true you do learn something everyday


Simon



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR

USE IT OR LOSE IT, applies to more than just ATS scholars. Use your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to vote or lose that choice.



That certainly says it as far as I can see...
Voter apathy is the very thing which threatens democracy. If it were left up to me, I would impose fines on any citizen who could have voted, but did not. There is no excuse to be a member of a country, such as you have, and not take the time to be involved in it's governance.

As a Canadian, I can't very well get too involved with this debate, although I am very interested in how it is progressing. As you know, Canada is going through an election as well and our voters are guilty of the same reluctance to get involved.

People in countries run by dictators and tyrants must be amazed at our lazy citizenry. We have the power to make a difference and yet prefer to watch that episode of Survivor over a bag of potato chips.

Thanks, Amuk and ADVISOR, for setting this out on the table to munch on...Canadians here would do well to follow this thread.

.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Ah geez, another sheep gone astray! Get back in with the herd and stop your bickering. Come on now lets move along, nothing here to worry about. Just go back to watching your fair & balanced news after all it’s only a god-dammed piece of paper!!!

Now watch my swing!!!

VOTE BUSH FOR LIFE!!!

NOT!!!



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux

Not at all...I wasn't aware the Iraqis tried before...See it's true you do learn something everyday


Simon

Its a interesting and rather sad part of the Gulf War

Two days after Saddam yeild in the Gulf war




Islamist Shi'ite clerics in the south called for insurrection. Within days, Shi'ite rebels had taken Basrah, and fighting had broken out in nearly every southern city. On March 11, the largest gathering ever of Iraqi opposition leaders took place in Beirut with Saudi financing and under Syrian guard. Three days later, Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq launched their own offensive. Within one week, they would liberate nearly all of Iraq's Kurdish-speaking areas. Some Kurdish couples named their newborns "Bush." But Bush had not bet on insurrectionary forces.

Everyone presumed Saddam would be overthrown

Its really sad that General Schwarzkopf unwisely allowed Saddam's forces to fly helicopters, he grounded Saddams planes but allowed helicopters. I think Saddam said he needed them to get to the negotiations or what not. He also flew fixed-wing helicopter gunships. He used them to great effect to crush the revolt.

We really screwed up there and could have gotten rid of Saddam without putting in a single US troops for Regime change. Im sure we lost alot of respect and trust as we pretty much abandoned the people that were on our side in Iraq when it counted.

link

Saddam's son Uday was nearly assassinated years before by Iraqis I believe. He was a real monster and many people in Iraq hated him. There wasnt alot of mourning when he died.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Why is this thread becoming a debate about the war and establishment of democracy in Iraq? I know it's related, but, shouldn't we be focussed on the American Constitution, it's founders and principles in relation to the evidence of the erosion of individual rights?

Aren't there enough threads on this in the 'War on Terror' forum?

sorry....but I thought I'd toss in my $0.018can.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I have no idea what Madison or Jefferson would say, but if my favorite founding father was alive today and found out that more than 50% of my next dollar earned will be confinscated at the point of a gun, he would likely say this again:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

Samuel Adams

Frankly, I wish I had the balls of a Thomas Payne, a Sam Adams, or a John Hancock-and frankly, I'm ashamed of myself for putting up with the status quo.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I am glad to share your views Advisor and Amuk.

And one thing we need to remember is that is not only one party in particular that would benefit with a docile nation to control but any of the party elites do.

At the end we have become a nation of two ruling parties and both are rule by the same power.

It is truly sad that we have become what our founders were trying so hard to avoid.

While our leaders tell us that they do everything in our name and for our safety and the nation's safety we all know deep inside that we get the short hand of all.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
In situations like these, I would say he may support the expansion of the govt without violating the supposed freedom. For example before the New Deal, the govt was mostly just the Post Office. But in reaction to the Great Depression where nobody was doing anything, the govt has stepped in to help relieve the pain.

They create programs to help people, but in consequences expanded the govt. Thats the problem, should the govt be involved or not. If the govt does not get involve people would assume they are being neglected.

Remember the America Jefferson lived in was an agriculture nation. Not a highly industrial society with expanding population that has unlimited wants and needs. How far does the govt should intervene. Thats the problem. What if you have corporate scandal? Should the govt intervene? But that be infringing the rights to how to manage their own business even if it looks bad like Enron. Should the govt tell you that you ran a bad business and must be shut down or that you have the right to cut and run and get away with all that money you ripped off from investors. Thats the problem as to how to deal with such situation where govt should or should not intervene. Even Jefferson says that the American people as a great society cannot survive without a govt.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
I don't know about Jefferson, but I don't think Washington would be too fond of how we conduct ourselves....



But you may be incorrect on that thought. There are many stories that Washington was given a vision of what the future U.S. would be like, and that the vision was an inspiration to Washington.

Here is but one version of this remarkable story:

Washington's Vision of the Future

If true, sounds like (the first) George knew what we were getting ourselves into.

[edit on 12/16/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I truly believe that the founding fathers would support President Bush in his endeavors to preserve our way of life. There is so much negativity about what the present administration is doing. Where does this negativity come from?

I've yet to see anyone's right's being trampled. The news media hasn't been denied any privileges.

Someone please show me where any of your right's have been impeded in any way.

I just find it hard to fathom!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join