Originally posted by GD21D
Originally posted by LogarockI'm going to disagree. It is simply you do not view historical events in the same fashion I do.
Originally posted by HumansEh
reply to post by GD21D
Thanks very much Gravedigger, I really appreciate you taking the time in your reply.
That's exactly what I was hoping for from this thread, as I said as an outsider who genuinely wants to learn more about the situation and background I was wary of how to phrase my questions so as not to annoy Americans who assume that the whole world knows US history or its political process.
Say the wrong thing and it seems that you are dismissed and insulted as being a clueless foreigner.
I have a hard time believeing your posture. This OP sounds like bait or a board for you to intro some sort of subtilty. And by the way you are a clueless foreigner that seems to care more for tone that information.
But if you are for real just know that gravediggers flow is just one way, a modern way of looking at the rights. The rights were not a concession but the foundation. Like lets get this clear right up front, at the beginning before we even talk about anything else. They were rights born out of philosophy. Not bones tossed out to the angry mob with their pitchforks and torches. This idea of concessions diminishes the philosophic history behind the developments of the concept of human rights and does and will not help you understand them in full measure.
edit on 13-1-2013 by Logarock because: n
As I stated before, there was a Bill of Rights proposed Colonel Mason to be coupled with the Constitution and It was voted down unanimously, with only the delegation of Massachusetts abstaining. This fact is somehow missed by modern scholars, as to recognize this would fly in the face of the pristine idea of American governance considering the rights of the average person above all else. Yet it is a fact that cannot be denied, no matter how you try.
Well qualify this. Why do you think Masons bill of rights was voted down....at first?