 | | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | (...) You mean over the past hundred years? It seems to me that today is the natural evolution of a hundred years of incrementally giving up the American way. (...) Yeah. From my informal discussion over the past two months, most people don't really (...) (23 years ago, 30-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | I'm replying to bits of John's post as well as Chris'. (...) I think I understand your intended point here, but the notion that The American Way should be what it was 200 years ago is baseless and anachronistic. The American Way of 200 years ago was (...) (23 years ago, 30-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) The good parts, of course. Unequal sufferage of the law was (and still is) a problem with the implementation of 'The American Way' not a flaw in it. We should keep working to improve our inclusion of all people. I don't seek to replicate the (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) The one in which the rights of the individual is ideally paramount. The one that enumerated those rights both in the body of the U.S. Constitution (basically a summary what the individual could expect the representative govt. to look and act (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate) !
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | Hi Richard! (...) *Actually*, to be fair, the "American Way" as you define it is *much* more omnipresent in the Declaration of Independence than in the Constitution. By *far*. Read it and weep, bro - and while you're at it, get a copy of the (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | (...) Well, if they were alive today -- I'd kiss Thomas Jefferson, shake hands with guys like Madison and Jay, and kick Hamilton in the pain zone (::sigh:: if only Burr had killed him sooner =oP). No arguments over the value of the Declaration, it (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Ack, I deleted the subject line without having a good replacement. —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | (...) Sorry, but this made me arrrrggh: "more omnipresent". "Omni-" means "all," making it redundant. Of course, *I* knew what you meant, but I'm just an omnidork. (...) Unfortunately we're still in the mindset of "with enough safeguards we can (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic —Erik Olson
|
| | | | | | | Speaking of reading, I suggest the anthology _An American Primer_ (Daniel J. Boorstin) for basic readings. Want Washington's Inaugral Address (to Congress) and Farewell Address? Jefferson's? John Adams' "What do we mean by the American Revolution?" (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic —Erik Olson
|
| | | | | | | | Ob. Lego: Yes, you should rush out and read Louis Sullivan's essay "The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered"! and then go build! Also interesting: his _Autobiography of an Idea_ and _System of Ornament_. (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) I have to say that that strikes me as a fundamentally selfish view. Repugnant as it may seem, I'm sure there would have been those who yesterday said of Israel "They'll understand now". When Israel retaliates, will they say, “They'll (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) I disagree. Two hundred years ago, as now, the rights of the individual *were* paramount, but the definition of individual was very different and was suited to the demands of the time. Would slave-dependent states have signed the Constitution (...) (23 years ago, 2-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) Some people were already agitating for the freeing of slaves. The southern states would not accept such a change to their economy. I am pretty sure slaves were understood to be individuals with rights, denied them or not, what was asserted (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | My my. It is not often we see posts highligted here, you appear to have struck a chord with readers. I agree with a great deal of what you have said. However I think the genie is already out of the bottle on a number issues. (...) Why restrict (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
