• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Crazy idea. Do you agree with it?

Yes or No

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 50.0%

  • No

    Votes: 13 50.0%
  • Total voters
    26
Surtr said:
The source matters a lot. Jefferson can hardly be taken seriously when he spoke of freedom and liberty, and the right of all men to be free while holding slaves simply because the act of slavery allowed him to live a lavish lifestyle free of hard labor.
Click to expand...

When someone is right about something, they are right. Sure they might be hypocrites, but that has no effect on the truth of their words. Btw, Jefferson treated his slaves very well.
 
Obama: If Americans Don't Trust Government, "We're Going to Have Some Problems"

Me: Then we have a problem. Many of us don't.
 
 
 
Henrin said:
When someone is right about something, they are right. Sure they might be hypocrites, but that has no effect on the truth of their words. Btw, Jefferson treated his slaves very well.
Click to expand...

He still kept men as property, and denied them the basic liberties he espoused as a basic human right. Nothing they said means a damned thing, because they didn't believe it, or practice it themselves.
 
 
Surtr said:
He still kept men as property, and denied them the basic liberties he espoused as a basic human right. Nothing they said means a damned thing, because they didn't believe it, or practice it themselves.
Click to expand...

Well, we just disagree I suppose. I wonder though, is it better to own slaves to keep them safe from others aggression when you can't make such a practice laid to rest, or is it better to stay out of the practice entirely. Not saying he did this, but its worth mentioning that if that is the reality of the world it is probably best to actually own slaves to save them from the misery that could come to them by your neighbor.
 
Henrin said:
Well, we just disagree I suppose. I wonder though, is it better to own slaves to keep them safe from others aggression when you can't make such a practice laid to rest, or is it better to stay out of the practice entirely. Not saying he did that, but its worth mentioning that if that is the reality of the world it is probably best to actually own slaves to save them from the misery that could come to them by your neighbor.
Click to expand...

You really going to try and justify slavery?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Thank you.

Now, what if obeying those laws poses a greater threat to the country than disobeying them?
Click to expand...

Not the case as there are mechanisms that legally allow people to report violations and provide protections to those people.
 
Surtr said:
You really going to try and justify slavery?
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I'm doing. I'm making a hard choice between two really crappy choices. Sure, you should fight for them, but you still have to keep them safe in the mean time.
 
Redress said:
Not the case as there are mechanisms that legally allow people to report violations and provide protections to those people.
Click to expand...

What makes you think this was a violation?
 
Henrin said:
Maybe instead of arresting people for treason that reveal wrong doings in the government we can celebrate them as patriots and tell the government to leave them the hell alone. Maybe the government can just stop declaring things top secret due to the actions being wrong. I know, what? Crazy ass stuff going on in here, but what do you think?

This Edward Snowden we all know will be dragged in and charged with treason, but he is not a traitor, but a goddamn patriot. I'm sick of the government violating the rights of people and then charging those brave enough to speak up about it with treason. If this isn't an act of an out of control government I really don't know what is.
Click to expand...

Ok so my problem with this is that it was a court order. Therefore I don't see how it's a government wrongdoing. I don't agree with it, but it was not a single handed decision and validated by an interpreter of the Constitution
 
Henrin said:
No, that is not what I'm doing. I'm making a hard choice between two really crappy choices. Sure, you should fight for them, but you still have to keep them safe in the mean time.
Click to expand...

Or take the opportunity to end it before it got out of control, and eventually boiled into a civil war that permanently split the nation. He had the position, influence, and power. He did nothing to end it, as they all did when writing the Constitution. They did nothing but decide that a slave was only three fifths of a human being.
 
Surtr said:
Or take the opportunity to end it before it got out of control, and eventually boiled into a civil war that permanently split the nation. He had the position, influence, and power. He did nothing to end it, as they all did when writing the Constitution. They did nothing but decide that a slave was only three fifths of a human being.
Click to expand...

Ending slavery was not politically possible and no amount of power or influence was going to make it so. They had to compromise on the position or end up with nothing. It was just that simple.
 
Redress said:
Not the case as there are mechanisms that legally allow people to report violations and provide protections to those people.
Click to expand...
1. What happens when no actual "violation" takes place, but the ethical problem is still worse than the consequences of disobeying the law?

2. What happens when the "mechanisms" you reference fail and the "violation" is still worse than the consequences of breaking the law?
 
""Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post

Wrong. There are mechanisms in place to put those in power who we want to make our laws. We call these things elections. We have the power, directly or indirectly, to control what government does. That you can't be bothered to use those mechanisms is not the fault of the laws.

Just like Manning had legal avenues to bring forth his allegations of misconduct, you have legal avenues to work towards change of any and every law.""


Henrin said:
And what is the legal avenue one is to take in revealing top secret information?
Click to expand...


When Clapper, the NSA head appeared before the Congressional Committee of Wyden and Udall, he denied the surveillance occurred within the USA or that if there was any surveillance, he could not put numerical figures on it. The PRISM information from 2007 reveals that to be an outright lie. An outright lie. Does that mean that those "mechanisms in place" are going to prosecute Clapper for PERJURY. There is no question at this time that he perjured himself before a Congressional Committee. Then you should ask yourself why he perjured himself. It's a good time to get rid of the Patriot Act.
 
Henrin said:
Ending slavery was not politically possible and no amount of power or influence was going to make it so. They had to compromise on the position or end up with nothing. It was just that simple.
Click to expand...

They rushed the new Constitution because they were weak, and feared retribution from their many broken promises. The failures of the founding fathers were great and many, and as a result, many men suffered.
 
Surtr said:
They rushed the new Constitution because they were weak, and feared retribution from their many broken promises. The failures of the founding fathers were great and many, and as a result, many men suffered.
Click to expand...

Thanks for not understanding political reality.
 
DaveFagan said:
When Clapper, the NSA head appeared before the Congressional Committee of Wyden and Udall, he denied the surveillance occurred within the USA or that if there was any surveillance, he could not put numerical figures on it. The PRISM information from 2007 reveals that to be an outright lie. An outright lie. Does that mean that those "mechanisms in place" are going to prosecute Clapper for PERJURY. There is no question at this time that he perjured himself before a Congressional Committee. Then you should ask yourself why he perjured himself. It's a good time to get rid of the Patriot Act.
Click to expand...

1. You have not presented here a lie - only that he didn't have the numbers at the time, and that perhaps numbers are available.

2. Regardless, you don't put classified data out in unclassified formats.
 
Surtr said:
Or take the opportunity to end it before it got out of control, and eventually boiled into a civil war that permanently split the nation. He had the position, influence, and power. He did nothing to end it, as they all did when writing the Constitution. They did nothing but decide that a slave was only three fifths of a human being.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. They decided that the population of slaves shall not be fully counted when apportioning representation to the House of Representatives. They then took those steps that were possible to choke off and kill the slave trade, but that wouldn't destroy the nation.
 
cpwill said:
1. You have not presented here a lie - only that he didn't have the numbers at the time, and that perhaps numbers are available.

2. Regardless, you don't put classified data out in unclassified formats.
Click to expand...

I presented a lie for certain. The PRISM program does quantify the data and it was ongoing before his Congressional appearance and it was his agency's program. There can be no question he perjured himself. This isn't partisan BS. This is perjury. Your gov't official lying to YOU, because the Congressional Committees are our only eyes and ears on these matters. The gov't is not trustworthy.
 
DaveFagan said:
I presented a lie for certain. The PRISM program does quantify the data and it was ongoing before his Congressional appearance and it was his agency's program.
Click to expand...

which does not mean that

A) he carries that information at his fingertips or that
B) he is free to divulge it in an unclassified format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom