• 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!

Have you read the Declaration of Independence?

chromium said:
yes and aside from the blatant racism it contains, given the course of this nation's history compared to that of britain since that time, i'm not at all convinced separation was a good thing

hopefully it's not too late to declare loyalty to her majesty
Click to expand...

Feel free to emigrate to the U.K., if they'll have you; to renounce your American citizenship, and to seek instead to become an English subject. Perhaps you'll be happier there, and surely America will be better off without you.

“May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams​
 
hado117 said:
I think most literate english people would be aware of the laws. they probably noticed that the american congress was basically a copy of the english model.
Click to expand...

You said : "the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. "

Are you ready to admit this was an major error on your part?
 
All governments are corrupt...ALL of them.

And the more power you give them, the more power they want.

'Power corrupts and...'


Representative democracy is a joke...and it needs to end.

Direct democracy is the only way to even begin to reduce corruption and incompetence in government.

Unfortunately, most people are too complacent and/or ignorant and/or afraid to face that truth.
 
A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice.
Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the three branches of government, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches for checks and balance. Lawmaking in Democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the majority by polls and/or voter referendums, which in turn is mob rule 50% plus 1 vote takes away anything from the minority. Here is one example; if 51% of the people don’t pay taxes they can vote a tax increase on the 49% that do, which is mob rule.
Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.
Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly said that they had founded a republic in numerous quotes, and documents.


Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion", the word Democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution at all...
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson



















“But government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.” Henry David Thoreau



Our military training manuals use to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.



Below is what the Manual No. 2000-25 says in Section IX Lesson 9.

DEMOCRACY:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.


REPUBLIC:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.



The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good. His right hand man, Harry Lloyd Hopkins, the New Deal architect, who suggested many of F.D.R.’s policies said.

"We shall Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference". Harry Hopkins
 
hado117 said:
no..:boom
Click to expand...

Fine. Don't admit it. You're still wrong. "the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. "

We had Militia laws in most of our colonies.

Here's something to think about -- how *free* men were after that DoI was signed, we'd won the war, and mere minutes after the Constitution was ratified:

Mandated from the U.S. Federal government ---> every able-bodied free white male between 18 and 45 years of age was mandated to be enrolled / enlisted in the Militia.* That citizen was also mandated to buy and keep a gun --

and not just a gun he was mandated to purchase and keep: "a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder..."

*w/ a few exceptions, congressmen, postal workers, ferrymen, etc...were exempted

He had to be ready to appear with these items when called, be trained, and parade - sometimes four times a year, sometimes two times - or when called up by the government. If he didn't appear, he'd be fined, or sometimes jailed.

This happened for about the first 50 years of our country.

I personally have held in my archives many of these "Militia rolls" /regiment books from various towns across New England -- where the men of the town were named and noted year after year as having either being present, if they had a knapsack, cartridge, powder, balls, powder-horns, etc, etc...with a check-mark for each...

if they did not have them, it showed the amount they were fined...if they failed to show up, fined, sometimes hefty! If they couldn't pay, sometimes imprisoned.

MANDATED. By the First Federal Government.
 
How many have read this?


Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Debates in Congress

[SIZE=-1]2--4 July 1776[/SIZE]
1ptrans.gif
[SIZE=-1]
Papers 1:314--19

[/SIZE] "Congress proceeded the same day [July 2] to consider the declaration of Independance, which had been reported & laid on the table the Friday preceding, and on Monday referred to a commee. of the whole. the pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with, still haunted the minds of many.

for this reason those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offence. the clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina & Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves,

and who on the contrary still wished to continue it. our Northern brethren also I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for tho' their people have very few slaves themselves yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.

the debates having taken up the greater parts of the 2d. 3d. & 4th. days of July were, in the evening of the last closed. the declaration was reported by the commee.,

agreed to by the house, and signed by every member present except Mr. Dickinson. As the sentiments of men are known not only by what they receive, but what they reject also,

I will state the form of the declaration as originally reported. the parts struck out by Congress shall be distinguished by a black line drawn under them; & those inserted by them shall be placed in the margin or in a concurrent column.

A Declaration by the representatives of the United States of America, in [General] Congress assembled..."

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch15s18.html


From there, For your reading pleasure, you can see the parts Thomas Jefferson excised out of his original Declaration of Independence.

That which he tells above, were to placate and to ..make less offensive... and "the pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with..." :lol: Tommy sure could turn a phrase.

Click the above to see all that was clipped out of his original works.
 
Paperview said:
You said : "the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. "

Are you ready to admit this was an major error on your part?
Click to expand...
the statement is from the u.k. it does not refer to the u.s.
 
DA60 said:
All governments are corrupt...ALL of them.

And the more power you give them, the more power they want.

'Power corrupts and...'


Representative democracy is a joke...and it needs to end.

Direct democracy is the only way to even begin to reduce corruption and incompetence in government.

Unfortunately, most people are too complacent and/or ignorant and/or afraid to face that truth.
Click to expand...

The task of government is to secure the individual in his freedom from violence and coercive interference, to protect his life, liberty, and property from aggression. When it goes beyond this his liberty has been abridged, even when that government is democratically chosen.

If there were to be a triumph of democracy around the world, it would be a hollow victory if it does not grow out of the more fundamental idea of individual liberty. Otherwise, men everywhere will continue to live under a tyranny—the tyranny of electoral majorities determined to use the government to benefit themselves at others’ expense.

[Originally published at EpicTimes]
 
hado117 said:
the statement is from the u.k. it does not refer to the u.s.
Click to expand...

That's why I said in my first remark to your statement:

"It sure was different here - from before the Dec of Ind was signed, and after, for quite a few decades after.

Just my two little cents... "

To which you replied with a fallacy about the American Revolution --

& I reiterated

Perhaps the Englishman was not aware of our Militia Laws before - and after the Revolution, which was my point.

That. it. was. different. here.

You then went on about how "the american congress was basically a copy of the english model."

Which it obviously was not - in measurable ways. As I was showing.



It appears you may need to search for more bomb emoticons.

Maybe a squiggly squeaker.
 
Paperview said:
That's why I said in my first remark to your statement:

"It sure was different here - from before the Dec of Ind was signed, and after, for quite a few decades after.

Just my two little cents... "

To which you replied with a fallacy about the American Revolution --

& I reiterated

Perhaps the Englishman was not aware of our Militia Laws before - and after the Revolution, which was my point.

That. it. was. different. here.

You then went on about how "the american congress was basically a copy of the english model."

Which it obviously was not - in measurable ways. As I was showing.



It appears you may need to search for more bomb emoticons.
Limited government and representative government are the two main elements of English political heritage that helped to develop representative governments in the American colonies. The Magna Carta, Petition of Right, and English Bill of Rights were all important documents that contributed to limited government in England and the colonies.
Click to expand...
 
hado117 said:
Paperview said:
That's why I said in my first remark to your statement:

"It sure was different here - from before the Dec of Ind was signed, and after, for quite a few decades after.

Just my two little cents... "

To which you replied with a fallacy about the American Revolution --

& I reiterated

Perhaps the Englishman was not aware of our Militia Laws before - and after the Revolution, which was my point.

That. it. was. different. here.

You then went on about how "the american congress was basically a copy of the english model."

Which it obviously was not - in measurable ways. As I was showing.



It appears you may need to search for more bomb emoticons.
Limited government and representative government are the two main elements of English political heritage that helped to develop representative governments in the American colonies. The Magna Carta, Petition of Right, and English Bill of Rights were all important documents that contributed to limited government in England and the colonies.
Click to expand...
Both the United Kingdom and the United States can be described as what is referred to as “bicameralism.” Where the national government will have two chambers and each chamber principle of representation will vary from the other. The United States has two chambers, House of Representatives, and the senate. While on the other hand the British parliament, two chamber system which consists of the house of the lords, and the House of Commons. The identity of both systems is so similar. The house of representatives resembles the house of the commons. Same could be said for the Senate and the House of the Lords. Similar work is being done by both, which consists of creating legislation, and from time to time criticizing the government.

The House of Commons is parallel to the House of Representatives, in that they are publicly elected officials who represent a certain jurisdiction of citizens. The House of Commons consist of around 650 voting members. These representatives are commonly referred to as MP’s or “Members of Parliament.” Members of the Parliament represent a district that may have a population averaging around 100,000 citizens. The House of Commons, has a speaker like the House of Representatives, that speaker usually some type of non-partisan presiding officer, elected by members of the party that is in power. The House of Commons is a thoroughfare for government ministers and chancellors. Adding to this the House of Commons has control over finance, meaning they and they alone are responsible for making decisions on financial bills. They can as well they can propose and amend bills and criticize the government.

The House of Representatives, has voting members that can referred to as “Representative” or “Congressmen” and in some situations “Congresswoman.” The House of Representatives contains 435 voting members. These Congressmen, represent districts whose population average around 650,000 or more. Like the Commons they may propose legislation and criticize the government. There is a speaker of the house, which was created from the Commons speaker. This presiding officer is elected by a simple majority vote, after candidates are nominated. The speaker directs the traffic of business concerning the house, and maintains order.

To qualify for either the House of Commons, or the House of Representatives, a candidate must have certain characteristics to qualify. It is here where both the House of Commons and the House of Representatives go off in different directions. To be a Member of the Parliament a potential candidate must be over the age of 21. This said potential candidate, then must be nominated by ten constituency members. Let’s not neglect to mention there is a £500 deposit that must be made to enter an election. That is equivalent to $640 American dollars. However, there a refund will be provided to the potential candidate, provided he or she has amassed over 5% of the votes. Should one succeed in attaining a seat, and becoming a Member of Parliament, they can look forward to a salary that averages around £65,000 or $105,000 U.S. dollars.:comp:
Click to expand...
 
hado117 said:
hado117 said:
Both the United Kingdom and the United States can be described as what is referred to as “bicameralism.” Where the national government will have two chambers and each chamber principle of representation will vary from the other. The United States has two chambers, House of Representatives, and the senate. While on the other hand the British parliament, two chamber system which consists of the house of the lords, and the House of Commons. The identity of both systems is so similar. The house of representatives resembles the house of the commons. Same could be said for the Senate and the House of the Lords. Similar work is being done by both, which consists of creating legislation, and from time to time criticizing the government.

The House of Commons is parallel to the House of Representatives, in that they are publicly elected officials who represent a certain jurisdiction of citizens. The House of Commons consist of around 650 voting members. These representatives are commonly referred to as MP’s or “Members of Parliament.” Members of the Parliament represent a district that may have a population averaging around 100,000 citizens. The House of Commons, has a speaker like the House of Representatives, that speaker usually some type of non-partisan presiding officer, elected by members of the party that is in power. The House of Commons is a thoroughfare for government ministers and chancellors. Adding to this the House of Commons has control over finance, meaning they and they alone are responsible for making decisions on financial bills. They can as well they can propose and amend bills and criticize the government.

The House of Representatives, has voting members that can referred to as “Representative” or “Congressmen” and in some situations “Congresswoman.” The House of Representatives contains 435 voting members. These Congressmen, represent districts whose population average around 650,000 or more. Like the Commons they may propose legislation and criticize the government. There is a speaker of the house, which was created from the Commons speaker. This presiding officer is elected by a simple majority vote, after candidates are nominated. The speaker directs the traffic of business concerning the house, and maintains order.

To qualify for either the House of Commons, or the House of Representatives, a candidate must have certain characteristics to qualify. It is here where both the House of Commons and the House of Representatives go off in different directions. To be a Member of the Parliament a potential candidate must be over the age of 21. This said potential candidate, then must be nominated by ten constituency members. Let’s not neglect to mention there is a £500 deposit that must be made to enter an election. That is equivalent to $640 American dollars. However, there a refund will be provided to the potential candidate, provided he or she has amassed over 5% of the votes. Should one succeed in attaining a seat, and becoming a Member of Parliament, they can look forward to a salary that averages around £65,000 or $105,000 U.S. dollars.:comp:
Click to expand...
It is easy to gather where and how the United States, developed its own system, by making modifications, to an older system.
Click to expand...
 
Paperview said:
That's why I said in my first remark to your statement:

"It sure was different here - from before the Dec of Ind was signed, and after, for quite a few decades after.

Just my two little cents... "

To which you replied with a fallacy about the American Revolution --

& I reiterated

Perhaps the Englishman was not aware of our Militia Laws before - and after the Revolution, which was my point.

That. it. was. different. here.

You then went on about how "the american congress was basically a copy of the english model."

Which it obviously was not - in measurable ways. As I was showing.



It appears you may need to search for more bomb emoticons.
Click to expand...
hado117 said:
Limited government and representative government are the two main elements of English political heritage that helped to develop representative governments in the American colonies. The Magna Carta, Petition of Right, and English Bill of Rights were all important documents that contributed to limited government in England and the colonies.
Click to expand...

And?

Wait a minute. I think I'm beginning to understand why your posts read as they do.

Like this one, you opened with:

hado117 said:
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness and unemployment. This tendency towards more state action was increasing. Expenditure on the social services had roughly doubled since the Liberals took office in 1905. Still, broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.
Click to expand...

You stole that whole pile of words, without attribution. Complete theft. It was written by A.J.P. Taylor in 1970, and reiterated by that skull ****, Daniel Pipes in NRO: Living Freely in England a Century Ago | National Review Online

Word for word, you just just cut and pasted it, without showing it was not your work. Plagiarism is not a good attribute

Then I see you did it again, in #33:

Copied word for word, without attribution : Republic vs. Democracy

And you did it again, here, in post #22. Holy crap. Now perhaps you're "Ian B" in this this swipe, but given the history here. Hmmm.

Sheeeet...

And now in your last #40 -- you did it again.

Swiped it wholesale: British Parliament vs. United States CongressAnd even that first one in the quote above. A lift from :Answers.

Huge copyright infringements, as well as showing us all you're doing is cutting and pasting other people's thoughts as if they were your own.

In darn near every post. You're breaking records, bud.

Man alive - is there a single original word you've posted here?

l:shock:
 
No...but I have read War and Peace.

Well...not all of it...but most of it.

Well...some of it.

Well...I saw the movie...well some of it.

Frack...when does the NFL season start?
 
Kin some one help me out here...is what this dude is doing a blatant violation of the TOS?


Seriously. =
 
EdwinWillers said:
I feel it needs to be pointed out that July 4th is NOT a celebration of independence. Rather, it is a celebration of an ASSERTION OF INDEPENDENCE, of the right to independence.

I would urge everyone to read it this July 4th. Takes maybe all of 5 minutes: Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

I would also like to point out that in the Declaration of Independence is a "list of grievances" of which I feel every American needs to be aware - and more than merely "aware" but savvy to how, in so many cases, such grievances could be legitimately ascribed to our current governmental minions.
Click to expand...

It's was never an assertion of any kind. It was / is a Declaration to the world of our independence from King George III and his minions.
 
jet57 said:
EdwinWillers said:
I feel it needs to be pointed out that July 4th is NOT a celebration of independence. Rather, it is a celebration of an ASSERTION OF INDEPENDENCE, of the right to independence.
Click to expand...
It's was never an assertion of any kind. It was / is a Declaration to the world of our independence from King George III and his minions.
Click to expand...

Good grief. Did you even bother to read what I wrote (that which you quoted) - let alone what you wrote in response?

Does the fact that the words "assertion" and "declaration" have synonymous meanings completely escape your notice?
Synonyms for assert:
verb: insist, declare, maintain
Src​

Try again; only this time ask yourself if declaring (asserting, insisting, maintaining, professing, pronouncing, proclaiming, announcing, etc.) our independence is synonymous WITH independence?
Maybe ask yourself if, on July 5, 1776 we were independent of (liberated from, free of) King George III?
Maybe ask yourself if our Declaration of Independence is a guarantee OF our independence - from anyone, then, now, or in perpetuity?

Then maybe read the OP again. I can't imagine it was that perplexing.
 
Last edited:
EdwinWillers said:
I feel it needs to be pointed out that July 4th is NOT a celebration of independence. Rather, it is a celebration of an ASSERTION OF INDEPENDENCE, of the right to independence.

I would urge everyone to read it this July 4th. Takes maybe all of 5 minutes: Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

I would also like to point out that in the Declaration of Independence is a "list of grievances" of which I feel every American needs to be aware - and more than merely "aware" but savvy to how, in so many cases, such grievances could be legitimately ascribed to our current governmental minions.
Click to expand...

The time has come to declare ourselves independent of this tyrannical government. We have allowed our freedoms to be steadily reduced and removed under the guise of public good and safety. Let us take a portion of the country or form an alliance with any state willing to throw off these shackles and defend liberty.
 
EdwinWillers said:
Good grief. Did you even bother to read what I wrote (that which you quoted) - let alone what you wrote in response?

Does the fact that the words "assertion" and "declaration" have synonymous meanings completely escape your notice?
Synonyms for assert:
verb: insist, declare, maintain
Src​

Try again; only this time ask yourself if declaring (asserting, insisting, maintaining, professing, pronouncing, proclaiming, announcing, etc.) our independence is synonymous WITH independence?
Maybe ask yourself if, on July 5, 1776 we were independent of (liberated from, free of) King George III?
Maybe ask yourself if our Declaration of Independence is a guarantee OF our independence - from anyone, then, now, or in perpetuity?

Then maybe read the OP again. I can't imagine it was that perplexing.
Click to expand...

It was called a declaration for reason and not an assertion. It is a declarative statement meaning that there is no room for error.

When we declared ourselves free of the king, we then proved it. Moreover it is a guarantee of freedom so long as we are willing to prove it.

No, I read the OP. I just think that using the word 'assertion' weakens its meaning and status.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom