A big reason why these people are so angry is because they know their time is over. Demographics is not on their side. Twenty years from now there will be legal gay marriage, abortion will never become illegal and there will be universal health care that will probably be single payer.
They just can't handle that reality.
In April of 2008 Obama was harshly criticized for his remarks that residents of small-town America "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" out of bitterness....
August 2009. A resident of a small town in New Hampshire shows up at an Obama townhall meeting armed, standing on church grounds (with the churches permission), with a placard openly stating his antipathy for the president.
Trifecta!
I have this theory - let me try it out on you all...
American history tends to get progressively more liberal. Race rights, suffrage, civil rights and then even marriage rights. We are expanding, government is widening but so are our ways of operating outside of the governmental scope (uncontrolled mediums of speech, like net and cell phones, more travel, more commerce, etc. etc.).
Basically, we as a country have a HISTORICAL tendency to liberalize.
So would it be possible that, because of our country's tendency to, aside from several hiccups like the Bush administration, head towards the left fiscally and socially, one of the reasons that these nutjobs are SO nutty is because they, intrinsically know they are on the losing side?
I mean, in thirty years, what will this conversation look like? How will the Howard Zinns of the world phrase this little moment in our country's timeline?
@Leila: I think you're right, in a broad way. There are so many things we have now that the founding fathers couldn't have imagined. Like my right to vote. That's nice.
@Leila: This is true. It is true, true, true.
But unfortunately there's this canyon between what history thinks of us and the here-and-now. I'm not worried about the historical interpretation. Grand scheme? We're totally liberalizing.
But the here-and-now... Oh man are there always hiccups. Hiccups, like presidents being assassinated in 1963 mere years before blacks became real Americans. There's blood on the record when it comes to the lurching toward inevitable progress. And it's scary to think about that right now.
@Leila: I'd like to think that what we are seeing in these town-hells and hearing from the angry, paranoid nihilists on the right are a manifestation of this. Perhaps, these are the convulsions of a party, an ideology, and a political and social philosophy that, after a good 30 or 40 year run, is in the throes of death, struggling violently to maintain the last vestiges of their relevancy. If we are fortunate, the party and the relevant aspects of its philosophy that remain will evolve to finally accommodate the circumstances of the 21rst Century, and thus provide a counterweight to the most liberal of our tendencies. However, we should be wary because, as Richard points out, in this country, quantum shifts in social, political, and cultural paradigms have often been accompanied by violence. I hope the changes underway will eventually make us a more progressive and enlightened society. Moreover, I hope the convulsions settle and that we make it to that place peacefully.
Honestly, what is the big deal with Americans and health care? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm honestly curious about why people become so enraged with change?
I've enjoyed the privilege of free basic services health care since I was born, and cannot fathom having to pay to see a doctor or visit a hospital. Why would people not want this? To be treated based on the severity of your case, rather than how much cash you have in your bank account.
On Hardball, the guy said that he carries his dick substitute, sorry, gun, around because it stimulates polite conversation. But those are just the words he's hearing. All it would mean for me, for instance, is that I have to leave the public place we were sharing because I don't trust guns or the people who own them to use them safely.
This is non-negotiable for me. My brothers both own shotguns and some day I'd like to join them shooting skeet or hunting. But guns carried by private citizens in a public place that I know about mean only that I have to leave that place.
So basically I think this guy is just a bully, exercising his second amendment right over the rights of his fellow citizens to feel safe and secure in public...you know, the whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness bit.
A week after what happened in Pennsylvania, this guy should have been taken downtown to enjoy the hospitality of the city. And I sure hope that police chief doesn't find himself explaining why they let him go to subsequently shoot up a McDonald's.
By the way, the guy who said the cool thing about liberty and tyrants and everything? Yeah, he owned slaves. So, you know, STFU, right after you bite me.
@MissNormaDesmond: Are you aware that those are two separate issues? Liberty of a country and universal human rights? That they're actually separate? Or are you just taking the "my angry italian mother" style of arguing where when I say "drilling for oil in the Alaskan reserve would damage the sanctity of the wilderness" she responds with "oh well then why do you leave the lights on all the time?"
@MissNormaDesmond: Not really though. Although the two points are related, they're still separate. Universal human rights are related to liberty of a free country, but not connected. So a man in Jefferson's era could advocate for the liberty of a country while still owning slaves. In our age, those two have become linked, although technically they don't have to be.
@Pope John Peeps II: Claiming to be against tyranny while owning other people is fundamentally hypocritical. I mean, come on. You can try to parse things so it comes out that we're talking about separate issues, but that's rhetorical hairsplitting, and coming on top of language that talks about all men being created equal, there's nothing else to say except that he's all for Liberty it until it starts being inconvenient for him.
In all seriousness, I think this points to an essential dishonesty and deliberate ignorance that's part and parcel of American politics. What Jefferson was doing was acting in the interests of himself and others of his class and nationality. I'm thrilled he did, trust me, because it becomes part of the evolution that leads to people like me getting to vote. But we need to get clear in this country that Liberty has never been a simple proposition, that there will always be competing interests and competing liberties to be reconciled, and that what worshiping Unity and Liberty uncritically has generally meant is simply that the interests of the more powerful are represented as being what's best for everyone, and the interests of the least powerful people get silenced.
We may be created equal, but some are definitely more equal than others here, by virtue of any number of factors. The liberty of white male landowners is not the only liberty we should care about in looking at our history, just as the liberty of people with the means to procure private health care is not the only liberty we should care about today.
@MissNormaDesmond: Claiming to be against tyranny while owning other people is fundamentally hypocritical.
Well, my point is that it is NOW. But it wasn't always. That liberty was built in steps, and to look back on the doings of great men and say "oh they weren't great by TODAY'S standards" is to exploit your privilege for the purpose of feeling good about yourself, and for feeling self-righteous.
Debate isn't about being right, and feeling good, but about improving yourself through trying to be as accurate, and as understanding as possible.
@Pope John Peeps II: Isn't your own moral relativism showing? How curious, I thought that was just a godless-liberal-babykiller attribute.
To hold a human being up as "great" while ignoring his faults is inaccurate. Jefferson was a great writer, but he was not a great man.
@Pope John Peeps II: I'd really appreciate it if you didn't try to impute motives to me, and I'll do the same for you, okay? Nor, honestly, do I understand your point about improving oneself; I mean, is this self-improvement supposed to occur for both of us, or just me? It's a little confusing.
At any rate, your point about changing standards isn't really well taken. Jefferson's best friend was John Adams, who never owned a slave and declined on principle to do so. It's not as if the immorality of slavery were a recent scientific discovery of which it was impossible for him to be aware. In fact, he was quite aware of it, and it wracked his conscience. But finally, he preferred to keep Monticello and own slaves. It's really that simple. Freeing his slaves would have involved financial ruin for him, and he didn't want to do it.
I'm not saying this makes him a wholly horrible, evil man, or that it's impossible to respect his other achievements because of his failure in this respect, but it does make him a hypocrite. Blinding ourselves to this in an excess of zeal to maintain a spotless image of him as a prophet of Liberty means numbing ourselves to the enormity of the crime that was committed against millions of people, and pretending that this was some equivocal matter about which reasonable people could differ. It wasn't. It was always wrong, and lots of people knew it, and said so, plainly, all along. Unfortunately, lots of other people chose to ignore that, because they enjoyed being rich, and wouldn't have been able to be so otherwise. People like Jefferson.
@Mar Charbel: Jefferson was flawed, as many men + women of that era. I guess it's easy to look back at one of the country's "founding fathers" and strip away his contribution to your freedom to express your disdain for him by reducing him to a "great writer." Jonathan Swift was a great writer, but was certainly not a great man.
@Pope John Peeps II: @Pope John Peeps II: i'm with you.
that quote is a good 200+ years old, different time and yes, two separate issues.
if missnorman's argument were legitimate, one could argue the entire constitution and declaration of independence are both null and void (to put it lightly) because of extremely unfortunate social norms 200+ years ago.
@MissNormaDesmond: of course it's fundamentally hypocritical.
an educated troll is still a troll.
if you did a bit more homework, you'd come to learn that the founding fathers would have NEVER gotten the constitution signed by everyone if we magically traveled back in time and tried to get OUR modern social insight included then...they KNEW times would change and there is an AWFUL lot of language in those documents with room for that change....the changes that led to the end of slavery, social reforms, etc.
you arguing this point here makes you no better than the sign-toting dummies just trying to cause trouble instead of actually providing relevant feedback
@waltzngmatlda: Because you disagree with me, I'm a troll? That's kind of a convenient definition. You're also responding to an argument I haven't made, and in fact wouldn't make. I'm talking about Jefferson's own personal practices. I said nothing about the Constitution at any point.
@afterabe: I think Jefferson's "contribution to your freedom" seems very clear if you're not black; if you are, it's a good deal less straightforward a proposition.
@waltzngmatlda: I think you missed MissNormaDesmond's point. And I think she's on a much higher intellectual/ emotional level than the "sign-toting dummies" you refer to, so you should show a bit of respect. As a UVa alum, this is a very hot debate and one that's been going on for decades, and one that will continue to go on for decades. So any oversimplification of it is an insult to all involved in the discourse.
I agree with her that TJ was a hypocrite, and he had every inclination that slave ownership was inhumane. But who in the hell can prove it? Also, given the social context, it was as acceptable then as dumping sewage into rivers is now. Governments allow it, but we all know it's wrong.
@afterabe: Eh, in fairness, the remark with which I started all this was kind of inflammatory, come to think of it. I was pissed. Specifically, I was angry that this guy would try to cite Jefferson as authority and absolution for threatening political violence.
@MissNormaDesmond: Agreed. I happen to be black, but considering the global context- then and now- I don't think there is any place on this earth I'd rather be living than the United States. It's has always, and will always be difficult being part of the modern African diaspora, regardless of national origin. It's even more difficult if you have some sense of history. Marvin Gaye said it best. It makes you wanna holla...... Even with a black president we're still arguing over old wounds that will never heal.
@afterabe: See, maybe I'm nuts, but I believe the wounds can heal --but only if people can stand to hear things like "Jefferson was a great leader, a great thinker, a brilliant rhetorician, and also a hypocrite, because the lives of the people he held in bondage matter." I'm white, but I've never understood not wanting to see the history of our country plain, all of it, good and bad. I'm far more disturbed by the idea of fostering injustice by ignoring its historical roots than I am by the prospect of not being able to worship the founders as totally heroic and without flaws.
@MissNormaDesmond: I don't even know where to go with this, but I did heart you at the beginning of this thread (even though you cut my Skip Gates rant a few weeks back. No hard feelings!!). I feel the same way you feel, but I'm not willing to go back and fight a battle I wasn't a part of. That's my deal. I just don't want to look back. I studied this stuff in college + it was very painful. Everyday can be new fear of being perceived as "the other." But when you put things in context and try to see things from a different perspective, that's when you have peace. I'm there, but my fear is that we all won't be there at the same time (if at all).
@afterabe: Oh, the "maybe I'm nuts" thing is a real consideration.
The hearting is mutual. I actually also heart Peeps, I just disagree with him about this and other things. I will not hazard a guess as to his feelings about me.
@MissNormaDesmond: See, now you seem to be saying something different than before, where you just tossed off the life of Jefferson ENTIRELY simply because parts of him were failures. People's actions aren't unmade because of their lousy mistakes, or their terrible opinions. Wagner's music remains beautiful even though he was basically a racist and fascist. Nietzche remains brilliant even though he was sexist and quite crazy. All things taken into account.
And as for self-improvement... well, I question everything I say, and everything I do. All the time. I run it through my internal censor. It says "am I being stupid? Am I being overly critical? What am I saying? Can this be wrong? How would I make this wrong? Am I just saying these things out of vanity? What would somebody else say about this?".
This is how I got out of the third-year college criticism bind, where all Marxists see only Marxist problems in literature, and all Feminists see gender-based issues. And everyone is so keened-up on their own ability to decipher the world that they get tunnel vision. It's also how you gain the ability to understand other points of view, to separate philosophical principles from your OWN principles.
And whether he was a great man or not... well, he WAS a great writer and that makes a lot of difference. He inspired men and through his efforts found himself in a pivotal place in the history of Western Democracy. He certainly wasn't morally perfect, but moral perfection is unattainable. If that's the measure of greatness, then there are NO great men.
@MissNormaDesmond: Oddly enough I can't think of a great historical figure, or great writer, who wasn't totally fucked up or horrible in some way.
I'd be willing to guess that the single-minded monomaniacal pursuit of a particular goal is a necessary insanity that drives "great" and "genius" people. That makes them awful in a lot of other respects, or areas of life.
@Pope John Peeps II: I think maybe it seemed as if I was saying he was only a hypocrite and nothing more. I needed to be clearer that that's not what I meant. In the context of the original comment, which was too pissed off and terse, I grant you, a better articulation of my point would have been: "This guy whose supposed dedication to Liberty you're trying to use as a means of legitimizing your threats of political violence was okay with owning other human beings. So, um, fuck off."
"You" being the gun-toting dude, I hasten to add, not you, Peeps.
@MissNormaDesmond: you're making false inferences.
you're a troll because you made an obviously inflammatory statement for no reason other than to cause trouble.
an argument you haven't made? but you did, you absoloutely did.
you don't think they KNEW they were hypocrites when they wrote that language and at the same time kept the status quo?
wake up.
we're talking about an audacious, brazen idiot openly suggesting the president should be killed while toting a gun on church property...which the church allowed. i'm not disuputting gun freedoms, states rights, or private property laws, but THAT is scary.
stay on topic and quit being such a victim in your rhetoric. jeez.
afterabe "Jefferson was flawed...I guess it's easy to look back at one of the country's "founding fathers" and strip away his contribution to your freedom to express your disdain for him by reducing him to a "great writer.""
do you have ANY idea how many countries and millions of people have fashioned their democratic constitutions after our own? how many south american and african countries? i bet those people who are free now couldn't care less that 300 years ago, in a COMPLETELY different social era, the guys that wrote this yeah, held slaves too.
i guess i have to say it again- when the constitution was written, there was NO chance of freeing the slaves at that point.
it's sad but true. but the writers paved the way for it to happen. we all have plenty NOW to be dissatisfied and upset about, why are you getting all bothered over a 300 year old contradiction?
when the italians first came to america, they were treated just as bad. same for the irish and chinese back then, same for many latinos and middle eastern people today.
jackson was a hypocrite. please, go disclose these new findings to the historians.
@waltzngmatlda: You're calling me a troll and telling me to stay on topic while taking people to task for positions they don't hold and refuting arguments they never made. Hokey dokey.
@MissNormaDesmond: quote, you- "Claiming to be against tyranny while owning other people is fundamentally hypocritical (OK)...What Jefferson was doing was acting in the interests of himself and others of his class and nationality. I'm thrilled he did, trust me, because it becomes part of the evolution that leads to people like me getting to vote.(GOOD, KIND OF LOSING IT BUT OK) blahblahblah and that what worshiping Unity and Liberty uncritically has generally meant is simply that the interests of the more powerful are represented as being what's best for everyone, and the interests of the least powerful people get silenced.
(OOPS THERE WE GO. FAIL.)
We may be created equal, but some are blahblahblahblahblah."
go back, go waaaaay back and read up a bit. about the guy? with the gun? at a church? waiting for our president? yeah, that's what we were talking about. liberties inside our country.
quote, pope- "Are you aware that those are two separate issues? Liberty of a country and universal human rights?"
DINGDINGDING!
@waltzngmatlda:
"Jackson had two adopted sons...Lyncoya, a Creek Indian orphan adopted by Jackson after the Creek War."
oh yes, he adopts a native american boy but is automatically a terrible, awful hypocrite because holding slaves was unfortunately the legal social norm back then and OH MY he had slaves.
are there any documents you can find stating HOW jackson treated his slaves? never said the guy was perfect, but jesus, let it go.
and once again, ALL OF THIS IS BESIDE THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE.
GOD you suck.
While one attendee did indeed possess a firearm, he did so in accordance with the state’s conceal and carry laws, and was fully cooperative when asked to take it to his car due to a no-guns rule for the meeting.
Sorry to spoil the sobfest.
i love that the idiot blonde from fox news says "we've watched... for the last hour: a very concerned and articulate group of people..."
jeez, it doesn't take much to be considered articulate on fox, huh? o_0
For my part, I'd like to say that I think this man has every right to be armed on private property, and that the chief of police has done the right thing by refusing to publicly arrest him. And as a God-fearing Christian, I'd like to take this opportunity to offer a hearty "fuck you" to the church that thinks it's okay to hang out with a piece on Jesus' front lawn. You violate the spirit of the sixth commandment and you disobey Christ himself, who said to turn the other cheek.
Christ, by the way, who died for your sins.
Sins like endangering people by allowing a man armed with an extremely dangerous weapon on your church lawn.
To complete the effect, instead of shouting "You work for us!" as Obama passes, just go ahead and turn back to face the church steeple and yell "Crucify him!"
While I voted for and generally support Obama and his policies, I agree with @fuckingoldman that the parties in this country have taken far too much control over the political process. I'd like to see a no party system, or given that that won't work, at least three or more viable parties. Read Washington's farewell address, even then he saw that party power was a great corrupting force on individual politicians.
And for the record, as much as I like Obama, I think he's backpedaling too much on his goals in the name of pragmatism. I'm afraid the health care reform we're going to get is going to be so watered down as to be worthless. too bad.
@YamkaCachophony: I totally agree with you, but could you imagine the shit show that would happen if he wasn't? Look at the freaking maggots just a little change have brought out of the woodwork...
I always find it amazing that the same conservative politicians and pundits who are screaming so vociferously against the "socialization" of medicine happily turned turtle and allowed both the Bush and Obama administrations to provide the equivalent of 12 trillion (and counting!) in fractional-reserve adjusted handout dollars to banking institutions, a majority of which is once again being ploughed into the stock market by these hucksters. What's this healthcare plan supposed to cost? $500 billion? That's chump change by comparison. I'll get upset about the "socialization of medicine" after there's an audit of the Federal Reserve and full disclosure of all amounts and recipients of Federal bailout money, when there's an audit of the Treasury department for their collusion with banking institutions to artificially pump stock values, when the executives of banking institutions are prosecuted for their continuing book-cooking operations including the retention of phony mortgage "assets" to make themselves appear solvent, and investment banks which are "too big to fail" are forcibly broken down into their constituent parts under antitrust legislation.
Democrats and Republicans, what a joke. At least the Democrats have the decency to let you know up-front they're going to fuck you.
I consider myself an independent, I voted for Obama myself in this past election. I stand behind the rights of this man under all of this ridiculous scrutiny. Would this video even been taken if it was it was a man brandishing a sign advocating the health care reform? As far as I'm concerned this was a man exercising his rights as a proud resident of NH. I highly doubt his plans were to take a crack at assassinating the president. My best suggestion to those that seriously fear this guy and others like him would be to purchase your own registered weapon and carry it around yourself for protection. I myself am not that scared. Live Free or Die
@DelannaKolles: President Obama is the duly elected and sworn President of the United States and has every right to advocate and fight for health care reform.
The man with the pistol is a citizen of the United States and has every right to be armed on private property. Indeed, it is the duty of President Obama and his government officials to protect and defend that right.
@Swifter: I'm sure you just forgot the part where he's holding up the sign that says, in effect, "It's time to kill tyrants." Right? That just slipped your mind.
@Swifter: You do realise that in this country it is illegal to threaten to kill someone, right? And even more illegal when that person is the President, yeah?
And don't tell me that wasn't a threat.
@Swifter: I'm glad that you finally acknowledged that first part. You took a six month vacation from commenting to avoid doing so, after bragging incessantly and oh so condescendingly about the McCain ass-whupping to come.
@Swifter:
Swifter commented on All About the New Gawker Commenting Features
"Hate this, but I had already decided to abandon Gawker anyway, do this is just the icing on the cake." [gawker.com] 3:30 PM on Sep 22, 2008
----
You have a problem with reality, eh?
The sad reality is that a civil war for some of these folks would be the fulfillment of their prayed for, quasi-religious prophecy...That our nation should be brought low by a war between the races! While sane folks(of all ethnicities) can't fathom any group of people actually desiring such a thing, there too many people out there who live only for such moments of chaos and bloodshed and terror.
Until I see/hear a more responsible message and/or denunciation from the GOP and their FOX news(?) media masters, I feel no shame in saying that they are no better than fascist, fear mongering Nazi pigs! I mean really, while everyone's busy making a cartoon out of Hitler's era...the facts remain; in the last century when have we seen such evidence of a western political party's use of profoundly social/personal demonizations of persons or groups as their only platform! As far as I know that's not what Conservatism means and I wish more Conservatives would speak up!
honestly, these are the dumbest fools I have ever seen. Like a 74 year old man in this country isn't already on Social Security, Medicare, etc. To hear morons over and over again fighting things they are already receiving and if they arent receiving it they are PAYING FOR IT FOR SOMEONE ELSE, is amazing.
I can say for a fact, if the anti-war rallies and protesters were carrying unconcealed weapons close to Bush a few a years ago, Fox News and all the other gun lovers within the comments wouldnt have been so gung ho. There is NO REASON to bring a handgun to a protest. NONE. Unless you plan on using it. I do not understand the threat these white men have since they have been ruling the fucking country for years. We aren't going to take away your guns, and we want to make sure you live healthier lives so we can GIVE YOU healthcare and you still hate us. I will never get it.
@ArtfulSlinger: All these lovers of free speech were in fact fine with it being quarantined away from the people who were supposed to be hearing it during the Bush Administration. And indeed, had an analogous situation taken place at that time, this guy would be in Guantanamo already.
08/12/09
They just can't handle that reality.
08/12/09
August 2009. A resident of a small town in New Hampshire shows up at an Obama townhall meeting armed, standing on church grounds (with the churches permission), with a placard openly stating his antipathy for the president.
Trifecta!
08/11/09
American history tends to get progressively more liberal. Race rights, suffrage, civil rights and then even marriage rights. We are expanding, government is widening but so are our ways of operating outside of the governmental scope (uncontrolled mediums of speech, like net and cell phones, more travel, more commerce, etc. etc.).
Basically, we as a country have a HISTORICAL tendency to liberalize.
So would it be possible that, because of our country's tendency to, aside from several hiccups like the Bush administration, head towards the left fiscally and socially, one of the reasons that these nutjobs are SO nutty is because they, intrinsically know they are on the losing side?
I mean, in thirty years, what will this conversation look like? How will the Howard Zinns of the world phrase this little moment in our country's timeline?
08/11/09
08/12/09
But unfortunately there's this canyon between what history thinks of us and the here-and-now. I'm not worried about the historical interpretation. Grand scheme? We're totally liberalizing.
But the here-and-now... Oh man are there always hiccups. Hiccups, like presidents being assassinated in 1963 mere years before blacks became real Americans. There's blood on the record when it comes to the lurching toward inevitable progress. And it's scary to think about that right now.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/11/09
I've enjoyed the privilege of free basic services health care since I was born, and cannot fathom having to pay to see a doctor or visit a hospital. Why would people not want this? To be treated based on the severity of your case, rather than how much cash you have in your bank account.
08/11/09
This is non-negotiable for me. My brothers both own shotguns and some day I'd like to join them shooting skeet or hunting. But guns carried by private citizens in a public place that I know about mean only that I have to leave that place.
So basically I think this guy is just a bully, exercising his second amendment right over the rights of his fellow citizens to feel safe and secure in public...you know, the whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness bit.
A week after what happened in Pennsylvania, this guy should have been taken downtown to enjoy the hospitality of the city. And I sure hope that police chief doesn't find himself explaining why they let him go to subsequently shoot up a McDonald's.
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
In all seriousness, I think this points to an essential dishonesty and deliberate ignorance that's part and parcel of American politics. What Jefferson was doing was acting in the interests of himself and others of his class and nationality. I'm thrilled he did, trust me, because it becomes part of the evolution that leads to people like me getting to vote. But we need to get clear in this country that Liberty has never been a simple proposition, that there will always be competing interests and competing liberties to be reconciled, and that what worshiping Unity and Liberty uncritically has generally meant is simply that the interests of the more powerful are represented as being what's best for everyone, and the interests of the least powerful people get silenced.
We may be created equal, but some are definitely more equal than others here, by virtue of any number of factors. The liberty of white male landowners is not the only liberty we should care about in looking at our history, just as the liberty of people with the means to procure private health care is not the only liberty we should care about today.
08/11/09
Well, my point is that it is NOW. But it wasn't always. That liberty was built in steps, and to look back on the doings of great men and say "oh they weren't great by TODAY'S standards" is to exploit your privilege for the purpose of feeling good about yourself, and for feeling self-righteous.
Debate isn't about being right, and feeling good, but about improving yourself through trying to be as accurate, and as understanding as possible.
08/11/09
To hold a human being up as "great" while ignoring his faults is inaccurate. Jefferson was a great writer, but he was not a great man.
08/11/09
At any rate, your point about changing standards isn't really well taken. Jefferson's best friend was John Adams, who never owned a slave and declined on principle to do so. It's not as if the immorality of slavery were a recent scientific discovery of which it was impossible for him to be aware. In fact, he was quite aware of it, and it wracked his conscience. But finally, he preferred to keep Monticello and own slaves. It's really that simple. Freeing his slaves would have involved financial ruin for him, and he didn't want to do it.
I'm not saying this makes him a wholly horrible, evil man, or that it's impossible to respect his other achievements because of his failure in this respect, but it does make him a hypocrite. Blinding ourselves to this in an excess of zeal to maintain a spotless image of him as a prophet of Liberty means numbing ourselves to the enormity of the crime that was committed against millions of people, and pretending that this was some equivocal matter about which reasonable people could differ. It wasn't. It was always wrong, and lots of people knew it, and said so, plainly, all along. Unfortunately, lots of other people chose to ignore that, because they enjoyed being rich, and wouldn't have been able to be so otherwise. People like Jefferson.
08/11/09
08/11/09
that quote is a good 200+ years old, different time and yes, two separate issues.
if missnorman's argument were legitimate, one could argue the entire constitution and declaration of independence are both null and void (to put it lightly) because of extremely unfortunate social norms 200+ years ago.
@MissNormaDesmond: of course it's fundamentally hypocritical.
an educated troll is still a troll.
if you did a bit more homework, you'd come to learn that the founding fathers would have NEVER gotten the constitution signed by everyone if we magically traveled back in time and tried to get OUR modern social insight included then...they KNEW times would change and there is an AWFUL lot of language in those documents with room for that change....the changes that led to the end of slavery, social reforms, etc.
you arguing this point here makes you no better than the sign-toting dummies just trying to cause trouble instead of actually providing relevant feedback
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
I agree with her that TJ was a hypocrite, and he had every inclination that slave ownership was inhumane. But who in the hell can prove it? Also, given the social context, it was as acceptable then as dumping sewage into rivers is now. Governments allow it, but we all know it's wrong.
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
The hearting is mutual. I actually also heart Peeps, I just disagree with him about this and other things. I will not hazard a guess as to his feelings about me.
08/12/09
And as for self-improvement... well, I question everything I say, and everything I do. All the time. I run it through my internal censor. It says "am I being stupid? Am I being overly critical? What am I saying? Can this be wrong? How would I make this wrong? Am I just saying these things out of vanity? What would somebody else say about this?".
This is how I got out of the third-year college criticism bind, where all Marxists see only Marxist problems in literature, and all Feminists see gender-based issues. And everyone is so keened-up on their own ability to decipher the world that they get tunnel vision. It's also how you gain the ability to understand other points of view, to separate philosophical principles from your OWN principles.
And whether he was a great man or not... well, he WAS a great writer and that makes a lot of difference. He inspired men and through his efforts found himself in a pivotal place in the history of Western Democracy. He certainly wasn't morally perfect, but moral perfection is unattainable. If that's the measure of greatness, then there are NO great men.
08/12/09
I'd be willing to guess that the single-minded monomaniacal pursuit of a particular goal is a necessary insanity that drives "great" and "genius" people. That makes them awful in a lot of other respects, or areas of life.
08/12/09
"You" being the gun-toting dude, I hasten to add, not you, Peeps.
08/12/09
you're a troll because you made an obviously inflammatory statement for no reason other than to cause trouble.
an argument you haven't made? but you did, you absoloutely did.
you don't think they KNEW they were hypocrites when they wrote that language and at the same time kept the status quo?
wake up.
we're talking about an audacious, brazen idiot openly suggesting the president should be killed while toting a gun on church property...which the church allowed. i'm not disuputting gun freedoms, states rights, or private property laws, but THAT is scary.
stay on topic and quit being such a victim in your rhetoric. jeez.
afterabe "Jefferson was flawed...I guess it's easy to look back at one of the country's "founding fathers" and strip away his contribution to your freedom to express your disdain for him by reducing him to a "great writer.""
do you have ANY idea how many countries and millions of people have fashioned their democratic constitutions after our own? how many south american and african countries? i bet those people who are free now couldn't care less that 300 years ago, in a COMPLETELY different social era, the guys that wrote this yeah, held slaves too.
i guess i have to say it again- when the constitution was written, there was NO chance of freeing the slaves at that point.
it's sad but true. but the writers paved the way for it to happen. we all have plenty NOW to be dissatisfied and upset about, why are you getting all bothered over a 300 year old contradiction?
when the italians first came to america, they were treated just as bad. same for the irish and chinese back then, same for many latinos and middle eastern people today.
jackson was a hypocrite. please, go disclose these new findings to the historians.
08/12/09
08/12/09
(OOPS THERE WE GO. FAIL.)
We may be created equal, but some are blahblahblahblahblah."
go back, go waaaaay back and read up a bit. about the guy? with the gun? at a church? waiting for our president? yeah, that's what we were talking about. liberties inside our country.
quote, pope- "Are you aware that those are two separate issues? Liberty of a country and universal human rights?"
DINGDINGDING!
08/12/09
"Jackson had two adopted sons...Lyncoya, a Creek Indian orphan adopted by Jackson after the Creek War."
oh yes, he adopts a native american boy but is automatically a terrible, awful hypocrite because holding slaves was unfortunately the legal social norm back then and OH MY he had slaves.
are there any documents you can find stating HOW jackson treated his slaves? never said the guy was perfect, but jesus, let it go.
and once again, ALL OF THIS IS BESIDE THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE.
GOD you suck.
08/13/09
I mean, if you want to keep having an apoplectic fit in print, that's your privilege, but you're starting to look kind of insane.
08/11/09
Sorry to spoil the sobfest.
08/11/09
I miss commenter executions.
08/11/09
jeez, it doesn't take much to be considered articulate on fox, huh? o_0
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/12/09
08/11/09
Christ, by the way, who died for your sins.
Sins like endangering people by allowing a man armed with an extremely dangerous weapon on your church lawn.
To complete the effect, instead of shouting "You work for us!" as Obama passes, just go ahead and turn back to face the church steeple and yell "Crucify him!"
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
And for the record, as much as I like Obama, I think he's backpedaling too much on his goals in the name of pragmatism. I'm afraid the health care reform we're going to get is going to be so watered down as to be worthless. too bad.
08/11/09
08/11/09
Democrats and Republicans, what a joke. At least the Democrats have the decency to let you know up-front they're going to fuck you.
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
The man with the pistol is a citizen of the United States and has every right to be armed on private property. Indeed, it is the duty of President Obama and his government officials to protect and defend that right.
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
And don't tell me that wasn't a threat.
08/11/09
Meh.
08/11/09
Swifter commented on All About the New Gawker Commenting Features
"Hate this, but I had already decided to abandon Gawker anyway, do this is just the icing on the cake."
[gawker.com] 3:30 PM on Sep 22, 2008
----
You have a problem with reality, eh?
08/11/09
Until I see/hear a more responsible message and/or denunciation from the GOP and their FOX news(?) media masters, I feel no shame in saying that they are no better than fascist, fear mongering Nazi pigs! I mean really, while everyone's busy making a cartoon out of Hitler's era...the facts remain; in the last century when have we seen such evidence of a western political party's use of profoundly social/personal demonizations of persons or groups as their only platform! As far as I know that's not what Conservatism means and I wish more Conservatives would speak up!
08/11/09
I can say for a fact, if the anti-war rallies and protesters were carrying unconcealed weapons close to Bush a few a years ago, Fox News and all the other gun lovers within the comments wouldnt have been so gung ho. There is NO REASON to bring a handgun to a protest. NONE. Unless you plan on using it. I do not understand the threat these white men have since they have been ruling the fucking country for years. We aren't going to take away your guns, and we want to make sure you live healthier lives so we can GIVE YOU healthcare and you still hate us. I will never get it.
08/11/09
08/11/09