The next 2, 4, 8 years

[Jenksismyhero]

Its a little different representing British soldiers than AQ terrorists as well. British soldiers were a representation of the crown, which was perhaps the most powerful govt in the world, and current govt of the US. (Boston massacre is before the revolution). Adams defended the British so that there would be a fair trial and that it would not further escalate the conflict. If the British soldiers were convicted in a sham trial, the British undoubtedly would have intervened. Furthermore, Adams had a Tory (British sympathizer) play the role of prosecutor. So you had a revolutionary as a Defense attorney and a Tory as a Prosecutor. Adams was not risking anything, he was not representing "terrorists" he was representing British soldiers who were being tried in criminal court.

 

A better comparison would be if a US soldier was charged with being a terrorist in Afghanistan and one of the most prominent Taliban supporters defended the American soldier, while an American was chosen as the prosecutor. Or to use AQ, if a Bush supporter was hired to be the Defense attorney while the Prosecutor was a AQ supporter.

 

Regardless the lawyers who support AQ terrorists were taking far more risk than Adams. Adams was representing the establishment (British Crown) and trying to put on a fair trial. In the AQ trials you had the establishment trying to do everything in its power to give an unfair trial, and you had a few attorneys trying to stand up for them.

 

Many of them did good things, but there are times were we need to think for ourselves, instead of relying on others.

 

I disagree with this completely. You know how Bostonians treated "their government" in and around that time yes? Adams was absolutely sticking his neck out to represent those soldiers, again, IN Boston, shortly after a bunch of Bostonians were killed. The HBO mini-series set up the scene pretty well - Adams, the local "American," representing soldiers that everyone in town wanted hanged, and it showed with all of them breathing down his neck.

[StrangeSox]

Right, but the ideas that "all men are created equal" and that we all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and yadda yadda was pretty new in the world. That's the basis for all of the minority rights issues - equality.

 

I'm not saying ignore the fact that they considered blacks and women less, hence why I said "paradoxically."

 

Let me ask you this:

 

do you think that, without that phrase, without the debates or discussions in the late 18th century, we wouldn't have freed the slaves? Women wouldn't be able to vote? If, instead, it had said "white males are superior," we'd be beholden to that?

[Jenksismyhero]

Hobbs had that idea originally in the 1600's. I don't think slaves were freed because of a line in the DoI, they were freed because it was the right thing to do, regardless of what some politicians and philosophers wrote decades prior.

 

Well, we'll agree to disagree. They put those ideas into action, which had never been done before. There's a reason our justice system continuously cites the works of the founding fathers and what they produced.

 

I dunno that i'm even giving them "credit" for it so much as saying that i find it interesting that the principles they formed our country on were later the same principles that righted so many wrongs, that's all.

[StrangeSox]

I disagree with this completely. You know how Bostonians treated "their government" in and around that time yes? Adams was absolutely sticking his neck out to represent those soldiers, again, IN Boston, shortly after a bunch of Bostonians were killed. The HBO mini-series set up the scene pretty well - Adams, the local "American," representing soldiers that everyone in town wanted hanged, and it showed with all of them breathing down his neck.

 

I'll admit upfront that I don't know that much regarding the situation, but that I have seen the HBO series. Is that reaction accurate, and does it give the whole picture, or is it the Americanized, sensationalized-for-TV version? Certainly, there were many people who had issues with the Crown, but there was still a lot of Tory support. You'd be hard-pressed to find similar levels of support for AQ.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'll admit upfront that I don't know that much regarding the situation, but that I have seen the HBO series. Is that reaction accurate, and does it give the whole picture, or is it the Americanized, sensationalized-for-TV version? Certainly, there were many people who had issues with the Crown, but there was still a lot of Tory support. You'd be hard-pressed to find similar levels of support for AQ.

By the way, the book that the series was based on about John Adams is a fantastic read.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Let me ask you this:

 

do you think that, without that phrase, without the debates or discussions in the late 18th century, we wouldn't have freed the slaves? Women wouldn't be able to vote? If, instead, it had said "white males are superior," we'd be beholden to that?

 

Who knows what would have happened. If the British wiped the floor with us perhaps the monarchy would still reign. Would the French Revolution have occurred with the American Revolution being a success? I think that's an unknown.

[StrangeSox]

Who knows what would have happened. If the British wiped the floor with us perhaps the monarchy would still reign. Would the French Revolution have occurred with the American Revolution being a success? I think that's an unknown.

 

That's not my point. I wasn't asking if the US hadn't one or if the French never revolted, those are red herrings.

 

You can't give them credit for every civil rights movement that happened decades or centuries after their deaths simply because they wrote "all mean are created equal," because, in practice, they believed differently.

[Jenksismyhero]

By the way, the book that the series was based on about John Adams is a fantastic read.

 

The David McCullough book is, I agree. IMO it's one of the better ones because Adams was a pretty fascinating guy throughout the whole period. He's basically the old grump in the background that didn't get along with anyone and felt disrespected most of the time. The book is based mainly on the letters he sends to and from Abigail, so it's his opinions and thoughts on whatever is going on.

 

And yes, it was a contentious situation. Tory support was around, but I think that was more New York. Boston was one of the first American cities to really turn on the Crown, and a lot of it was because of the massacre, but a lot of it was pent up frustration (hence the Bostonian "mob" that caused the massacre to begin with).

[Soxbadger]

I disagree with this completely. You know how Bostonians treated "their government" in and around that time yes? Adams was absolutely sticking his neck out to represent those soldiers, again, IN Boston, shortly after a bunch of Bostonians were killed. The HBO mini-series set up the scene pretty well - Adams, the local "American," representing soldiers that everyone in town wanted hanged, and it showed with all of them breathing down his neck.

 

It was an unpopular position, not sure how risky it was, but there is no way to know for sure. I think that Adams' wanted to make a point, just like those who set out to defend AQ did, that even the most infamous deserve a fair trial.

 

The difference in my opinion is that AQ is far more unpopular than the British. The British in 1770 were unpopular to some, but they also enjoyed a significant amount of loyalists. I dont believe that you can find one influential person in the US to say they are an AQ loyalist or sympathizer.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's not my point. I wasn't asking if the US hadn't one or if the French never revolted, those are red herrings.

 

You can't give them credit for every civil rights movement that happened decades or centuries after their deaths simply because they wrote "all mean are created equal," because, in practice, they believed differently.

 

You're ignoring my point. They thrust into the political and governmental arena the idea of equality between humans. Not some guy writing prose on his thoughts of humans, but actual politicians and lawmakers. Those very ideas were used decades later as a basis for freeing slaves and granting minority rights. I'm not saying give the founding fathers total credit for freeing slaves, but in the end you have to give them some because without starting the equality ball rolling, who knows if it would have gotten to the point where freeing slaves would have happened or thinking minorities were equal would have happened.

[StrangeSox]

You're ignoring my point. They thrust into the political and governmental arena the idea of equality between humans. Not some guy writing prose on his thoughts of humans, but actual politicians and lawmakers. Those very ideas were used decades later as a basis for freeing slaves and granting minority rights. I'm not saying give the founding fathers total credit for freeing slaves, but in the end you have to give them some because without starting the equality ball rolling, who knows if it would have gotten to the point where freeing slaves would have happened or thinking minorities were equal would have happened.

 

This is the bizarre deification that I don't like. They thrust in the idea of rejecting the divine right of kings, not equality between all humans. This was brought up as an example to illustrate that they were humans and made mistakes, but you're trying to defend it. I've given them credit several times now for the advances they made, but you have to recognize their shortcomings as well.

 

I think it is ludicrous to give white, wealthy, slave-owning males credit for women's suffrage or freeing slaves or equal rights. Minority rights weren't granted from on high, they were fought for, often violently.

Edited November 4, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

This is the bizarre deification that I don't like. They thrust in the idea of rejecting the divine right of kings, not equality between all humans. This was brought up as an example to illustrate that they were humans and made mistakes, but you're trying to defend it.

 

I think it is ludicrous to give white, wealthy, slave-owning males credit for women's suffrage or freeing slaves or equal rights. Minority rights weren't granted from on high, they were fought for, often violently.

 

You're still missing my point, so whatever. I dunno how you can deny their role in it when prominent abolitionists and our justice system used their words as a basis for their arguments. You seem to think that i'm arguing that they held the gun of a Yankee Civil War soldier, literally freeing slaves from southern plantations.

[Soxbadger]

I think that the founding fathers are a good starting point, but they are not the ending point. I think that the founding fathers would have agreed with me. I believe that some of the founding fathers wished they could have gone farther (ie freeing slaves) but the that the times dictated compromise on some issues.

 

The problem with relying on the US founding fathers to much, is that they were merely just relying on the enlightenment thinkers before them, specifically Locke, Montesquieu and Smith. It is my opinion that had they experienced some of the events that occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries, that some of their policies may have changed, that some of the amendments may have changed.

 

I believe that the US constitution and US law is not in stasis, but that it is instead changing. And that in the same way the founding fathers relied on those who came before them, we rely on the founding fathers. But, we need to make sure that we do not allow the govt to remain in stasis. Just because something was the best policy in 1776, does not mean it is the best policy in 2010. We must allow the law and the constitution to evolve.

 

I just think the problem is some people take their ideals as cannon, that can not be questioned. Where as I believe that the founding fathers would want us to question everything. (Yes they started the X-Files)

[StrangeSox]

You're still missing my point, so whatever. I dunno how you can deny their role in it when prominent abolitionists and our justice system used their words as a basis for their arguments. You seem to think that i'm arguing that they held the gun of a Yankee Civil War soldier, literally freeing slaves from southern plantations.

 

I think we're somewhat talking past each other. Soxbadger said what I've been trying to say.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, this is interesting. Obama speaks today and is indicating open doors (though we'll see if he means it). Boehner yesterday was a little more direct, but still talked a lot about working together.

 

However, apparently Mitch McConnell has other ideas. Like, repealing everything and getting Obama out of office.

 

This puts Boehner in a very tough spot. He's got a senior guy in his own party now actively antagonizing the President. Does he follow suit, or try to extend an olive branch and take up Obama's offer?

 

[StrangeSox]

Well, this is interesting. Obama speaks today and is indicating open doors (though we'll see if he means it). Boehner yesterday was a little more direct, but still talked a lot about working together.

 

However, apparently Mitch McConnell has other ideas. Like, repealing everything and getting Obama out of office.

 

This puts Boehner in a very tough spot. He's got a senior guy in his own party now actively antagonizing the President. Does he follow suit, or try to extend an olive branch and take up Obama's offer?

 

Given how many Republicans painted Democrats, and Obama in particular, as evil commie socialists bent on destroying 'Merica! with their evil, godless liberalism, how do you think they can actually back off of that hyperbole and actually work with the Obama and Democrats (assuming the Dems won't just cave as usual to Rep demands).

[NorthSideSox72]

Given how many Republicans painted Democrats, and Obama in particular, as evil commie socialists bent on destroying 'Merica! with their evil, godless liberalism, how do you think they can actually back off of that hyperbole and actually work with the Obama and Democrats (assuming the Dems won't just cave as usual to Rep demands).

You and Balta still with the short memories. Do you not remember 1994? There was a lot of anger specifically directed at Clinton. And yet, things worked out for the better after the fact.

 

I am not saying that necessarily will happen here, but I think there is a decent chance it might. It really depends on Obama and Boehner, more than anyone else, at this point. McConnell is still a minority guy in the Senate, he's going to scream and yell anyway, that's what he does.

 

[Balta1701]

You and Balta still with the short memories. Do you not remember 1994? There was a lot of anger specifically directed at Clinton. And yet, things worked out for the better after the fact.

 

I am not saying that necessarily will happen here, but I think there is a decent chance it might. It really depends on Obama and Boehner, more than anyone else, at this point. McConnell is still a minority guy in the Senate, he's going to scream and yell anyway, that's what he does.

1. After a complete government shutdown and an impeachment of the President.

 

2. Although he's the minority guy, he may well have more power than the majority leader in the House because he can block anything he wants, including things like treaties and nominees that only go to the Senate.

[StrangeSox]

You and Balta still with the short memories. Do you not remember 1994?

 

I was 9. I've had several concussions since then. That's all I'll say.

 

There was a lot of anger specifically directed at Clinton. And yet, things worked out for the better after the fact.

 

Was he painted as the literal Anti-Christ, as a non-American "other" bent on destroying the country by a significant portion of the Republican base? Honestly, I don't know. My first political memories are Clinton's impeachment, really.

 

I am not saying that necessarily will happen here, but I think there is a decent chance it might. It really depends on Obama and Boehner, more than anyone else, at this point. McConnell is still a minority guy in the Senate, he's going to scream and yell anyway, that's what he does.

 

I think there's opportunity, I just think that the Republicans are going to have a hard time walking back from their life-and-death rhetoric regarding Obama and his policies. That's what riled up the base, and working with Obama on really anything is going to earn them backlash.

 

[Balta1701]

Was he painted as the literal Anti-Christ, as a non-American "other" bent on destroying the country by a significant portion of the Republican base? Honestly, I don't know. My first political memories are Clinton's impeachment, really.

Yes. I don't know if he was considered a non-American, but we had the spectacle of House committee members firing guns at watermelons to try to prove that Bill Clinton was a murderer.

[Rex Kickass]

You and Balta still with the short memories. Do you not remember 1994? There was a lot of anger specifically directed at Clinton. And yet, things worked out for the better after the fact.

 

You seem to forget impeachment.

 

Boehner hasn't been as upfront about obstructionism, but when he was asked on his legislative agenda, he deferred to Obama. Give the 94 GOP this, at least they had a legislative plan for the following year. Boehner means he has very little planned other than saying No, and possibly passing out lobbyist checks on the House floor again, I would wager.

 

[StrangeSox]

You seem to forget impeachment.

 

Boehner hasn't been as upfront about obstructionism, but when he was asked on his legislative agenda, he deferred to Obama. Give the 94 GOP this, at least they had a legislative plan for the following year. Boehner means he has very little planned other than saying No, and possibly passing out lobbyist checks on the House floor again, I would wager.

 

Didn't you read their Contract? It was full of platitudes and contradictory objectives! They're good to go!

[Texsox]

The framers of the Constitution created a method to change it and did as it was being ratified. What more has to be said about their thoughts on it being a permanent document?

[lostfan]

Right, but the ideas that "all men are created equal" and that we all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and yadda yadda was pretty new in the world. That's the basis for all of the minority rights issues - equality.

 

I'm not saying ignore the fact that they considered blacks and women less, hence why I said "paradoxically."

The Founding Fathers got that idea from the Iroquois Nation... FWIW. Which is why they dressed up as Indians in the Boston Tea Party

[lostfan]

SOME thought that. And paradoxically, the issues they raised and the Constitution they wrote is what ultimately freed slaves, gave them rights, gave women rights, etc.

Some, more like most, at the time. Jefferson (probably the most eloquent of all the Founding Fathers and wrote the best passages IMO) owned slaves and he wasn't exactly benevolent either, he used to have his slaves beat and whatnot. Jefferson was otherwise one of the most remarkable figures in history but he was flawed as a human being (being a flaming hypocrite and all). So was Washington. So was Martin Luther King. Not that I'm telling you anything you haven't acknowledged before, I just got carried away typing here. lol.

 

Later in the 19th century in antebellum times (almost a century later) the Democratic National Convention had a song called "n***** Doodle Dandy" they'd sing, and they weren't really even trying to hide it. Stephen Douglas = open white supremacist. And so on. That was just the status quo back then.