... so that I don't keep occasionally hijacking others' threads with off topic posts.
Hope some are an interesting read to ya'll, and discussion is of course welcome;
I'll start with this one, which I think is probably best posted with the title, link and small excerpt (<-- hoping that's the appropriate way to post articles on other forums);
Once Conservatives started "compromising" their principles of individual freedom and less government in favor of the Progressive's collective ideology, the end of America's free Republic became preordained.
...personally, I woulda began the progressive era catastrophe before the 16th amendment, which the article begins it at. I'd go back at least to the 14th amendment. But that wasn't a compromise by the R party (which somehow is assumed to have a quantum entanglement with 'conservative') and doesn't fit the article's primary point of how compromise has proven destructive, it was the party's primary mission at the time.
wzp Suzie, ...and Luis
yeah, history is important.. IMO the exceptional aspect of the founders' historical works is that it's based in well understanding the nature of humanity, which only evolves in constant circles - never changes, is a constant's constant, which in turn makes it current as well as history. ...and THAT's the primary reality today's 'progressive' culture refuses to grasp or has had the capability to grasp such a profound reality indoctrinated out of them.
I always have the hardest time reading Hamilton's though. He seems to bounce all over the place covering every angle in concise detail and I guess I kinda can't keep up with so many points concentrated into a primary point, ... which to be honest I'm often not sure which of his many points made is the primary point :~}. --=--- I admire his greatness, but understand that he was kind of a super-lawyer and his writings remind me a lot of today's great 'legal' minds.... in that when listening or reading them the phrase 'verbal masturbation' very often comes to mind.
anyways... i read an article pointing to FP#65, highlighting this part;
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
... and how that precisely describes what's going on right now. Which I find to be a fine example of the timelessness of understanding the nature of humanity i referred to above.
Humanity doesn't evolve, it's technology does. They like to call it ancient history and pretend that humanity has evolved and it's all now obsolete. ...but it dam_ shore ain't. The progressives are proving it yet again now by doing exactly what was described by Hamilton in that chapter of FP#65.
you probably remember that during the TPP forum days I grew pretty intolerant of some of the traits of the most militant RPers... I didn't like their excessive idolizing of a politician, the militant-ness, their verbatim with each others' rants about every conspiracy theory in existence, etc... - not that i didn't/don't believe any of them, but insisting they're all true and if you don't believe so you're just stupid only succeeded in making themselves look foolish/ or stupid.
Well, lately I've become pretty convince they were probably right about the CIA having been running the political machine in our country. Seems pretty clear and undeniable with what's going on now.
"I always have the hardest time reading Hamilton's though. He seems to bounce all over the place covering every angle in concise detail and I guess I kinda can't keep up with so many points concentrated into a primary point"
Larry, you reminded me of the saying: "If it's easy, then anyone would do it". We used to use The Federalist Papers quite often back in the tpp daze, remember? Reading TFP is like watching these brilliant men...BRAVE men...thinking and brainstorming out loud. I say "brave" because they were taking a stand against the entire British Empire. There was NO room for failure.
Not only did the Framers defy King George, they defied the very mindset that the population had then: To be ruled and dictated to by government. It gives me a better understanding of Ben Franklin's very doubts when he made the comment: "It's a Republic. If you can KEEP it". He knew just how fragile this "Exeriment" really was(...and still is). And he was very AWARE of mankind's flaws. How easily they/we slide back to our old (morally lazy and corruptive) ways. And it can be traced back to our very beginnings.
I loved reading the Federalist and the dubbed Anti Federalist paper articles. Their use of language of the time added to my striving to understand.
Hamilton the man himself was not my favorite fellow recognising though that his contribution was not small for the creation to the "grand experiment". Anti Federalist were a check on him and other Federalists.
yup Luis... after-all, as a diety (democratically elected so by mere humans) he has the assumed authority to define sin, .... i guess
... best i can tell the guy never acted once, was always cast as his natural self. Always was Meathead, still is and always will be.
wandering thoughts ...
seeing Meathead and Hanoi Jane reliving their haydays again has reminded me of something I used as an analogy of our country's situation back in the TeaParty days;
Realistically and honestly - whatever the era we're currently in, Could John Wayne (he was still alive then) and Jane Fonda live compatibly within the same house?
A= not if Hanoi Jane was in charge, or has equal authority. Only if John was in charge and she was in the submissive role. -- (not because she's the woman, but because she's a radical progressive)
... and that's become even more obvious now.. progressives are incompatible when having any authority whatsoever.
SO... that defines what 'winning' is, in the atrocity of the political game we're in today.
(sigh, no he wasn't. He died in 1979. geeze, these brainfarts are getting too frequent these days)
"Could John Wayne (he was still alive then) and Jane Fonda live compatibly within the same house?"
Nope. Jane F was what these pro-commie radicals are today. The difference being that those rabid-leftists hadn't infected the education system yet. And Hollywood was still making very patriotic, pro USA, films. The likes of J Fonda and Saul Alinsky weren't being taken seriously . . .then. And now, here we are.