Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I was unaware of any controversy regarding the treatment of American Indians and “genocide”. What's this all about?
Could there have been an ancient civilization that pre-dated all known civs that lived in Antarctica? If their remains are under ice, we wouldn't really know about them, would we? Could they have left for areas in the Mediterranean or perhaps South America once it got too cold down at the Pole? Could they have contributed knowledge to the building of Incan roads or Greek structures? If nothing else, it would make for an interesting storyline.
I can actually see where people would be concerned with the promotion of an “agenda”, even if it is correct. But I'd actually be interested in hearing what he had to say. I haven't heard any connection between evolution, PP, and Nazis. But how about this from the article:[url url=http://"How many minds did he pollute?" Dan Harrison, the father of a student in Helphinstine's class, said at the meeting. "It's a thinly veiled attempt to hide his own agenda."]"How many minds did he pollute?" Dan Harrison, the father of a student in Helphinstine's class, said at the meeting. "It's a thinly veiled attempt to hide his own agenda."[/url]Oh, if we could only have a dime every time the left had a "thinly veiled attempt to hide an agenda". We'd be swimming in money, right? (ok, so it would be hard to swim in dimes, but you get the point.)
Well the reason I thought it might fall under the terrorism definition is because it was done for obvious political purposes and in an intimidating way. True, it wasn't destructive in nature as much as it was defacing, but it was still damaging and will cost money to repair.
Would this be considered terrorism?http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=ce4e295f-c8b4-41e2-9e66-f676f25b536a
Amendments are ok, since they are anticipated by the original Constitution itself. Being a “dead document” doesn't mean that the document cannot provide for additional issues that come up, but that the fundamental principles of the document itself are kept in tact. The fact that an amendment is added on to prohibit slavery does not change Article II of the Constitution, for example. Our court system rests on the principle of stare decisis, which says that decisions of law are to rest on and follow principles ascertained through previous court holdings. Departure from precedent should be an exception rather than the rule. The reason why we see one interpretation of a law at one point and then a different interpretation at another has to do with a few things. First, the cases are fact specific, and in actuality the facts of each case is probably different but may appear from the outside to be the same. In such cases, different facts could lead to different holdings (i.e. legal standards) that are developed. Second, I think you have judges who bring their personal feelings to the case rather than using something like an originalist approach. By "feelings" I don't necessarily mean wishy-washy type of crap, but rather the use of popular opinion or even foreign practices to support one interpretation over another. Of course if law were to be boiled down to a popularity contest, we would have no real need for the Constitution anymore, would we? BTW I should move this thread into General History as it could appeal to many people - that is if Ski doesn't mind.
“Living breathing documet” = a document with principles that change/evolve over time = BAD!"Strict constructionalist" = person who understands the Constitution in light of the plain meaning of the words"Originalist" = related to strict constructionalist, but this person tries to understand the meaning of the principles of the Constitution as the Founders understood themAs Justice Scalia once said, the strict constructionalist would read the First Amendment to grant freedom of speech, but not necessarily to the written word (since writings are not technically "speech"). The originalist would understand that the meaning of "speech" to the Founders included the written word.Justice Scalia also criticized children who learn to recite that the Constitution is a living document. He says that the Constitution is a dead document. The meaning of this is that the principles therein do not change.I agree with Scalia here. If the Constitution were able to "evolve" in meaning, then we should fear of each and every one of our rights. After all, there would be no permanent protection of the rights spelled out in the Constitution.
Actually I've been watching the program again recently and it discusses Sherlock Holmes and his use – get this – of cocaine! According to the History Channel show (~”Illegal drugs and how they got that way: Cocaine”) cocaine was developed around the 1860s and was initially used as a pick-me-upper in a variety of things such as wine and Coca Cola. From what I understand it was considered to be a hyper-equivalent of a cup of coffee, though it had some big side effects. The show goes into how the drug was brought down and made illegal. It had been given to black dock workers to help them avoid fatigue, but eventually the general fear became that it made blacks more aggressive toward white women. Apparently this was the last draw and the crack down began (I believe in the 19-teens). Rather a sad story of race relations in the U.S., and also sad that a drug which was used on a race to keep them working longer ended up capturing many with addiction in the decades since.
I found this site on Yahoo Picks – it's a documentation of graves in Cape Cod:http://www.capecodgravestones.com/
Phid, I have peeked in to your GA site, do you get much traffic over there?
I don't get a ton of traffic, but it does add up. I don't actively tend to it so it's not like it's much work for me. I believe I've noticed surges in the Fall, likely around the time college American history courses start up.Donnie perhaps you have a different experience with CMS, but I think that something like Mambo would work fine. I'm biased toward it because I've had experience working with it. A blog is something you really have to keep up to be any good, and I'm thinking more of a static resource for the site with the option to easily add articles to it when I want. While I love the idea of a blog I've seen blogs that die out over time, perhaps from fatigue, perhaps from running out of ideas. I say just put the ideas into static pages where people can read information they seek. Besides....to me WCF is almost like a blog, but ever more interactive. 🙂
Well, remember to seize the day! Otherwise millions of denizens could be wandering through life with blatant misconceptions about the First Great Awakening, leading our world into chaotic madness. 😥 😥Ok, actually I wasn't thinking you need to do anything really in depth at the moment. I was going to start editing at least for clarity, but then it occurred to me that you should add your 2 cents. Incidentally, I've been thinking of revamping my http://www.great-awakening site (probably using a CMS) and adding sections. Of course I would want to include some of your contributions to the site as well...in fact I think using a CMS would enable me to do that better.
Man, I had to wait 6 months for that answer. 😀
Yeah I really hope I didn't disappoint! 😉 Actually, it's a good topic we ought to explore, perhaps in another thread, as it has similarities to what's going on in the world today.
I think they are misunderstood because they are viewed in a vacuum. That is, people now look at it simply as a practice in religious intolerance by Christians against Muslims. Nevermind the political and continental security issues which Europeans of the day faced, and nevermind the fact that the Christians were driven out of the Holy Land eventually by the Muslims.
