Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Bush says to Terrorists "You can't be totalitarian, only *I* can be totalitarian!"

smooth · 08-23-2003, 01:39 PM

Oops, I didn't mean to turn that into merely quoting the document.

Here's how it relates:

This document illustrates the beliefs the framers held in regards to the role governments should have with their populations--or citizens. This document shows that, at the very least, the writers viewed governments as being responsive to their citizens and that the people had a right to institute political structures for their benefit.

This indicates they would be loathe to step into the foreign affairs of a sovereign nation--one in which the people would be required as a matter of duty to overthrow a despot. In our current scenario, however, one might argue that we reluctantly engaged in the affairs of a foreign nation to protect the interests of our own nation. Even in this case, however, the framers would have been very explicit to limit the amount of unalienable rights we might take from people we simply detained.

And just to put a bee in your bonnet: the framers might have even supported the terrorists. They might have viewed our historical actions against the middle east as usurping the rights of a local population to govern itself. They definately would have argued (as they did in the quoted document) that a people has a fundamental duty to overthrow and dismantle a political party it viewed as unresponsive to its best interests.

They argued that exact point to the government on the other side of the pond and claimed that no foreign entity (an entity unresponsive to the needs and desires of the people it tried to govern) should have a stake in its affairs.

edit: A peopl, LOL, I'm leaving it. "People do it all the time; and you're a people, too."

08-23-2003, 01:39 PM	#24 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Oops, I didn't mean to turn that into merely quoting the document. Here's how it relates: This document illustrates the beliefs the framers held in regards to the role governments should have with their populations--or citizens. This document shows that, at the very least, the writers viewed governments as being responsive to their citizens and that the people had a right to institute political structures for their benefit. This indicates they would be loathe to step into the foreign affairs of a sovereign nation--one in which the people would be required as a matter of duty to overthrow a despot. In our current scenario, however, one might argue that we reluctantly engaged in the affairs of a foreign nation to protect the interests of our own nation. Even in this case, however, the framers would have been very explicit to limit the amount of unalienable rights we might take from people we simply detained. And just to put a bee in your bonnet: the framers might have even supported the terrorists. They might have viewed our historical actions against the middle east as usurping the rights of a local population to govern itself. They definately would have argued (as they did in the quoted document) that a people has a fundamental duty to overthrow and dismantle a political party it viewed as unresponsive to its best interests. They argued that exact point to the government on the other side of the pond and claimed that no foreign entity (an entity unresponsive to the needs and desires of the people it tried to govern) should have a stake in its affairs. edit: A peopl, LOL, I'm leaving it. "People do it all the time; and you're a people, too." __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 08-23-2003 at 01:43 PM..