Typo in the Declaration of Independence?

[Spoonman]

that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I find this line to be the most interesting. how could a public who is not as well armed as the government ever abolish it?

[MENTION=24208]Spoonman[/MENTION]
It's called being armed with knowledge of the laws, of business, and managing resources.

Of investing in buying out property, cities and managing your own business districts,
campuses and hospital/schools for training, housing and providing services to people
using free market and charitable systems.

No additional armed force is necessary, above what normal policing requires for any community.

yea, and the rich have cornered that market. how many poor are making money on the market, on real estate, on growth investments? how many city managers are really improving the cities they manage?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What a bunch of Progressive Hooey.

You're right.

It was the progressives who fought and won the war and the progressives who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The conservatives were too busy spying for the king.

BUT - like it or not, its our history.

Progressives did not start till Teddy Roosevelt.
Woodrow Wilson really got it going during his term.
Progressive ideology is totally opposite of our Founders.
Progresses turned out nation into social first and individual second.
Our Founders was individual first, social second.
This ideology made it so that government took control over the states and would be able to expand to become bigger and bigger.
Our Founders wanted States control and limited government.
Our Founders were Revolutionaries.
Liberal and Conservative terms did not exist back then.

Of course they did.

The term "liberal" was first used in the 1600s, referring to Age of Enlightenment thought up to and through John Locke.

The term "Conservative" did come into use a little later, in the early 1800s, as a reaction against the the "liberals".

 

[boedicca]

What a bunch of Progressive Hooey.

You're right.

It was the progressives who fought and won the war and the progressives who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The conservatives were too busy spying for the king.

BUT - like it or not, its our history.

Uh. No. Classic Liberals of the Founding Era have absolutely nothing in common with Big Government Progressives. The latter practice an ideology of Statist Tyranny.

 

[peach174]

OK well now you're just pasting the same thing over and over. I can Google it and see where you got it.

Where did I say the same thing over and over?

I did not get this from the internet.
I read history books on the subject.
It was also taught in my college of U.S. History, how Wilson turned our government into the opposite of our Founders.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I find this line to be the most interesting. how could a public who is not as well armed as the government ever abolish it?

Uh - with ballot boxes and Constitutional Amendments...

Not everything has to be about violence.

do you really believe our government works for us, no matter who we elect? do you really believe the working man or the poor are better off under Obama than bush? even the supreme court has become a partisan entity. each side trying to stuff it with liberal or conservative justices.

No. The R is definitely working against the working class. They are not employed by the working class. They are are employed by and paid by the 1%. That's just fact.

Yes, better off. We were losing jobs and money under bush, gaining both under Obama. More important actually is that Obama has done SO much more for the average working schlub. Thanks to him, people can keep their houses and buy homes. There's a lot more but those who want to know it can read it here

President Obama is Progressive. Here Are 245 Accomplishments So Far | The PCTC Blog

If we were to get another R prez after Obama, it really could mean the end of us. Thankfully, that won't happen.

 

[peach174]

My quotes got messed up.
That's why it looks like I did it twice.

 

[peach174]

There are no "Progressives" today. I thought I just said that. It's nothing but a hack demagogue term.

You'll have to 'splain what you mean by "Newtonian" versus "Darwinian".

Newtonion - pre planned checks and balances.
Words have meaning. They say what they mean and mean what they say.

Darwinian- living thing, to change the meaning of words.
Example;
Wilson changed the meaning of the word tyranny who thought it meant control of the law, not control of the people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Read it this way and you see it is a list, with each sentence structure in the list being parallel--

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

--that all men are created equal,
--that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
--that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (,)
—that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
--that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The comma/period makes a difference in whether or not all these statements are meant as a rhetorical list of ideas, one leading to the next. I would say grammatically, that is what it appears to be. Each statement is grammatically equal and each one leads to the next conceptually, so, actually, the 'period' makes no sense. Each clause beginning with 'that' is a relative clause and is referring back to the main clause: "We hold these truths to be self -evident." That's what I mean by their being grammatically equal: they are all relative clauses.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what you think because the rules for grammar were a lot looser back then. Anyone who applies modern rules when reading ancient documents like the Declaration of Independence just demonstrates their ignorance of the history of grammar.

Thanks for joining that exclusive club.

It is not just a matter of grammar, it is a matter of rhetoric. And, btw, it is not an 'ancient document.' It is less than 250 years old; that's not considered ancient.

Matters of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, etc., may not be in line with what we consider standard English today, but rhetorical technique is the same now as then. It was a series of ideas, concepts, that were linked together in a listing, leading to a final point. Logistically, rhetorically, the relative clauses lead, one to the other, to a final point. It's a matter of style, not just grammar.

And, as I pointed out earlier, anyone that actually reads the Declaration of Independence would understand that Jefferson's rhetoric always led to the conclusion that he was emphasizing the role of government in defending rights which is why he justified the rebellion by listing all the rights that the Crown had violated. That means that Duddly's entire premise is wrong, nothing is changed ny the presence of a period or not.

By the way, rhetorical techniques have changed over time.

Modern Rhetoric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pogo]

that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I find this line to be the most interesting. how could a public who is not as well armed as the government ever abolish it?

I think that's easy: one man or one woman, one vote. By voting for change. I see the statement as visionary as well.

one man one vote has gotten us trillions in debt, 47% on some kind of entitlement, a shrinking middle class, high unemployment, a growing divide between the rich and the poor, record corporate profits yet low pay and benefits for employees, high levels of poverty, an out of control immigration problem, faltering educational standards, more divisive than ever public, continuing dissatisfaction with congress and our presidents, involvement in foreign countries and wars, funding rebels and terrorists, rising costs and stagnant wages. government that represents special interests instead of the general public. What is this vote getting us?

What will taking one's pistol to Washington get us?

I made this observation elsewhere: the Liberalism that founded this country was rebelling against the First and Second Estates (clergy and nobility respectively) that had held sway in the channels of power before the "Enlightenment". That philosophy has been under siege from both of those Estates; obviously the First has its proponents is "social conservativism" that tries to conflate religion and politics but perhaps it's the Second that has been at it longer and has degraded us more.

We didn't start with an Aristocracy and Washington resisted those who would have made him king, but we've carved out our own Second Estate with a system of a single two-headed political party that holds immense wealth as a prerequisite for office. That's why we, the Third Estate, have no control any more.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rhetoric has been essentially the same since the dawn of humankind. The page you cite deals with the concept of modern versus classical rhetoric, formal debate. Humankind always has and always will use the same methods of persuasion and discourse; it is how we communicate. Formal debate is another thing, but even so, as is noted in the link your provided, scholars do not agree on the concept of a modern rhetoric.

That doesn't change the fact that, as language has evolved, rhetoric has changed. People use words differently, understand the universe differently, and rhetorical techniques adapt to this new understanding. If they didn't we would still be arguing that simple anecdotal evidence is proof that something is true, just like Plato and Aristotle did. People learn form the past, and adapt their language and arguments accordingly.

And, like I said, Jefferson's aims where always to support the role of government in maintaining the rights of the people who are subject to its laws, which is why he spent so much time listing the grievances that proved that the Crown was ignoring the rights of the individuals in the Colonies. That makes the OP's contention that a typo changes the entire meaning of the Declaration absurd.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What a bunch of Progressive Hooey.

You're right.

It was the progressives who fought and won the war and the progressives who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The conservatives were too busy spying for the king.

BUT - like it or not, its our history.

Liberals, not "progressives". The latter weren't invented until a century later.

Are you sure about that? Just because it didn't become defined until it finally managed to get political power in the late 19th century does not mean there was no one advocating it before then. Every political movement in history has roots in something that came before it, even if we haven't actually dug into it to find them.

Note: I am not saying you are wrong, just pointing out that blanket statements based on nothing more than a lack of evidence usually are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Liberals, not "progressives". The latter weren't invented until a century later.

Actually, I used that word on purpose.

I meant lower case progressive as an attitude and life philosophy rather than a political position. But, I believe it was both lower case conservatives AND upper case Conservatives wanting to remain subjects of the king.

But yes, those with progressive ideas and treasonous plans were Liberals.

You meant the adjective, "one who supports progress". I get that. It's just that there are those partisans around here who like to drop the word Progressive (noun) as if it's some kind of slur, yet they can never define what the hell they mean. No point in fueling them further.

Not sure about the distinction between conservative and Conservative though...

Anyone with a rudimentary education in politics knows about the progressive movement and the concept of social justice that it is rooted in. Your refusal to admit it existence is not proof that no one can define it. If you want an example of how it works just examine the reaction to the Hobby Lobby and Citizens United decisions that resort to lies in order to maintain the illusion of having the moral high ground in the debate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are no "Progressives" today. I thought I just said that. It's nothing but a hack demagogue term.

You'll have to 'splain what you mean by "Newtonian" versus "Darwinian".

No one is Progressive?

How do you explain these?

Join The Progressive Community In Texas! | Progress Texas - The Voice of the New Majority

Join the Progressive Party | Letters | Chicago

Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC)

Are all of these sites, and many more, part of a right wing conspiracy to smear people? Is it remotely possible that you are wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Uh - with ballot boxes and Constitutional Amendments...

Not everything has to be about violence.

do you really believe our government works for us, no matter who we elect? do you really believe the working man or the poor are better off under Obama than bush? even the supreme court has become a partisan entity. each side trying to stuff it with liberal or conservative justices.

No. The R is definitely working against the working class. They are not employed by the working class. They are are employed by and paid by the 1%. That's just fact.

Yes, better off. We were losing jobs and money under bush, gaining both under Obama. More important actually is that Obama has done SO much more for the average working schlub. Thanks to him, people can keep their houses and buy homes. There's a lot more but those who want to know it can read it here

President Obama is Progressive. Here Are 245 Accomplishments So Far | The PCTC Blog

If we were to get another R prez after Obama, it really could mean the end of us. Thankfully, that won't happen.

Democrats work for the big money interests also, including Obama.

 

[Pogo]

You're right.

It was the progressives who fought and won the war and the progressives who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The conservatives were too busy spying for the king.

BUT - like it or not, its our history.

Liberals, not "progressives". The latter weren't invented until a century later.

Are you sure about that? Just because it didn't become defined until it finally managed to get political power in the late 19th century does not mean there was no one advocating it before then. Every political movement in history has roots in something that came before it, even if we haven't actually dug into it to find them.

I didn't say "no one ever advocated" anything; I said Progressives -- the ideological political sub-movement called briefly by that name -- didn't exist until the late 19th. So yes, I'm sure about that. Contrived strawman dispatched.

Note: I am not saying you are wrong, just pointing out that blanket statements based on nothing more than a lack of evidence usually are.

I'm unaware of anyone who's railed against blanket generalizations on this site more than I have. But that's got absolute zero to do with anything in the posts above.

 

[Pogo]

Actually, I used that word on purpose.

I meant lower case progressive as an attitude and life philosophy rather than a political position. But, I believe it was both lower case conservatives AND upper case Conservatives wanting to remain subjects of the king.

But yes, those with progressive ideas and treasonous plans were Liberals.

You meant the adjective, "one who supports progress". I get that. It's just that there are those partisans around here who like to drop the word Progressive (noun) as if it's some kind of slur, yet they can never define what the hell they mean. No point in fueling them further.

Not sure about the distinction between conservative and Conservative though...

Anyone with a rudimentary education in politics knows about the progressive movement and the concept of social justice that it is rooted in. Your refusal to admit it existence is not proof that no one can define it. If you want an example of how it works just examine the reaction to the Hobby Lobby and Citizens United decisions that resort to lies in order to maintain the illusion of having the moral high ground in the debate.

The distinction above was between progressive (the adjective) and Progressive (the noun). LN meant the former, and my concern was its conflation with the latter. The latter isn't involved.

I'm familiar with the CU decision, not with Hobby Lobby. If you have a point that's actually related to anything, just articulate it and quit the self-important lecture play.

 

[Pogo]

There are no "Progressives" today. I thought I just said that. It's nothing but a hack demagogue term.

You'll have to 'splain what you mean by "Newtonian" versus "Darwinian".

No one is Progressive?

How do you explain these?

Join The Progressive Community In Texas! | Progress Texas - The Voice of the New Majority

Join the Progressive Party | Letters | Chicago

Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC)

Are all of these sites, and many more, part of a right wing conspiracy to smear people? Is it remotely possible that you are wrong?

Nobody claimed it isn't a word. Try to keep up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Liberals, not "progressives". The latter weren't invented until a century later.

Are you sure about that? Just because it didn't become defined until it finally managed to get political power in the late 19th century does not mean there was no one advocating it before then. Every political movement in history has roots in something that came before it, even if we haven't actually dug into it to find them.

I didn't say "no one ever advocated" anything; I said Progressives -- the ideological political sub-movement called briefly by that name -- didn't exist until the late 19th. So yes, I'm sure about that. Contrived strawman dispatched.

There you go again with the misunderstanding of logic. I didn't make up an argument and claim you were advocating it, I just asked a question.

Note: I am not saying you are wrong, just pointing out that blanket statements based on nothing more than a lack of evidence usually are.

I'm unaware of anyone who's railed against blanket generalizations on this site more than I have. But that's got absolute zero to do with anything in the posts above.

You make blanket assertions all the time, just like you have in this thread when you claim that no one can define the term Progressive and that they don't even exist.

That said, the post you quoted was not directed at you, so I fail to see how you can claim I used a straw man against you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You meant the adjective, "one who supports progress". I get that. It's just that there are those partisans around here who like to drop the word Progressive (noun) as if it's some kind of slur, yet they can never define what the hell they mean. No point in fueling them further.

Not sure about the distinction between conservative and Conservative though...

Anyone with a rudimentary education in politics knows about the progressive movement and the concept of social justice that it is rooted in. Your refusal to admit it existence is not proof that no one can define it. If you want an example of how it works just examine the reaction to the Hobby Lobby and Citizens United decisions that resort to lies in order to maintain the illusion of having the moral high ground in the debate.

The distinction above was between progressive (the adjective) and Progressive (the noun). LN meant the former, and my concern was its conflation with the latter. The latter isn't involved.

I'm familiar with the CU decision, not with Hobby Lobby. If you have a point that's actually related to anything, just articulate it and quit the self-important lecture play.

I provided links to people that call themselves Progressive the noun. I fail to see what point you are trying to make in the distinction, especially since your contention is that no one can define them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are no "Progressives" today. I thought I just said that. It's nothing but a hack demagogue term.

You'll have to 'splain what you mean by "Newtonian" versus "Darwinian".

No one is Progressive?

How do you explain these?

Join The Progressive Community In Texas! | Progress Texas - The Voice of the New Majority

Join the Progressive Party | Letters | Chicago

Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC)

Are all of these sites, and many more, part of a right wing conspiracy to smear people? Is it remotely possible that you are wrong?

Nobody claimed it isn't a word. Try to keep up.

You tired to claim that "There are no "Progressives" today. I thought I just said that. It's nothing but a hack demagogue term.", yet they clearly do. You were wrong.

End of discussion unless you try to argue you didn't say what I quoted.