Yeah, probably. I think Jefferson probably had the most experience trying to get people to do something that would be good for them in the long run (abolition in Virginia) and failing to do so because of human stubborness.

One can only wonder how different the country would have been had Jefferson and the other Abolitionists been able to actually abolish Slavery before it lead to a Civil War.

Or if instead of being a bunch of tyrants the abolitionists in the North had contented themselves to continue to show that slavery was not a viable economic model by outproducing the South, and collecting more wealth...

:: shrugs ::

and if your aunt had a dick she'd be your uncle... which pretty much expresses the pointlessness of trying to ask "what if..."

Not that it still isn't entertaining.

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis

Thats the problem now.... its one belief or the other.., what ever happened to the
large tent style that Ronald Regan (sp) envisioned.. when did the our way or..... come to be........ Oh yeah... Bush, Rove and the rights leader Limbaugh era..
its a shame actually... for a country that claims to be built on diversity it isn't diverse at all............ at least from the rights point of view.... Long live Rushs' beliefs......
you can bet the terrorists hope that anyway................

BS. Have you been to the post office or the DMV lately? Get out at all? It's more diverse than it's ever been. The Bush administration had more "diversity" in its makeup than either the Obama OR Clinton administrations. Of course they never will get any credit for that, as they were all just "tokens". Forget the fact that a black man is the friggin' PRESIDENT!!(if that's what you want to use as a barometer) In addition, this country has, and should always, be "built" by people that want to contribute and assimilate, not just take advantage of it and talk shit about it. For instance, I see NO REASON why the national language shouldn't be English. There will always be a cultural divide when the citizens don't even speak all the same language. America has people from EVERY country coming here. It's assinine to think that we should have to be the ones to learn theirs, if they're coming here.

I am sorry to hear about your relative that lost his property to "eminent domain". I think that the recent interpretation by the Supreme Court a few years back was a MAJOR fuck up as well.

__________________
“Under my plan of a Cap and Trade system, electricity rates would NECESSARILY SKYROCKET.” -BARACK OBAMA

I'm not talking diversity of color..(you sound like Strom Thurman KKK).. but beliefs and acceptance of said differences..
and I live in a place where my language(english) is 18% .. I live where english/french is a rampant event... I'm talking those beliefs you guys puke over..gays...abortion..and "I don't have to be religious shit"...You've gone so far to the right that you'd eat your own young for not towing Rushs beliefs...
As I posted at another site... when your (and I'm not pro or con per se) anti abortionists talk some POOR mother out of termination of baby where are you guys with support for said baby after your photo op is done... name ONE example where you stopped an abortion and helped the mother when/if she couldn't afford the baby...you guy s would rather throw your arms out patting yourselves on your backs while that poor mothers baby starves because she can't afford it... you claim to be the party of family beliefs... how about supporting a baby YOU forced to be born...... Amercian Taliban is the Republican party..... we must dictate morals and female actions...... and if you're not religious you're an infidel.......... alla acbar.....

The founders had it damn close to perfect. But you keep hearing from statists about the need for more equality. Equal outcomes, equal benifits, equal, equal, equal. We should be worried about freedom. Freedom is the only equality there is. The problem is every political group save Libritarians wants to treat you as property, not a free person.

You are there to provide them with money so they can redistribute it to there pet group. Punish the unworthy to benift the worthy. Its the same old mantra that Stalin would be very used to. Take all the rich farmers land and colletivize it so all can benift equally from it. There really is only two political systems: statism, big government, redistributionism And Libritarianism, Thats it.

Now you want to have socialization fine go ahead start a health system of your own where you pay in 12.5% of your income into a collective pool. Just don't make me, through force, have to participate. Let me choose for myself. All you want is to take wealth so you can have what you think you deserve. If that is you, you are a thug. The problem with statists is they always run out of other peoples money to waste on their pet projects.

If you think governments are instituted to legaly take from one group to give to another group your a thug. If you think the government is there to protect your buisness from competition your a thug. If you think government exists to protect your freedom your right.

Now some will say I'm love money more then my fellow man. No, I love freedom yours and mine. Some will say I want big buisness to run everything. No I want the market to run buisness not government. I think personaly their may be something wrong with a man who wants more then he can use. But that is not my call to make. Every person should strive for the life he wants and should be allowed to.

AMEN!!

Excellent response, and I wholeheartedly agree. Huge props for a great response! +rep

__________________
“Under my plan of a Cap and Trade system, electricity rates would NECESSARILY SKYROCKET.” -BARACK OBAMA

Now some will say I'm love money more then my fellow man. No, I love freedom yours and mine. Some will say I want big buisness to run everything. No I want the market to run buisness not government. I think personaly their may be something wrong with a man who wants more then he can use. But that is not my call to make. Every person should strive for the life he wants and should be allowed to.

What would Jesus want. That may be a good starting place for humanity. If people acted like Jesus wanted, I'm pretty sure there would be prosperity for all. What if people treated others as they would like to be treated. That may make people get along much better. I understand these things are far from happening, but if you want to look at an Ideal society, then the above ways would certainly bring this to fruition. The sole enemy of the above is the: I/Ego/Id which runs rampant in the current societies on planet earth.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

True words MM.... there is no us(plural, not partisan) anymore..... and any society/group will be judged on its weakest people..........

Now that is an excellent Question Med.

Just what would Jesus Want?

First off, let's take a look at the kind of behaviors exhibited by Jesus. Jesus was never one that used force, except when it came to dealing with those that were defiling the temple (Money Changers and Traders that were actually conducting business inside the temple.)

He wasn't angry at them because they were operating businesses. He was angry at them because they were doing it inside the Temple. Of course, imo, he probably should have used force against the people that were permitting them to conduct their business at the temple, but that's unrelated to this post.

Then there's the fact that when he went around performing miracles he didn't ask for anything in return. He did not demand that people sell their soul to him, or surrender their belongings to him.

Not once do you see him mentioning anything along the lines of Dialectic Materialism. The most he says is that it will be more difficult for a rich man to get into heaven than to draw (was it all his wealth) through the eye of a needle.

Not once did he state that he was going to force people to strive to reach Heaven. He didn't once state that you weren't human if you weren't striving to reach heaven.

When one of his followers used force against some one that didn't believe in reaching heaven he reproached his follower and healed the non-believer.

Nothing inside of Jesus' actions can be used to justify using coercion, force, fraud, and any other method to force people to support you, your beliefs of your ideology.

More importantly is the fact that Jesus' actions were voluntary. No one else was forcing him to do these things. There was no earthly power that was compelling him against his will. So, an additional conclusion that can be reached is that when any government, faith or person attempts to coerce others into being "charitable." they are acting in a way that is Anti-Christ, or in a way that Christ would not condone.

In essence, while it is admirable to desire that humanity some how magically reach the point where we're all a bunch of saints that don't sin, it is not admirable to use force or fraud to try reaching that goal.

The ends do not justify the means. Corrupt Means Defile the ends they are used to achieve.

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis

^ great post there Truth

__________________
"The Cruelest Trick Came From The Talibans, Who Allowed Plenty Of Drugs And Then Banned Music."
"Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning"- G.W.B.