Thomas Jefferson
- Thread starter GlennQuagmire
- Start date
You can repeat that until you're blue in the face and you will still be wrong.
First of all you're wrong about the date of first use of the term, it was used at least as early as 1915 with reference to the Armenian genocide, but it was used as a short form for a concept which had long been expressed, such as a hundred years prior in the extract from the British Parliament that I quoted to you earlier in the thread. The notion that a government could commit acts against its own people that were so odious, so offensive, so reprehensible, as to be universally criminal was not new in 1945, not new in 1915, not new in 1776, and not even new in 1046 BC.
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.160/current_category.7/affirmation_detail.html
If you look up the definition given for "crime against humanity" and go back and look at that British Parliamentary debate you will see that it's the same concept.
Well, you WOULD see, except that you've stubbornly closed your mind.
Even if I were to take your wrong claim at face value, that the term was created post 1944, you'd have to answer for how it is that a post 1944 term could have been used to prosecute pre 1944 crimes. The only viable answer, of course, is that everyone perceives that those actions were crimes, and perceived that they were criminal long before anyone coined the phrase "crime against humanity".
The phrase serves today as a useful short hand for a concept that people have understood for hundreds of years.
What! When you get a raise, do you move to a cheaper house? But I can show you a Con at 24 Sussex who cut taxes and increased spending in bad times. Fool enough to promise he'd never ever run a deficit too.
And GeorgeII left how big a deficit while he did the same?
Faced with a choice of picking cotton on threat of death or killing and dying attacking Stalingrad in WWII on threat of death, which would you choose?
Seems rather simplistic
As the wealthy invest and get richer and richer and richer ( and gain more political power ) should not the government intervene ?
What were his thoughts on unions ?
Was Jefferson an economist ?
To say nothing of defending the territory, maintaining peace and order, regulating weights, measures and contracts (incl. copyright as the FFs wanted) never mind bulding roads that we used to have private entrepreneurs build, or schools ditto, and on and on and on. Traditionally establishing a religion, as the TeaBaggers seem up for is also on that list.
As always the issue is coming up w/ the list of what you don't want government to do—the game the Cons keep ducking out of—if you think it's 'too big' and should be smaller.
The OP we note has no such opinion as long as all the many things a bloated government does are legally mandated under constitutionally passed legislation.
As always the issue is coming up w/ the list of what you don't want government to do—the game the Cons keep ducking out of—if you think it's 'too big' and should be smaller.
The OP we note has no such opinion as long as all the many things a bloated government does are legally mandated under constitutionally passed legislation.
Last edited:
bottie & this lemming prefer to let the FAUX Free Market do all that!
After all it worked sooooo great while Dubya was in the White House!....
After all it worked sooooo great while Dubya was in the White House!....
Are you joking? The government needs to intervene when capitalists make profits?
Definitely a crime against humanity, definitely not a crime against federal, state, or local laws (at the time). Except for the states that outlawed slavery.
Joking or not, whether government should let itself fall under the control of any new group, or preserve the powers of the clique that established it, as the post-rebellion US Constitution did, is a large and important concern for all.
Jefferson for one argued that a new clique, feeling itself oppressed may rightfully overthrow and in turn oppress/enslave/quarter troops upon/seize property w/o lawful means of those weaker than they and etc.. As long as they pause to gin up a pretence of legality to replace the laws and constitution they're overthrowing of course. See: "When in the course of…, and "We the people …
However, like freedom's advocate defending slavery, this is not germane to the tautologous truism you started the thread with. But then, I wonder what is.
WTF!!!!!
It's like JAJA never left.....It's like Déjà Vu, all over again!....
Hit a nerve.
The clique that started it are all dead. What clique is being protected by the Constitution now? The american people clique?
You would have made a 'good Nazi'!
You think just like them!....
Being Jewish might have prevented me from being a "good Nazi". I know I shouldn't feed trolls, but I have a sickness. Nazi's believed what they were doing was legal and moral. Slavery was of course legal back then, and I believe morally reprehensible. I know you still don't get it. Everyone else on this board understands this simple concept, as you are the only one still beating this dead horse.
