Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
(I'm taking it you meant a triumph over the evil of slavery, not a triumph of the evil of slavery)
No, I meant what I said, and bemoan the fact of it.
My only intent was to point out that the Founders (as a whole) genuinely wished to end slavery, but perceived their attempt to found a nation would fail if they conditioned it upon emancipation.
Back to what I said before, continued slavery was therefore not a deal breaker. They saw it as an acceptable (if unpallatable) concession. A poor foundation on which to build a nation.
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
As Thomas Covenant would say "You cannot achieve good things by evil means".
Am I the only person who found those books to weird to get into them?:blink:
Maybe I shouldn't have started with the 3rd one in the series.
Just answer me this?
What bloody age does it play in???
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
Oh and for the sake of form - Bookworld :angry:
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
As Thomas Covenant would say "You cannot achieve good things by evil means".
Am I the only person who found those books to weird to get into them?:blink:
Maybe I shouldn't have started with the 3rd one in the series.
Just answer me this?
What bloody age does it play in???
I myself bypassed Thomas Covenant for reasons of convenience-I simply had other things I wished to read.
In retrospect, I guess I am glad; if I didn't like them, I'd had read them anyway, 'cuz I'd be too stubborn not to.
Knowing JP, he's probably looking down his nose at us right now (peering over the top of something Donaldson wrote). ;)
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
No, I meant what I said, and bemoan the fact of it.
My only intent was to point out that the Founders (as a whole) genuinely wished to end slavery, but perceived their attempt to found a nation would fail if they conditioned it upon emancipation.
Back to what I said before, continued slavery was therefore not a deal breaker. They saw it as an acceptable (if unpallatable) concession. A poor foundation on which to build a nation.
I don't accept that characterization, sorry.
I think I'll chalk up this as an ideological difference.
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky1
Am I the only person who found those books to weird to get into them?:blink:
Maybe I shouldn't have started with the 3rd one in the series.
Just answer me this?
What bloody age does it play in???
I myself bypassed Thomas Covenant for reasons of convenience-I simply had other things I wished to read.
In retrospect, I guess I am glad; if I didn't like them, I'd had read them anyway, 'cuz I'd be too stubborn not to.
Knowing JP, he's probably looking down his nose at us right now (peering over the top of
something Donaldson wrote). ;)
I'm currently reading the third chronicles, as it happens. The chap waited quite some time to write them. Which was a bit shell fish.
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Back to what I said before, continued slavery was therefore not a deal breaker. They saw it as an acceptable (if unpallatable) concession. A poor foundation on which to build a nation.
I don't accept that characterization, sorry.
I think I'll chalk this up as an ideological difference.
You don't accept it because you know it's true. However I'm more than happy to use the same chalk.
I've fixed your last sentence btw. No charge.
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I don't accept that characterization, sorry.
I think I'll chalk this up as an ideological difference.
You don't accept it because you know it's true. However I'm more than happy to use the same chalk.
I've fixed your last sentence btw. No charge.
Ah, thanks.
I must have been channelling WC again in the moments before I replied...
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
You don't accept it because you know it's true. However I'm more than happy to use the same chalk.
I've fixed your last sentence btw. No charge.
Ah, thanks.
I must have been channelling WC again in the moments before I replied...
Tell him to feck off, the old Tory cunt.
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Ah, thanks.
I must have been channelling WC again in the moments before I replied...
Tell him to feck off, the old Tory cunt.
Oh, we argue all the time.
He's a grand fellow, though.
You'd like him.
Re: U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational
You had to start sounding all bookish:dry:
So don't blame me for continuing along the same lines.
:angry:
Besides, I honestly don't quite understand what age the story plays in:( He's a leper, which points at.. well... a while back anyway but he uses the telephone:unsure:
And no one ever reads Bookworld:(
