If we are going to quote Coolidge then lets quote the entire paragraph:

"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter."


 So when you ask for an argument against this, what are you asking for exactly?  Are we debating if he said this?  Are we arguing whether the Founding Fathers used a deity assessment method over a different one?

 I for one don't see any debate, Coolidge presented this material and you posted part of it.  That's it.

Which Coolidge are you referring to?  Like to get the whole text.

If that's what you're getting out of it,
That says a lot.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 07/04/18 at 19:50:10:



it's that first one "inalienable rights" that causes most of the issues, and that's because of the last one, the consent of the governed.

we, as the governed, have let the government do a lot to regulate our "inalienable" rights.  And this if from both sides....  Freedom of speech - regulated, 2nd amendment - regulated, rights related to search and seizure - regulated, rights of due process "only if you're a citizen???" = regulated among other regulations on that,  the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State - highly suspect in any reality,  forbids the imposition of excessive bails or fines - you've got to be kidding me....,   heck, here's a big one: The Ninth Amendment declares that there are additional fundamental rights that exist outside the Constitution., so who are YOU to say what's a right???,   and the 10th amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" - unless of course, well the 14th amendment, - All citizens are created equal regardless of what state they are in.  

so your real problem is with "the governed" as we consent to a lot of things you or me may not like . and the powers of the individual are really minimized these days, since corporations are now people...

Trippah wrote on 07/05/18 at 06:26:48:


Here's one from today. We should probably stop b!tching so much.....

https://www.humanprogress.org/article.php?p=419

There is NOT an equal playing ground.

Are you suggesting an alternative? For example, if a person buys a car they perceive to be a lemon, can they shut the entire Ford Motor Company down? Is that what you want?

If you are unhappy with the performance of your Suzuki Savage and demand a refund that Suzuki would certainly refuse, what would you suggest?