StarWizard wrote:
I have read both the Federalist Papers and it's counterpart, I wonder if you can say the same? In fact since your response has a most predictably conservative bias to it I think I will refrain from any other response until I know whether or not you have since a balanced discussion is questionable without knowing whether or not you have, with the following one exception; As with all sources of information there are always those who try to discredit those sources who are not in lockstep with their own views.. Wikipedia being one of those sources. I had my own questions about it's reliability so I took the time to research it's reliability and accuracy and that research showed it to be as credible and reliable as any other major reputable encyclopedia so unless you have a credible source to support your view of it then I cannot give credence to your opinion of it.
I have read both the Federalist Papers and it's co... (
show quote)
The problem with Wikipedia as I understand its definitions and facts can be changed by viewers. If so then that leaves it questionable as to a reliable source. I have never tried to alter anything there so I don't know. I use Wikipedia as a quick and dirty source to start out some on my searches.
I picked these links from a goole search "credibility of Wikipedia", I copied most of the first listed links and even included one that you should like. It appears to me that the jury is still out, but I see no reason for anyone not to check Wikipedia as a quick reference. By the way, when I was in high school and college we were not allowed to use encyclopedia materials as references when writing papers. Even then it appears encyclopedias lacked credibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Credibility
http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_credibility_wikipedia.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-12-13/wikipedia-a-work-in-progress
http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2006/11/23/on-evaluating-wikidedias-credibility/
Your other source's information (the co authors) was used by Wikipedia which you in turn quoted to me by. As I see it, you used the same source twice.
http://books.google.com/books?id=w81L1qAhNjoC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=federalist+papers+counterpart&source=bl&ots=wnI4ls01Ny&sig=T5hSreyDELzQT-porXG5Tf2qkTY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CzBPUf3VF5PG9gTj1YDABg&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=federalist%20papers%20counterpart&f=false
I will assume that this article contains some of the Anti-Federalists works to which you reference. You made me more aware of the differing views of the Federalist Papers. However, I knew there were others who wanted more protection for the people from the government than were included in the Constitution. I also know there were many who remained loyal to the crown and some returned to Britain, so not everyone was happy. I confess, I have not read much of the oppositions point of view. I have read most of the Federalist Papers piecemeal over the years, but I am not a expert like yourself.
"In fact since your response has a most predictably conservative bias to it I think I will refrain from any other response until I know whether or not you have since a balanced discussion is questionable without knowing whether or not you have, with the following one exception;..."
Did you mean, whether or not you have a sense of balanced discussion? Or did you mean something altogether different?
"As with all sources of information there are always those who try to discredit those sources who are not in lockstep with their own views.."
You are as guilty as am I, we all like to cherry pick our sources to fit our needs.
Now I don't pretend to be an intellectual scholar, but I've read a lot over the years and have a better working knowledge than many in this country. I believe you to be the same, we unfortunately have opposing ideologies.
For what it's worth department: Two things I tell everyone, once you become the establishment power you will fight just as hard as your perceived enemy did to maintain that power base. And, it takes first class funerals to effect significant change and or balance in politics, these facts are especially true on the local level.