Bill Maher to tea partiers: The Founding Fathers would’ve hated your guts

[daveman]

Statists don't support individual liberty. The FF did.

Which part do you dispute? Do you think Statists support individual liberty, or do you think the Founding Fathers didn't?

 

[elvis]

Statists don't support individual liberty. The FF did.

Which part do you dispute? Do you think Statists support individual liberty, or do you think the Founding Fathers didn't?

It's tough to say they did when many of them were slave owners.

 

[Cuyo]

Which part do you dispute? Do you think Statists support individual liberty, or do you think the Founding Fathers didn't?

It's tough to say they did when many of them were slave owners.

And many only wanted the ruling class involved in government... Madison in particular, horrified at the prospect of the rabble being involved.

 

[daveman]

Really grump what is it that you find so funny? I see nothing funny with Daves comment.

The fact your founding fathers supported individual liberty...they didn't,,,,

Ummm...yes, they did. You might want to read our Constitution, although a guy who lives in a monarchy might have a tough time understanding it. If you have any questions, let us know.

 

[daveman]

O....Kay....

For the sake of argument, lets say I agree that the Dems want a "Bigger government." Can you please direct me to where anyone, here or anyone else, has said they wish we had a "More oppressive government?"

A bigger government IS a more oppressive government. Less gov't = more freedom. It's a simple equation.

Wrong less govt means more freedom from govt, but corporations will take over your freedoms just like the govt would.

Yeah, thanks for that class-war non-sequitur.

 

[daveman]

Which part do you dispute? Do you think Statists support individual liberty, or do you think the Founding Fathers didn't?

It's tough to say they did when many of them were slave owners.

Indeed. Luckily, the document they wrote specified a means both for altering it when required and for creating new laws. Thanks to their efforts, slavery is no longer legal.


Funny how everyone's got their panties in a wad about the FF, but no one's batting an eye about Statists not supporting individual liberty.

 

[daveman]

Which part do you dispute? Do you think Statists support individual liberty, or do you think the Founding Fathers didn't?

It's tough to say they did when many of them were slave owners.

And many only wanted the ruling class involved in government... Madison in particular, horrified at the prospect of the rabble being involved.

Not unlike today's Democrats.

 

[Barb]

It's always funny when a living person decides to speak on behalf of individuals who, while they may have died long ago, their words, their spirit, their courage and their politics will outlive us all.

Bill can, respectfully, go fuck himself.

Yet, you haven't exactly said he's wrong.

Unlike Maher, I don't speak on behalf of anyone, living or dead. To do so, in my opinion, would be arrogant, and more than a tad stupid. I would be no better than Maher. I need not prove him wrong. He made the ridiculous claim. Anyone who takes his claim as fact is, frankly, far too stupid to understand the stupidity of his remarks. In short, he made the claim - which is unprovable - and that, to me, speaks enough of his intellect.

His supporting comments (the reasons behind his thesis) are unimpeachable. He has their own words to back him up.
I'm really not feeling any rationality behind the outrage.

 

[Barb]

Yet, you haven't exactly said he's wrong.

Unlike Maher, I don't speak on behalf of anyone, living or dead. To do so, in my opinion, would be arrogant, and more than a tad stupid. I would be no better than Maher. I need not prove him wrong. He made the ridiculous claim. Anyone who takes his claim as fact is, frankly, far too stupid to understand the stupidity of his remarks. In short, he made the claim - which is unprovable - and that, to me, speaks enough of his intellect.

Well you're correct, it's impossible to ascertain what the FF's would've thought of this 'Movement.' But as far as the accuracy of his factual claims in his little rant, I think we can agree they're more or less correct. I also think the average teaperson has a very warped view of who the founding fathers were as people - That I agree with.

P.J. O'Rourke pretty much said the same to "one" tea partier:
Glenn Beck and the Tea Party Ghost - Paul J. O'Rourke - Open Salon

 

[JakeStarkey]

Many of the Tea Party members have failings that many of the Founders possessed. Getting over those problems eventually made America a much better place. Now some of the Tea Party wants to drag America back to the bad old days. Nice to know that will never happen. Several of the Founders would have looked at the Tea Party movement and mobilized the militia to hunt down all the tea bags because they were boycotted.

 

[Cuyo]

It's tough to say they did when many of them were slave owners.

And many only wanted the ruling class involved in government... Madison in particular, horrified at the prospect of the rabble being involved.

Not unlike today's Democrats.

That's ridiculous Hank Hill. You're flailing.

 

[Barb]

Yea, cuz absolutely no one has mentioned that in the past week.

And, for the umpteenth time... Palin explained the 'don't retreat, reload' remark back during the campaign. When she first used it. 'Reload' - back the ballot box. Try and keep up. Or, alternatively, continue making yourself look like you don't know what you're talking about. Either is fine.

Why the rhetoric with Palin then. Why not just say "go to the ballot box"? Because it's not as effective and she (and many other pollies) like to ramp up the rhetoric...shrug...

As for not knowing what I'm talking about, you mean like telling people not to speak on behalf of the FF's and then doing exactly that like you just did?

Because 'Don't Retreat, Reload' makes a snappy soundbite. Do you have no idea how the media works? Snappy soundbites are required for media coverage. Grow up.

Snappy soundbites that have a double meaning load the guns without pulling the triggers, limiting liability. See how that works?

 

[Barb]

Once again, for the benefit of those who were absent on the first day of school....

Taxed
Enough
Already.

Please learn. There will be a pop quiz.

Oh, give me a break. Don't be so disingenuous. You know, I know and everybody knows why they chose the tea party moniker. The fact that it makes a little anagram that fits their political set up is nice and fluffy and all that, but please, don't try and think we're all idiots....

The TEA Parties takes its moniker from an historic event. One about taxes. Can you grasp that concept... the similarities between the original event and the current issue?

okayyyyy

Glenn Beck and the Tea Party Ghost - Paul J. O'Rourke - Open Salon

 

[daveman]

And many only wanted the ruling class involved in government... Madison in particular, horrified at the prospect of the rabble being involved.

Not unlike today's Democrats.

That's ridiculous Hank Hill. You're flailing.

Not at all. Leadership of the Democratic Party think the proles are too stupid to make their own decisions.

 

[Barb]

Oh, give me a break. Don't be so disingenuous. You know, I know and everybody knows why they chose the tea party moniker. The fact that it makes a little anagram that fits their political set up is nice and fluffy and all that, but please, don't try and think we're all idiots....

The TEA Parties takes its moniker from an historic event. One about taxes. Can you grasp that concept... the similarities between the original event and the current issue?

No. It's a ridiculous correlation. #1, in the 18th century the issue was taxation without representation. The tea people had representation, they just lost an election and threw a hissy fit. #2, their taxes haven't gone up.

So yes, they chose a patriotic name to create the facade that they were doing something patriotic. In reality, they're just pissing and stomping because they lost an election.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cuyo again.
Meanwhile, the hissy fit was directed, because it wasn't a grass roots movement at all, but an astro turf project.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ah but the national debt is an issue of taxation without representation. Your spending now taxes our children and grandchildren without their say.

Responsible citizens would cut the spending so they are spending less than what they are taking in.

 

[Barb]

She formed an educated opinion and prefaced it with "I think...", which I hope all of us could distinguish as not attempting to speak on behalf of anyone.

i wish palin's opinion about anything was educated.

Jillian I hope you will agree that the democrats have some real highly edumcated people elected to high places. Sarah is actually a diamond in the rough, new and fresh to politics. Some democrats who have been elected have no excuses for their stupidity.

Gawd. What is it with some folks that they want to elect men who they want to drink beer and grill outdoors with and women they consider to be MILFs? Different functions require different skills, people.

 

[Dr Grump]

Really grump what is it that you find so funny? I see nothing funny with Daves comment.

The fact your founding fathers supported individual liberty...they didn't,,,,

Ummm...yes, they did. You might want to read our Constitution, although a guy who lives in a monarchy might have a tough time understanding it. If you have any questions, let us know.

A quick lesson for you Dave.

You know "We the people" - the part that starts you constitution. That's where it falls over right there. When they were talking about "we the people". who exactly were they talking about?

Elvis talks about slaves as does Fitnah. I'll go one step further. When you say they were talking about individual freedom and we the people were they referring to:
1) Slaves? No
2) Women? Nope
3) Non land owners? Nada
4) Soldiers/militia? Nope

They were talking about the land-owning elite. So your constitution starts and stops at the first three words. You are of the mistaken belief that when the document was put together they were referring to all citizenry of the colonies. Clearly they weren't. Unless you believe that in order to be a full citizen of the US you shouldn't have voting rights, which means no representation at a political level. You Ok with that.

BTW, the Queen is our head of state. Please tell me what rights you have that I don't. What can you do, that I can't....take your time....

 

[Dr Grump]

Which part do you dispute? Do you think Statists support individual liberty, or do you think the Founding Fathers didn't?

It's tough to say they did when many of them were slave owners.

Indeed. Luckily, the document they wrote specified a means both for altering it when required and for creating new laws. Thanks to their efforts, slavery is no longer legal.


Funny how everyone's got their panties in a wad about the FF, but no one's batting an eye about Statists not supporting individual liberty.

1) Name a so-called statist on this board
2) Then tell me how said person does not support individual liberty
3) While you're at it, explain what you think individual liberty is.

 

[Barb]

Really grump what is it that you find so funny? I see nothing funny with Daves comment.

The fact your founding fathers supported individual liberty...they didn't,,,,

Well, you need to keep up with the current use of variations on "liberty."
Various budget departments came up with the idea of "consumer empowerment" to convey the idea of "figure it out your damned self" to cut down on the people they had to employ answering phones at the "customer service" desks.