Did the Founders want a weak central government?

[Bern80]

You simply do not understand that history does not stand still, Bern80. Technological development over the last 250 years has continually eroded human privacy, which I think you equate with "liberty." Only an apocalypse will stop that, and we all will be returned to the steam and coal oil age.

'History doesn't stand still' is a nonensical statement. I have no idea what you mean by that. Regardless, you think incorrectly. I do not equate privacy with liberty. Nor do I see how technological advancement makes us less free or why advancement in technology means we can't abide by the constitution or adhere to some of our founding principles. Can you explain that? Your positions seems to be that my position will invariably hold the country backm which is also don't get. a)What is my positino and b) what about it keeps the country from progressing?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Little Saul of the Far Right, as I thought, has no answer.

Run Little Saul, run!

I answered you it's not my fault if you are to stupid to read it.

bigrebnc has become the Little Saul of the Moronic Right.

Dude, the Constitution governs. The governance is done by legislation, amendment, and judicial review. You don't like it, Little Saul, who cares?

You truly are the saul alinisky of the moronic far right. Son, you are goofy.

Enroll in your local community college, there, Little Saul. Take a history course. Do your soul good.

You don't like it, Little Saul, who cares?

From all of your replys little communist you are the one that does not like the Constitution the way it is.





These are all human emotions with the exception of slavery you cannot legislate out of extence.

Blather blather blather, Saul Alinsky needs to teach you something other than showing that you are a communist.

In other words, Little Saul of the Far Right (see you just got a title!), you got nothing.

The founders could not envision the future; therefore, the Constitution is organic, not rigid, but to be interpreted for each era and generation; thus the argument for "originalism" is constructed on a bed of rhetorical sand that washed away long ago.

Move on, Little Saul. Better yet, take a history course.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Little Saul of the Right cannot answer the questions. The Constitution is fine the way it is, the SCOTUS is the final arbiter (and, yes, they, on occasion, get it wrong), but it is far better than war. If Americans feel strongly about an issue that is extra-congressional, then put out the Amendment process.

Little Saul of the Right, that is the way it is. You really should stop emulating far lefty tactics. You look as stupid as the lefties who follow Saul, or other far righties, like Rush, who follow his tactics.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Little Saul of the Right cannot answer the questions. The Constitution is fine the way it is, the SCOTUS is the final arbiter (and, yes, they, on occasion, get it wrong), but it is far better than war. If Americans feel strongly about an issue that is extra-congressional, then put out the Amendment process.

Little Saul of the Right, that is the way it is. You really should stop emulating far lefty tactics. You look as stupid as the lefties who follow Saul, or other far righties, like Rush, who follow his tactics.

You are not being very coherent, but I guess that’s how the communist work. Saul Alinsky wrote your playbook.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You follow Saul Alinksy, bigrebnc, and that is why you fail with people who can actually think.

Bern, that you do not understand the interplay of history, technology, and liberty since 1750 is simply not my problem.

But I have a suggestion for you and your running buddy, Little Saul of the Right: twist your philosophy to fit the facts rather than twist the facts to fit your philosophy. You will be far more accurate if you do.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You follow Saul Alinksy, bigrebnc, and that is why you fail with people who can actually think.

Bern, that you do not understand the interplay of history, technology, and liberty since 1750 is simply not my problem.

But I have a suggestion for you and your running buddy, Little Saul of the Right: twist your philosophy to fit the facts rather than twist the facts to fit your philosophy. You will be far more accurate if you do.

People whoi think? jake as most communist you don't think you reactr to commands from the high command.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Communist? You have no idea what a communist is, my Little Saul of the Right. You have no idea what a socialist is, my Little Saul of the Right. However, you do know what a racist, a sexist, and a homophobe is, because you are all of that. Little Saul of the Right is a former member of the Klan and apparently affiliates doctrinally with the American Nazi Party.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Communist? You have no idea what a communist is, my Little Saul of the Right. You have no idea what a socialist is, my Little Saul of the Right. However, you do know what a racist, a sexist, and a homophobe is, because you are all of that. Little Saul of the Right is a former member of the Klan and apparently affiliates doctrinally with the American Nazi Party.

You jake are a communist thats all I need to know. Klan? Do you have any source stating that I have been or am in the klan? If not you know the drill you lying piece of shit.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, that you do not understand the interplay of history, technology, and liberty since 1750 is simply not my problem.

Sure I do. What I don't see is how any of those concepts are in opposition to each other. I'm curious as to what you think that opposition is.

But I have a suggestion for you and your running buddy, Little Saul of the Right: twist your philosophy to fit the facts rather than twist the facts to fit your philosophy. You will be far more accurate if you do.

The problem Jake is you are attributing to me a philosophy I don't have (hell you can't even tell me what you think it is). I think you're just looking for something to fight over or be condescending about.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Communist? You have no idea what a communist is, my Little Saul of the Right. You have no idea what a socialist is, my Little Saul of the Right. However, you do know what a racist, a sexist, and a homophobe is, because you are all of that. Little Saul of the Right is a former member of the Klan and apparently affiliates doctrinally with the American Nazi Party.

You jake are a communist thats all I need to know. Klan? Do you have any source stating that I have been or am in the klan? If not you know the drill you lying piece of shit.

Do you have any source that shows I am a communist? You can't tie any of my political philosophy to anything other than mainstream American principles. You on the other hand have been a Klansman, and still a racist and sexist and homophobe.

Little Saul of the Far Right, you are pathetic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, that you do not understand the interplay of history, technology, and liberty since 1750 is simply not my problem.

Sure I do. What I don't see is how any of those concepts are in opposition to each other. I'm curious as to what you think that opposition is.

But I have a suggestion for you and your running buddy, Little Saul of the Right: twist your philosophy to fit the facts rather than twist the facts to fit your philosophy. You will be far more accurate if you do.

The problem Jake is you are attributing to me a philosophy I don't have (hell you can't even tell me what you think it is). I think you're just looking for something to fight over or be condescending about.

You are projecting again, sweetheart. Your philosophy is contradictory and silly. Hang in there, though, who knows what will happen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Communist? You have no idea what a communist is, my Little Saul of the Right. You have no idea what a socialist is, my Little Saul of the Right. However, you do know what a racist, a sexist, and a homophobe is, because you are all of that. Little Saul of the Right is a former member of the Klan and apparently affiliates doctrinally with the American Nazi Party.

You jake are a communist thats all I need to know. Klan? Do you have any source stating that I have been or am in the klan? If not you know the drill you lying piece of shit.

Do you have any source that shows I am a communist? You can't tie any of my political philosophy to anything other than mainstream American principles. You on the other hand have been a Klansman, and still a racist and sexist and homophobe.

Little Saul of the Far Right, you are pathetic.

Your words give you away.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, that you do not understand the interplay of history, technology, and liberty since 1750 is simply not my problem.

Sure I do. What I don't see is how any of those concepts are in opposition to each other. I'm curious as to what you think that opposition is.

But I have a suggestion for you and your running buddy, Little Saul of the Right: twist your philosophy to fit the facts rather than twist the facts to fit your philosophy. You will be far more accurate if you do.

The problem Jake is you are attributing to me a philosophy I don't have (hell you can't even tell me what you think it is). I think you're just looking for something to fight over or be condescending about.

You are projecting again, sweetheart. Your philosophy is contradictory and silly. Hang in there, though, who knows what will happen.

Again, what philosophy would that be?

 

[editec]

Bern80 informs us:

Nor do I see how technological advancement makes us less free or why advancement in technology means we can't abide by the constitution or adhere to some of our founding principles.

You cannot understand how changing technology erodes freedom?

Seriously?

Our 18th century flounding fathers could safely say that: The right to bear arms shall not be abridged".

That certainly made perfect sense for their society at that time.

Now imagine a world where ARMS includes bombs and ray guns.

You still want to NOT abrdige your idiot neighbors' right to own those?

Seriously?

The more powerful our techology becomes, the less freedom society can afford to grant to its citizens.

I wish that were not so, but history keeps showing us that that is INEVITABLE.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80 informs us:

Nor do I see how technological advancement makes us less free or why advancement in technology means we can't abide by the constitution or adhere to some of our founding principles.

You cannot understand how changing technology erodes freedom?

Seriously?

Our 18th century flounding fathers could safely say that: The right to bear arms shall not be abridged".

That certainly made perfect sense for their society at that time.

Now imagine a world where ARMS includes bombs and ray guns.

You still want to NOT abrdige your idiot neighbors' right to own those?

Seriously?

The more powerful our techology becomes, the less freedom society can afford to grant to its citizens.

I wish that were not so, but history keeps showing us that that is INEVITABLE.

Except tha isn't technology eroding freedom, editec. That's government eroding freedom because they have decided you lack the responsibility to keep people safe from said arms.

And bringing up the 2nd ammendment really is a poor example. First it rests on the premise that the framers really did intend for any type of exploding device at the time (cannons, mortars, muskets, etc.) to be included in the terms 'arms'. Well did they?

Secondly, let's assume they did and we are required to allow people to own bombs. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. It isn't practical or realistic that one would own a bomb for self defense. And if used irresponsibly or malicously you prosecute the person, just as you would if someone did the same with a legal firearm.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern80, you tend to get it backwards. Society would be irresponsible to let you have a death ray, a bomb, a frigate out on the lake. You have no moral expection to possess such things.

 

[Bern80]

You have no moral expection to possess such things.

Why dont you try that sentence again so I at least understand what the hell it is you're trying to say before I reply.

p.s still waiting for you to tell me what my wrong philosophy is

 

[JakeStarkey]

You clearly understood what I wrote; you just don't like it. Tuff.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bern80 informs us:

Nor do I see how technological advancement makes us less free or why advancement in technology means we can't abide by the constitution or adhere to some of our founding principles.

You cannot understand how changing technology erodes freedom?

Seriously?

Our 18th century flounding fathers could safely say that: The right to bear arms shall not be abridged".

That certainly made perfect sense for their society at that time.

Now imagine a world where ARMS includes bombs and ray guns.

You still want to NOT abrdige your idiot neighbors' right to own those?

Seriously?

The more powerful our techology becomes, the less freedom society can afford to grant to its citizens.

I wish that were not so, but history keeps showing us that that is INEVITABLE.

Our 18th century flounding fathers could safely say that: The right to bear arms shall not be abridged".

I have guns all I can say to whom ever you want them come and take them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stop that crap, Little Saul of the Far Right. Misuse your firearms, and, yes, "they" will come for them.

Little Saul, you are anything but tough. Every time you get whacked here, you squeal like a little girl.