Don't forget the liberals created the USA

[Publius1787]

But none of them were collectivists.

When collectivists decided to hide their intentions, they coopted the term liberal and perverted it to it's current modern parlance.

EXACTLY right. I got a neg. rep and message from that moron JBeukema telling me to read Locke -as if that somehow proves Locke shared ANYTHING in common with modern liberals who are actually COLLECTIVISTS!

Sorry JBeukema that you are such an ignorant MORON but Locke was NOT a modern liberal, he was NOT a collectivist, he did NOT believe in the nanny state -and for any collectivist to think he can co-opt people like Locke, Montesquieu and Blackwood who were individualists and pretend they were all actually budding little Marxists is the continuation of the big deception of the left that started when they co-opted the word "liberal" in the first place trying to avoid being identified for what they really are -collectivists.

And because JBeukema feels free to slam people with neg reps while STILL being the liberal COWARD he is, proving he is totally incapable of actually defending himself in debate either publicly or personally, taking advantage of those who allow open access to leave personal comments, messages and rep but blocks it for himself -he is now on my ignore list. Go fuck yourself you stupid asshole. If you can't tell the difference between what Locke REALLY believed and what the collectivists calling themselves "liberals" actually believe -then go back to school because your ignorance surely poses a danger to yourself. Try a real school instead of that indoctrination center called "public school" you have proved you never even graduated from yet.

I will not allow gutless cowards like JBeukema to do a hit-and-run on me any more.

Read Locke. Then read Jefferson and the rest.

Not my fault you're retarded.

Cicero, Locke, Jefferson, and Madison are always welcome references in a debate such as this. They are the nails in the coffin that is this thread.

 

[logical4u]

Really?
When have you ever seen the tea party protesters tear up and destroy public property. They clean up the areas where they have protested.
It is the left who destroy public property and leave trash everywhere. And are the ones getting arrested for being violent.

Yes really.

What does the Tea Party have to do the definiation of liberals and/or liberalism?

You simply cannot take the actions of a few disgruntled (anarchists ) and blame every liberal for their indvidual act of vandelism or crime.

The definition you posted is propaganda.

BWAHAHAHAA!

You liberals are SUCH PREPOSTEROUS HYPOCRITES.

Lying libs signs a bunch of Lyndon LaRouche kooks carried and blamed it on the Tea Party!

Libs claimed the Tea Party hurled racial epitaphs at Black Congressmen, EVEN THOUGH NO VIDEO EVIDENCE HAS EVER SURFACED.

But, the way leftists act at their protests or how Union thugs behave is just the actions of a "few disgruntled anarchists???????"

Oh really??????????

Dude, the pictures below ARE ONLY A FEW! Take a look at the ENTIRE ARCHIVE!!!!!!!!!

zombietime

WARNING! If you follow the link BE WARNED. Liberals are ugly as sin, some are old as dirt, AND YET THEY CAN'T SEEM TO KEEP THEIR DAMN CLOTHES ON!

There are a lot of butt ugly nudes in some of these photos. I wouldn't eat first and see some of these photos! BLERG!!!

"a few anarchists????????" ROFL!!!!!!!!!

Anti-Semitic sign at the February 16, 2003 "anti-war" rally.

Sign at the March 20, 2004 "Global Day of Action" anti-war rally.

Another message at the March 20, 2004 rally.

This man at the "Stop the U.S.-Israeli War" rally on August 12, 2006 wants the Nazi kikes to get out of Lebanon.

A patriotic message at the "U.S. Out of Iraq Now" rally on Sunday, March 18, 2007.

A Molotov cocktail explodes in front of the San Francisco Chronicle offices during the "World Can't Wait" rally on November 2, 2005.

A protester offers his opinion at the post-election rally on November 3, 2004.

Counter-protesters dressed as terrorists, at the Bus 19 anti-terror rally in Berkeley on January 16, 2005.

Uncle Sam wants you to die for Israel at the Daniel Pipes lecture in Berkeley on February 10, 2004.

Protester and message at the June 5, 2004 "anti-war" march.

Another message at the June 5 event.

Young child holding a sign accusing Jews of stealing organs from dead Palestinians, at the Bus 19 anti-terror rally in Berkeley on January 16, 2005.

So how many thousands of words is that? Thank you for a graphic demonstration of why todays "liberals" are much different from the "liberals" that were the founding fathers.

 

[logical4u]

Anyone who thinks the left in American politics is liberal is nuts. The left is populist and progressive which is far from liberalism.

To have a liberal position on a specific issue is not to be a liberal.

Modern progressives like modern populists come in all shades and sizes .. just look at the populist Tea Party.

The Tea Party Whackos have nothing in common with the Boston Tea Party Patriots. What they have in common is something to do with the turds of the Whiskey Rebellion

How can you call the tea party "whackos?"

Those patriots are the closest thing to our founding fathers ideals you can find today.

Us "whackos" know more about constitution than those ignorant welfare progressives do.

Don't tread on me....

Taxed
Enough
Aalready

The Boston Tea Party just happens to be symbolic to some extent...

Same concerns...

Wrong!!!

The Boston Tea Party Patriots fought a far away power for representation. The Whiskey rebellion fought against losing the debate and elections.

No less than George Washington told the Whiskey Rebellion tools that their comparison to the Tea Party was bogus.

Tea Party Whackos will help kell off any sanity left in the GOP.

sad but true

When half of the population does not pay income taxes, how much "representation" do you think those paying the "lion's share" actually have?

 

[Contumacious]

Thank you for a graphic demonstration of why todays "liberals" are much different from the "liberals" that were the founding fathers.

Graphic demonstration of why Zionists are much different than human beings

.

 

[logical4u]

Well fuck, they didn't need a Constitution, faith in god was sufficient.

.

The laws were written for the people that didn't want to follow the Lord.

So our laws about murder were written for those who don't kill all the unbelievers?

You are talking about Allah, not the Lord.

 

[rdean]

Don't forget (especially you Mr. Nick ) that the American revolutionists and Founding Fathers were all liberals.

Probably true. Conservatives live for the "status quo". It's what makes them "conservative".

 

[sparky]

excuse me but, a bunch of white aristocrat slave owners pen a document claiming all men are created equal, and we're suppose to paint them liberals?

 

[editec]

The WHISKEY rebellion and its REPRESSION was a perfect example of just how obviously WASHINGTON was NOT remotely a man of and FOR the people.

He suppressed the manufacture of CORN Whiskey by trans-Allegany farmers on behalf of the MOSASSES -> RUM->SLAVE-> traid on the EAST COAST.

Anybody who thinks GW was a nice guy doesn't really understand or know US history.

The corn whiskey TAXES were DESIGNED To give every advantage to RUM producers, folks.

This country has never ever EVER been set up for the PEOPLE.

It has always coddled the wealthy, given them the advantage at the expense of those without wealth.

Our revolution WAS a revolt of the WEALTHY of this continent against the WEALTHY of England.

 

[sparky]

More of us that tout FF quotes should learn of these histories Editec

 

[JBeukema]

excuse me but, a bunch of white aristocrat slave owners pen a document claiming all men are created equal, and we're suppose to paint them liberals?

Bourgeois Liberalism

Their stated ideology was that of Locke et al.

Their practical ideology was that of every class which finds itself in power.

Bourgeois liberals (see: Liberals of the Classical Doctrine) have always failed to live up to their rhetoric.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all White male landed gentry may purchase for themselves equality and certain unalienable rights- life, liberty, and the pursuit and keeping of chattel...
​

 

[daveman]

excuse me but, a bunch of white aristocrat slave owners pen a document claiming all men are created equal, and we're suppose to paint them liberals?

 

[Big Fitz]

excuse me but, a bunch of white aristocrat slave owners pen a document claiming all men are created equal, and we're suppose to paint them liberals?

Yep. Only a community college professor or more likely public school teacher would say something so fucking stupid if taken in the manner it's meant.

But, on the other hand, collectivists do live up to that assessment if you get down to the end results of everything they profess.

 

[Big Fitz]

The WHISKEY rebellion and its REPRESSION was a perfect example of just how obviously WASHINGTON was NOT remotely a man of and FOR the people.

He suppressed the manufacture of CORN Whiskey by trans-Allegany farmers on behalf of the MOSASSES -> RUM->SLAVE-> traid on the EAST COAST.

Anybody who thinks GW was a nice guy doesn't really understand or know US history.

The corn whiskey TAXES were DESIGNED To give every advantage to RUM producers, folks.

This country has never ever EVER been set up for the PEOPLE.

It has always coddled the wealthy, given them the advantage at the expense of those without wealth.

Our revolution WAS a revolt of the WEALTHY of this continent against the WEALTHY of England.

So in your mind this nation is nothing more than a bunch of rebel provinces who have just managed to keep the hand of true authority off them for the time being. A simple rise in the rebellion of the Merchant Class that started back during the time of the Middle Ages.

Are you also stating that true authority being nothing less than tyranny by a king and nobility (which most collectivists wish to return to if you view their policies results and methodology). The only difference being that THEY wish to be the new nobility and make everyone else the peasants. What good is Neo-feudalism if you're not nobility?

It would explain the root hatred for wealth (except if it's you who has it).

 

[frazzledgear]

Damn Manfold you are a pussy. Neg rep me over my response but lack the balls to retort my response in public.

So in your silly little neg rep you said the only ones claiming our Founders were more like Modern Libertarians than Modern Liberals is me and my kind. So prove me wrong. Show me how the Founding fathers shared the ideals, and policies initiatives of modern Day American Liberals. Show me how the Ideas, and Policies of our Founders were not much like the platform of the Modern US Libertarian party.

If I am so damn wrong, show me. I await with baited breath your intellectual prowlers. I can't wait for you to prove to me that our founders believed in Big Government, Nanny state, Solutions to every problem Like Modern Day Liberals do, as opposed to the get government off our backs, Personal Freedom, Limited Government Libertarian Ideals.

This ought to be fun.

If you're gonna cry like a pussy over a neg rep, at least get the comment right.

I neg'd this post...


and I said: The only idiot making that comparison is you, and your fellow blowhards

And of course that is a statment of fact, and you're still a whiny twatstick with horrible reading comprehension.

But whatcha gonna do?

So then I ask again. Are you claiming that with your title and original Post. You were not trying to claim that our Founders were just like Modern Day Liberals?

I mean Because when you said

Don't forget (especially you Mr. Nick ) that the American revolutionists and Founding Fathers were all liberals.

It sounds to me like you are trying to say they were Liberals. Just like Liberals today. When nothing could be further from the truth.

18th century liberals were in fact INDIVIDUALISTS -all you have to do is read their own writings to understand them -Locke, Montesquieu, Blackwood -ALL individualists. They argued their beliefs from their own understanding and grasp of Christian principles and their work is filtered THROUGH their understanding of the Bible -not in spite of it. It is why they rely on the constant use of direct quotations from the Bible. Fully 60% of their most well known quotes include references to Biblical verses. Christianity itself is based on the INDIVIDUAL'S relationship with God, the religion itself is INDIVIDUALIST based. Not group based as it is with both Judaism and Islam. Marx openly wrote and admitted his political views were INCOMPATIBLE with religious belief and he was actually referring to Christianity when he wrote that because it was the dominate religion of his era and his country, the religion he was actually familiar with -and he wrote therefore the state must actively discourage it and eventually eliminate it entirely.

Modern liberals believe if they are able to also co-opt and pervert the underlying and fundamental principles of Christianity, that is ok too -you know by insisting Jesus was actually a socialist who believed in government TAKING from the wealthy in order to give it to those who didn't earn it. People like Jeremiah Wright preaching a collectivist "salvation" -a theology that is gaining especially in the black community. Whatever works to diminish the real message of Christianity and is substituted with the fundamental principles of collectivism instead. Modern liberals, even while mocking, ridiculing and insulting Christianity -insist Jesus was actually a Robin Hood figure who believed the proper role of government was to forcibly take what the wealthy earned and redistribute it whether they liked it or not, whether they liked how their money was used or not, that your salvation as an individual depends on what you have done for the GROUP -and its actually atheists who understand Christianity far better and understand how the religion they reject is supposed to be practiced -FAR better than those who actually do! It is a nonstop campaign to both marginalize Christianity while deliberately bastardizing it from beginning to end.

For modern liberals to pretend they shared anything in common with these religiously devout Christians who came to realize how Christian principles also applied to political thought and their inherent, God given rights -is beyond ludicrous. It is a deliberate attempt to co-opt and bastardize the very writings of the people REJECTED by those who actually are the origins of their own political beliefs.

Modern liberals just co-opted the word "liberal" because of the admiration people had for these men and the growing influence of their political ideology they saw as direct impediments to the spread of collectivism -their own real roots of political thought. And so they made the decision to deliberately bastardize the meaning of the word entirely for their own benefit.

Modern liberals are COLLECTIVISTS and their collectivist beliefs do NOT originate with Locke, Montesquieu and Blackwood -but with Karl Marx and Frederick Engles. Marx and Engles specifically rejected the fundamental principles of 18th century liberals in their own writings. No "maybe" about it -they DID. They REJECTED all political thought and ideology that was individualist based. PERIOD. So claiming the origins of modern liberalism are actually with 18th century liberals who were individualists - instead of their real roots with 19th and 20th century communists and collectivists who specifically rejected political thought based on individualism -is just one more massive (modern) liberal LIE.

 

[Antiderivative]

However RW kooks can't accept this most pertinent fact. Instead, they think that they are the equivalence to classical liberalism.

It amazes me, but they honestly think that the modern day GOP and conservatism is the equivalent to classical liberalism.

 

[peach174]

The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution. Basically, they argue that:

* It gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments.

* There was no bill of rights.

* The national government could maintain an army in peacetime.

* Congress, because of the `necessary and proper clause,' wielded too much power.

* The executive branch held too much power. Meeting Room

Of these complaints, the lack of a bill of rights was the most effective. The American people had just fought a war to defend their rights, and they did not want a intimidating national government taking those rights away again. The lack of a bill of rights was the focus of the Anti-Federalist campaign against ratification.

The Federalists, on the other hand, had answers to all of the Anti-Federalist complaints. Among them:

* The separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another.

* A listing of rights can be a dangerous thing. If the national government were to protect specific listed rights, what would stop it from violating rights other than the listed ones? Since we can't list all the rights, the Federalists argued that it's better to list none at all.

Overall, the Federalists were more organized in their efforts. By June of 1788, the Constitution was close to ratification. Nine states had ratified it, and only one more (New Hampshire) was needed. To achieve this, the Federalists agreed that once Congress met, it would draft a bill of rights. Finally, New York and Virginia approved, and the Constitution was a reality. Interestingly, the Bill of Rights was not originally a part of the Constitution, and yet it has proved to be highly important to protecting the rights of the people.

Classical liberalism;

Liberalism (from the Latin liberals, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion.
These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

Of which Democrats are today. Social Liberalism. Big Government and total control of the people.
So which party is closest to the founding fathers?

 

[Antiderivative]

Of which Democrats are today. Social Liberalism. Big Government and total control of the people.
So which party is closest to the founding fathers?

This is your problem. You create a false dichotomy.

The person who is most aligned to anti-federalism is Ron Paul. While it is true that he is a Republican, he was overwhelmingly rejected by the GOP.

 

[JBeukema]

The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution. Basically, they argue that:

* It gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments.
...
* Congress, because of the `necessary and proper clause,' wielded too much power.
...
* The executive branch held too much power. Meeting Room

Seems they were right, eh?

So why do Cons always tell us to read the Federalist?

The Federalists, on the other hand, had answers to all of the Anti-Federalist complaints. Among them:

* The separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another.

Except that SCOTUS is put in place by POTUS with approval of Congress. Once one party got control of the House, the WH, and the Senate, all was undone.

* A listing of rights can be a dangerous thing. If the national government were to protect specific listed rights, what would stop it from violating rights other than the listed ones? Since we can't list all the rights, the Federalists argued that it's better to list none at all.

Hence the 9th. Of course, it none are ever mentioned at all, whose to say life or speech are rights?

Overall, the Federalists were more organized in their efforts. By June of 1788, the Constitution was close to ratification.

Actually, Congress and the States didn't vote on identical documents. There's an argument to be made that COTUS was never ratified.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberals, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.

-for the landed gentry only, in practice.

Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion.

There's a case to be made that free trade capitalism is incompatible with free and fair elections, liberal democracy, and human rights.

.

Of which Democrats are today. Social Liberalism

I'd compare them more to democratic socialists than anything else.

So which party is closest to the founding fathers?

Neither.