If our Constitution made liberalism, in effect, illegal what should we do with them?.

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?

 

[JGalt]

Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.

The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.

 

[Pogo]

Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.

The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.

Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution. And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written expression of Liberalism.


/thread

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?

Deport them to North Korea where they are already doing everything that they want

 

[JGalt]

Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.

The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.

Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution. And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written expression of Liberalism.


/thread

/Not thread

Modern-day liberalism has little to do with the Colonial definition of "liberalism". The description “liberal” was used in colonial America as the political description for those seeking to change government to a more limited role (Lockean). In today’s context they would more likely be called “libertarian” not progressive. Even so, libertarianism is closely aligned with conservatism, as they both seek a limited government with constrained powers, the rights of the individual over the power of the state, and lower taxes.

Modern-day liberalism embraces none of those values, and more resembles socialism than anything else. Modern-day liberalism believes in higher taxes, more dependence of government, and the willingness to forfeit certain personal liberties in exchange for the "security" big government affords them.

Worse than that, modern-day liberalism seeks to impose what is "best" for everyone, by using the force and power of the government. We've seen this time and time again: No soda drinks over 16 ounces, no straws, restrictive gun laws, burdensome regulations on business and industry, restrictive consumer laws, and on, and on, and on.

 

[Freiheit]

Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.

The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.

Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism. Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.

 

[Pogo]

Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.

The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.

Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution. And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written expression of Liberalism.


/thread

/Not thread

Modern-day liberalism has little to do with the Colonial definition of "liberalism". The description “liberal” was used in colonial America as the political description for those seeking to change government to a more limited role (Lockean). In today’s context they would more likely be called “libertarian” not progressive. Even so, libertarianism is closely aligned with conservatism, as they both seek a limited government with constrained powers, the rights of the individual over the power of the state, and lower taxes.

Modern-day liberalism embraces none of those values, and more resembles socialism than anything else. Modern-day liberalism believes in higher taxes, more dependence of government, and the willingness to forfeit certain personal liberties in exchange for the "security" big government affords them.

Worse than that, modern-day liberalism seeks to impose what is "best" for everyone, by using the force and power of the government. We've seen this time and time again: No soda drinks over 16 ounces, no straws, restrictive gun laws, burdensome regulations on business and industry, restrictive consumer laws, and on, and on, and on.

Still /thread.

You can't just arbitrarily decide you want to start calling a term to mean its own opposite. Language doesn't work that way. Liberalism is Liberalism is Liberalism, period. It means the government takes a minimal role in the public's affairs and that it operates with the consent of the governed. That IS what it means, period. The fact that you, or Special Ed (good intellectual company there) choose to remain ignorant about that meaning is in no way the fault of the term. The fault is yours.

Oh and speaking of misused terms, nobody brought up "Progressive", which was a socio-political movement of a hundred years ago.

So just to reiterate:

/thread

 

[Freiheit]

Were exactly is Liberalism declared illegal in the constitution? Chapter and verse.

 

[Pogo]

Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.

The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.

Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism. Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.

The post about "classic Liberalism" is classic revisionism. The conservatives at the time the Constitution was writ were the Loylalists who wanted to remain England's colony and believed in government hierarchy/meritocracy. The conservatives were King George's people. Now he wants to open the history books and change everybody's clothes because his own people were on the wrong side.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism. Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.

Our founders were classical liberals ie for freedom from big liberal govt just like modern conservatives/libertarians. Make sense now?

 

[Pogo]

Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism. Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.

Our founders were classical liberals ie for freedom from big liberal govt just like modern conservatives/libertarians. Make sense now?

Once AGAIN that's patently impossible since they fought for freedom from a royalist government, the very opposite of Liberalism.

Once again Special Ed is hoist with his own retard.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.

The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.

Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism. Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.

The post about "classic Liberalism" is classic revisionism. The conservatives at the time the Constitution was writ were the Loylalists who wanted to remain England's colony and believed in government hierarchy/meritocracy. The conservatives were King George's people. Now he wants to open the history books and change everybody's clothes because his own people were on the wrong side.

Using today's definitions Founders were conservative/libertarian ie for very limited govt while using today's definitions liberals are statist monarchists/socialists. Todays liberals hate our founding liberals since the founding liberals were for freedom from govt!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Once AGAIN that's patently impossible since they fought for freedom from a royalist government, the very opposite of Liberalism.
.

yes founding liberals( conservatives using todays definition) fought for freedom from big govt as todays conservatives/libertarians do. 1+1=2

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.

The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.

Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism. Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.

The post about "classic Liberalism" is classic revisionism. The conservatives at the time the Constitution was writ were the Loylalists who wanted to remain England's colony and believed in government hierarchy/meritocracy. The conservatives were King George's people. Now he wants to open the history books and change everybody's clothes because his own people were on the wrong side.

this is a liberal who cant imagine that definitions of words change over time.
he's apparently liberal today because he is against royalist govt today!!LOL!!!

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN that's patently impossible since they fought for freedom from a royalist government, the very opposite of Liberalism.
.

yes founding liberals( conservatives using todays definition) fought for freedom from big govt as todays conservatives/libertarians do. 1+1=2

Yuh huh. Why don't you regale the class once again with your charming stories about how Thomas Jefferson founded the Republican Party twenty-eight years after his own death.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Once AGAIN that's patently impossible since they fought for freedom from a royalist government, the very opposite of Liberalism.
.

yes founding liberals( conservatives using todays definition) fought for freedom from big govt as todays conservatives/libertarians do. 1+1=2

Yuh huh. Why don't you regale the class once again with your charming stories about how Thomas Jefferson founded the Republican Party twenty-eight years after his own death.

Jefferson and Madison founded Republican Party in 1793 to stand for freedom from govt. And? liberal trying to change subject after he lost yet another debate?

 

[Votto]

Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.

The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.

Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution. And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written expression of Liberalism.


/thread

/Not thread

Modern-day liberalism has little to do with the Colonial definition of "liberalism". The description “liberal” was used in colonial America as the political description for those seeking to change government to a more limited role (Lockean). In today’s context they would more likely be called “libertarian” not progressive. Even so, libertarianism is closely aligned with conservatism, as they both seek a limited government with constrained powers, the rights of the individual over the power of the state, and lower taxes.

Modern-day liberalism embraces none of those values, and more resembles socialism than anything else. Modern-day liberalism believes in higher taxes, more dependence of government, and the willingness to forfeit certain personal liberties in exchange for the "security" big government affords them.

Worse than that, modern-day liberalism seeks to impose what is "best" for everyone, by using the force and power of the government. We've seen this time and time again: No soda drinks over 16 ounces, no straws, restrictive gun laws, burdensome regulations on business and industry, restrictive consumer laws, and on, and on, and on.

Still /thread.

You can't just arbitrarily decide you want to start calling a term to mean its own opposite. Language doesn't work that way. Liberalism is Liberalism is Liberalism, period. It means the government takes a minimal role in the public's affairs and that it operates with the consent of the governed. That IS what it means, period. The fact that you, or Special Ed (good intellectual company there) choose to remain ignorant about that meaning is in no way the fault of the term. The fault is yours.

Oh and speaking of misused terms, nobody brought up "Progressive", which was a socio-political movement of a hundred years ago.

So just to reiterate:

/thread

Instead of this pissing contest of "my side is the side of the Founders and my opponents side is that of tyranny", why not just post what the Founding fathers actually said and compare them to our political ideology today?

Left wingers use the General Welfare clause to justify the nanny state. Problem is, the person that wrote the General Welfare clause commented on what he wrote in the Constitution, showing us once and for all that it was never designed to usher in the nanny state and socialism.

The Republic has been subverted by them.

James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

James Madison Quote
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

James Madison
~ James Madison
(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties. February 7, 1792, referring to a bill to subsidize cod fisherman
http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm

 

[Pogo]

Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.

The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.

Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution. And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written expression of Liberalism.


/thread

/Not thread

Modern-day liberalism has little to do with the Colonial definition of "liberalism". The description “liberal” was used in colonial America as the political description for those seeking to change government to a more limited role (Lockean). In today’s context they would more likely be called “libertarian” not progressive. Even so, libertarianism is closely aligned with conservatism, as they both seek a limited government with constrained powers, the rights of the individual over the power of the state, and lower taxes.

Modern-day liberalism embraces none of those values, and more resembles socialism than anything else. Modern-day liberalism believes in higher taxes, more dependence of government, and the willingness to forfeit certain personal liberties in exchange for the "security" big government affords them.

Worse than that, modern-day liberalism seeks to impose what is "best" for everyone, by using the force and power of the government. We've seen this time and time again: No soda drinks over 16 ounces, no straws, restrictive gun laws, burdensome regulations on business and industry, restrictive consumer laws, and on, and on, and on.

Still /thread.

You can't just arbitrarily decide you want to start calling a term to mean its own opposite. Language doesn't work that way. Liberalism is Liberalism is Liberalism, period. It means the government takes a minimal role in the public's affairs and that it operates with the consent of the governed. That IS what it means, period. The fact that you, or Special Ed (good intellectual company there) choose to remain ignorant about that meaning is in no way the fault of the term. The fault is yours.

Oh and speaking of misused terms, nobody brought up "Progressive", which was a socio-political movement of a hundred years ago.

So just to reiterate:

/thread

Instead of this pissing contest of "my side is the side of the Founders and my opponents side is that of tyranny", why not just post what the Founding fathers actually said and compare them to our political ideology today?

Left wingers use the General Welfare clause to justify the nanny state. Problem is, the person that wrote the General Welfare clause commented on what he wrote, showing us that it was never designed to usher in the nanny state and socialism.

James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

James Madison Quote
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

James Madison
~ James Madison
(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties. February 7, 1792, referring to a bill to subsidize cod fisherman
http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm

This thread title doesn't mention "left wingers". It mentions Liberalism. Those are two different things.

You know that --- right?

 

[Votto]

Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.

The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.

Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution. And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written expression of Liberalism.


/thread

/Not thread

Modern-day liberalism has little to do with the Colonial definition of "liberalism". The description “liberal” was used in colonial America as the political description for those seeking to change government to a more limited role (Lockean). In today’s context they would more likely be called “libertarian” not progressive. Even so, libertarianism is closely aligned with conservatism, as they both seek a limited government with constrained powers, the rights of the individual over the power of the state, and lower taxes.

Modern-day liberalism embraces none of those values, and more resembles socialism than anything else. Modern-day liberalism believes in higher taxes, more dependence of government, and the willingness to forfeit certain personal liberties in exchange for the "security" big government affords them.

Worse than that, modern-day liberalism seeks to impose what is "best" for everyone, by using the force and power of the government. We've seen this time and time again: No soda drinks over 16 ounces, no straws, restrictive gun laws, burdensome regulations on business and industry, restrictive consumer laws, and on, and on, and on.

Still /thread.

You can't just arbitrarily decide you want to start calling a term to mean its own opposite. Language doesn't work that way. Liberalism is Liberalism is Liberalism, period. It means the government takes a minimal role in the public's affairs and that it operates with the consent of the governed. That IS what it means, period. The fact that you, or Special Ed (good intellectual company there) choose to remain ignorant about that meaning is in no way the fault of the term. The fault is yours.

Oh and speaking of misused terms, nobody brought up "Progressive", which was a socio-political movement of a hundred years ago.

So just to reiterate:

/thread

Instead of this pissing contest of "my side is the side of the Founders and my opponents side is that of tyranny", why not just post what the Founding fathers actually said and compare them to our political ideology today?

Left wingers use the General Welfare clause to justify the nanny state. Problem is, the person that wrote the General Welfare clause commented on what he wrote, showing us that it was never designed to usher in the nanny state and socialism.

James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

James Madison Quote
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

James Madison
~ James Madison
(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties. February 7, 1792, referring to a bill to subsidize cod fisherman
http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm

This thread title doesn't mention "left wingers". It mentions Liberalism. Those are two different things.

You know that --- right?

I should have used the term Modern liberal.

I don't think it really matters what names are used, so why do you?

What IS important though is identifying the ideologies and matching them appropriately with what we have today.

Using this criteria, the Founding Fathers appear ultra conservative.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?

Can you define, liberalism?