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

[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.

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?

Yeah doooooon't think so Sprinkles. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 in a schoolhouse in Ripon Wisconsin, long after Jefferson and Madison had run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. That's a historical, recorded FACT and there's nothing your relentless revisionist fiction can do about that.

 

[Freiheit]

That people can govern themselves is perhaps the most radical, liberal political theory ever.

 

[Votto]

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?

The classical meaning means the opposite of authoritarianism.

However, people use the term to describe those today who advocate for a centralized collectivist state. As such, they are inherently authoritarian because they need to control everyone around them via their power

Conversely, the Founding Fathers established Federalism, where the states ran their own affairs as the Federal government played the role of referee.

Today, Federalism has been turned upside down.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Again --- "Liberal" is Liberal. It's not dependent on era. All "modern Liberal" tells us is that the person in question is currently alive. As opposed to being a Jefferson/Madison zombie crawling out of the crypt to found a political party decades after they're already dead.

Which is off the point anyway, that being that you just conflated "Liberals" with "left wingers". You can't do that.

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

Ask the OP. He brought up the idea of Liberalism being made "illegal" via its own Constitution.

Just after which he went into all manner of incoherent warbling about describing Europe, China and the British Empire as "magic liberal" places, whatever the fuck that means, and your guess is as good as mine.

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.

Once AGAIN ---- the conservatives of the Founding Fathers' time were called "Loyalists". They were the ones who wanted to be ruled by Britain. The FFs rebelled against that idea, and philosophically against the idea of royalty itself, which is the essence of Liberalism. The conservatives believed in, and still believe in, a striated society where some are "destined" to rule and others to be ruled.

 

[Pogo]

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?

The classical meaning means the opposite of authoritarianism.

However, people use the term to describe those today who advocate for a centralized collectivist state. As such, they are inherently authoritarian because they need to control everyone around them via their power

Conversely, the Founding Fathers established Federalism, where the states ran their own affairs as the Federal government played the role of referee.

Today, Federalism has been turned upside down.

Once again you're leaning on the crutch that "some people misuse the term, therefore let's throw up our hands".

And once again that's on THEM.

 

[Votto]

That people can govern themselves is perhaps the most radical, liberal political theory ever.

One of the reasons I oppose a centralized collectivist state is the lack of representation.

So when does your vote count the most? Is it when you are voting for a state governor or a President? Naturally, it is when you are voting for a governor. There are not as many votes so it counts more, and the person you are voting for lives in the same state you do, which assumes a mutual interest is at play.

Conversely, voting for a President is basically a wasted vote due to the large number of voters and the electoral system.

Additionally, the President is suppose to represent the entire country and does not much care about your local issues as would a governor.

So as we see, the centralized collectivist system is inferior to Federalism in terms of voter representation, and was not a lack of representation what the entire Revolution was all about?

Unfortunately for us, the Federal government has usurped much of the states power to the point that the states are held hostage to what the Federal government dictates to them. So the power that really matters today is that of the Federal government, for which there is very little representation.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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?

Well, wait a second. We're gonna have to clarify some things first, before we delve into this too deeply.

Whose good works are the reason they're still fonding our balls at the airport? I was under the impression this was a bipartisan agreement in Washington? And I'm pretty sure Toby Keith was in the mix some how, too. I, for one, do not consent to this. Not at all.

And another thing. Whose good deed was it to keep the Federal Reserve? I'm under the impression that's a bipartisan affair, too. I want that thing gone. Like yesterday.

I'l try to think of some more stuff, but those two good deeds are what pop into my nawgin first.

 

[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?

The classical meaning means the opposite of authoritarianism.

However, people use the term to describe those today who advocate for a centralized collectivist state. As such, they are inherently authoritarian because they need to control everyone around them via their power

Conversely, the Founding Fathers established Federalism, where the states ran their own affairs as the Federal government played the role of referee.

Today, Federalism has been turned upside down.

This is what we are supposed to be doing:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[JGalt]

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?

The classical meaning means the opposite of authoritarianism.

However, people use the term to describe those today who advocate for a centralized collectivist state. As such, they are inherently authoritarian because they need to control everyone around them via their power

Conversely, the Founding Fathers established Federalism, where the states ran their own affairs as the Federal government played the role of referee.

Today, Federalism has been turned upside down.

Once again you're leaning on the crutch that "some people misuse the term, therefore let's throw up our hands".

And once again that's on THEM.

You're a cheap date. I made you spend the last two hours of your precious time defining, re-defining, revising, and defending the definition of what "liberalism" is supposed to be.

A raccoon enthralled with a ball of tinfoil isn't half this much fun.

 

[Freiheit]

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?

Well, wait a second. We're gonna have to clarify some things first, before we delve into this too deeply.

Whose good works are the reason they're still fonding our balls at the airport? I was under the impression this was a bipartisan agreement in Washington? And I'm pretty sure Toby Keith was in the mix some how, too. I, for one, do not consent to this. Not at all.

And another thing. Whose good deed was it to keep the Federal Reserve? I'm under the impression that's a bipartisan affair, too. I want that thing gone. Like yesterday.

I'l try to think of some more stuff, but those two good deeds are what pop into my nawgin first.

I want to know who thought the Patriot Act enhanced the general welfare. Signing that bill made G.W. Bush, in my eyes,
the most reprehesible, worst president in the history of this country.

 

[Pogo]

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?

The classical meaning means the opposite of authoritarianism.

However, people use the term to describe those today who advocate for a centralized collectivist state. As such, they are inherently authoritarian because they need to control everyone around them via their power

Conversely, the Founding Fathers established Federalism, where the states ran their own affairs as the Federal government played the role of referee.

Today, Federalism has been turned upside down.

Once again you're leaning on the crutch that "some people misuse the term, therefore let's throw up our hands".

And once again that's on THEM.

You're a cheap date. I made you spend the last two hours of your precious time defining, re-defining, revising, and defending the definition of what "liberalism" is supposed to be.

A raccoon enthralled with a ball of tinfoil isn't half this much fun.

I don't need to "define/re-define" jack shit. This definition was established way before you or I got here.

 

[Votto]

/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.

Again --- "Liberal" is Liberal. It's not dependent on era. All "modern Liberal" tells us is that the person in question is currently alive. As opposed to being a Jefferson/Madison zombie crawling out of the crypt to found a political party decades after they're already dead.

Which is off the point anyway, that being that you just conflated "Liberals" with "left wingers". You can't do that.

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

Ask the OP. He brought up the idea of Liberalism being made "illegal" via its own Constitution.

Just after which he went into all manner of incoherent warbling about describing Europe, China and the British Empire as "magic liberal" places, whatever the fuck that means, and your guess is as good as mine.

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.

Once AGAIN ---- the conservatives of the Founding Fathers' time were called "Loyalists". They were the ones who wanted to be ruled by Britain. The FFs rebelled against that idea, and philosophically against the idea of royalty itself, which is the essence of Liberalism. The conservatives believed in, and still believe in, a striated society where some are "destined" to rule and others to be ruled.

It was clear that the Founding Fathers intended a limited government. I don't think you would even argue with that. Today, who strives for a limited government? Neither party, that's who, although there are a smattering of very silent conservative voices who do.

But even though the Founding Fathers had just fought a bloody revolution to be free from tyranny, they inexplicably adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to speak out against those in government. Luckily, Thomas Jefferson rose up to fight this and succeeded in large measure against them. However, he took full advantage of those unconstitutional laws before getting rid of most of it. Then what was left, FDR used to lock up innocent Japanese Americans.

So as we see, centralized power is seductive and almost irresistible, even for those who had just fought to be free from it. It is indeed remarkable then that Jefferson accomplished what he did in fighting most of it off. In fact, many did not want to sign the Constitution because they felt that it would devolve into dictatorship again.

Most probably don't even realize that the first Constitution was the Articles of Confederation, but after a few years the consensus was that it did not power the Federal government enough, so they went to the Constitution that we have today. This worked fairly well for over a hundred years before the Progressives amended it and further empowered the Federal government via the Federal Income tax, something that SCOTUS struck down as Unconstitutional a decade prior, and they also created their own bank with the Fed.

After they did this, it shifted the balance towards a Federal government that would destroy the concept of Federalism once and for all. There is no going back. Once you lose your freedom, you have to fight a bloody war to get it back.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I want to know who thought the Patriot Act enhanced the general welfare. Signing that bill made G.W. Bush, in my eyes, the most reprehesible, worst president in the history of this country.

I'm still baffled at how they got away with calling it the Patriot Act.

 

[Votto]

I want to know who thought the Patriot Act enhanced the general welfare. Signing that bill made G.W. Bush, in my eyes, the most reprehesible, worst president in the history of this country.

I'm still baffled at how they got away with calling it the Patriot Act.

It's the psychology of words is all.

If you are not a Patriot, then you oppose them. LOL

This is why I don't generally haggle over terms that are twisted in this way, and instead discuss ideological concepts which is much harder to twist around.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Well, wait a second. We're gonna have to clarify some things first, before we delve into this too deeply.

Whose good works are the reason they're still fonding our balls at the airport? I was under the impression this was a bipartisan agreement in Washington? And I'm pretty sure Toby Keith was in the mix some how, too. I, for one, do not consent to this. Not at all.

And another thing. Whose good deed was it to keep the Federal Reserve? I'm under the impression that's a bipartisan affair, too. I want that thing gone. Like yesterday.

I'l try to think of some more stuff, but those two good deeds are what pop into my nawgin first.

I want to know who thought the Patriot Act enhanced the general welfare. Signing that bill made G.W. Bush, in my eyes,
the most reprehesible, worst president in the history of this country.

only the right wing, claimed that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Today, who strives for a limited government? Neither party, that's who, although there are a smattering of very silent conservative voices who do.
.

smattering?? Trump has huge tax cut and huge opposition to Obamacare!!

 

[Pogo]

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.

Again --- "Liberal" is Liberal. It's not dependent on era. All "modern Liberal" tells us is that the person in question is currently alive. As opposed to being a Jefferson/Madison zombie crawling out of the crypt to found a political party decades after they're already dead.

Which is off the point anyway, that being that you just conflated "Liberals" with "left wingers". You can't do that.

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

Ask the OP. He brought up the idea of Liberalism being made "illegal" via its own Constitution.

Just after which he went into all manner of incoherent warbling about describing Europe, China and the British Empire as "magic liberal" places, whatever the fuck that means, and your guess is as good as mine.

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.

Once AGAIN ---- the conservatives of the Founding Fathers' time were called "Loyalists". They were the ones who wanted to be ruled by Britain. The FFs rebelled against that idea, and philosophically against the idea of royalty itself, which is the essence of Liberalism. The conservatives believed in, and still believe in, a striated society where some are "destined" to rule and others to be ruled.

It was clear that the Founding Fathers intended a limited government. I don't think you would even argue with that. Today, who strives for a limited government? Neither party, that's who, although there are a smattering of very silent conservative voices who do.

But even though the Founding Fathers had just fought a bloody revolution to be free from tyranny, they inexplicably adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to speak out against those in government. Luckily, Thomas Jefferson rose up to fight this and succeeded in large measure against them. However, he took full advantage of those unconstitutional laws before getting rid of most of it. Then what was left, FDR used to lock up innocent Japanese Americans.

So as we see, centralized power is seductive and almost irresistible, even for those who had just fought to be free from it. It is indeed remarkable then that Jefferson accomplished what he did in fighting most of it off. In fact, many did not want to sign the Constitution because they felt that it would devolve into dictatorship again.

Most probably don't even realize that the first Constitution was the Articles of Confederation, but after a few years the consensus was that it did not power the Federal government enough, so they went to the Constitution that we have today. This worked fairly well for over a hundred years before the Progressives amended it and further empowered the Federal government via the Federal Income tax, something that SCOTUS struck down as Unconstitutional a decade prior, and they also created their own bank with the Fed.

After they did this, it shifted the balance towards a Federal government that would destroy the concept of Federalism once and for all. There is no going back. Once you lose your freedom, you have to fight a bloody war to get it back.

Not sure what the point of all that verbiage is but now you're on to political parties. Liberalism is not a political party.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Most probably don't even realize that the first Constitution was the Articles of Confederation, but after a few years the consensus was that it did not power the Federal government enough, so they went to the Constitution that we have today.

This is a misunderstanding!!. Articles worked fine and not one state would have voted to ratify Constitution had they not been lied to ie told that it was a living Constitution that could mean whatever we wanted it to mean!!

 

[Votto]

Today, who strives for a limited government? Neither party, that's who, although there are a smattering of very silent conservative voices who do.
.

smattering?? Trump has huge tax cut and huge opposition to Obamacare!!

You conclude that a tax cut equals a limited government?

Tell me, the exponentially increasing debt that is one of the results, does that promote a limited government as well? It seems to me that debt equals slavery, something neither party will own up to because both have created the largest debt in the history of mankind.


Now he did get rid of a number of regulations, which is leaning towards a limited government.

But regulations is another pet peeve of mine. Here Congress has usurped their own power willingly by creating a Fourth Branch of government in the Executive Branch. Here we have a army of regulators that pass regulations that are just as powerful as laws passed by Congress. Trouble is, that is not Constitutional. These regulators cannot be voted in or out. It is an outrage.

Every year the government churns out about 40,000 new regulations and laws, and with every law comes decreased liberty, the opposite of the term liberal.

 

[Pogo]

I want to know who thought the Patriot Act enhanced the general welfare. Signing that bill made G.W. Bush, in my eyes, the most reprehesible, worst president in the history of this country.

I'm still baffled at how they got away with calling it the Patriot Act.

It's more euphemism. The way we call the incidental slaughter of innocent civilians "collateral damage". Or the way a bankruptcy is called a "reorganization".

It's "PATRIOT Act" for what it's worth -- an acronym. But obviously made up to pretend it's something it isn't. Much like the national anthem exercise at a football game.