Our founding fathers were not conservative

[Gadawg73]

Not conservative????? Of course they were, they never dreamed of Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security or anything like them, and they proved it by the legislation they didn't introduce after they formed and ran the country.

Liberals really have no place in the American tradition and in fact stand in open opposition to our most fundamental principle: freedom and liberty from government. They really belong in Cuba, not here.

What Repiblican introduced any legislation to cut any of those programs?
Conservatism has NOTHING to do with Republicans or Democrats that both waste our $$.
Do not re-elect anyone.

 

[Gadawg73]

there, I said it. Feel free to prove me wrong with empirical fact. go on

You.

Proven. Compared to today's leftwingers, they were far right. A bunch of treasonous capitalists that didn't want to pay their taxes.

You CAN do better next time, I hope.

We are not talking about "today's leftwingers".
We are talking about 230 years ago.
And in their day the Founders were radicals and NOT conservatives of their day.
Fiscally, EVERYONE had to be a conservative those days. Socially the Founders were radicals and their philosophy was liberal for their time. The Constitution WAS THE FIRST DOCUMENT that did not include the church, God or a national religion for a government.
How is that not liberal for their time?
Hate to inform you but it was the Torries, the supporters of the crown and the church of England in America that were the conservatives.
The religous folks most all supported the Crown and were Torries. Most southern states also supported the Crown.
We ran their religous right asses back to England where they belonged after a good wood shed ass kicking.

 

[Agit8r]

there, I said it. Feel free to prove me wrong with empirical fact. go on

You.

Proven. Compared to today's leftwingers, they were far right. A bunch of treasonous capitalists that didn't want to pay their taxes.

You CAN do better next time, I hope.

then why did the champions of limited government compare themselves to the political left of their day?

"The tone of your letters had for some time given me pain, on account of the extreme warmth with which they censured the proceedings of the Jacobins of France. I considered that sect as the same with the Republican patriots"

-- Thomas Jefferson; letter to William Short (January 3, 1793)

 

[Cecilie1200]

Question for the class: does anybody else see any "problem" with the foregoing "Jefferson quote" offered to us by agi8tr?

I'd guess virtually everyone BUT Tater sees the contradiction between what he said and the quote he thinks supports him.

And by the way, did they even HAVE corporations as we understand them back then?

If course they didn't have corporations like we have today. It took 2 centuries of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM to create the modern corporation. Still, the evolution had begun, hence the quote from the letter to George Logan

"I hope we shall take warning from the example [of England] and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan (Nov. 12, 1916)

Feel free to tell us how modern corporations are all the fault of judicial activism, and couldn't possibly exist without it.

And your out-of-context quotes are especially funny considering that YOU were the one not long ago snarking about "it's easy to take things out of context" without any ability to prove that they were, or even apparently to understand what it meant.

And by the way . . . 1916? How could Thomas Jefferson have written a letter to someone in 1916?

 

[Liability]

Where have I disagreed with your cut and paste generic statements?
IN PRACTICE modern day "conservatives" OFFER BILLS AND ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION TO INCLUDE powers that DO NOT limit government.
Abortion and ban on gay marriage are just a few.
Drug laws are specific in that. You ignore and run from that fact like a monkey on fire.
If that is not clear to you then you need to go back to smashing beer cans on your forehead.
I concede to you in any and all drinking games as you are the King and brought up that for unknown reasons.
I played defensive end. You obviously were a place kicker if you ever crossed the lines.

Where haven't you?

No. Not in practice and not otherwise do modern day conservatives "OFFER BILLS AND ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION TO INCLUDE powers that DO NOT limit government."

Abortion. Do you happen to grasp the import of the phrase "right to life?" Attempting to prevent the wholesale slaughter of innocent life is entirely in keeping with the obligations of the Federal Government UNDER the Constitution, dimwit. It is, as I have previously noted, perfectly fair to agree that "reasonable men may differ" on the issue. It's a very troublesome issue. But morons such as you always imagine that opponents of the claimed "right" to have "abortion on demand" as some fucking vile version of "birth control" are the ones who don't care about Constitutional rights. You jackoffs are too stupid to breathe.

There is no "ban" or attempted "ban" on "gay marriage." You seem to deliberately conflate different issues, stupid. SOME conservatives do object to calling the "union" of gay couples "marriage." Other conservatives don't believe that the GOVERNMENT ought to be in the business of sanctifying "marriage" for gays or straights. The PAST legislation which the corrupted Obama Administration is now choosing to disregard (on the grounds, interestingly enough, that the President HAS a right to make Constitutional determinations) was designed to prevent the full faith and credit clause from being used to compel ONE State to "honor" the musings of some other State's judicial branch. You need to take a deep breath and calm your ignorant ass down, chumply.

Drug laws are specific in WHAT, you unclear prattling dufus? I haven't run at all, you dishonest asshole, much less like a monkey or a monkey on fire. You saying it and it being "true" are apparently inversely related, dipstick. Drug laws can be argued FOR or AGAINST -- on a national law enforcement level -- as being Constitutional. At the very least, the fact that a dope like you makes some stupid blanket declaration doesn't make your assertion true, ya arrogant jackass.

It is clear that you spent far too much time smashing something hard into your thin skull, shit-face.

YOU, you dishonest piece of shit, by the way, are the one who "brought up drinking games," turdbreath.

Nobody cares what you did 30 to 40 years ago, assmunch. The fact remains, you are utterly unable to articulate your petty little pointless in ANY coherent fashion.

Hope that clears some things up for you. But given your vast arsenal of dumb, I seriously doubt it will -- or ever could.

You are undisciplined, subject to 5 year old fits and tantrums.
Good luck to you. You are going to need it.

I have successfully underscored the point that you talk cheap talk and platitudes and you have been unable and unwilling to back-up the nonsense you spew.

My discipline or lack of it remains entirely irrelevant to that fact and to the discussion.

You are simply in woefully over your head.

If you care to engage in adult conversation, then the proper course is not to criticize my posts for their juvenile tenor, ya petty little hypocrite. The proper course is to straighten up your own act.

You will need more than luck. But I see no prospect that ends up with you being successful.

 

[Liability]

Question for the class: does anybody else see any "problem" with the foregoing "Jefferson quote" offered to us by agi8tr?

I'd guess virtually everyone BUT Tater sees the contradiction between what he said and the quote he thinks supports him.

And by the way, did they even HAVE corporations as we understand them back then?

If course they didn't have corporations like we have today. It took 2 centuries of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM to create the modern corporation. Still, the evolution had begun, hence the quote from the letter to George Logan

"I hope we shall take warning from the example [of England] and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan (Nov. 12, 1916)

LOL!

Thomas Jefferson wrote a lot from the grave, did he?

 

[kaz]

If you care to engage in adult conversation, then the proper course is not to criticize my posts for their juvenile tenor, ya petty little hypocrite. The proper course is to straighten up your own act.

To you an "adult" conversation is running away and hiding. At least he's not doing that.

 

[Gadawg73]

Where haven't you?

No. Not in practice and not otherwise do modern day conservatives "OFFER BILLS AND ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION TO INCLUDE powers that DO NOT limit government."

Abortion. Do you happen to grasp the import of the phrase "right to life?" Attempting to prevent the wholesale slaughter of innocent life is entirely in keeping with the obligations of the Federal Government UNDER the Constitution, dimwit. It is, as I have previously noted, perfectly fair to agree that "reasonable men may differ" on the issue. It's a very troublesome issue. But morons such as you always imagine that opponents of the claimed "right" to have "abortion on demand" as some fucking vile version of "birth control" are the ones who don't care about Constitutional rights. You jackoffs are too stupid to breathe.

There is no "ban" or attempted "ban" on "gay marriage." You seem to deliberately conflate different issues, stupid. SOME conservatives do object to calling the "union" of gay couples "marriage." Other conservatives don't believe that the GOVERNMENT ought to be in the business of sanctifying "marriage" for gays or straights. The PAST legislation which the corrupted Obama Administration is now choosing to disregard (on the grounds, interestingly enough, that the President HAS a right to make Constitutional determinations) was designed to prevent the full faith and credit clause from being used to compel ONE State to "honor" the musings of some other State's judicial branch. You need to take a deep breath and calm your ignorant ass down, chumply.

Drug laws are specific in WHAT, you unclear prattling dufus? I haven't run at all, you dishonest asshole, much less like a monkey or a monkey on fire. You saying it and it being "true" are apparently inversely related, dipstick. Drug laws can be argued FOR or AGAINST -- on a national law enforcement level -- as being Constitutional. At the very least, the fact that a dope like you makes some stupid blanket declaration doesn't make your assertion true, ya arrogant jackass.

It is clear that you spent far too much time smashing something hard into your thin skull, shit-face.

YOU, you dishonest piece of shit, by the way, are the one who "brought up drinking games," turdbreath.

Nobody cares what you did 30 to 40 years ago, assmunch. The fact remains, you are utterly unable to articulate your petty little pointless in ANY coherent fashion.

Hope that clears some things up for you. But given your vast arsenal of dumb, I seriously doubt it will -- or ever could.

You are undisciplined, subject to 5 year old fits and tantrums.
Good luck to you. You are going to need it.

I have successfully underscored the point that you talk cheap talk and platitudes and you have been unable and unwilling to back-up the nonsense you spew.

My discipline or lack of it remains entirely irrelevant to that fact and to the discussion.

You are simply in woefully over your head.

If you care to engage in adult conversation, then the proper course is not to criticize my posts for their juvenile tenor, ya petty little hypocrite. The proper course is to straighten up your own act.

You will need more than luck. But I see no prospect that ends up with you being successful.

Blah, blah and more blah from you.
You are probably right about needing more than luck as that probably was the case for me years ago. I was lucky being blessed with the athletic ability I had but a work ethic came with it and that led to what I received and worked very, very hard for.
However, building 3 corporations that I own over the last 30 years had nothing to do with anything other than intelligence and hard work. No one ever gave me a nickel.
You can dish out the criticism at will but can not take it and stoop to lecturing me "not to criticize my posts".
Your milk is weak.

 

[Liability]

You are undisciplined, subject to 5 year old fits and tantrums.
Good luck to you. You are going to need it.

I have successfully underscored the point that you talk cheap talk and platitudes and you have been unable and unwilling to back-up the nonsense you spew.

My discipline or lack of it remains entirely irrelevant to that fact and to the discussion.

You are simply in woefully over your head.

If you care to engage in adult conversation, then the proper course is not to criticize my posts for their juvenile tenor, ya petty little hypocrite. The proper course is to straighten up your own act.

You will need more than luck. But I see no prospect that ends up with you being successful.

Blah, blah and more blah from you.
You are probably right about needing more than luck as that probably was the case for me years ago. I was lucky being blessed with the athletic ability I had but a work ethic came with it and that led to what I received and worked very, very hard for.
However, building 3 corporations that I own over the last 30 years had nothing to do with anything other than intelligence and hard work. No one ever gave me a nickel.
You can dish out the criticism at will but can not take it and stoop to lecturing me "not to criticize my posts".
Your milk is weak.

Once again, you prove the point. If you aren't talking cheap smack like "blah blah blah," (great fucking argument by the way, you idiot), then you have nothing to offer.

You keep trying to justify yourself.

Nobody gives a shit IF you were a talented athlete. Talk is chap on the internetz, ya dumbass. You claiming it and it being true are not necessarily related.

Likewise, IF you built a corporation or 3 has NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether or not the things you say here have any merit. And again, it's not even necessarily true. Maybe you did build some companies. Then again, maybe you didn't. But either way, when you talk in the vapid platitude-filled way you do about the MEANING of "limited government," your athletic prowess and your "history" of corporate success (even if true) has NOTHING to do with the things you write about "limited government."

It is pretty sad that you are too arrogant and kind of dopey to see as much.

By the way, moron, I not only don't give a crap about your off-topic commentary about my posting style, I have never tried to "stop" you, you obvious liar. I don't know how you can claim that I can't take it. I am utterly indifferent to it. Your commentary is petty and prissy and petulant, but it has no value. You can lob in more if that's your desire. I still won't give a shit. Your ad hominem bullshit is even less persuasive than most of the other drek you've posted.

Your brain is weak.

If you ever find yourself in the position of having something relevant to say, and happen to have stumbled over something to buttress your point, feel free to try again. Until then, you remain a fail.

 

[Liability]

If you care to engage in adult conversation, then the proper course is not to criticize my posts for their juvenile tenor, ya petty little hypocrite. The proper course is to straighten up your own act.

To you an "adult" conversation is running away and hiding. At least he's not doing that.

Wrong again, spaz.

Unlike him, I haven't run and hidden at all. In fact, between him and me, I am the only one even attempting to stay on topic. Even you aren't bothering with that, despite your obviously high opinion of yourself.

And let's face facts, even when you dwell on the off topic banter, you are still wrong. If he wants to criticize my style of posting, he's welcome to do so. But it is -- generally speaking -- a good idea for guys like him to attend to their own obvious faults along those same lines, first. He hasn't bothered. Your defense of him is merely dishonest of you. Ho fucking hum.

 

[percysunshine]

Our founding fathers were not conservative

there, I said it. Feel free to prove me wrong with empirical fact. go on

I am going to skip over 1200 odd posts and point out that if the founding fathers had not conserved their resources, history would have been different and you probably would not be around to even pose such a question.

So...proving a negative is....