Our founding fathers were not conservative

[blu]

these threads are so fucking stupid...

the founding fathers were liberal, jesus was a socialist, and ragen kept the little red book in his back pocket

we understand, please stop wasting bandwidth on it

 

[Cecilie1200]

it is easy to take quotes out of context when there is no reference as to where they originate

By all means, show us the context for these quotes that will make their meaning something different from what it now appears to be.

It's easy to say, "Out of context" when you don't think you have to bother to prove it.

When I post a quote I include the SOURCE, just in case somebody actually has enough intellectual fortitude to try to prove me wrong by looking it up. For instance, when I post:

"Of all occupations those are the least desirable in a free state which produce the most servile dependence of one class of citizens on another class. This dependence must increase as the mutuality of wants is diminished. Where the wants on one side are the absolute necessaries and on the other are neither absolute necessaries, nor result from the habitual economy of life, but are the mere caprices of fancy, the evil is in its extreme"

-- James Madison, 'Fashion' National Gazette, 1792

one may look it up and find that the Father of our Constitution was sympathizing with garment workers in England--the country that his political opponents wished for America to emulate.

Or when I post:

"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation."

-- Thomas Jefferson; letter to James Madison (October 28, 1785)

one may find that Jefferson is sympathizing with a victim of the French aristocratic system that preceded the revolution that he all the other advocates of limited government at the time supported.

I think that I learned how to cite sources sometime in junior high, but then again our teachers collectively bargained

Pretty sure I didn't ask you any of this.

One more time for the thinking-impaired: if you're going to make the claim that quotes are "taken out of context", then provide proof that you are, in fact, correct, and that the context changes the meaning of the quote. Otherwise, you are just doing basically the same thing you are bitching about the other poster doing: making unsubstantiated claims.

When I want a dissertation on how you source things when you actually bother to source them, I'll let you know.

 

[Agit8r]

By all means, show us the context for these quotes that will make their meaning something different from what it now appears to be.

It's easy to say, "Out of context" when you don't think you have to bother to prove it.

When I post a quote I include the SOURCE, just in case somebody actually has enough intellectual fortitude to try to prove me wrong by looking it up. For instance, when I post:

"Of all occupations those are the least desirable in a free state which produce the most servile dependence of one class of citizens on another class. This dependence must increase as the mutuality of wants is diminished. Where the wants on one side are the absolute necessaries and on the other are neither absolute necessaries, nor result from the habitual economy of life, but are the mere caprices of fancy, the evil is in its extreme"

-- James Madison, 'Fashion' National Gazette, 1792

one may look it up and find that the Father of our Constitution was sympathizing with garment workers in England--the country that his political opponents wished for America to emulate.

Or when I post:

"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation."

-- Thomas Jefferson; letter to James Madison (October 28, 1785)

one may find that Jefferson is sympathizing with a victim of the French aristocratic system that preceded the revolution that he all the other advocates of limited government at the time supported.

I think that I learned how to cite sources sometime in junior high, but then again our teachers collectively bargained

Pretty sure I didn't ask you any of this.

One more time for the thinking-impaired: if you're going to make the claim that quotes are "taken out of context", then provide proof that you are, in fact, correct, and that the context changes the meaning of the quote. Otherwise, you are just doing basically the same thing you are bitching about the other poster doing: making unsubstantiated claims.

When I want a dissertation on how you source things when you actually bother to source them, I'll let you know.

If you don't have a source, your quote is f~cking fictional.

 

[whitehall]

They were relatively religious Christians and they were strict Constitutionalists. That translates to conservative in today's pop-culture world.

 

[Liability]

these threads are so fucking stupid...

the founding fathers were liberal, jesus was a socialist, and ragen kept the little red book in his back pocket

we understand, please stop wasting bandwidth on it

The Founders and Framers were NOT what we, today, would call "liberals."

Jesus was clearly NOT a "socialist."

And who the fuck is "Ragen?"

Speaking of wasted bandwidth, algore is sending you a cease and desist order.

 

[Agit8r]

They were relatively religious Christians and they were strict Constitutionalists. That translates to conservative in today's pop-culture world.

many liberals are "relatively religious Christians" so, even in the cases where you are correct, this proves nothing.

Strict Construction has never existed in this country from the Washington administration onward. it is only a theory now as then. Our supposed strict constructionists justices are equally activist as as the liberal judges. so I guess that some Founding Fathers were like modern conservatives; John Adams, Hamilton, Fisher Ames, John Marshall...

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

Very true, they were definitely the lib'ruls of their day.

Their antagonists were called Tories, loyalists to the authoritarian King George III.

Today's conservative movement consists of the exact same demographic - a couple of centuries later. Same flock of shitbirds.

 

[Liability]

They were relatively religious Christians and they were strict Constitutionalists. That translates to conservative in today's pop-culture world.

many liberals are "relatively religious Christians" so, even in the cases where you are correct, this proves nothing.

Strict Construction has never existed in this country from the Washington administration onward. it is only a theory now as then. Our supposed strict constructionists justices are equally activist as as the liberal judges. so I guess that some Founding Fathers were like modern conservatives; John Adams, Hamilton, Fisher Ames, John Marshall...

Screw "strict construction."

But, they didn't draft the Constitution to have it ignored, either.

 

[whitehall]

They were relatively religious Christians and they were strict Constitutionalists. That translates to conservative in today's pop-culture world.

many liberals are "relatively religious Christians" so, even in the cases where you are correct, this proves nothing.

Strict Construction has never existed in this country from the Washington administration onward. it is only a theory now as then. Our supposed strict constructionists justices are equally activist as as the liberal judges. so I guess that some Founding Fathers were like modern conservatives; John Adams, Hamilton, Fisher Ames, John Marshall...

You can't win. The left whines, fears and makes fun of politicians with Christian beliefs and when you suggest that the FF were Christians they say it means nothing. Of course they were strict Constitutionalists. They wrote the thing.

 

[Cuyo]

They were relatively religious Christians and they were strict Constitutionalists. That translates to conservative in today's pop-culture world.

many liberals are "relatively religious Christians" so, even in the cases where you are correct, this proves nothing.

Strict Construction has never existed in this country from the Washington administration onward. it is only a theory now as then. Our supposed strict constructionists justices are equally activist as as the liberal judges. so I guess that some Founding Fathers were like modern conservatives; John Adams, Hamilton, Fisher Ames, John Marshall...

Screw "strict construction."

But, they didn't draft the Constitution to have it ignored, either.

I think it was intentionally ambiguous. The whole point was that current majorities could interpret and evolve the document to fit the time IMO. If it was meant to be strictly interpreted, the language would have been far more straightforward.

 

[Cuyo]

They were relatively religious Christians and they were strict Constitutionalists. That translates to conservative in today's pop-culture world.

many liberals are "relatively religious Christians" so, even in the cases where you are correct, this proves nothing.

Strict Construction has never existed in this country from the Washington administration onward. it is only a theory now as then. Our supposed strict constructionists justices are equally activist as as the liberal judges. so I guess that some Founding Fathers were like modern conservatives; John Adams, Hamilton, Fisher Ames, John Marshall...

You can't win. The left whines, fears and makes fun of politicians with Christian beliefs and when you suggest that the FF were Christians they say it means nothing. Of course they were strict Constitutionalists. They wrote the thing.

They weren't Christians. Those who we now consider "Christian" were faking it to garner support from the unwashed masses.

Nothing like today's politicians.

 

[Agit8r]

They were relatively religious Christians and they were strict Constitutionalists. That translates to conservative in today's pop-culture world.

many liberals are "relatively religious Christians" so, even in the cases where you are correct, this proves nothing.

Strict Construction has never existed in this country from the Washington administration onward. it is only a theory now as then. Our supposed strict constructionists justices are equally activist as as the liberal judges. so I guess that some Founding Fathers were like modern conservatives; John Adams, Hamilton, Fisher Ames, John Marshall...

You can't win. The left whines, fears and makes fun of politicians with Christian beliefs and when you suggest that the FF were Christians they say it means nothing. Of course they were strict Constitutionalists. They wrote the thing.

They were not fundementalists. Niether was most of the population of the "christian nation" that they were part of. The most popular book of that century was based on the Zodiac after all

from 'Poor Richard Almanack'

 

[Liability]

many liberals are "relatively religious Christians" so, even in the cases where you are correct, this proves nothing.

Strict Construction has never existed in this country from the Washington administration onward. it is only a theory now as then. Our supposed strict constructionists justices are equally activist as as the liberal judges. so I guess that some Founding Fathers were like modern conservatives; John Adams, Hamilton, Fisher Ames, John Marshall...

Screw "strict construction."

But, they didn't draft the Constitution to have it ignored, either.

I think it was intentionally ambiguous. The whole point was that current majorities could interpret and evolve the document to fit the time IMO. If it was meant to be strictly interpreted, the language would have been far more straightforward.

You think erroneously.

They wrote it unambiguously using words understood more than well enough in their day. And it's not really all that difficult to understand today, either.

Because it is the product of the human mind, it is imperfect. It will, necessarily, lead to some confusions. That much is clearly true. I concede it's unavoidable.

Nonetheless, we all understand quite well what was being crafted. And it absolutely and unequivocally established a LIMITED Government. And yet, today's "liberals" insist on trying to "interpret" it even when it requires no "interpretation," And they do so to garner MORE power for the Federal Government. This is plainly antithetical to the stated goal and purpose of the Constitution.

The manner in which they argue their "case" is also revealing. They look to the words of the Preamble as though that were somehow license to ignore explicit restrictions imposed on the Federal Government. It isn't. The effort is disingenuous.

The commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause do not, alone or together, serve as honest tools by which the LIMITS imposed on the LIMITED authority and powers of the Federal Government may properly be set aside. Yet liberal jurists and pundits and academics will steadfastly "agree" with each other that it does. They are wrong.

How can anybody take seriously such convoluted interpretations of the Constitution when there isn't even a genuine need for ANY "interpretation" in the first place? If your conclusion flatly contradicts the very stated purpose of the Constitution, and it does, then the problem is not my inability to "grasp" the nuances of your argument. The problem is that you are raping logic to reach strained and invalid conclusions.

 

[Agit8r]

"And it absolutely and unequivocally established a LIMITED Government"

actually, it didn't. because it has never been so

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

They wrote it unambiguously using words understood more than well enough in their day. And it's not really all that difficult to understand today, either.

It's like this load forgot about the passage of time, fer chrisakes! Has no idea why his clock ticks...lol

I know, let's up the ante and reuse 18th Century dental techniques, and start bleeding patients when they get sick.

Old school, baby!


....fuckin morons.

 

[blu]

these threads are so fucking stupid...

the founding fathers were liberal, jesus was a socialist, and ragen kept the little red book in his back pocket

we understand, please stop wasting bandwidth on it

The Founders and Framers were NOT what we, today, would call "liberals."

Jesus was clearly NOT a "socialist."

And who the fuck is "Ragen?"

Speaking of wasted bandwidth, algore is sending you a cease and desist order.

you missed some obvious sarcasm, but I guess it required more than 3 brain cells to recognize

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

Uh, it's very true Jesus wasn't a socialist.

He was a COMMUNIST, ya dumb fucks.

 

[Agit8r]

these threads are so fucking stupid...

the founding fathers were liberal, jesus was a socialist, and ragen kept the little red book in his back pocket

we understand, please stop wasting bandwidth on it

The Founders and Framers were NOT what we, today, would call "liberals."

Jesus was clearly NOT a "socialist."

And who the fuck is "Ragen?"

Speaking of wasted bandwidth, algore is sending you a cease and desist order.

you missed some obvious sarcasm, but I guess it required more than 3 brain cells to recognize

oh the irony of failed irony!

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

Jesus DEFINITELY wasn't a capitalist.

I've got the proof right in the bible.

 

[Agit8r]

Jesus DEFINITELY wasn't a capitalist.

I've got the proof right in the bible.

Judas was