Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So...ALL of the founders felt the same way? Unlikely.
Yes. Did all the people of the late 18th century feel that way? Of course not. Many of the landed and more wealthy people did not want war with England or to ruffle the feathers of the crown who favored them.
But among the Founders, certainly there were differences of opinion on the issue of slavery, how strong the central government should be, how revenues to run the government would be collected and who would provide them, how the powers related to the federal government would be allocated among the various state, etc. But they sat down eyeball to eyeball, debated, discussed, and worked it all out until they had a Constitution that all could pledge to support, promote, and defend. It took them six long years of discussion, debate, negotiation, compromise, and deliberation to achieve that document. And most of another year to achieve ratification by the states.
All the Founders, to a man, believed in the concept of unalienable rights and that people were free only when they were free to choose their own destiny and be allowed to suffer or benefit from the consequences of the choices they made. In other words they agreed, to a man, that the federal government would secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have. We would be the first people on Earth who would have their unalienable rights recognized and protected and who would then be free to govern ourselves.
The concept made us unique among all nations that had ever existed--American exceptionalism--and produced the most productive, innovative, creative, prosperous, and free people the world had ever known.
And we now have an element in our society who seem to want to undo the entire concept and return us to the authority of and submission to a government who will often not have our best interests at heart because it is not the nature of government to care about the governed as much as it cares about the government.
So the answer is "no", good thanks.
Yet somehow, you decode what "they" thought and broadcast it time and again.
Why don't you be honest and say, "The founders I agree with thought this...."? It won't carry as much weight of course but it will be more correct.
PS: your foolish thought that the "founders" wanted the people to rule is a misnomer. If you would endeavor to read the 17th Amendment--passed less than 100 years ago--it was only then you could vote for Senator.
Just one of the many ways you're wrong when invoking "the founders" tripe you bring up on a daily basis.
Yes. Did all the people of the late 18th century feel that way? Of course not. Many of the landed and more wealthy people did not want war with England or to ruffle the feathers of the crown who favored them.
But among the Founders, certainly there were differences of opinion on the issue of slavery, how strong the central government should be, how revenues to run the government would be collected and who would provide them, how the powers related to the federal government would be allocated among the various state, etc. But they sat down eyeball to eyeball, debated, discussed, and worked it all out until they had a Constitution that all could pledge to support, promote, and defend. It took them six long years of discussion, debate, negotiation, compromise, and deliberation to achieve that document. And most of another year to achieve ratification by the states.
All the Founders, to a man, believed in the concept of unalienable rights and that people were free only when they were free to choose their own destiny and be allowed to suffer or benefit from the consequences of the choices they made. In other words they agreed, to a man, that the federal government would secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have. We would be the first people on Earth who would have their unalienable rights recognized and protected and who would then be free to govern ourselves.
The concept made us unique among all nations that had ever existed--American exceptionalism--and produced the most productive, innovative, creative, prosperous, and free people the world had ever known.
And we now have an element in our society who seem to want to undo the entire concept and return us to the authority of and submission to a government who will often not have our best interests at heart because it is not the nature of government to care about the governed as much as it cares about the government.
So the answer is "no", good thanks.
Yet somehow, you decode what "they" thought and broadcast it time and again.
Why don't you be honest and say, "The founders I agree with thought this...."? It won't carry as much weight of course but it will be more correct.
PS: your foolish thought that the "founders" wanted the people to rule is a misnomer. If you would endeavor to read the 17th Amendment--passed less than 100 years ago--it was only then you could vote for Senator.
Just one of the many ways you're wrong when invoking "the founders" tripe you bring up on a daily basis.
Well I won't bore you with the concept any further. But if you think the Founders did not intend the people to governm themselves rather than be governed, you are woefully unschooled in their concepts and what they gave us. That they were human with diverse opinions only makes it all more authentic and it in no way gets in the way of the final consensuses on which they all agreed.
And the 17th amendment had nothing at all to do with any of that.
So the answer is "no", good thanks.
Yet somehow, you decode what "they" thought and broadcast it time and again.
Why don't you be honest and say, "The founders I agree with thought this...."? It won't carry as much weight of course but it will be more correct.
PS: your foolish thought that the "founders" wanted the people to rule is a misnomer. If you would endeavor to read the 17th Amendment--passed less than 100 years ago--it was only then you could vote for Senator.
Just one of the many ways you're wrong when invoking "the founders" tripe you bring up on a daily basis.
Well I won't bore you with the concept any further. But if you think the Founders did not intend the people to governm themselves rather than be governed, you are woefully unschooled in their concepts and what they gave us. That they were human with diverse opinions only makes it all more authentic and it in no way gets in the way of the final consensuses on which they all agreed.
And the 17th amendment had nothing at all to do with any of that.
They wanted people to govern themselves but set up the Electoral College and didn't let you vote for Senator; much less SC Judges or Federal judges? The Constitution--written by the founders--disagrees with you vehemently but thats fine; 80% of the people "governing" you are either elected by others or appointed by the Executive.
You're unschooled in reading comprehension.
Please continue to believe otherwise though.
So the answer is "no", good thanks.
Yet somehow, you decode what "they" thought and broadcast it time and again.
Why don't you be honest and say, "The founders I agree with thought this...."? It won't carry as much weight of course but it will be more correct.
PS: your foolish thought that the "founders" wanted the people to rule is a misnomer. If you would endeavor to read the 17th Amendment--passed less than 100 years ago--it was only then you could vote for Senator.
Just one of the many ways you're wrong when invoking "the founders" tripe you bring up on a daily basis.
Well I won't bore you with the concept any further. But if you think the Founders did not intend the people to governm themselves rather than be governed, you are woefully unschooled in their concepts and what they gave us. That they were human with diverse opinions only makes it all more authentic and it in no way gets in the way of the final consensuses on which they all agreed.
And the 17th amendment had nothing at all to do with any of that.
They wanted people to govern themselves but set up the Electoral College and didn't let you vote for Senator; much less SC Judges or Federal judges? The Constitution--written by the founders--disagrees with you vehemently but thats fine; 80% of the people "governing" you are either elected by others or appointed by the Executive.
You're unschooled in reading comprehension.
Please continue to believe otherwise though.
Well I won't bore you with the concept any further. But if you think the Founders did not intend the people to governm themselves rather than be governed, you are woefully unschooled in their concepts and what they gave us. That they were human with diverse opinions only makes it all more authentic and it in no way gets in the way of the final consensuses on which they all agreed.
And the 17th amendment had nothing at all to do with any of that.
They wanted people to govern themselves but set up the Electoral College and didn't let you vote for Senator; much less SC Judges or Federal judges? The Constitution--written by the founders--disagrees with you vehemently but thats fine; 80% of the people "governing" you are either elected by others or appointed by the Executive.
You're unschooled in reading comprehension.
Please continue to believe otherwise though.
No I'm not unschooled in reading comprehension. You are apparently unschooled in their concept of self governance and their intended role for the federal government, however.
They wanted people to govern themselves but set up the Electoral College and didn't let you vote for Senator; much less SC Judges or Federal judges? The Constitution--written by the founders--disagrees with you vehemently but thats fine; 80% of the people "governing" you are either elected by others or appointed by the Executive.
You're unschooled in reading comprehension.
Please continue to believe otherwise though.
No I'm not unschooled in reading comprehension. You are apparently unschooled in their concept of self governance and their intended role for the federal government, however.
Both Candycorn and I have questioned your historical interpretation of our Nations history. Would you care to continue to defend your opinions and respond to our specifics?
I can offer many more examples too, though I suspect Candycorn's observation that, "80% of the people "governing" you are either elected by others or appointed by the Executive" is a spot on refutation of your opinions as well as the opinion of many on the right.
We are free as a people, such freedoms are guaranteed by the law of our land. But that law (the US Constitution) is vague in spots and ambiguous in others, evidenced by the historical disagreements among learned justices.
No I'm not unschooled in reading comprehension. You are apparently unschooled in their concept of self governance and their intended role for the federal government, however.
Both Candycorn and I have questioned your historical interpretation of our Nations history. Would you care to continue to defend your opinions and respond to our specifics?
I can offer many more examples too, though I suspect Candycorn's observation that, "80% of the people "governing" you are either elected by others or appointed by the Executive" is a spot on refutation of your opinions as well as the opinion of many on the right.
We are free as a people, such freedoms are guaranteed by the law of our land. But that law (the US Constitution) is vague in spots and ambiguous in others, evidenced by the historical disagreements among learned justices.
And both you and Candycorn are wrong.
As the Founders interpreted it--we have a wealth of their opinions so that we can know unequivocably how they interpreted it--there is nothing vague about the Constitution that is intended to limit not the people, but rather is intended to limit government. It doesn't matter how senators are chosen or what means is used to elect or choose anybody to high office so long as the people have a means to recall any who don't do their jobs according tot he principles of the Constitution. The Constitution provides means to do that.
It doesn't matter who is administering the government so long as those understand what their job there is supposed to be, i.e. to secure the rights of the people by whatever laws and regulation is necessary to do that, and then leave the people alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.
THAT is American exceptionalism. THAT is what makes the USA unique among all nations on Earth. We are the first and only nation that has ever existed in which the government does not assign what rights the people will have. The first nation that has ever existed that was intended to provide a structure that would protect their rights and then leave them alone to govern themselves.
That made us the most free, most innovative, most prosperous, most creative, most productive people on Earth.
And those who don't understand THAT, have absolutely no clue about what the Founders wrote or their concept of what life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is. And too many who fail to understand and embrace that concept are working diligently to return us to an authoritarian government that will assign what rights and freedoms we will have.
We're well on our way to giving up everything the Founders intended, And you and Candycorn are part of that and I will continue to speak out against your fuzzy and misguided notions about what government should be and what power it should have.
Both Candycorn and I have questioned your historical interpretation of our Nations history. Would you care to continue to defend your opinions and respond to our specifics?
I can offer many more examples too, though I suspect Candycorn's observation that, "80% of the people "governing" you are either elected by others or appointed by the Executive" is a spot on refutation of your opinions as well as the opinion of many on the right.
We are free as a people, such freedoms are guaranteed by the law of our land. But that law (the US Constitution) is vague in spots and ambiguous in others, evidenced by the historical disagreements among learned justices.
And both you and Candycorn are wrong.
As the Founders interpreted it--we have a wealth of their opinions so that we can know unequivocably how they interpreted it--there is nothing vague about the Constitution that is intended to limit not the people, but rather is intended to limit government. It doesn't matter how senators are chosen or what means is used to elect or choose anybody to high office so long as the people have a means to recall any who don't do their jobs according tot he principles of the Constitution. The Constitution provides means to do that.
It doesn't matter who is administering the government so long as those understand what their job there is supposed to be, i.e. to secure the rights of the people by whatever laws and regulation is necessary to do that, and then leave the people alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.
THAT is American exceptionalism. THAT is what makes the USA unique among all nations on Earth. We are the first and only nation that has ever existed in which the government does not assign what rights the people will have. The first nation that has ever existed that was intended to provide a structure that would protect their rights and then leave them alone to govern themselves.
That made us the most free, most innovative, most prosperous, most creative, most productive people on Earth.
And those who don't understand THAT, have absolutely no clue about what the Founders wrote or their concept of what life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is. And too many who fail to understand and embrace that concept are working diligently to return us to an authoritarian government that will assign what rights and freedoms we will have.
We're well on our way to giving up everything the Founders intended, And you and Candycorn are part of that and I will continue to speak out against your fuzzy and misguided notions about what government should be and what power it should have.
A lot of words belied by history and concluded with a slippery slope logical fallacy. It does matter that we elect representatives, and that the people do not vote directly on every issue and that we delegate the duty to pass laws to a Congress.
There is no initiative process, recall or referendum available to the people, or did I miss that when reading the Constitution?
As a people we are free, in that you are correct. But we do not govern ourselves and we are less free today then we were as a result of CU v. FEC; today Super PAC's control what many Americans think and will control how many Americans vote. As someone who cares deeply for the idea of freedom and liberty I would assume you are disappointed in the bizarre decision by the conservative Justices of the USSC to decide money and speech as equivalents.
And both you and Candycorn are wrong.
As the Founders interpreted it--we have a wealth of their opinions so that we can know unequivocably how they interpreted it--there is nothing vague about the Constitution that is intended to limit not the people, but rather is intended to limit government. It doesn't matter how senators are chosen or what means is used to elect or choose anybody to high office so long as the people have a means to recall any who don't do their jobs according tot he principles of the Constitution. The Constitution provides means to do that.
It doesn't matter who is administering the government so long as those understand what their job there is supposed to be, i.e. to secure the rights of the people by whatever laws and regulation is necessary to do that, and then leave the people alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.
THAT is American exceptionalism. THAT is what makes the USA unique among all nations on Earth. We are the first and only nation that has ever existed in which the government does not assign what rights the people will have. The first nation that has ever existed that was intended to provide a structure that would protect their rights and then leave them alone to govern themselves.
That made us the most free, most innovative, most prosperous, most creative, most productive people on Earth.
And those who don't understand THAT, have absolutely no clue about what the Founders wrote or their concept of what life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is. And too many who fail to understand and embrace that concept are working diligently to return us to an authoritarian government that will assign what rights and freedoms we will have.
We're well on our way to giving up everything the Founders intended, And you and Candycorn are part of that and I will continue to speak out against your fuzzy and misguided notions about what government should be and what power it should have.
A lot of words belied by history and concluded with a slippery slope logical fallacy. It does matter that we elect representatives, and that the people do not vote directly on every issue and that we delegate the duty to pass laws to a Congress.
There is no initiative process, recall or referendum available to the people, or did I miss that when reading the Constitution?
As a people we are free, in that you are correct. But we do not govern ourselves and we are less free today then we were as a result of CU v. FEC; today Super PAC's control what many Americans think and will control how many Americans vote. As someone who cares deeply for the idea of freedom and liberty I would assume you are disappointed in the bizarre decision by the conservative Justices of the USSC to decide money and speech as equivalents.
I'll refer you to the last paragraph of my last post and include a comment that you apparently cannot or choose not to read well also.
A lot of words belied by history and concluded with a slippery slope logical fallacy. It does matter that we elect representatives, and that the people do not vote directly on every issue and that we delegate the duty to pass laws to a Congress.
There is no initiative process, recall or referendum available to the people, or did I miss that when reading the Constitution?
As a people we are free, in that you are correct. But we do not govern ourselves and we are less free today then we were as a result of CU v. FEC; today Super PAC's control what many Americans think and will control how many Americans vote. As someone who cares deeply for the idea of freedom and liberty I would assume you are disappointed in the bizarre decision by the conservative Justices of the USSC to decide money and speech as equivalents.
I'll refer you to the last paragraph of my last post and include a comment that you apparently cannot or choose not to read well also.
And now you've defaulted to the personal attack. How typical.
Back to the issue at hand: Starve the Beast.
For those with an academic background, I offer this paper (linked below) for those intersted in the STB hypothesis, its origins and effect on our economy and others who "read well".
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/draft509.pdf
Back to the issue at hand: Starve the Beast.
For those with an academic background, I offer this paper (linked below) for those intersted in the STB hypothesis, its origins and effect on our economy and others who "read well".
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/draft509.pdf
Back to the issue at hand: Starve the Beast.
For those with an academic background, I offer this paper (linked below) for those intersted in the STB hypothesis, its origins and effect on our economy and others who "read well".
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/draft509.pdf
Ah yes, the Romers, champions of the modern version of Keynesian economics. Christina I believe was the original chairperson of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, though she resigned that position sometime in 2010 if I am remembering right. Shortly after the CBO analysis that none of their proposals had proved to be effective.
And she was one of the co-authors of Obama's recently submitted proposal for job creation that even the Democrats have had a tough time defending.
They belong in the debate for sure. So long as those who "read well" understand the significant bias that will be included in their analysis.
Back to the issue at hand: Starve the Beast.
For those with an academic background, I offer this paper (linked below) for those intersted in the STB hypothesis, its origins and effect on our economy and others who "read well".
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/draft509.pdf
Tax cuts don't constrain government spending. Bartlett is wrong in the trillions column
