The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.

[daws101]

since liberals and conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous

as a liberal you are of course perfectly and 100% ignorant. Jefferson surveyed all of all human history and created america based on the idea the big government or liberal government was evil, and that small or conservative government was not.


Welcome to your first lesson in american history. This is a huge day for you, liberal.

Jefferson:
My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

-our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: By consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

-sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

-the spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that i wish it to be always kept alive.

-most bad government has grown out of too much government.

lol...your intentional misinterpretation and misrepresentation just screams of the cocksuredness of the truly ignorant.

Definition of COCKSURE
1: feeling perfect assurance sometimes on inadequate grounds
2: marked by overconfidence or presumptuousness : cocky
— cock·sure·ly adverb
— cock·sure·ness noun
See cocksure defined for English-language learners »
See cocksure defined for kids »
Examples of COCKSURE
<his cocksure assertion that he could bed any woman of his choice>
<you're always so cocksure about everything>
Origin of COCKSURE
probably from 1cock + sure
First Known Use: 1608

 

[daws101]

since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous

And there was no such thing as a libertarian in our founder's days. The fact is that the concept of the “state” as presented in some modern libertarian writing owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy.

more perfect liberal ignorance:

Cato: Of course, the idea of severe restrictions on the power and reach of government goes back long before the American experience. Libertarian-sounding rhetoric can be found in Confucius’s disciple, Mencius, who wrote that “in a nation, the people are the most important, the state is next, and the ruler is the least important.” And in the Western tradition, Judaism taught that the king ruled beneath God and was subject to His rules. A separate priestly caste meant that the king wasn’t responsible for interpreting his own mandate. The heart of Judaism was the contract between Jehovah and the Jews—meaning that even God, the highest source of government, had obligations to His people, as long as they kept up their end of the bargain. In classical Greece, Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus (featuring Prometheus defying Zeus in the name of a justice higher than the gods), Antigone by Sophocles, and Euripides’s attacks in various plays on slavery and the barbarity of war indicate a people who understood the distinction between what earthly, or even divine, authority commanded and what was right and just. A natural law and natural rights tradition that recognizes discoverable, rational standards for justice above and beyond the decisions of earthly governments runs throughout Western intellectual history and has strong libertarian implications.

Libertarian ideas about human politics go back even to prehistory, to the creation of the state itself. Although theories of the origins of the state are merely implicit in most libertarian writers, the German anthropologist Franz Oppenheimer described its origin in The State as being in blood and conquest, the result of conquerors trying to live off others’ efforts through taxation and the provision of “protection.” Oppenheimer distinguished between the “political” means of acquiring wealth—taking it—and the “economic” means—production and exchange.

prehistory? now you're just makin shit up!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Actually Nazi ideas, for example, and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government

You trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?



And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".

The Constitution does not criminalize thought, only liberal or Nazi actions that would be inconsistent with Jeffersonian Republican conservative capitalist libertarian limited governemnt.

You have to face facts, the liberals spied for Stalin because they hate freedom or liberty from government.

One of the finest jobs of Shot-Gun Political Labeling to prove nothing I've ever seen. Kudos.
Got Link?

 

[AVG-JOE]

And there was no such thing as a libertarian in our founder's days. The fact is that the concept of the “state” as presented in some modern libertarian writing owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy.

more perfect liberal ignorance:

Cato: Of course, the idea of severe restrictions on the power and reach of government goes back long before the American experience. Libertarian-sounding rhetoric can be found in Confucius’s disciple, Mencius, who wrote that “in a nation, the people are the most important, the state is next, and the ruler is the least important.” And in the Western tradition, Judaism taught that the king ruled beneath God and was subject to His rules. A separate priestly caste meant that the king wasn’t responsible for interpreting his own mandate. The heart of Judaism was the contract between Jehovah and the Jews—meaning that even God, the highest source of government, had obligations to His people, as long as they kept up their end of the bargain. In classical Greece, Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus (featuring Prometheus defying Zeus in the name of a justice higher than the gods), Antigone by Sophocles, and Euripides’s attacks in various plays on slavery and the barbarity of war indicate a people who understood the distinction between what earthly, or even divine, authority commanded and what was right and just. A natural law and natural rights tradition that recognizes discoverable, rational standards for justice above and beyond the decisions of earthly governments runs throughout Western intellectual history and has strong libertarian implications.

Libertarian ideas about human politics go back even to prehistory, to the creation of the state itself. Although theories of the origins of the state are merely implicit in most libertarian writers, the German anthropologist Franz Oppenheimer described its origin in The State as being in blood and conquest, the result of conquerors trying to live off others’ efforts through taxation and the provision of “protection.” Oppenheimer distinguished between the “political” means of acquiring wealth—taking it—and the “economic” means—production and exchange.

prehistory? now you're just makin shit up!

Now?!?

What do you mean now?

This thread is now seven pages deep in bullshit!

 

[Brutus]

lol...your intentional misinterpretation and misrepresentation just screams of the cocksuredness of the truly ignorant.

of course if there was "intentional misinterpretation" you would not be so afraid to point out exacxtly where it is- right, liberal? What does your fear tell you about liberalism?

 

[Photonic]

Ya vol mein Führer.

Bash those stupid fuckers who dare to speak out against the only true form of government, crush their puny thoughts that are different to what we believe in!

Heil!

 

[Bfgrn]

since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous

And there was no such thing as a libertarian in our founder's days. The fact is that the concept of the “state” as presented in some modern libertarian writing owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy.

more perfect liberal ignorance:

Cato: Of course, the idea of severe restrictions on the power and reach of government goes back long before the American experience. Libertarian-sounding rhetoric can be found in Confucius’s disciple, Mencius, who wrote that “in a nation, the people are the most important, the state is next, and the ruler is the least important.” And in the Western tradition, Judaism taught that the king ruled beneath God and was subject to His rules. A separate priestly caste meant that the king wasn’t responsible for interpreting his own mandate. The heart of Judaism was the contract between Jehovah and the Jews—meaning that even God, the highest source of government, had obligations to His people, as long as they kept up their end of the bargain. In classical Greece, Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus (featuring Prometheus defying Zeus in the name of a justice higher than the gods), Antigone by Sophocles, and Euripides’s attacks in various plays on slavery and the barbarity of war indicate a people who understood the distinction between what earthly, or even divine, authority commanded and what was right and just. A natural law and natural rights tradition that recognizes discoverable, rational standards for justice above and beyond the decisions of earthly governments runs throughout Western intellectual history and has strong libertarian implications.

Libertarian ideas about human politics go back even to prehistory, to the creation of the state itself. Although theories of the origins of the state are merely implicit in most libertarian writers, the German anthropologist Franz Oppenheimer described its origin in The State as being in blood and conquest, the result of conquerors trying to live off others’ efforts through taxation and the provision of “protection.” Oppenheimer distinguished between the “political” means of acquiring wealth—taking it—and the “economic” means—production and exchange.

Franz Oppenheimer (born 30 March 1864 in Berlin; died 30 September 1943 in Los Angeles) was a 19th century German-Jewish sociologist and political economist, who published also in the area of the fundamental sociology of the state.

Unlike Locke and others, Oppenheimer rejected the idea of the "social contract" and contributed to the "conquest theory" of the state. wiki

 

[Bern80]

The Constitution does not criminalize thought, only liberal or Nazi actions that would be inconsistent with Jeffersonian Republican conservative capitalist libertarian limited governemnt.

You have to face facts, the liberals spied for Stalin because they hate freedom or liberty from government.

since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous

And there was no such thing as a libertarian in our founder's days. The fact is that the concept of the &#8220;state&#8221; as presented in some modern libertarian writing owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy.

And that makes it an invalid ideology how exactly? At the time there was no such concept as libertarianism per se. But as we've noted the same word can change meaning over time (i.e. liberal idology then is clearly not liberal ideology now). I think it is fairly reasonable argument that libertarian now is about as close as any ideology to what liberal was then.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.

So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?

What's wrong with us? Apparently education would be a good place to start. I'm sorry you were left behind, child - I blame boooooooosh.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html

if so they were liberals who wanted very limited central government unlike modern liberals who want unlimited central government. See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ? There is just no other explanation. Sorry.

Modern liberals want the same thing that liberals of 250 years ago wanted - we just have to hang our hats with the social democrats because the republicans are too bull-headed about government dictating what people can and can't do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and freedom is a central tenant of liberal thinking.

 

[Bern80]

What's wrong with us? Apparently education would be a good place to start. I'm sorry you were left behind, child - I blame boooooooosh.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html

if so they were liberals who wanted very limited central government unlike modern liberals who want unlimited central government. See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ? There is just no other explanation. Sorry.

Modern liberals want the same thing that liberals of 250 years ago wanted - we just have to hang our hats with the social democrats because the republicans are too bull-headed about government dictating what people can and can't do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and freedom is a central tenant of liberal thinking.

That isn't true Joe. Both sides are equaly guilty of curbing people's freedom. Republican's have things they don't want people to be able to do and so do Democrats.

 

[daws101]

more perfect liberal ignorance:

Cato: Of course, the idea of severe restrictions on the power and reach of government goes back long before the American experience. Libertarian-sounding rhetoric can be found in Confucius’s disciple, Mencius, who wrote that “in a nation, the people are the most important, the state is next, and the ruler is the least important.” And in the Western tradition, Judaism taught that the king ruled beneath God and was subject to His rules. A separate priestly caste meant that the king wasn’t responsible for interpreting his own mandate. The heart of Judaism was the contract between Jehovah and the Jews—meaning that even God, the highest source of government, had obligations to His people, as long as they kept up their end of the bargain. In classical Greece, Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus (featuring Prometheus defying Zeus in the name of a justice higher than the gods), Antigone by Sophocles, and Euripides’s attacks in various plays on slavery and the barbarity of war indicate a people who understood the distinction between what earthly, or even divine, authority commanded and what was right and just. A natural law and natural rights tradition that recognizes discoverable, rational standards for justice above and beyond the decisions of earthly governments runs throughout Western intellectual history and has strong libertarian implications.

Libertarian ideas about human politics go back even to prehistory, to the creation of the state itself. Although theories of the origins of the state are merely implicit in most libertarian writers, the German anthropologist Franz Oppenheimer described its origin in The State as being in blood and conquest, the result of conquerors trying to live off others’ efforts through taxation and the provision of “protection.” Oppenheimer distinguished between the “political” means of acquiring wealth—taking it—and the “economic” means—production and exchange.

prehistory? now you're just makin shit up!

Now?!?

What do you mean now?

This thread is now seven pages deep in bullshit!

 

[daws101]

lol...your intentional misinterpretation and misrepresentation just screams of the cocksuredness of the truly ignorant.

of course if there was "intentional misinterpretation" you would not be so afraid to point out exacxtly where it is- right, liberal? What does your fear tell you about liberalism?

what fear? as to this statement:"if there was "intentional misinterpretation" you would not be so afraid to point out exacxtly where it is" where it is, is all of it!
or is that too tough a concept?

 

[daws101]

since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous

And there was no such thing as a libertarian in our founder's days. The fact is that the concept of the “state” as presented in some modern libertarian writing owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy.

And that makes it an invalid ideology how exactly? At the time there was no such concept as libertarianism per se. But as we've noted the same word can change meaning over time (i.e. liberal idology then is clearly not liberal ideology now). I think it is fairly reasonable argument that libertarian now is about as close as any ideology to what liberal was then.

Time and context...

 

[jgarden]

So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?

Have you ever actually read the Constitution - it was probably the most "liberal" document of its kind during the 18thC!

Where in the Constitution does it support one particular political and/or economic ideology?

 

[007]

So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?

Have you ever actually read the Constitution - it was probably the most "liberal" document of its kind during the 18thC!

Where in the Constitution does it support one particular political and/or economic ideology?

Bull shit. If that was true then liberals wouldn't spend 24/7 trying to change, misinterpret and ignore it.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?

Have you ever actually read the Constitution - it was probably the most "liberal" document of its kind during the 18thC!

Where in the Constitution does it support one particular political and/or economic ideology?

Bull shit. If that was true then liberals wouldn't spend 24/7 trying to change, misinterpret and ignore it.

1. The constitution was designed to be changed.

2. Conservatives ignore it too...every war post-WW2 has been unconstitutional-yes this includes ones started by Republicans.

3. Both political parties choose to ignore it when it benefits their needs. Whether it's the 2nd amendment, or the 4th.

 

[Dragon]

1. The constitution was designed to be changed.

This is true. Also, I believe there are quite a few conservatives out there who would like a balanced budget amendment or a term limit amendment or a right to life amendment or all three.

2. Conservatives ignore it too...every war post-WW2 has been unconstitutional-yes this includes ones started by Republicans.

This is NOT true. The Constitutional granting to Congress the power to "declare war," does not require that Congressional authorization for military action include the words "declare war" or "declaration of war." It only requires that it exist. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was a declaration of war. The Congressional authorization for military action in Afghanistan, and the later one in Iraq, were declarations of war.

3. Both political parties choose to ignore it when it benefits their needs. Whether it's the 2nd amendment, or the 4th.

This is true but irrelevant. If we are talking about liberalism or conservatism, that does not mean we are talking about the Democratic or Republican parties. The Democrats, for the most part, are NOT liberals.

If we are ever to be free of the corporate plutocracy under which we suffer today, we MUST stop regarding the Democrats and Republicans as the left and right bookends of legitimate political positions.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams quotes

 

[Photonic]

The Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams quotes

I can beat that.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


What is it men cannot be made to believe!
-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)


Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787


Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom


I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")


I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789


They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802


History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.


The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814


In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814


If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816


You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819


As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819


Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820


To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820


Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.
-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.


I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823


And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823


It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825


May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)

 

[JamesInFlorida]

1. The constitution was designed to be changed.

This is true. Also, I believe there are quite a few conservatives out there who would like a balanced budget amendment or a term limit amendment or a right to life amendment or all three.

2. Conservatives ignore it too...every war post-WW2 has been unconstitutional-yes this includes ones started by Republicans.

This is NOT true. The Constitutional granting to Congress the power to "declare war," does not require that Congressional authorization for military action include the words "declare war" or "declaration of war." It only requires that it exist. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was a declaration of war. The Congressional authorization for military action in Afghanistan, and the later one in Iraq, were declarations of war.

3. Both political parties choose to ignore it when it benefits their needs. Whether it's the 2nd amendment, or the 4th.

This is true but irrelevant. If we are talking about liberalism or conservatism, that does not mean we are talking about the Democratic or Republican parties. The Democrats, for the most part, are NOT liberals.

If we are ever to be free of the corporate plutocracy under which we suffer today, we MUST stop regarding the Democrats and Republicans as the left and right bookends of legitimate political positions.

2. That's a cop-op. Do you really think the writers of the constitution played semantics sand said "well only congress can make it 'official' but the administration can start a war whenever they choose"? Give me a break. Modern politicians have taken that word way out of context-so they have more power.