The Fork In The Road...

[MaggieMae]

1. ... the original progressives—including leaders such as Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt—rejected America's founding principles....today's leftist policies are the culmination of a journey begun by progressives over a century ago.

2. The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of individual liberty and limited government that were the basis of the American republic.

I am always amazed at how the conservative corporatists know what was in the founder's heads as they created the American experiment. In truth the founders were elitists who thought they knew better than the average person, and were confused and bemused over the democracy [republic ?] that developed.

Repost - check out a real historian and not a corporate economic think tank hack like Pestritto. Wood discusses the founder's wonder over the evolution of a working society and the utopian fantasy of the wingnuts on the right.

American Founders and Foundations - 'Gordon Wood is author, co-author or editor of more than a dozen books, including:'

"The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (1969); Representation in the American Revolution (1969); The Making of the Constitution (1987); The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1992); The American Revolution: A History (2001); The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin (2004); Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different (2006); The Purpose of the Past: Reflections of the Uses of History (2008); Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (2010).


In Depth - In Depth: Gordon Wood - Book TV

Poor Middy, I almost feel sorry for you...I said almost.
This is political karma...if I may coin a phrase.
After inflicting this left wing, incompetent empty suit on the nation.

Now, to deconstruct your post:

1."I am always amazed at how the conservative corporatists.."
Isn't this a bit syncretic, combining conservative with corportist?
Corporatism is one arm of the statist-octopus. I believe Goldberg covered it in this way:
“Corporatism” was a term for dividing up industry into cooperative units, and associations, that would work together under the rubric of “national purpose.” Corporatism simply seemed a more straightforward attempt at what social planners and businessmen had been moving toward for decades. It embodied a new sense of national purpose that would allow business and labor to put aside their class differences and hammer out what was best for all. It represented an exhaustion with politics and a newfound faith in science and experts.

2. "...know what was in the founder's heads as they created the American experiment. In truth the founders were elitists who thought they knew better than the average person, and were confused and bemused over the democracy [republic ?] that developed. "
So, in your convoluted prose you deny my side knowing what the Founders thought, and then tell all what the Founders thought.

How thaumaturgical on your part!

3. "...discusses the founder's wonder over the evolution of a working society and the utopian fantasy of the wingnuts on the right. "
Perhaps you'd like to see some examples of the thinking on your side, and you might, in light of the OP, care to...what,...defend them? Did you notice how I refrain from pejoratives like 'wingnut'? Think about it.

a. Woodrow Wilson: : “Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals.” 1919: Betrayal and the Birth of Modern Liberalism by Fred Siegel, City Journal 22 November 2009

b. In addition to writing the 800-page tome, “The State,” he wrote more popular commentary. One of his regular themes was the advocacy of progressive imperialism in order to subjugate, and thereby elevate, lesser races. As to the annexation of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, “they are children and we are men in these deep matters of government and justice…”

c. . Wilson wrote in “The State,” 1889, that "Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand." His writings attack the Constitution, and the ideas of natural and individual rights. Along with Frank J. Goodnow, they pioneered the concept of the ‘administrative state,’ which separated the administration of government from the limitations of constitutional government.
American progressivism: a reader - Google Books

d. The rights which [an individual] possesses are...conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.” The Claremont Institute - Leaving the Constitution

e. ‘Wilson wrote treatises explaining why Americans should abandon their ‘blind devotion’ to the Constitution, Teddy was rough-riding all over the document, doing what he pleased and giving bellicose speeches about how the courts had sided against ‘popular rights’ and were ‘lagging behind’ the new realities.” J.Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism,” p.90.

f. The essence of Progressivism, as Wilson put it, was that the individual “marry his interests to the state.” James Bovard, “Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen,” p.8.

g. Roosevelt, in his “New Nationalism” speech” rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” New Nationalism Speech by Theodore Roosevelt

h. More from the same speech, 'The New Nationalism,' 1910: “We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. Oh, my, I had best stop now...but can provide more if you require it....
I certainly look forward to you, or anyone, finding errors in the above, or a way to spin these views to show how you support same...
Of course, if you are unable, you will leave the view that progressive views are far from the Founders, and those that I champion as American values.
(emphasis mine throughout)

If you like, I can link your fav, FDR to similar thinking, as well as the current progressives.

4. I must say, Midcan, that I appreciate the thought and the style, i.e. links and quotes, in your posts. I wish more on the board would handle debate in that manner.

What does any of that have to do with Midcan's immediate post to which you responded? Oh my, you DO tend to get carried away, PC. Far, FAR away from the topic.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The Founders were elitists?

Frank, of course they were.

They were the nation's leaders, best and brightest, and they structured the Constitution to insulate the government as much as possible from the mindless mobs. Why do you think we have the Electoral College? Why do you think they originally had Senators picked by State Legislatures? Why is the House, one of the few parts of the Federal Government directly elected by the people, so large as to be unwieldy?

You're the very same person that bemoans the poor and uneducated being allowed to vote because you're scared they'll vote "D".

The only reason you're having a problem like this is because you have a negative connotation of elite. Time was being the elite was something to be proud of. Time was we wanted smart, successful people to be our leaders. Now we'd rather follow an empty suit. We've had back to back to back empty suits, with more before them. If the Founders were alive today they'd be slapping us all silly.

 

[MaggieMae]

Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities - washingtonpost.com

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

NEW YORK, June 26 -- Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

Even those working people who pay no income tax (that shameless 40% we hear so much about), still must pay payroll taxes that support Social Security and Medicare, the two biggest entitlement programs and thus the mandatory FICA "tax" of 6.2% and 1.45% respectively, and the wealthier pay nothing once the limit of $106,800 is reached.

 

[MaggieMae]

Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities - washingtonpost.com

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

NEW YORK, June 26 -- Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

Calx, your hatred of the rich is duly noted, and not without interest...

but since the theme of this thread is "individual liberty, or serving the collective,' I wonder if you would care to share your views on this topic?

It shouldn't be an either/or proposition. In my humble opinion, I do NOT believe that's what the framers had in mind. Remember that the Constitution begins with "We, the people..." If "liberty" means destruction of the collective, that's wrong. If serving the collective [we, the people] means total loss of liberty, that's wrong too.

 

[MaggieMae]

1. ... the original progressives—including leaders such as Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt—rejected America's founding principles....today's leftist policies are the culmination of a journey begun by progressives over a century ago.

2. The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of individual liberty and limited government that were the basis of the American republic.

I am always amazed at how the conservative corporatists know what was in the founder's heads as they created the American experiment. In truth the founders were elitists who thought they knew better than the average person, and were confused and bemused over the democracy [republic ?] that developed.

Repost - check out a real historian and not a corporate economic think tank hack like Pestritto. Wood discusses the founder's wonder over the evolution of a working society and the utopian fantasy of the wingnuts on the right.

American Founders and Foundations - 'Gordon Wood is author, co-author or editor of more than a dozen books, including:'

"The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (1969); Representation in the American Revolution (1969); The Making of the Constitution (1987); The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1992); The American Revolution: A History (2001); The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin (2004); Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different (2006); The Purpose of the Past: Reflections of the Uses of History (2008); Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (2010).


In Depth - In Depth: Gordon Wood - Book TV

The Founders were elitists? You're such a perfect little tool, totally ignorant about our founding and economics. You should get a Gold Star for parroting back the entire Progressive Monologue

Of course they were. They signed the Constitution with clauses that only allowed white male property owners to vote. Can't get much more "elitist" than that.

 

[MaggieMae]

Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities - washingtonpost.com

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

NEW YORK, June 26 -- Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

Remember kids, prior to the first shot fired in the Progressive Jihad in 1913, we never even had a tax on personal income, it was then only supposed to be for the super rich and our Progressive Social Security number was never supposed to cattle brand us.

So what...? we should still be bartering, allowing our roads to keep filling up one level of accumulated debris at a time? Using crankup telephones and asking for an "operator" to connect our calls?? Maybe infrastructure modernization would have continued to "progress" if we just allowed the robber barons to do it their way. But wait. They've made a comeback and they are.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Founders were elitists? You're such a perfect little tool, totally ignorant about our founding and economics. You should get a Gold Star for parroting back the entire Progressive Monologue

Your claim is that the Founders were not the elite of our society at that time?

You Progressives have very strange notions about people. They were businessmen and farmers and they risked everything including their lives for their cause. Elites don't do that. Soros is a member of the Elite so are the Rockefellers

So are Sam and Charles Wyly. So is Allen Stanford. So is Harold Simmons. Elites don't always wear liberal clothing, genius.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am always amazed at how the conservative corporatists know what was in the founder's heads as they created the American experiment. In truth the founders were elitists who thought they knew better than the average person, and were confused and bemused over the democracy [republic ?] that developed.

Repost - check out a real historian and not a corporate economic think tank hack like Pestritto. Wood discusses the founder's wonder over the evolution of a working society and the utopian fantasy of the wingnuts on the right.

American Founders and Foundations - 'Gordon Wood is author, co-author or editor of more than a dozen books, including:'

"The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (1969); Representation in the American Revolution (1969); The Making of the Constitution (1987); The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1992); The American Revolution: A History (2001); The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin (2004); Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different (2006); The Purpose of the Past: Reflections of the Uses of History (2008); Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (2010).


In Depth - In Depth: Gordon Wood - Book TV

Poor Middy, I almost feel sorry for you...I said almost.
This is political karma...if I may coin a phrase.
After inflicting this left wing, incompetent empty suit on the nation.

Now, to deconstruct your post:

1."I am always amazed at how the conservative corporatists.."
Isn't this a bit syncretic, combining conservative with corportist?
Corporatism is one arm of the statist-octopus. I believe Goldberg covered it in this way:
“Corporatism” was a term for dividing up industry into cooperative units, and associations, that would work together under the rubric of “national purpose.” Corporatism simply seemed a more straightforward attempt at what social planners and businessmen had been moving toward for decades. It embodied a new sense of national purpose that would allow business and labor to put aside their class differences and hammer out what was best for all. It represented an exhaustion with politics and a newfound faith in science and experts.

2. "...know what was in the founder's heads as they created the American experiment. In truth the founders were elitists who thought they knew better than the average person, and were confused and bemused over the democracy [republic ?] that developed. "
So, in your convoluted prose you deny my side knowing what the Founders thought, and then tell all what the Founders thought.

How thaumaturgical on your part!

3. "...discusses the founder's wonder over the evolution of a working society and the utopian fantasy of the wingnuts on the right. "
Perhaps you'd like to see some examples of the thinking on your side, and you might, in light of the OP, care to...what,...defend them? Did you notice how I refrain from pejoratives like 'wingnut'? Think about it.

a. Woodrow Wilson: : “Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals.” 1919: Betrayal and the Birth of Modern Liberalism by Fred Siegel, City Journal 22 November 2009

b. In addition to writing the 800-page tome, “The State,” he wrote more popular commentary. One of his regular themes was the advocacy of progressive imperialism in order to subjugate, and thereby elevate, lesser races. As to the annexation of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, “they are children and we are men in these deep matters of government and justice…”

c. . Wilson wrote in “The State,” 1889, that "Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand." His writings attack the Constitution, and the ideas of natural and individual rights. Along with Frank J. Goodnow, they pioneered the concept of the ‘administrative state,’ which separated the administration of government from the limitations of constitutional government.
American progressivism: a reader - Google Books

d. The rights which [an individual] possesses are...conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.” The Claremont Institute - Leaving the Constitution

e. ‘Wilson wrote treatises explaining why Americans should abandon their ‘blind devotion’ to the Constitution, Teddy was rough-riding all over the document, doing what he pleased and giving bellicose speeches about how the courts had sided against ‘popular rights’ and were ‘lagging behind’ the new realities.” J.Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism,” p.90.

f. The essence of Progressivism, as Wilson put it, was that the individual “marry his interests to the state.” James Bovard, “Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen,” p.8.

g. Roosevelt, in his “New Nationalism” speech” rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” New Nationalism Speech by Theodore Roosevelt

h. More from the same speech, 'The New Nationalism,' 1910: “We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. Oh, my, I had best stop now...but can provide more if you require it....
I certainly look forward to you, or anyone, finding errors in the above, or a way to spin these views to show how you support same...
Of course, if you are unable, you will leave the view that progressive views are far from the Founders, and those that I champion as American values.
(emphasis mine throughout)

If you like, I can link your fav, FDR to similar thinking, as well as the current progressives.

4. I must say, Midcan, that I appreciate the thought and the style, i.e. links and quotes, in your posts. I wish more on the board would handle debate in that manner.

What does any of that have to do with Midcan's immediate post to which you responded? Oh my, you DO tend to get carried away, PC. Far, FAR away from the topic.

Glad you read my post, as it deflated any possible alternative to the view that progressives see the state, the collective as predominant, as opposed to the Founders, who supported the idea of liberty as an attribute of the individual.

Sorry you can't see how that applies to Midcans post: I can present it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities - washingtonpost.com

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

NEW YORK, June 26 -- Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

Calx, your hatred of the rich is duly noted, and not without interest...

but since the theme of this thread is "individual liberty, or serving the collective,' I wonder if you would care to share your views on this topic?

It shouldn't be an either/or proposition. In my humble opinion, I do NOT believe that's what the framers had in mind. Remember that the Constitution begins with "We, the people..." If "liberty" means destruction of the collective, that's wrong. If serving the collective [we, the people] means total loss of liberty, that's wrong too.

I've heard that one can get splinters by sitting on the fence.

 

[uscitizen]

Be an individual join the Tea Party!



LMAO

Did that actually seem to make any sense at all when you first thought of it?

It is so spot on it needs to make no sense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Be an individual join the Tea Party!



LMAO

Did that actually seem to make any sense at all when you first thought of it?

It is so spot on it needs to make no sense.

OMG- is it me?
Even the elucidation makes no sense!!!!

Help me on this: is it akin to "hermits have no peer pressure"?

 

[saveliberty]

Be an individual join the Tea Party!



LMAO

Did that actually seem to make any sense at all when you first thought of it?

It is so spot on it needs to make no sense.

If that was what you wre going for, you succeeded. Congrats.

 

[MaggieMae]

[What does any of that have to do with Midcan's immediate post to which you responded? Oh my, you DO tend to get carried away, PC. Far, FAR away from the topic.

Glad you read my post, as it deflated any possible alternative to the view that progressives see the state, the collective as predominant, as opposed to the Founders, who supported the idea of liberty as an attribute of the individual.

Sorry you can't see how that applies to Midcans post: I can present it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you.

Perhaps if you stopped using froufrou to explain your own interpretations, it would be a lot easier. I comprehend most complicated dissertations, and I can actually grasp your linked quotes written by highly esteemed authors better than I can understand your expanded explanation of them.

 

[saveliberty]

[What does any of that have to do with Midcan's immediate post to which you responded? Oh my, you DO tend to get carried away, PC. Far, FAR away from the topic.

Glad you read my post, as it deflated any possible alternative to the view that progressives see the state, the collective as predominant, as opposed to the Founders, who supported the idea of liberty as an attribute of the individual.

Sorry you can't see how that applies to Midcans post: I can present it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you.

Perhaps if you stopped using froufrou to explain your own interpretations, it would be a lot easier. I comprehend most complicated dissertations, and I can actually grasp your linked quotes written by highly esteemed authors better than I can understand your expanded explanation of them.

Sounds like you need to go read and get off message boards, if your intention is to understand learned writings. Mostly opinions and spin here.

 

[xotoxi]

With election season in full swing, the editorial in today's WSJ is on point, and a reminder to all of us that there decisions that will detemine the future of this great nation.

Simply put, individual liberty, or serving the collective.

From the Op-Ed by Professor Pestritto

1. ... the original progressives—including leaders such as Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt—rejected America's founding principles....today's leftist policies are the culmination of a journey begun by progressives over a century ago.

2. The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of individual liberty and limited government that were the basis of the American republic. America's original progressives were convinced that the country faced a set of social and economic problems demanding a sharp increase in federal power. They also said that there was too much emphasis placed on protecting the liberty of individuals at the expense of broader social justice.

3. ... in his 1887 essay, "Socialism and Democracy," Wilson considered the socialist principle—"that all idea of limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view"—to be entirely consistent with democratic principles: "In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. . . . Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none."

4. ...in his famous "New Nationalism" speech of 1910, [Roosevelt] said it was necessary that there be "a far more active governmental interference" with the economy. "It is not enough," he said, that a fortune was "gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."

5. To achieve their ends, progressives understood that the original constitutional limits on the scope of the federal government had to be breached. This is why Roosevelt railed against court decisions, like the famous Supreme Court case of Lochner v. New York (1905), that upheld individual property rights against progressive legislation ...

6. Today, a congressman such as Pete Stark can simply boast that the federal government "can do most anything in this country." And Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won't even consider the constitutionality of a government takeover of health care a "serious question." Given this state of affairs, it does not seem unreasonable to reflect on the origins of the disdain for the Constitution in the Progressive Era.
Ronald Pestritto: Glenn Beck, Progressives and Me - WSJ.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Founders were elitists?

Frank, of course they were.

They were the nation's leaders, best and brightest, and they structured the Constitution to insulate the government as much as possible from the mindless mobs. Why do you think we have the Electoral College? Why do you think they originally had Senators picked by State Legislatures? Why is the House, one of the few parts of the Federal Government directly elected by the people, so large as to be unwieldy?

You're the very same person that bemoans the poor and uneducated being allowed to vote because you're scared they'll vote "D".

The only reason you're having a problem like this is because you have a negative connotation of elite. Time was being the elite was something to be proud of. Time was we wanted smart, successful people to be our leaders. Now we'd rather follow an empty suit. We've had back to back to back empty suits, with more before them. If the Founders were alive today they'd be slapping us all silly.

Then why didn't they set up a Monarchy? They were Elites who got their hands messy and set up a government where the people would have the MOST say and not the least.

What they established was unparalleled in recent human history.

They were educated men who studied the governments of England, Rome, Greece and Florence and they gave the people more say than we've ever had.

 

[saveliberty]

I find most elitists are found in academia far from the work of creating a document supporting the rights of the common man. Every once and a while one will venture into politics and show themselves for the arrogrant, self serving asses they are.

ie. President Obama.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Then why didn't they set up a Monarchy? They were Elites who got their hands messy and set up a government where the people would have the MOST say and not the least.

You and I both know why. They distrusted centralized rule and set up a Federalist government only after the failed Articles of Confederation. Even at that point they still incorporated as many checks to keep the Federal Government as weak as possible.

But notice, as constructed the voters have very little direct input on the Federal Government. The President is elected through the filter of the Electoral College which has the power to completely disregard the popular election should they choose. The Senate was originally selected by State Legislature. The Judiciary and Executive posts are confirmed by the Senate.

The House is the one place in the original Constitution where the people have a direct ability to elect delegates, and even the House has built in checks on it. It is part of bicamal Legislature and is intentionally kept large and unweildly. Even at that point, the voting population was strictly controlled down to those that were White, Male, Citizens that owned land.

The Founders are on record as distrusting "The Dictatorship of the Majority" and took great effort to curb real democracy. Hence the reason we have a Republic, which is not the same thing.

Off topic, You and I both agree the Feds are too powerful and that too much power has moved from the States to the Feds.

What they established was unparalleled in recent human history.

Yes, it is a unique way to build a government. I do not debate that.

They were educated men who studied the governments of England, Rome, Greece and Florence and they gave the people more say than we've ever had.

Direct democracies where the population has had greater say existed before in the world. The Founders specifically (and wisely) rejected direct democracy.

We've taken steps since then to make our Government more democratic. We directly elect Senators, we've opened up the voting requirements, we've removed some limits on who can serve, etc. But those are things that came after the Founders.

The Founders were the Elite of their time, and they built a government that would last as long as possible and made sure they could control it, just to make sure. And there's nothing wrong with that. America was pretty weak and could have gone under early. Their leadership kept the nation around until today.

 

[MaggieMae]

Glad you read my post, as it deflated any possible alternative to the view that progressives see the state, the collective as predominant, as opposed to the Founders, who supported the idea of liberty as an attribute of the individual.

Sorry you can't see how that applies to Midcans post: I can present it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you.

Perhaps if you stopped using froufrou to explain your own interpretations, it would be a lot easier. I comprehend most complicated dissertations, and I can actually grasp your linked quotes written by highly esteemed authors better than I can understand your expanded explanation of them.

Sounds like you need to go read and get off message boards, if your intention is to understand learned writings. Mostly opinions and spin here.

Did you even get what I said? Read it again.

 

[MaggieMae]

I find most elitists are found in academia far from the work of creating a document supporting the rights of the common man. Every once and a while one will venture into politics and show themselves for the arrogrant, self serving asses they are.

ie. President Obama.

What would you call Wall Street bigwigs? I do believe they wear pinstriped suits and white shirts too and undoubtedly were educated at some of those elitist universities by those elitist 'liberal' professors.

I guess you must think there are good elitists and bad elitists.