The Interesting Scoop on George Washington, Our First President!

[norwegen]

I disagree because they produced a Liberal d(The Constitution) that made provisions for change (Amendment process) instead of stagnation (conservatism).

The Constitution is a centrist document. As the Articles of Confederation provided for a union that teetered on licentiousness, the Constitution provided for cohesion among the states (as well as more authority for the central government (the power to pay its debts, collect taxes, regulate commerce among the states, etc.)). But it did not allow the Federalists to expand the central authority as some of them had hoped to.

The Whigs believed in constitutionally restrained government, and resisted the intrusion of the mother country after the Seven Years' War. The Tories believed in the Crown's prerogative and defended her intrusions into the lives of the people.

Now compare the Whigs and the Tories to the conservatives and the liberals.

Well no.

The Constitution is not Centrist. It was Liberal and a radical departure from Conservatism.

Monarchies are a very conservative form of government.

It is based on the notion that the right to rule hails from a higher power.

There isn't a more conservative notion out there then that.

Well, no.

Supreme authority vested in a person or group of people is not conservatism.

Liberalism is what government by prerogative is.

Live. Learn.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Since the Egyptians owned Hebrew slaves.

I guess when you didn't have heavy equipment, building massive constructions was impossible without them.

Several thousand years ago slavery was supposed to be a way to pay off your debt. Slaves were by law supposed to be treated fairly. That changed. Eventually it became ownership.

Wrong owning another person has never been honorable I'm kinda mad that you of all people would seek to excuse it as "everybody did it".

Its akin to going to a Jazz club seeing everyone smoke weed and use that as an excuse to why you slamming dope in your arm is an honorable thing

Not a good analogy.

At one time, believe it or not, owning slaves was accepted.

Yes but arent you and I talking today in today's terms or are you and I talking in those times terms?

You cannot base everything off of today's standards, so looking back in history and demeaning our founding fathers because of today's standards is wholeheartedly dishonest.

Its not dishonest. Dishonest is lying about something. Just because burning someone at the stake WAS acceptable doesnt mean that it is today or it will be described as such today. You have to decide if you want to discuss the past in todays terms or in those terms but owning slaves was never and never will be "honorable" even in those times.

In two hundred years owning a car or a home could be criminalized. Christianity could be criminalized in the next few years. We're damned near that now.

Ok, so whats your point? Things should be described as honorable because it was acceptable in the past? Like banging a 12 year old? Or kids smoking cigs?

 

[mudwhistle]

We get this constant rewriting of history from them, yet they get pissed when we mention Obama had his fudge packed when he was a kid, Al Gore is a flaming faggot, Hillary likes women, Janet Reno was butch, and there seems to be at least two women SCOTUS's and women all over the administration with short haircuts.

 

[ClosedCaption]

We get this constant rewriting of history from them, yet they get pissed when we mention Obama had his fudge packed when he was a kid, Al Gore is a flaming faggot, Hillary likes women, Janet Reno was butch, and there seems to be at least two women SCOTUS's and women all over the administration with short haircuts.

You see the difference stop being stupid. Because no one said GW was a fag Unless you consider not hating fags to be just like BEING an actual fag

 

[mudwhistle]

Wrong owning another person has never been honorable I'm kinda mad that you of all people would seek to excuse it as "everybody did it".

Its akin to going to a Jazz club seeing everyone smoke weed and use that as an excuse to why you slamming dope in your arm is an honorable thing

Not a good analogy.

At one time, believe it or not, owning slaves was accepted.

Yes but arent you and I talking today in today's terms or are you and I talking in those times terms?

You cannot base everything off of today's standards, so looking back in history and demeaning our founding fathers because of today's standards is wholeheartedly dishonest.

Its not dishonest. Dishonest is lying about something. Just because burning someone at the stake WAS acceptable doesnt mean that it is today or it will be described as such today. You have to decide if you want to discuss the past in todays terms or in those terms but owning slaves was never and never will be "honorable" even in those times.

In two hundred years owning a car or a home could be criminalized. Christianity could be criminalized in the next few years. We're damned near that now.

Ok, so whats your point? Things should be described as honorable because it was acceptable in the past? Like banging a 12 year old? Or kids smoking cigs?

My point is taken out of context anything can sound bad.

I have a problem with liberals because they love tearing down our institutions like they're worse than anything that happened in history.

I figure our enemies don't need to say anything bad about us because you tossers do it for them. All you do is spend your spare time dragging us through the mud and give them a false feeling of superiority.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Not a good analogy.

At one time, believe it or not, owning slaves was accepted.

Yes but arent you and I talking today in today's terms or are you and I talking in those times terms?



Its not dishonest. Dishonest is lying about something. Just because burning someone at the stake WAS acceptable doesnt mean that it is today or it will be described as such today. You have to decide if you want to discuss the past in todays terms or in those terms but owning slaves was never and never will be "honorable" even in those times.

In two hundred years owning a car or a home could be criminalized. Christianity could be criminalized in the next few years. We're damned near that now.

Ok, so whats your point? Things should be described as honorable because it was acceptable in the past? Like banging a 12 year old? Or kids smoking cigs?

My point is taken out of context anything can sound bad.

No Your entire point was you wanted someone to consider owning slaves as "honorable" and that sir is such bullshit that now you are onto some other point.

 

[mudwhistle]

We get this constant rewriting of history from them, yet they get pissed when we mention Obama had his fudge packed when he was a kid, Al Gore is a flaming faggot, Hillary likes women, Janet Reno was butch, and there seems to be at least two women SCOTUS's and women all over the administration with short haircuts.

You see the difference stop being stupid. Because no one said GW was a fag Unless you consider not hating fags to be just like BEING an actual fag

And you feel not supporting same-sex marriages is the same as hating them.

I figure if it makes them feel better about themselves then go ahead and legally bind yourself to each other. Then don't complain when you want a divorce and have to pay the lawyers.

There's plenty of evidence to support that Al Gore , Hillary, Obama, and the rest swing for the other team. There is no evidence that Bush does. Besides, what difference at this point does it make?

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes but arent you and I talking today in today's terms or are you and I talking in those times terms?



Its not dishonest. Dishonest is lying about something. Just because burning someone at the stake WAS acceptable doesnt mean that it is today or it will be described as such today. You have to decide if you want to discuss the past in todays terms or in those terms but owning slaves was never and never will be "honorable" even in those times.




Ok, so whats your point? Things should be described as honorable because it was acceptable in the past? Like banging a 12 year old? Or kids smoking cigs?

My point is taken out of context anything can sound bad.

No Your entire point was you wanted someone to consider owning slaves as "honorable" and that sir is such bullshit that now you are onto some other point.

No.

Dude, you cannot win an argument when you attempt to put words in other people's mouths.

If I was rich enough in those days to own slaves they wouldn't be slaves. They would be called workers. Fieldhands. Owning a slave and assuming they were automatically treated badly is quite an assumption.

 

[ClosedCaption]

My point is taken out of context anything can sound bad.

No Your entire point was you wanted someone to consider owning slaves as "honorable" and that sir is such bullshit that now you are onto some other point.

No.

Dude, you cannot win an argument when you attempt to put words in other people's mouths.

Since when has owning slaves been honorable?

Since the Egyptians owned Hebrew slaves.

I didnt make you say it buddy

 

[LordBrownTrout]

We had gay slave owners? Who knew.

 

[ClosedCaption]

We get this constant rewriting of history from them, yet they get pissed when we mention Obama had his fudge packed when he was a kid, Al Gore is a flaming faggot, Hillary likes women, Janet Reno was butch, and there seems to be at least two women SCOTUS's and women all over the administration with short haircuts.

You see the difference stop being stupid. Because no one said GW was a fag Unless you consider not hating fags to be just like BEING an actual fag

And you feel not supporting same-sex marriages is the same as hating them.

I figure if it makes them feel better about themselves then go ahead and legally bind yourself to each other. Then don't complain when you want a divorce and have to pay the lawyers.

There's plenty of evidence to support that Al Gore , Hillary, Obama, and the rest swing for the other team. There is no evidence that Bush does. Besides, what difference at this point does it make?

Exactly why I wondered why you brought it up. Looks like you and I both dont know why you say the things you do.

 

[The Rabbi]

You see the difference stop being stupid. Because no one said GW was a fag Unless you consider not hating fags to be just like BEING an actual fag

And you feel not supporting same-sex marriages is the same as hating them.

I figure if it makes them feel better about themselves then go ahead and legally bind yourself to each other. Then don't complain when you want a divorce and have to pay the lawyers.

There's plenty of evidence to support that Al Gore , Hillary, Obama, and the rest swing for the other team. There is no evidence that Bush does. Besides, what difference at this point does it make?

Exactly why I wondered why you brought it up. Looks like you and I both dont know why you say the things you do.

I can help there. He says what he does because it is true, or reasonably true.
You say what you do because you are an ignorant sniverling little pissant without two brain cells to rub together.

 

[mudwhistle]

No Your entire point was you wanted someone to consider owning slaves as "honorable" and that sir is such bullshit that now you are onto some other point.

No.

Dude, you cannot win an argument when you attempt to put words in other people's mouths.

Since when has owning slaves been honorable?

Since the Egyptians owned Hebrew slaves.

I didnt make you say it buddy

It was honorable to the Egyptians, bud!!

 

[mudwhistle]

You see the difference stop being stupid. Because no one said GW was a fag Unless you consider not hating fags to be just like BEING an actual fag

And you feel not supporting same-sex marriages is the same as hating them.

I figure if it makes them feel better about themselves then go ahead and legally bind yourself to each other. Then don't complain when you want a divorce and have to pay the lawyers.

There's plenty of evidence to support that Al Gore , Hillary, Obama, and the rest swing for the other team. There is no evidence that Bush does. Besides, what difference at this point does it make?

Exactly why I wondered why you brought it up. Looks like you and I both dont know why you say the things you do.

Guess you never had lessons on the uses of irony in school.

 

[Sallow]

The Constitution is a centrist document. As the Articles of Confederation provided for a union that teetered on licentiousness, the Constitution provided for cohesion among the states (as well as more authority for the central government (the power to pay its debts, collect taxes, regulate commerce among the states, etc.)). But it did not allow the Federalists to expand the central authority as some of them had hoped to.

The Whigs believed in constitutionally restrained government, and resisted the intrusion of the mother country after the Seven Years' War. The Tories believed in the Crown's prerogative and defended her intrusions into the lives of the people.

Now compare the Whigs and the Tories to the conservatives and the liberals.

Well no.

The Constitution is not Centrist. It was Liberal and a radical departure from Conservatism.

Monarchies are a very conservative form of government.

It is based on the notion that the right to rule hails from a higher power.

There isn't a more conservative notion out there then that.

Well, no.

Supreme authority vested in a person or group of people is not conservatism.

Liberalism is what government by prerogative is.

Live. Learn.

Well yeah..it is.

Unless of course you hold to a notion that conservatives never formed or founded a nation.