The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

[daveman]

The Founding Fathers were born in what was called the Age of Reason. That's were people think logically about things. I don't hear you ever saying things about conservativism, it's always some partisan snipe against liberals. I doubt if you even know them and what you spend so much of your time addressing is your concept of a group of people.

It's really not my fault that you don't pay attention.

It isn't that hard to research the history of what the Founder Fathers did in the Bill of Rights, but you aren't going to find it in sites that have a formed opinion and are only cherry picking points to support that opinion.

Indeed. And if you do some research, you'll find the Founding Fathers were classical liberals who supported personal liberty and limited government -- exactly like today's conservatives, and the polar opposite of today's liberals.

If you listen only to the leftist echo chambers, you'll learn that today's liberals are EXACTLY the same as the Founding Fathers. The only evidence to support this assertion, besides petulant foot-stamping, is the fact that "classical Liberals" and "modern Liberals" both share some letters.

Do you see what I mean? You can't say what you believe and always talk about what the other person believes. There is very little content in what you say.

My views are pretty unambiguous. If you have any questions, just ask. But DON'T tell me there's nothing in what I say. It's no concern of mine that you don't like it.

The Founding Father were almost unanimous in not wanting a standing army. Do you think that would fly today? Madison vetoed a bill a national bank, and the issue is what defined anti-federalists, and then that same year sent a message to Congress to pass a bill for a national bank. That's the bank that Jackson stopped funding before it's charter ran out. Jefferson agreed to purchase the Louisiana Purchase and stated he didn't believe a President had that authority. You see originally the United States was just trying to buy the port of New Orleans to insure goods could pass through the port.

The Founding Fathers had principles, but they weren't stubborn men holding to principle over reality.

Did you have a point?

 

[Synthaholic]

It's really not my fault that you don't pay attention.

Indeed. And if you do some research, you'll find the Founding Fathers were classical liberals who supported personal liberty and limited government -- exactly like today's conservatives, and the polar opposite of today's liberals.

If you listen only to the leftist echo chambers, you'll learn that today's liberals are EXACTLY the same as the Founding Fathers. The only evidence to support this assertion, besides petulant foot-stamping, is the fact that "classical Liberals" and "modern Liberals" both share some letters.

Utter bullshit.

Show some examples.

Oh, you disagree that the Founding Fathers are just like modern liberals? You may be salvaged yet.

Nevertheless:

The Founding Liberals | Addicting Info

Today is the Fourth of July, a time when we as Americans celebrate our nations independence. Conservatives across the country are pretending to be patriotic. Liberals on the other hand are celebrating the biggest achievement that appears on their resume’: the founding of America and its government. You see, the Founding Fathers were, and always will be, liberals.​

Those Who Hate "Liberals" Really Hate a Free America

The rightist "conservative" media moguls who hate "liberals" actually hate a free America.

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, Hannity and O'Reilly, the Weekly Standard and Wall Street Journal---they all rant at some unspecified species allegedly left of center.

But right from its birth, America has been the very definition of a liberal nation.

Today's Foxist ditto-heads would have hated all America's founders: Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Madison,

Adams, Paine, and even the father of the modern corporate state, Alexander Hamilton.

All were liberals, both classic and modern. The documents they wrote---the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights---all were the definition of liberal. Rush's "conservative" rightists would have hated them then. And though they won't admit it, they hate them now.​

Bill Maher: The Founding Fathers Wouldn't Have Liked George Bush

I'm in Boston today, getting ready for my standup special tomorrow night live on HBO (last shameless plug, I promise), and walking around the city has made me remember: oh yeah, America started here. That's right, America was invented by liberal men in Boston and Philadelphia. Not that I don't love all of America, but rednecks who think they're the real America should read a history book once in a while. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin, Madison -- the whole lot of them were well read, erudite, European thinking children of the enlightenment, and they would have had absolutely nothing in common and less to say to a cowboy simpleton like George Bush.​

And for some home-grown prog dumbassery:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/173845-its-july-4th-have-you-thanked-a-liberal-today.html

So, how are you going to weasel out of this one?

The Huffington Post is a Leftist echo chamber?

 

[Dubya]

Today's' Liberal is yesterdays' Communist.

Liberals are into labels that sound good. They call themselves Progressives when in fact they are so much into destruction and conflict that there is no label for them.

That's the way the conservative movement has shifted the goal posts. They overlook little details of history like Wilson sending troops into Russia, when his war department warned him not to or how he removed socialists from government jobs, because before the Russian Revolution they were just consider eccentric. Little detail, like facts that Nixon opened the door to China and that corporatism isn't much different than socialism. Of course they're brainwashed your kind to the point where they don't even know what capitalism is anymore.

 

[daveman]

Utter bullshit.

Show some examples.

Oh, you disagree that the Founding Fathers are just like modern liberals? You may be salvaged yet.

Nevertheless:

The Founding Liberals | Addicting Info

Today is the Fourth of July, a time when we as Americans celebrate our nations independence. Conservatives across the country are pretending to be patriotic. Liberals on the other hand are celebrating the biggest achievement that appears on their resume’: the founding of America and its government. You see, the Founding Fathers were, and always will be, liberals.​

Those Who Hate "Liberals" Really Hate a Free America

The rightist "conservative" media moguls who hate "liberals" actually hate a free America.

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, Hannity and O'Reilly, the Weekly Standard and Wall Street Journal---they all rant at some unspecified species allegedly left of center.

But right from its birth, America has been the very definition of a liberal nation.

Today's Foxist ditto-heads would have hated all America's founders: Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Madison,

Adams, Paine, and even the father of the modern corporate state, Alexander Hamilton.

All were liberals, both classic and modern. The documents they wrote---the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights---all were the definition of liberal. Rush's "conservative" rightists would have hated them then. And though they won't admit it, they hate them now.​

Bill Maher: The Founding Fathers Wouldn't Have Liked George Bush

I'm in Boston today, getting ready for my standup special tomorrow night live on HBO (last shameless plug, I promise), and walking around the city has made me remember: oh yeah, America started here. That's right, America was invented by liberal men in Boston and Philadelphia. Not that I don't love all of America, but rednecks who think they're the real America should read a history book once in a while. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin, Madison -- the whole lot of them were well read, erudite, European thinking children of the enlightenment, and they would have had absolutely nothing in common and less to say to a cowboy simpleton like George Bush.​

And for some home-grown prog dumbassery:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/173845-its-july-4th-have-you-thanked-a-liberal-today.html

So, how are you going to weasel out of this one?

The Huffington Post is a Leftist echo chamber?

Yup. Weasel.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I hate to break it to you folks but the founding fathers, at least the ones who authored the Constitution, would puke at today's liberal. And conservative.

Words change their meaning and liberal in this country has done just that.

The easiest way to see that I am correct is to look at all the policies instituted and all the freedoms taken by the modern liberal and conservative that the "founding fathers" didn't do when they were in power.

 

[beagle9]

The Founding Fathers were born in what was called the Age of Reason. That's were people think logically about things. I don't hear you ever saying things about conservativism, it's always some partisan snipe against liberals. I doubt if you even know them and what you spend so much of your time addressing is your concept of a group of people.

It's really not my fault that you don't pay attention.

It isn't that hard to research the history of what the Founder Fathers did in the Bill of Rights, but you aren't going to find it in sites that have a formed opinion and are only cherry picking points to support that opinion.

Indeed. And if you do some research, you'll find the Founding Fathers were classical liberals who supported personal liberty and limited government -- exactly like today's conservatives, and the polar opposite of today's liberals.

If you listen only to the leftist echo chambers, you'll learn that today's liberals are EXACTLY the same as the Founding Fathers. The only evidence to support this assertion, besides petulant foot-stamping, is the fact that "classical Liberals" and "modern Liberals" both share some letters.

Do you see what I mean? You can't say what you believe and always talk about what the other person believes. There is very little content in what you say.

The Founding Father were almost unanimous in not wanting a standing army. Do you think that would fly today? Madison vetoed a bill a national bank, and the issue is what defined anti-federalists, and then that same year sent a message to Congress to pass a bill for a national bank. That's the bank that Jackson stopped funding before it's charter ran out. Jefferson agreed to purchase the Louisiana Purchase and stated he didn't believe a President had that authority. You see originally the United States was just trying to buy the port of New Orleans to insure goods could pass through the port.

The Founding Fathers had principles, but they weren't stubborn men holding to principle over reality.

Yes there were disagreements amongst them of course, and they did not agree on certain issues of course, but they would come to a consensus finally, and would agree that they should always act for the betterment of a nation and it's strength in those times ultimately, and this instead of getting hung up so bad like the current leaders are now, in which works to destroy a nation (making it weaker) as we are seeing today in so many ways.

So what is your point when going back to some of the characters found in the founding fathers, when it all worked out for the nation overall back then, instead of you not focusing on the current problems that are pertaining to the current events and people for whom we are dealing with today? Is debunking the founders somehow part of the agenda? Yes it is I think by the progressives in this way, so what is being aimed for in all of this, and will this nation ultimately go along with all of this in the end? We shall see, and if it does, then it could be that it does play into the bigger picture being sought after by the libs, but getting the majority on board with all of this will be interesting to witness, especially while looking back at history as is found in these things.

 

[Dubya]

It's really not my fault that you don't pay attention.

Indeed. And if you do some research, you'll find the Founding Fathers were classical liberals who supported personal liberty and limited government -- exactly like today's conservatives, and the polar opposite of today's liberals.

If you listen only to the leftist echo chambers, you'll learn that today's liberals are EXACTLY the same as the Founding Fathers. The only evidence to support this assertion, besides petulant foot-stamping, is the fact that "classical Liberals" and "modern Liberals" both share some letters.

Do you see what I mean? You can't say what you believe and always talk about what the other person believes. There is very little content in what you say.

The Founding Father were almost unanimous in not wanting a standing army. Do you think that would fly today? Madison vetoed a bill a national bank, and the issue is what defined anti-federalists, and then that same year sent a message to Congress to pass a bill for a national bank. That's the bank that Jackson stopped funding before it's charter ran out. Jefferson agreed to purchase the Louisiana Purchase and stated he didn't believe a President had that authority. You see originally the United States was just trying to buy the port of New Orleans to insure goods could pass through the port.

The Founding Fathers had principles, but they weren't stubborn men holding to principle over reality.

Yes there were disagreements amongst them of course, and they did not agree on certain issues of course, but they would come to a consensus finally, and would agree that they should always act for the betterment of a nation and it's strength in those times ultimately, and this instead of getting hung up so bad like the current leaders are now, in which works to destroy a nation (making it weaker) as we are seeing today in so many ways.

So what is your point when going back to some of the characters found in the founding fathers, when it all worked out for the nation overall back then, instead of you not focusing on the current problems that are pertaining to the current events and people for whom we are dealing with today? Is debunking the founders somehow part of the agenda? Yes it is I think by the progressives in this way, so what is being aimed for in all of this, and will this nation ultimately go along with all of this in the end? We shall see, and if it does, then it could be that it does play into the bigger picture being sought after by the libs, but getting the majority on board with all of this will be interesting to witness, especially while looking back at history as is found in these things.

Read it enough times to comprehend what is said! Those aren't examples of Founders working out an agreement. It's an example of two President believing in limited government and doing the opposite. The issue of the national bank is what started the schism between the Founders that lead to political parties. Jefferson and Madison were idealists and they saw banks buying up war debt owned to people who fought in the Revolutionary War for twenty five cent to the dollar. They thought it outrageous to treat war heros that way. The federal government assumed all the war debt owed by the colonies and it lacked the revenue to pay those debts. Hamilton was always involved with business and wanted a national bank. He agreed to move the capitol to present day DC to get southern support for his national bank. That's what started the Federalists and Anti-Federalists or Democratic Republicans parties who were lead by Jefferson and Madison.

Years pass and Jefferson is President. Americans have expanded beyond the Appalachian mountains into the watershed area of the Mississippi and goods need to travel through New Orleans for export. The area was owned by France, given to Spain and given back to France. There were interruptions in trade, so we had envoys in France trying to purchase New Orleans. They were there trying to get a deal for a long period of time and France wasn't interested. All of a sudden the word comes from Napoleon that he'll sell New Orleans and the whole territory of Louisiana for a price. Jefferson is caught in a dilemma. If he puts it in Congress's hands, they will probably argue about it for 6 months and Napoleon isn't going to wait. If Jefferson wants to double the size of the United States and solve the New Orleans problem, he has to act now, even though he knows he doesn't have the authority as President to spend the government's money. An offer Jefferson couldn't refused trumped his lifetime commitment to limited government, so he agreed to purchase the Louisiana Purchase, knowing he didn't have the authority to do so.

Eventually Madison becomes President and that dreaded national banks charter expires. During that time there is the War of 1812, the White House is burned, there is fear of British invasion, the economy has swings into depressions and Congress passes a new charter for a Second National Bank, which Madison vetos. Madison has followed his principles of limited government, until the economy sinks into another depression when the national bank is vetoed. So what does Madison do with his principles? In the same year he vetoed a bill for a national bank, he sends a letter to Congress asking them to pass a bill for a national bank.

These are accurate examples in the lives of the two men, best known for their stance on limited government, in fact they were the leaders of that movement. What I see in these examples are men of high principle, who were reasonable men and willing to humble their personal beliefs for the good of the country. Events happened in their Presidency when they had the responsibility of the people in their hands, so to deal with those specific events, they made the right choices and didn't allow their dogma to stand in their way.