The Tea Party loves the Constitution?

[Sallow]

Ok, first of all do not try to say that modern liberals share the same views of classical liberals, that is gross and incorrect characterization. Everything else, is true, HOWEVER, if modern liberals put that view into practice, there would be amendments that rewrite article 1 section 9. Instead, they circumvent the amendment process by saying stupid shit like the preamble allows for UHC, and they appoint judges to back up these absurd claims. I am not saying republicans are not guilty, the patriot act was obviously illegal to any legitimate constitutional scholar, but the point remains that congress is becoming TOO RADICAL and this is proven by the fact they know they can never get the American people to support amendments that legalize their illegal actions.

Side note, I believe it was Jefferson that said he would be surprised if liberty survived in the USA for more than 200 years, as then is when free societies tend to start collapsing due to power struggles, corruption etc. Unfortunately it looks like he was right.

I will break this down as such:

A. This whole notion of "Classical Liberalism" vs. "Modern Liberalism" is just absurd. Liberal values, principles and precepts at it's core retains it's structure..just as Conservatism does. This whole Classical crapola is a Conservative construct..and I am simply not having it.

B. The notion of "provide for the welfare" appears in more then just the preamble. It falls under congressional powers. And the commerce clause of congressional powers more then covers the health care bill. However, IMHO, much of the military expenditures as well has it's various departments are not.

C. There has been nothing more absurd then the "Citizens United" case..which is clearly an example of legislating from the bench and judicial activism.

D. We live in a representative republic. Love it or hate it..the people in congress are duly elected by the states/districts they represent.

A. Wrong. I know of NO MODERN LIBERAL that supports John Locke's ORIGINAL concept of liberalism or has read John Locke...hell or even knows who John Locke is...the founder of classical liberalism. Read about FDR and the new deal. Read about how FDR hijacked the term liberal. Read history.

B. it says PROMOTE the general welfare, NOT PROVIDE. Promote means to encourage, not supply. Basic english language. Don't misquote the constitution, please. You are sounding just as bad as the perversion supporters in DC.

C. Clearly.

D. Ok. They are still restricted by the enumerated powers in which they ignore. It is a gangster government now.

A. Have you actually read Locke? Because if you have..then your blanket and broad pronouncement makes no sense. Liberalism is not absolute. It is, however about growth. And I would suggest reading Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau and Bacon to fully understand the beginnings of Liberalism and the Social Contract.

B. Textualism? How quaint.

C. In some cases..I believe this is correct. Particularily in the case of Corporate cash. But I don't believe we have a "gangster" government.

 

[Liberty]

I will break this down as such:

A. This whole notion of "Classical Liberalism" vs. "Modern Liberalism" is just absurd. Liberal values, principles and precepts at it's core retains it's structure..just as Conservatism does. This whole Classical crapola is a Conservative construct..and I am simply not having it.

B. The notion of "provide for the welfare" appears in more then just the preamble. It falls under congressional powers. And the commerce clause of congressional powers more then covers the health care bill. However, IMHO, much of the military expenditures as well has it's various departments are not.

C. There has been nothing more absurd then the "Citizens United" case..which is clearly an example of legislating from the bench and judicial activism.

D. We live in a representative republic. Love it or hate it..the people in congress are duly elected by the states/districts they represent.

A. Wrong. I know of NO MODERN LIBERAL that supports John Locke's ORIGINAL concept of liberalism or has read John Locke...hell or even knows who John Locke is...the founder of classical liberalism. Read about FDR and the new deal. Read about how FDR hijacked the term liberal. Read history.

B. it says PROMOTE the general welfare, NOT PROVIDE. Promote means to encourage, not supply. Basic english language. Don't misquote the constitution, please. You are sounding just as bad as the perversion supporters in DC.

C. Clearly.

D. Ok. They are still restricted by the enumerated powers in which they ignore. It is a gangster government now.

A. Have you actually read Locke? Because if you have..then your blanket and broad pronouncement makes no sense. Liberalism is not absolute. It is, however about growth. And I would suggest reading Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau and Bacon to fully understand the beginnings of Liberalism and the Social Contract.

B. Textualism? How quaint.

C. In some cases..I believe this is correct. Particularily in the case of Corporate cash. But I don't believe we have a "gangster" government.

A. Yes. Liberty as he described is NOT something modern liberals choose to embrace. Not by a long shot. Limited government, rights endowed by God, a government of men is derived by men, etc etc etc. Modern liberalism promotes more government control and more government power, the exact opposite of classical liberalism.

B. A spade is a spade.

C. its so obvious we have a gangster government. bailouts? buying out GM? Dealerships had to beg their senators to stay open. Is this not gangster? Where is the private sector? Come on, think a little bit.

 

[Sallow]

A. Wrong. I know of NO MODERN LIBERAL that supports John Locke's ORIGINAL concept of liberalism or has read John Locke...hell or even knows who John Locke is...the founder of classical liberalism. Read about FDR and the new deal. Read about how FDR hijacked the term liberal. Read history.

B. it says PROMOTE the general welfare, NOT PROVIDE. Promote means to encourage, not supply. Basic english language. Don't misquote the constitution, please. You are sounding just as bad as the perversion supporters in DC.

C. Clearly.

D. Ok. They are still restricted by the enumerated powers in which they ignore. It is a gangster government now.

A. Have you actually read Locke? Because if you have..then your blanket and broad pronouncement makes no sense. Liberalism is not absolute. It is, however about growth. And I would suggest reading Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau and Bacon to fully understand the beginnings of Liberalism and the Social Contract.

B. Textualism? How quaint.

C. In some cases..I believe this is correct. Particularily in the case of Corporate cash. But I don't believe we have a "gangster" government.

A. Yes. Liberty as he described is NOT something modern liberals choose to embrace. Not by a long shot. Limited government, rights endowed by God, a government of men is derived by men, etc etc etc. Modern liberalism promotes more government control and more government power, the exact opposite of classical liberalism.

B. A spade is a spade.

C. its so obvious we have a gangster government. bailouts? buying out GM? Dealerships had to beg their senators to stay open. Is this not gangster? Where is the private sector? Come on, think a little bit.

A. Basically..like most conservatives..you are cherry picking through Locke. That's understandable since if you'd actually read anything by him..in full..you'd know that Liberalism isn't so narrow.

B. Then..exactly what do you mean by "Promote"..this should be good.

C. "Gangsters" don't wait for a vote. They promote their agendas by violence or the threat there of..think a little bit.

 

[Liberty]

A. Have you actually read Locke? Because if you have..then your blanket and broad pronouncement makes no sense. Liberalism is not absolute. It is, however about growth. And I would suggest reading Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau and Bacon to fully understand the beginnings of Liberalism and the Social Contract.

B. Textualism? How quaint.

C. In some cases..I believe this is correct. Particularily in the case of Corporate cash. But I don't believe we have a "gangster" government.

A. Yes. Liberty as he described is NOT something modern liberals choose to embrace. Not by a long shot. Limited government, rights endowed by God, a government of men is derived by men, etc etc etc. Modern liberalism promotes more government control and more government power, the exact opposite of classical liberalism.



B. A spade is a spade.

C. its so obvious we have a gangster government. bailouts? buying out GM? Dealerships had to beg their senators to stay open. Is this not gangster? Where is the private sector? Come on, think a little bit.

A. Basically..like most conservatives..you are cherry picking through Locke. That's understandable since if you'd actually read anything by him..in full..you'd know that Liberalism isn't so narrow.

B. Then..exactly what do you mean by "Promote"..this should be good.

C. "Gangsters" don't wait for a vote. They promote their agendas by violence or the threat there of..think a little bit.

A. Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = classical, american founders liberalism
Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = modern social liberalism

B. Promote means to encourage through private means, and by the free market. This is outlined in one of the federalist papers that I do not recall the specific paper, however it is mentioned by Hamilton I believe, that to promote simply means to encourage the free market to work innovative, well, and fair.

Edit: sorry, its Madison and its federalist #45. Will edit with quote shortly.

Edit#2: Here is the full paragraph to provide context:
It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp

C. Agree to disagree I suppose, since the term is heavily based on opinion more than fact, I will concede. Personally I find it accurate, but can understand how others do not.

 

[Sallow]

A. Yes. Liberty as he described is NOT something modern liberals choose to embrace. Not by a long shot. Limited government, rights endowed by God, a government of men is derived by men, etc etc etc. Modern liberalism promotes more government control and more government power, the exact opposite of classical liberalism.



B. A spade is a spade.

C. its so obvious we have a gangster government. bailouts? buying out GM? Dealerships had to beg their senators to stay open. Is this not gangster? Where is the private sector? Come on, think a little bit.

A. Basically..like most conservatives..you are cherry picking through Locke. That's understandable since if you'd actually read anything by him..in full..you'd know that Liberalism isn't so narrow.

B. Then..exactly what do you mean by "Promote"..this should be good.

C. "Gangsters" don't wait for a vote. They promote their agendas by violence or the threat there of..think a little bit.

A. Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = classical, american founders liberalism
Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = modern social liberalism

B. Promote means to encourage through private means, and by the free market. This is outlined in one of the federalist papers that I do not recall the specific paper, however it is mentioned by Hamilton I believe, that to promote simply means to encourage the free market to work innovative, well, and fair.

Edit: sorry, its Madison and its federalist #45. Will edit with quote shortly.

Edit#2: Here is the full paragraph to provide context:
It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 45

C. Agree to disagree I suppose, since the term is heavily based on opinion more than fact, I will concede. Personally I find it accurate, but can understand how others do not.

A. Again..I am not going to nutshell liberalism..or fit it into a nice tight little conservative box. Suffice to say Locke touched upon many ideals of Liberalism..but he is not the beginning and end of the philosophy..nor I suspect would he advocate he was..

B. Well..you've touched upon the differences between the founders. Thomas Paine would be considered a "socialist" in the books of many of today's Conservatives. And Hamilton was very much against a standing army under federal control.

C. And that's the lynchpin of America's politics. People agreeing..disagreeing and compromising.

 

[Liberty]

A. Basically..like most conservatives..you are cherry picking through Locke. That's understandable since if you'd actually read anything by him..in full..you'd know that Liberalism isn't so narrow.

B. Then..exactly what do you mean by "Promote"..this should be good.

C. "Gangsters" don't wait for a vote. They promote their agendas by violence or the threat there of..think a little bit.

A. Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = classical, american founders liberalism
Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = modern social liberalism

B. Promote means to encourage through private means, and by the free market. This is outlined in one of the federalist papers that I do not recall the specific paper, however it is mentioned by Hamilton I believe, that to promote simply means to encourage the free market to work innovative, well, and fair.

Edit: sorry, its Madison and its federalist #45. Will edit with quote shortly.

Edit#2: Here is the full paragraph to provide context:
It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 45

C. Agree to disagree I suppose, since the term is heavily based on opinion more than fact, I will concede. Personally I find it accurate, but can understand how others do not.

A. Again..I am not going to nutshell liberalism..or fit it into a nice tight little conservative box. Suffice to say Locke touched upon many ideals of Liberalism..but he is not the beginning and end of the philosphy..nor I suspect would he advocate he was..

B. Well..you've touched upon the differences between the founders. Thomas Paine would be considered a "socialist" in the books of many of today's Conservatives. And Hamilton was very much against a standing army under federal control.

C. And that's the lynchpin of America's politics. People agreeing..disagreeing and compromising.

A. Locke never mentioned social justice, which is an integral idea in modern liberalism. Please, just give up on this...have some spine, i will not ridicule you.

B. My point remains valid.

C. I suppose.

 

[Sallow]

A. Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = classical, american founders liberalism
Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = modern social liberalism

B. Promote means to encourage through private means, and by the free market. This is outlined in one of the federalist papers that I do not recall the specific paper, however it is mentioned by Hamilton I believe, that to promote simply means to encourage the free market to work innovative, well, and fair.

Edit: sorry, its Madison and its federalist #45. Will edit with quote shortly.

Edit#2: Here is the full paragraph to provide context:
It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 45

C. Agree to disagree I suppose, since the term is heavily based on opinion more than fact, I will concede. Personally I find it accurate, but can understand how others do not.

A. Again..I am not going to nutshell liberalism..or fit it into a nice tight little conservative box. Suffice to say Locke touched upon many ideals of Liberalism..but he is not the beginning and end of the philosphy..nor I suspect would he advocate he was..

B. Well..you've touched upon the differences between the founders. Thomas Paine would be considered a "socialist" in the books of many of today's Conservatives. And Hamilton was very much against a standing army under federal control.

C. And that's the lynchpin of America's politics. People agreeing..disagreeing and compromising.

A. Locke never mentioned social justice, which is an integral idea in modern liberalism. Please, just give up on this...have some spine, i will not ridicule you.

B. My point remains valid.

C. I suppose.

A. What do you mean by "Social Justice". Locke was a big proponent of limited accumulation of wealth and that government should be able to establish boundries. He was an advocate of religious tolerance. He believed that the establishment of government was meant to be a civil way of settling disagreements. I can't think of anything more in line with "Social Justice" then those concepts. And seriously..there's is never a need to "ridicule" honest differences..unless they are extreme. And even then..one should tread lightly.

B. Valid in a very narrow sense. The founders were not a unified unit.

 

[Liberty]

A. Again..I am not going to nutshell liberalism..or fit it into a nice tight little conservative box. Suffice to say Locke touched upon many ideals of Liberalism..but he is not the beginning and end of the philosphy..nor I suspect would he advocate he was..

B. Well..you've touched upon the differences between the founders. Thomas Paine would be considered a "socialist" in the books of many of today's Conservatives. And Hamilton was very much against a standing army under federal control.

C. And that's the lynchpin of America's politics. People agreeing..disagreeing and compromising.

A. Locke never mentioned social justice, which is an integral idea in modern liberalism. Please, just give up on this...have some spine, i will not ridicule you.

B. My point remains valid.

C. I suppose.

A. What do you mean by "Social Justice". Locke was a big proponent of limited accumulation of wealth and that government should be able to establish boundries. He was an advocate of religious tolerance. He believed that the establishment of government was meant to be a civil way of settling disagreements. I can't think of anything more in line with "Social Justice" then those concepts. And seriously..there's is never a need to "ridicule" honest differences..unless they are extreme. And even then..one should tread lightly.

B. Valid in a very narrow sense. The founders were not a unified unit.

A. Read the links I posted to see the difference.
B. K

 

[daveman]

It'll probably come as a surprise to you to find out that you haven't said one single original thing.

It's a good thing message board members have avatars so you can tell the lefties apart.

That's fine..I don't need to be "original" these posts aren't subject to copyrights.

And yes..there's probably a template for the left..there is most definitely a very rigid one for the right.

I'm sure it comforts you to think so.

But I am always surprised by Liberals, for example..Lars Erik Nelson..one of my favorite column writers. His pragmatic and liberal pieces were grounded in solid facts and extremely pragmatic. He was always on the side of human rights, fairness and equality.

After his death, I found out he was a registered Republican.

Liberal AND Republican.

Go figure.

Looks like the GOP has a pretty big tent, huh?

 

[daveman]

A. This whole notion of "Classical Liberalism" vs. "Modern Liberalism" is just absurd. Liberal values, principles and precepts at it's core retains it's structure..just as Conservatism does. This whole Classical crapola is a Conservative construct..and I am simply not having it.

Your petulant foot-stamping is immaterial. The current cop of liberals has no interest in individual liberty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
- The mosque near ground zero?
Just because a person does not "support" a mosque being built at ground zero doesn't mean they want to change the constitution.

Foxnews' poll on the subject found 21% of Americans did not think Muslims should have the RIGHT to build the mosque there.

Now who do you suppose that 1 in 5 Americans are? Where do you suppose that 21% falls on the political spectrum?

 

[rightwinger]

A. This whole notion of "Classical Liberalism" vs. "Modern Liberalism" is just absurd. Liberal values, principles and precepts at it's core retains it's structure..just as Conservatism does. This whole Classical crapola is a Conservative construct..and I am simply not having it.

Your petulant foot-stamping is immaterial. The current cop of liberals has no interest in individual liberty.

Current Conservatives embrace the values of liberals of the past. As ususal, Cons are a generation or more behind the times. The concept of being on the wrong side of history on every major movement in our history shows where cons stand

 

[MarcATL]

[
- The mosque near ground zero?
Just because a person does not "support" a mosque being built at ground zero doesn't mean they want to change the constitution.

Foxnews' poll on the subject found 21% of Americans did not think Muslims should have the RIGHT to build the mosque there.

Now who do you suppose that 1 in 5 Americans are? Where do you suppose that 21% falls on the political spectrum?

I dunno my freng, buh I theeng dah eez mebbe dey RepubleyKUNG$?

 

[rightwinger]

Even though the Tea Party opposes much of what is in the Constitution, they do have one ace-in-the hole when it comes to the Constitution. Anything they object to they have something called....

Second Amendment Remedies

The Constitution...What a document!

 

[daveman]

Even though the Tea Party opposes much of what is in the Constitution...

No, they don't. Idiot.

 

[rightwinger]

Even though the Tea Party opposes much of what is in the Constitution...

No, they don't. Idiot.

Oh really?

How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
How do they feel about gay rights?
How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?

 

[Liberty]

Even though the Tea Party opposes much of what is in the Constitution...

No, they don't. Idiot.

Oh really?

How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
How do they feel about gay rights?
How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?

1. It is legal, but distasteful.
2. State issue, vote on it.
3. Legal immigration by ANYONE in the world is fine. If you're illegal...well people have differing opinions. Usually a common sense minded individual would prefer those that break the law to be punished in some way though.

Any other brain busters?

 

[daveman]

Even though the Tea Party opposes much of what is in the Constitution...

No, they don't. Idiot.

Oh really?

How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
How do they feel about gay rights?
How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?

So: Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?

Really?

You're not very bright, are you?

 

[rightwinger]

No, they don't. Idiot.

Oh really?

How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
How do they feel about gay rights?
How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?

So: Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?

Really?

You're not very bright, are you?

Notice how you ducked the question

 

[Liberty]

Oh really?

How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
How do they feel about gay rights?
How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?

So: Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?

Really?

You're not very bright, are you?

Notice how you ducked the question

Hey dumbass, wake the fuck up. I answered your childish questions. But like a typical loony ignorant moron you are ignoring it. What is it like being a hack and a fool?