Which GOP Candidate Would The Founders Support?...

[Sallow]

They did have ever leave us something to build on.

Agreed. They sure enough did. But this sort of conjecture, about who they would chose now, is sorta ridiculous.

They were the "liberals" of their time. But they believed that women, and non-whites were inferior to white men. And that's just for starters.

What was fine and dandy in their time..isn't really fine and dandy now.

Damn you understood that? I need to start proof reading my post. It's bad when I have to question what I wrote.

In other words
I stated that they left us a foundation to build on.

I understood it fine, my friend.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Agreed. They sure enough did. But this sort of conjecture, about who they would chose now, is sorta ridiculous.

They were the "liberals" of their time. But they believed that women, and non-whites were inferior to white men. And that's just for starters.

What was fine and dandy in their time..isn't really fine and dandy now.

Damn you understood that? I need to start proof reading my post. It's bad when I have to question what I wrote.

In other words
I stated that they left us a foundation to build on.

I understood it fine, my friend.

Smart person

 

[Two Thumbs]

Damn you understood that? I need to start proof reading my post. It's bad when I have to question what I wrote.

In other words
I stated that they left us a foundation to build on.

I understood it fine, my friend.

Smart person

Or as fucked in the head as you are.



yeah


that seems the most likely, since I was about to ask WTF? puff puff pass mutherfukker!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I understood it fine, my friend.

Smart person

Or as fucked in the head as you are.



yeah


that seems the most likely, since I was about to ask WTF? puff puff pass mutherfukker!!

 

[Two Thumbs]

None of us have any real grasp or understanding of the Founders.

Try to imagine;

As you sign the Declaration or the Constitution, that if you lose the Revolution, to the greatest Army/Navy the world has ever seen, you will be hung by the neck until dead.


you don't know if you have the brass to do that unless you someone end up in that situation.

so anyone claiming they are descended from the Founders had better be family. Anyone claiming political descention is full of shit.

Well yes and no.

Did they put their lives at risk? Sure. But I am also sure some of them had a "back out" plan if things went wrong.

Like a beeline to France or something.

I'm sure more than one had escape plans, if not all of them.

but nonetheless, they were all dead men or on the run men, who all had families they would now have to struggle to keep alive.

 

[The T]

I'm always entertained when any candidate, or any party, claims the Founders would agree with them. All it shows is the absolute ignorance of those who claim the Founders.

The Founders for the most part were in agreement to embarking on the journey towards liberty and independence, but there was terrible disagreement on how to proceed to get to where they were going. They as us engaged in sometimes vicious debate.

The journey continues to this day.

 

[rightwinger]

The founding fathers would be appalled at each of the GOP candidates

Of course they would also lock Obama and his family up as a slaves

 

[The T]

None of us have any real grasp or understanding of the Founders.

Try to imagine;

As you sign the Declaration or the Constitution, that if you lose the Revolution, to the greatest Army/Navy the world has ever seen, you will be hung by the neck until dead.


you don't know if you have the brass to do that unless you someone end up in that situation.

so anyone claiming they are descended from the Founders had better be family. Anyone claiming political descention is full of shit.

Well yes and no.

Did they put their lives at risk? Sure. But I am also sure some of them had a "back out" plan if things went wrong.

Like a beeline to France or something.

I'm sure more than one had escape plans, if not all of them.

but nonetheless, they were all dead men or on the run men, who all had families they would now have to struggle to keep alive.

The Founders without exception put thier honor, fortunes and lives at stake knowing what the price of failure meant.

 

[naomibee]

Well yes and no.

Did they put their lives at risk? Sure. But I am also sure some of them had a "back out" plan if things went wrong.

Like a beeline to France or something.

I'm sure more than one had escape plans, if not all of them.

but nonetheless, they were all dead men or on the run men, who all had families they would now have to struggle to keep alive.

The Founders without exception put thier honor, fortunes and lives at stake knowing what the price of failure meant.

true!!

 

[JoeB131]

Who cares?

the founders were a bunch of slave-holders who didn't like paying their taxes.

We've evolved past them, and become a mature society. The idea we can go back to 18th century governing principles in the 21st is just silly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When the Right is trying to convince us how many more zillions we need to spend on the military,

it's all about how much the world has changed.

Otherwise, when it suits them, our world is perfectly comparable to the 18th century, and therefore the fat white drunks in powdered wigs are godlike in their wisdom and totally relevant.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who cares?

the founders were a bunch of slave-holders who didn't like paying their taxes.

We've evolved past them, and become a mature society. The idea we can go back to 18th century governing principles in the 21st is just silly.

No wonder you support Romney you Statist pig

 

[JakeStarkey]

probably Jon Huntsman

 

[rightwinger]

When the Right is trying to convince us how many more zillions we need to spend on the military,

it's all about how much the world has changed.

Otherwise, when it suits them, our world is perfectly comparable to the 18th century, and therefore the fat white drunks in powdered wigs are godlike in their wisdom and totally relevant.

For their time, they were pretty damned good

But to think that some lawyers from 235 years ago who were setting up an agrarian society stretched out over a thousand miles knew how to run a 21st century super power is outlandish

 

[bigrebnc1775]

probably Jon Huntsman

He's just another newt that goes the way of the political winds

Supported individual mandate in 2007; opposes it now

In 2004, Huntsman promised to reform Utah's health care system. He vowed to fix a system that had left thousands of Utah residents without health insurance, even telling the incoming executive director of Utah's Department of Health that his goal was to insure everyone. During his first term, Huntsman became smitten with Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's Health Connector plan, which included a mandate.
Huntsman and his administration went on to support a 2007 United Way of Salt Lake City plan which called for a mandate. That same year, his cabinet and others pushed draft legislation that mirrored the Massachusetts model and the United Way plan and included a mandate. When the Utah legislature balked at such a mandate, it was taken off the table. Instead, in 2008, Huntsman passed a reform bill that established a health care exchange for small businesses known as the Utah Health Exchange that left uninsured individuals unaddressed. Huntsman has denied that he ever supported a mandate.

Jon Huntsman on Health Care

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are an extremist, bigreb, with almost no understanding about these matters.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When the Right is trying to convince us how many more zillions we need to spend on the military,

it's all about how much the world has changed.

Otherwise, when it suits them, our world is perfectly comparable to the 18th century, and therefore the fat white drunks in powdered wigs are godlike in their wisdom and totally relevant.

The founders would piss on both political party's.

 

[Ernie S.]

Interesting take from Brion McClanahan.


I am often asked in interviews if the founding generation would recognize the modern government in Washington, D.C. I always answer yes, they would. They would recognize tyranny, the usurpation of power by the executive branch, the trampling of civil liberties and the endless wars of a government bent on empire. The several states seceded from a government like that in 1776 and they would probably advocate the same course today. Barack Obama has more power than George III ever had. That said, the next question is usually, “Well, what do we do about it and who among the current crop of presidential candidates would best adhere to the founding principles?"

The answer to the first part of that question is more complex than the answer to the second part. If Americans truly believed in limited government, then we would be following the prescription that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made in 1798 by ignoring unconstitutional federal laws, participating in local and state government and using the powers of the states as a hedge against the general government. This is a long war that requires education and what Jefferson called “manly firmness.” Most important, the Constitution would not have been ratified had the founding generation believed that the states would become mere provinces of the general government or that what Patrick Henry called the “sweeping clauses” would be abused. The political class has to be held responsible.

As for the second part of that question, the answer is simple: Ron Paul. No one man can save the federal republic, but if the Founders, with perhaps an exception or two, had their choice, it would be the man who has the best understanding of the original construction of the executive branch, and among the four remaining Republicans, the best understanding of the Constitution and the original intent in general. Mitt Romney has conceded he knows little about the principles of federalism (with the exception of correctly insisting that Romneycare in Massachusetts is a state issue) and defers to Paul on the Constitution; Newt Gingrich believes that federal judges should be dragged before Congress to “answer” for their decisions (News flash, Newt! Federal judges can be impeached); Rick Santorum thinks that the phrase “pursuit of happiness” is in the Constitution, or perhaps the Declaration of Independence is a governing document, I couldn’t tell by his incoherent statements to Glenn Beck. All believe that the general government should be charged with finding “solutions” to societal ills. All believe that the president is a prime minister charged with initiating legislation and have a “progressive” view of executive powers, particularly in regard to foreign policy, the antithesis of the original intent. All, that is, except Ron Paul.


Read more: Ron Paul | Which GOP candidate would the Founders support? | The Daily Caller

They would probably support Paul if he wasn't batshit crazy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are an extremist, bigreb, with almost no understanding about these matters.

He was for mandates . that good enough for me to know just how wrong you will always be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When the Right is trying to convince us how many more zillions we need to spend on the military,

it's all about how much the world has changed.

Otherwise, when it suits them, our world is perfectly comparable to the 18th century, and therefore the fat white drunks in powdered wigs are godlike in their wisdom and totally relevant.

The founders would piss on both political party's.

Son, they lived before 1800 and would have very little understanding of what is what now, and how to deal with it.