Why do conservatives want to go back to the 18th century?

[ScienceRocks]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

 

[The Great Goose]

Because they are reactionary. They cannot think traditionary and therefore cannot adjust to save the race.

 

[OKTexas]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

Maybe one day you will grow up and understand the concept of federalism. The States have their job, the federal government has its, it's all laid out in the Constitution. If you want to expand the roll of the feds, amend the Constitution, don't just ignore it. So simple a child could understand.

 

[BULLDOG]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

Maybe one day you will grow up and understand the concept of federalism. The States have their job, the federal government has its, it's all laid out in the Constitution. If you want to expand the roll of the feds, amend the Constitution, don't just ignore it. So simple a child could understand.

Has the roll of the feds been illegally expanded?

 

[ScienceRocks]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

Maybe one day you will grow up and understand the concept of federalism. The States have their job, the federal government has its, it's all laid out in the Constitution. If you want to expand the roll of the feds, amend the Constitution, don't just ignore it. So simple a child could understand.

Has the roll of the feds been illegally expanded?

Libertarians and extreme conservatives keeps saying it but there is no proof that it has.

 

[BULLDOG]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

Maybe one day you will grow up and understand the concept of federalism. The States have their job, the federal government has its, it's all laid out in the Constitution. If you want to expand the roll of the feds, amend the Constitution, don't just ignore it. So simple a child could understand.

Has the roll of the feds been illegally expanded?

Libertarians and extreme conservatives keeps saying it but there is no proof that it has.

I know. If Hannity told them the sun set in the East, they would complain about the time zones being backward.

 

[Jack4jill]

Why go back? Because very little was known about the world then. Fits them perfectly.

 

[Andylusion]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

The purpose for changing from the articles of Confederation, to the Constitution was simply that under the articles of confederation, the Federal Government had no ability to raise an army, nor fund it. As a result, when the brits were attacking, the Feds couldn't compel one state, to provide personnel to defend another state. Additionally, the continental army was obviously short on supplies, food, clothing, ammunition. Since the Federals had extremely limited amounts of money, due to the limitations on taxation, the army tended to stay in, or near, the states which had the money to fund it. Namely New York.

The military was more likely to listen to, and follow the directives of states who paid up for military supplies, than the Federal Government which couldn't be counted on for funding. Not unlike what we saw with the African armies fighting Boko Haram, where military units stayed in the cities where they could get more supplies, rather than fight for the government which couldn't be relied on to provide even bullets.

The difference between the left-wing view of today, and the right-wing view of the 1700s, was that the only justification for giving more power to the US Federal Government, was the protection of the nation as a whole. You, and those like you, try and destroy the ability of the Federals to defend the country, but demand ever greater Federal control over everything else. You take and take, not to protect the country, but rather to harm the citizens of this country, with ever greater control and regulations over every aspect of our lives.

And by the way, none of it is legal under the Constitution.

Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years.

That is both true, and false, depending on what you are talking about, and how much opinion you are basing it on. The standard of living improved far more in the 1800s, during the less regulated times, than it has in the 1900s.

Now that isn't to say that our standard of living hasn't improved in the last 100 years, but just not as much as it did in the prior 100 years.

Beyond that, there are many aspect of our society that have not improved. There was a time when murder was shocking. Where robbery and burglary were a rare event. Where people not only didn't have locks, but left their doors wide open.

Now we live in a world where my home was ransacked, and the police said openly, nothing is likely to be done. My neighbors just installed security cameras around their homes.

While there may be some improvement somewhere due to regulations and mandates, I'd be hard pressed to think of many that had a positive benefit.

I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?

Every authoritarian dictator, has used the exact same logic. Without exception, dictators claim that how can anyone deny them their dictations on society, when clearly it's for the benefit of the people? And in many cases it was. Stalin did, in the short term, improve the lives of those he championed. So did Hitler. And many others.

The problem is, once you give one group of people, complete power, they tend to abuse it. In the short term, yeah you cleaned up the river. In the long term, you have the Federal Government, and bureaucrats in Washington, dictating to each state, how they can use their own land.

This is why the Constitution says all rights reserved to the states. Not to the Feds. And you can give all the justifications and excuses why you think it's ok to pass dictates on the public, but it's not.

And the counter claim by people on your side of the discussion, is honestly ridiculous. In nearly every instance of government intervention, the state and local governments were already in the process of passing laws and mandates. And unlike the Federal government thousands of miles away, the state and local governments were doing exactly what needed done for their specific situation.

But instead, the Federal government stepped in, and wasted billions of dollars, usurping the authority of the states and local governments, and often made things worse, not better.

I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries.

On this, I wager we completely disagree. It's ironic you mention the Romans, because they are exactly who I myself cite, in countering this claim. Read about the works projects built by the Romans in far flung areas of the world. Take the Roman constructs in what is now the UK. They came to these far off places, built massive aqueducts, and sewer systems, and all this infrastructure.

But the local economies of those areas, couldn't support the infrastructure built by Rome. They simply didn't have the money to maintain and upkeep those infrastructure projects. As a result many of these areas were a constant draw on the Roman budget.

Then what happened when Rome couldn't afford it? The entire system crashed in on itself. The far flung places, which never had the economy to support these infrastructure projects, all turned to ruins.

What's my point? We're doing it all over again. There are cities in this country, which have built massive infrastructure projects, and to be honest, they simply can't afford them. They never could. They got the Federal Government to fund these projects.

And have you looked at the Federal budget lately? We're broke. We're $18.5 Trillion dollar broke. If we taxed at 100%, and collected all $16 Trillion dollars in GDP, we'd still be broke, for another $2 Trillion plus.

Now tell me, when the funding dries up, and those states and cities, dependent on the Federal Government to maintain those infrastructure projects, run out of cash.... what's going to happen?

And while you think what the Federal government has done is fantastic, in reality, not so much. Many of the expensive roads, served no additional purpose. Many were redundant.

Just above the red point, you see I-70. Next to I-70, is Route 40. Route 40, existed before I-70. Route 40 mirrors I-70 completely. This start at nearly the same point, and end nearly the same point. In many cases, you can see Route 40, from I-70.

Both are 4 lanes. Both are divided highways. Both go to the same places. Now tell me, for all those hundreds of billions spent... what was the point? What benefit do we get from having two highways that follow each other for hundreds on hundreds of miles?

What we got was billions of dollars in Federal debt, and two different, but nearly identical highways to pay upkeep on.

Zero benefits... tons of debt. If anything, the I-70 project may have had a negative effect. There are several former towns along Route 40, that have now ceased to exist, because I-70 destroyed them.

Abandoned drive in movie theaters.
Closed Motels.

What a boast to their economy having a second road built. The one thing about I-70, is that at least it hits all the major towns and cities on the way.... granted the same ones that Route 40 hits, but at least I-70 hits them.

I-71 is worse. There are two state funded roads that go from Columbus to Cincinnati. Both of these roads, his large towns on the way to Cinci. But oddly I-71 hits neither, and manages to avoid hitting any major town. Not only is it redundant, but it's also far less useful.

And if all of this isn't bad enough, do you know how much back room haggling and deal making went on, along with money and kick backs, by politicians and business, to influence where those Federally funded roads went? See unlike the state roads, where local papers reporting on local news, followed local scandals, but way way over in Washington, that stuff is normal.

So while you claim to be against big business influence, you setup a great system for them to influence. Not to mention politicians shaking dirty hands, to stand in front of voters claiming to have gotten them a great deal on a new road, that we didn't need, and will bring zero benefit.

It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states.

Now this..... I have to assume you have never been to Europe... nor have people who have lived in both the US and Europe, and have no idea what you are talking about.

If Europe has surpassed us in democracy, and that's what we are looking at right now in Europe... then you yourself have provided the absolute best reason possible for us to revert to the 1790s.

I've been to Europe. Europe is a step down from where we are. Now don't get me wrong..... Europe is 15 steps above most of the rest of the world. Way ahead of nearly of all of Africa, fairly ahead of all of South and Central America. Quite a few steps ahead of Asia (1st world Asia. Miles ahead of 3rd world Asia obviously).

But compared to the US, we are far ahead of them. We have larger homes. More appliances. Bigger cars. More freedom. More wealth. The lower class of our country, lives what would be considered upper-middle class in most of Europe. When I visited Europe, I found out that my first apartment... the el-cheapo college student apartment, was larger in terms of square footage, than the upper middle class house in Europe.

You have no idea what you are talking about, until you go to Europe and see the clothes lines strung up INSIDE the apartments of people, because they can't afford cloths driers. Until you see people with illegal TV sets, because if they are discovered, the government taxes them a fee... PER TV SET. So they have to hide them.

Anyone that thinks Europe is our future, hasn't lived there, or been there, or have relatives who live there. I have all three. There is a reason UK doctors went on strike, and left patients at the ER, without any doctors for several days. There's a reason France has nation wide protests leaving people without fuel for their cars. There's a reason Greece has completely imploded, Spain is barely hanging on, and the EU is worried Britain will leave.

Europe isn't quite in chaos, but it isn't in a good place..... but they have Democracy....

With all due respect, if you want Democracy, I would encourage you to move there and have it. Anyone smart, doesn't want that here.

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

The Dems haven't done a fucking thing for blacks since Nixon left office
Laughable
Blacks are far worse off now than they were in 1963
Hell, Obama alone has sent race relations back 30 years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Iceweasel]

Why go back? Because very little was known about the world then. Fits them perfectly.

You are the rest of the libtards don't understand what conservativism is. The reason you don't is that you don't give a flying fuck. All you care about is that there are people that oppose changing the culture to what you want it to be. It's as simple as that. So you will lie, smear, distort, misrepresent and demonize them and you have no problem doing so.

The fact that your side regularly assumes those tactics is a huge clue as to the different methodologies, ideology and character difference.

 

[Norman]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

Actually the extension of government is responsible for significantly lower performance of the economy. No one wants to go back to anywhere (although time travel would be cool, I give you that). What people want is to go sane...

Mob rule is no good... so I could care less if someone has surpassed the USA in being "democratic". It's a republic, not a democracy, thank god. Still waiting for the justification that gives you the authority to own other people and their earnings...

 

[OKTexas]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

Maybe one day you will grow up and understand the concept of federalism. The States have their job, the federal government has its, it's all laid out in the Constitution. If you want to expand the roll of the feds, amend the Constitution, don't just ignore it. So simple a child could understand.

Has the roll of the feds been illegally expanded?

Evidently you don't grasp the meaning of enumerated powers.

 

[Anathema]

Has the roll of the feds been illegally expanded?

YES. It started in large part with Mister Lincoln's War and was then expanded extensively through the first four decades of the 20th century. Especially the 1930s. It leveled off to some degree in the 40s and 50s but surged again in the 1960s. The 1990s saw a new increase as well as the last decade.

 

[BULLDOG]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

Maybe one day you will grow up and understand the concept of federalism. The States have their job, the federal government has its, it's all laid out in the Constitution. If you want to expand the roll of the feds, amend the Constitution, don't just ignore it. So simple a child could understand.

Has the roll of the feds been illegally expanded?

Evidently you don't grasp the meaning of enumerated powers.

I didn't ask about enumerated power. I ask if the roll of the feds has been illegally expanded. If so, why have the republicans who control both the House and Senate done nothing to stop that?

 

[Jack4jill]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

Maybe one day you will grow up and understand the concept of federalism. The States have their job, the federal government has its, it's all laid out in the Constitution. If you want to expand the roll of the feds, amend the Constitution, don't just ignore it. So simple a child could understand.

Has the roll of the feds been illegally expanded?

Evidently you don't grasp the meaning of enumerated powers.

I didn't ask about enumerated power. I ask if the roll of the feds has been illegally expanded. If so, why have the republicans who control both the House and Senate done nothing to stop that?

Role. Your kind comes from the bakery.

 

[WillMunny]

I have a better question: why do liberals want to drag us back to the SEVENTH century with their nonstop Islam fellatio? And why are you liberals pigs such neo-Nazis, that you support the most praised-by-Hitler, Jew-exterminating hate ideology of all time? With its 1400 year ABSOLUTE of causing rape, death and destruction everywhere your oh-so-precious muslim subhuman filth go.....as liberal traitors guzzle enough muslim semen to coat the entire surface of the moon three times over.

 

[percysunshine]

.
I think we should all be like North Korea.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

When a liberal starts a thread with a lie in the title about conservatives and another lie in the first sentence, there isn't much point in reading further.

Should be relegated to Flame Zone.

 

[BULLDOG]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

Maybe one day you will grow up and understand the concept of federalism. The States have their job, the federal government has its, it's all laid out in the Constitution. If you want to expand the roll of the feds, amend the Constitution, don't just ignore it. So simple a child could understand.

Has the roll of the feds been illegally expanded?

Evidently you don't grasp the meaning of enumerated powers.

I didn't ask about enumerated power. I ask if the roll of the feds has been illegally expanded. If so, why have the republicans who control both the House and Senate done nothing to stop that?

Role. Your kind comes from the bakery.

Couldn't answer the question so you went for the typo. Typical RWNJ.

 

[Jack4jill]

Maybe one day you will grow up and understand the concept of federalism. The States have their job, the federal government has its, it's all laid out in the Constitution. If you want to expand the roll of the feds, amend the Constitution, don't just ignore it. So simple a child could understand.

Has the roll of the feds been illegally expanded?

Evidently you don't grasp the meaning of enumerated powers.

I didn't ask about enumerated power. I ask if the roll of the feds has been illegally expanded. If so, why have the republicans who control both the House and Senate done nothing to stop that?

Role. Your kind comes from the bakery.

Couldn't answer the question so you went for the typo. Typical RWNJ.

That's no typo, you've made it twice, and I am liberal.