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

[BULLDOG]

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.

Would it make you feel better if I promise to stand in the corner?

 

[Jack4jill]

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.

Would it make you feel better if I promise to stand in the corner?

Yes. Just suck it up. You fucked up.

It happens.

 

[kaz]

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.

Why do liberals want to have sex with hedgehogs?

 

[SmokeALib]

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.

No need to point out your obvious shortcomings in this thread.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Would it make you feel better if I promise to stand in the corner?

Yes. Just suck it up. You fucked up.

It happens.

Sorry I can't apologize more profusely for such a terrible mistake, but it's hard to hold the keyboard with one hand and type with the other. Standing in the corner like this is so inconvenient.

 

[Jack4jill]

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.

Would it make you feel better if I promise to stand in the corner?

Yes. Just suck it up. You fucked up.

It happens.

Sorry I can't apologize more profusely for such a terrible mistake, but it's hard to hold the keyboard with one hand and type with the other. Standing in the corner like this is so inconvenient.

It sucks to be young.

The spankings will end soon enough, and then the real punishment begins.

 

[Jack4jill]

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.

No need to point out your obvious shortcomings in this thread.

Go for it, asswipe.

And let me know when I confuse donut with do not.

 

[SmokeALib]

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.

No need to point out your obvious shortcomings in this thread.

Go for it, asswipe.

And let me know when I confuse donut with do not.

Lol! I love getting you Takers wound up. Its funny.

 

[Jack4jill]

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.

No need to point out your obvious shortcomings in this thread.

Go for it, asswipe.

And let me know when I confuse donut with do not.

Lol! I love getting you Takers wound up. Its funny.

Taker, asswipe?

No, payer, for your dumb fucking ass.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Because that’s fundamental to being conservative: reactionaryism – fear of change, diversity, and dissent; where most on the right seek to return to an idealized American past that never existed to begin with as a consequence of their unwarranted fear.

A past when those who refused to conform could be compelled to do so through force of law, and when dissent could be subject to punitive measures to enforce conformity.

Compelling conformity and silencing dissent is the essence of conservative authoritarianism.

 

[idb]

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

Because that’s fundamental to being conservative: reactionaryism – fear of change, diversity, and dissent; where most on the right seek to return to an idealized American past that never existed to begin with as a consequence of their unwarranted fear.

A past when those who refused to conform could be compelled to do so through force of law, and when dissent could be subject to punitive measures to enforce conformity.

Compelling conformity and silencing dissent is the essence of conservative authoritarianism.

To be fair, the conservatives were right.
They warned us against books, womens' suffrage, rock and roll and homo-sexuals...and just look at the state of the place now!

 

[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.

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?

Sorry child, until you recognize what the constitutional limits on the feds are, other conversation is useless.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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 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?

Okay, I'll play along...

Q: What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states?

A: What gave you the impression that we thought of the government that way? The government should be limited to the powers granted it under Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. That's all we want, with your stereotypical views of conservatives and libertarians notwithstanding.

Q: If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?

A: If by "before the current constitution" you mean the Bill of Rights, are you suggesting that we want to replace them? Why would we do that? What would we replace them with?

Q: 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?

A: That depends on your definition of what "reasonable level of regulations" are. While it's all well and good that our government wants us to have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, they have taken these regulations to the extreme. They are striving to end industries like coal mining, which will naturally cause electricity prices to rise for most Americans (as we all know, Hillary wants to put all those coal companies and coal miners out of business). They insist on reducing dependence on oil, so they can shift us to even more expensive forms of power, like solar, or wind. And just how many Americans do you think could afford such exotic forms of energy? You speak of "quality of life", but this does nothing to improve it. They have exceeded their authority in the enforcement of these regulations. In fact the Supreme Court slapped down such attempts to "regulate" our air emissions earlier this year:

Supreme Court blocks Obama climate change rules - CNNPolitics.com

Q: 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?

A: "Investing for the greater society" is more commonly known as communism. You really didn't think you could slip that past us, did you? It's not a bad thing to maintain our infrastructure, but our government has done a piss poor job of it, under any president for the past 50 years. Your idea of government is woefully misguided, Matthew.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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 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?

Okay, I'll play along...

Q: What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states?

A: What gave you the impression that we thought of the government that way? The government should be limited to the powers granted it under Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. That's all we want, with your stereotypical views of conservatives and libertarians notwithstanding.

Q: If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?

A: If by "before the current constitution" you mean the Bill of Rights, are you suggesting that we want to replace them? Why would we do that? What would we replace them with?

Q: 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?

A: That depends on your definition of what "reasonable level of regulations" are. While it's all well and good that our government wants us to have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, they have taken these regulations to the extreme. They are striving to end industries like coal mining, which will naturally cause electricity prices to rise for most Americans (as we all know, Hillary wants to put all those coal companies and coal miners out of business). They insist on reducing dependence on oil, so they can shift us to even more expensive forms of power, like solar, or wind. And just how many Americans do you think could afford such exotic forms of energy? You speak of "quality of life", but this does nothing to improve it. They have exceeded their authority in the enforcement of these regulations. In fact the Supreme Court slapped down such attempts to "regulate" our air emissions earlier this year:

Supreme Court blocks Obama climate change rules - CNNPolitics.com

Q: 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?

A: "Investing for the greater society" is more commonly known as communism. You really didn't think you could slip that past us, did you? It's not a bad thing to maintain our infrastructure, but our government has done a piss poor job of it, under any president for the past 50 years. Your idea of government is woefully misguided, Matthew.

P.S.

Who do you think we are, Matthew? The Amish?

 

[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?

Sorry child, until you recognize what the constitutional limits on the feds are, other conversation is useless.

Right. You can't answer the question.

 

[Andylusion]

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

Because that’s fundamental to being conservative: reactionaryism – fear of change, diversity, and dissent; where most on the right seek to return to an idealized American past that never existed to begin with as a consequence of their unwarranted fear.

A past when those who refused to conform could be compelled to do so through force of law, and when dissent could be subject to punitive measures to enforce conformity.

Compelling conformity and silencing dissent is the essence of conservative authoritarianism.

Here's the other aspect. The system which led this nation from being a tiny inconsequential collection of 13 colonies, to within 150 years of being the worlds lone super power, over dozens of nations that have been around for centuries longer..... is likely a good system.

And when you want to change our system, to fit other countries who have fallen to relative irrelevance..... that would seem to be the real step backward.

It's like having a super model, and having some left-winger say to her "Why are you being so backwards? Stop sticking to that diet plan you've been on for the last decade, and check out Melissa McCarthy's diet plan. It's working for her. Stop being so regressive"

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

Why does Matthew insist on posting such inane nonsense?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Why does Matthew insist on posting such inane nonsense?

Well, I guess it beats a cogent thought.

 

[bendog]

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.

Well we didn't have laws outlawing abortion then, and the govt told us what guns we had to buy and where we had to drill .... and we could have slaves. It wasn't all bad. (-:

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I would like to do a clean sweep of progressive policies.