Early Americans Would Have Rejected the U.S. Government

[Gdjjr]

Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-

This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.


Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.

 

[progressive hunter]

Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-

This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.


Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.

FFS!!!

"meeting in secret"????
the founders didnt meet in secret,,,

this is just some bullshit propaganda cause the problem is the people in government that keep getting farther from the constitution and not the constitution itself,,,

and we all know thats the democrat and republican partys.

 

[occupied]

Which early Americans? Most of them were used to living under a monarchy with different rules for every race and class of people. It is certain those who held wealth and position would not like that it is way more complicated to loot the earth and enslave the people nowadays.

 

[Oddball]

Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-

This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.


Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.

Early Muricans would have revolted against this shit.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

If ANY of the signators to the Declaration of Independence were to see this shit hole, Socialist abortion of a country today they would have just said "fuck it" and stayed with the Brits. That is a given.
I am willing to wager that if someone from 1920 were to see what this country has become they would have revolted to prevent it.

 

[sparky]

Constitutional Convention (United States) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Our founders went through quite the long process May 25 to September 17, 1787 to evolve from The Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution.

It's evident their intents were to produce a document protecting this country from the tyranny they fled from and fought off, ironically to have it implode under the weight of it's own domestic fascism

~S~

 

[fncceo]

Which early Americans? Most of them were used to living under a monarchy with different rules for every race and class of people. It is certain those who held wealth and position would not like that it is way more complicated to loot the earth and enslave the people nowadays.

It's very complicated to enslave people these days. The hardware is prohibitively expensive.

 

[sparky]

growth of federal government employees alone should be enough for concern

~S~

 

[MadChemist]

It is difficult to imagine that people truly believe the constitution was not designed to limit the federal government.

People were so worried about a strong central government that the first documents for our new nation were the articles on confederation. They gave essentially no powers to the newly formed federal government.

 

[MadChemist]

Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-

This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.


Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.

FFS!!!

"meeting in secret"????
the founders didnt meet in secret,,,

this is just some bullshit propaganda cause the problem is the people in government that keep getting farther from the constitution and not the constitution itself,,,

and we all know thats the democrat and republican partys.

I don't understand your post.

What is FFS ?

The author states:

Suppose the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had come out of the secret assembly and said the following to the America people:

We have come up with a proposal for a brand new governmental structure that we would like you to consider. It consists of a federal government consisting of a gigantic welfare state and a national-security state consisting of a Pentagon, a military-industrial complex, a CIA, and a NSA.

Under the welfare state, the federal government will wield the power to tax any portion of your income it wants and give the money to others. It will also wield the power to charge people for this service.

It will also wield the power to control, manage, and regulate your economic activities. Enterprises will not be free to conduct their activities without governmental supervision and control.

Federal officials will wield the power to punish you if you ingest substances that they disapprove of.

There will be a giant military-intelligence establishment. These will wield the power to police the world through force of arms, the power to assassinate and torture people, including Americans, and the power to spy and keep secret files on people, including Americans.

He says:

What would the reaction of the American people have been? They would have died laughing. They would have thought it to be one great big joke. Once they realized that the proposal was serious, they would have rejected at once and continued living under the Articles of Confederation.

It is unclear that this is totally true. There were many tories who still longed for England. And you had the wolf in sheeps clothing....Alexander Hamilton, who was very much in favor of a strong central government.

Overall, I think it was probably true.

Finally, I am not sure what you are arguing as you appear to agree with the article. The constitution is a great document (some would say truly inspired).

 

[progressive hunter]

Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-

This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.


Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.

FFS!!!

"meeting in secret"????
the founders didnt meet in secret,,,

this is just some bullshit propaganda cause the problem is the people in government that keep getting farther from the constitution and not the constitution itself,,,

and we all know thats the democrat and republican partys.

I don't understand your post.

What is FFS ?

The author states:

Suppose the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had come out of the secret assembly and said the following to the America people:

We have come up with a proposal for a brand new governmental structure that we would like you to consider. It consists of a federal government consisting of a gigantic welfare state and a national-security state consisting of a Pentagon, a military-industrial complex, a CIA, and a NSA.

Under the welfare state, the federal government will wield the power to tax any portion of your income it wants and give the money to others. It will also wield the power to charge people for this service.

It will also wield the power to control, manage, and regulate your economic activities. Enterprises will not be free to conduct their activities without governmental supervision and control.

Federal officials will wield the power to punish you if you ingest substances that they disapprove of.

There will be a giant military-intelligence establishment. These will wield the power to police the world through force of arms, the power to assassinate and torture people, including Americans, and the power to spy and keep secret files on people, including Americans.

He says:

What would the reaction of the American people have been? They would have died laughing. They would have thought it to be one great big joke. Once they realized that the proposal was serious, they would have rejected at once and continued living under the Articles of Confederation.

It is unclear that this is totally true. There were many tories who still longed for England. And you had the wolf in sheeps clothing....Alexander Hamilton, who was very much in favor of a strong central government.

Overall, I think it was probably true.

Finally, I am not sure what you are arguing as you appear to agree with the article. The constitution is a great document (some would say truly inspired).

FFS is for fucks sake,,,

as for what the author said its 100% wrong cause none of it was what the founders intended and they didnt meet in secret,,,

 

[MadChemist]

Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-

This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.


Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.

FFS!!!

"meeting in secret"????
the founders didnt meet in secret,,,

this is just some bullshit propaganda cause the problem is the people in government that keep getting farther from the constitution and not the constitution itself,,,

and we all know thats the democrat and republican partys.

I don't understand your post.

What is FFS ?

The author states:

Suppose the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had come out of the secret assembly and said the following to the America people:

We have come up with a proposal for a brand new governmental structure that we would like you to consider. It consists of a federal government consisting of a gigantic welfare state and a national-security state consisting of a Pentagon, a military-industrial complex, a CIA, and a NSA.

Under the welfare state, the federal government will wield the power to tax any portion of your income it wants and give the money to others. It will also wield the power to charge people for this service.

It will also wield the power to control, manage, and regulate your economic activities. Enterprises will not be free to conduct their activities without governmental supervision and control.

Federal officials will wield the power to punish you if you ingest substances that they disapprove of.

There will be a giant military-intelligence establishment. These will wield the power to police the world through force of arms, the power to assassinate and torture people, including Americans, and the power to spy and keep secret files on people, including Americans.

He says:

What would the reaction of the American people have been? They would have died laughing. They would have thought it to be one great big joke. Once they realized that the proposal was serious, they would have rejected at once and continued living under the Articles of Confederation.

It is unclear that this is totally true. There were many tories who still longed for England. And you had the wolf in sheeps clothing....Alexander Hamilton, who was very much in favor of a strong central government.

Overall, I think it was probably true.

Finally, I am not sure what you are arguing as you appear to agree with the article. The constitution is a great document (some would say truly inspired).

FFS is for fucks sake,,,

as for what the author said its 100% wrong cause none of it was what the founders intended and they didnt meet in secret,,,

What part of it is wrong ?

I really am confused by statement.

Didn't the founders intend a limited government ?

 

[progressive hunter]

Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-

This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.


Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.

FFS!!!

"meeting in secret"????
the founders didnt meet in secret,,,

this is just some bullshit propaganda cause the problem is the people in government that keep getting farther from the constitution and not the constitution itself,,,

and we all know thats the democrat and republican partys.

I don't understand your post.

What is FFS ?

The author states:

Suppose the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had come out of the secret assembly and said the following to the America people:

We have come up with a proposal for a brand new governmental structure that we would like you to consider. It consists of a federal government consisting of a gigantic welfare state and a national-security state consisting of a Pentagon, a military-industrial complex, a CIA, and a NSA.

Under the welfare state, the federal government will wield the power to tax any portion of your income it wants and give the money to others. It will also wield the power to charge people for this service.

It will also wield the power to control, manage, and regulate your economic activities. Enterprises will not be free to conduct their activities without governmental supervision and control.

Federal officials will wield the power to punish you if you ingest substances that they disapprove of.

There will be a giant military-intelligence establishment. These will wield the power to police the world through force of arms, the power to assassinate and torture people, including Americans, and the power to spy and keep secret files on people, including Americans.

He says:

What would the reaction of the American people have been? They would have died laughing. They would have thought it to be one great big joke. Once they realized that the proposal was serious, they would have rejected at once and continued living under the Articles of Confederation.

It is unclear that this is totally true. There were many tories who still longed for England. And you had the wolf in sheeps clothing....Alexander Hamilton, who was very much in favor of a strong central government.

Overall, I think it was probably true.

Finally, I am not sure what you are arguing as you appear to agree with the article. The constitution is a great document (some would say truly inspired).

FFS is for fucks sake,,,

as for what the author said its 100% wrong cause none of it was what the founders intended and they didnt meet in secret,,,

What part of it is wrong ?

I really am confused by statement.

Didn't the founders intend a limited government ?

yes they did,,,but they never intended a welfare state or met in secret,,,

 

[MadChemist]

Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-

This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.


Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.

FFS!!!

"meeting in secret"????
the founders didnt meet in secret,,,

this is just some bullshit propaganda cause the problem is the people in government that keep getting farther from the constitution and not the constitution itself,,,

and we all know thats the democrat and republican partys.

I don't understand your post.

What is FFS ?

The author states:

Suppose the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had come out of the secret assembly and said the following to the America people:

We have come up with a proposal for a brand new governmental structure that we would like you to consider. It consists of a federal government consisting of a gigantic welfare state and a national-security state consisting of a Pentagon, a military-industrial complex, a CIA, and a NSA.

Under the welfare state, the federal government will wield the power to tax any portion of your income it wants and give the money to others. It will also wield the power to charge people for this service.

It will also wield the power to control, manage, and regulate your economic activities. Enterprises will not be free to conduct their activities without governmental supervision and control.

Federal officials will wield the power to punish you if you ingest substances that they disapprove of.

There will be a giant military-intelligence establishment. These will wield the power to police the world through force of arms, the power to assassinate and torture people, including Americans, and the power to spy and keep secret files on people, including Americans.

He says:

What would the reaction of the American people have been? They would have died laughing. They would have thought it to be one great big joke. Once they realized that the proposal was serious, they would have rejected at once and continued living under the Articles of Confederation.

It is unclear that this is totally true. There were many tories who still longed for England. And you had the wolf in sheeps clothing....Alexander Hamilton, who was very much in favor of a strong central government.

Overall, I think it was probably true.

Finally, I am not sure what you are arguing as you appear to agree with the article. The constitution is a great document (some would say truly inspired).

FFS is for fucks sake,,,

as for what the author said its 100% wrong cause none of it was what the founders intended and they didnt meet in secret,,,

What part of it is wrong ?

I really am confused by statement.

Didn't the founders intend a limited government ?

yes they did,,,but they never intended a welfare state or met in secret,,,

Let's set aside the "secret meeting". That does not matter.

The author is saying the same thing you are.

Read the paragraph I quoted and then conclusion (that it never would have passed).

All of the things he describes would have been anathema's to the founders.

 

[progressive hunter]

Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-

This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.


Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.

FFS!!!

"meeting in secret"????
the founders didnt meet in secret,,,

this is just some bullshit propaganda cause the problem is the people in government that keep getting farther from the constitution and not the constitution itself,,,

and we all know thats the democrat and republican partys.

I don't understand your post.

What is FFS ?

The author states:

Suppose the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had come out of the secret assembly and said the following to the America people:

We have come up with a proposal for a brand new governmental structure that we would like you to consider. It consists of a federal government consisting of a gigantic welfare state and a national-security state consisting of a Pentagon, a military-industrial complex, a CIA, and a NSA.

Under the welfare state, the federal government will wield the power to tax any portion of your income it wants and give the money to others. It will also wield the power to charge people for this service.

It will also wield the power to control, manage, and regulate your economic activities. Enterprises will not be free to conduct their activities without governmental supervision and control.

Federal officials will wield the power to punish you if you ingest substances that they disapprove of.

There will be a giant military-intelligence establishment. These will wield the power to police the world through force of arms, the power to assassinate and torture people, including Americans, and the power to spy and keep secret files on people, including Americans.

He says:

What would the reaction of the American people have been? They would have died laughing. They would have thought it to be one great big joke. Once they realized that the proposal was serious, they would have rejected at once and continued living under the Articles of Confederation.

It is unclear that this is totally true. There were many tories who still longed for England. And you had the wolf in sheeps clothing....Alexander Hamilton, who was very much in favor of a strong central government.

Overall, I think it was probably true.

Finally, I am not sure what you are arguing as you appear to agree with the article. The constitution is a great document (some would say truly inspired).

FFS is for fucks sake,,,

as for what the author said its 100% wrong cause none of it was what the founders intended and they didnt meet in secret,,,

What part of it is wrong ?

I really am confused by statement.

Didn't the founders intend a limited government ?

yes they did,,,but they never intended a welfare state or met in secret,,,

Let's set aside the "secret meeting". That does not matter.

The author is saying the same thing you are.

Read the paragraph I quoted and then conclusion (that it never would have passed).

All of the things he describes would have been anathema's to the founders.

you want me to debate something that never happened???
WHY??

they never intended any of those things,,,

 

[MadChemist]

Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-

This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.


Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.

FFS!!!

"meeting in secret"????
the founders didnt meet in secret,,,

this is just some bullshit propaganda cause the problem is the people in government that keep getting farther from the constitution and not the constitution itself,,,

and we all know thats the democrat and republican partys.

I don't understand your post.

What is FFS ?

The author states:

Suppose the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had come out of the secret assembly and said the following to the America people:

We have come up with a proposal for a brand new governmental structure that we would like you to consider. It consists of a federal government consisting of a gigantic welfare state and a national-security state consisting of a Pentagon, a military-industrial complex, a CIA, and a NSA.

Under the welfare state, the federal government will wield the power to tax any portion of your income it wants and give the money to others. It will also wield the power to charge people for this service.

It will also wield the power to control, manage, and regulate your economic activities. Enterprises will not be free to conduct their activities without governmental supervision and control.

Federal officials will wield the power to punish you if you ingest substances that they disapprove of.

There will be a giant military-intelligence establishment. These will wield the power to police the world through force of arms, the power to assassinate and torture people, including Americans, and the power to spy and keep secret files on people, including Americans.

He says:

What would the reaction of the American people have been? They would have died laughing. They would have thought it to be one great big joke. Once they realized that the proposal was serious, they would have rejected at once and continued living under the Articles of Confederation.

It is unclear that this is totally true. There were many tories who still longed for England. And you had the wolf in sheeps clothing....Alexander Hamilton, who was very much in favor of a strong central government.

Overall, I think it was probably true.

Finally, I am not sure what you are arguing as you appear to agree with the article. The constitution is a great document (some would say truly inspired).

FFS is for fucks sake,,,

as for what the author said its 100% wrong cause none of it was what the founders intended and they didnt meet in secret,,,

What part of it is wrong ?

I really am confused by statement.

Didn't the founders intend a limited government ?

yes they did,,,but they never intended a welfare state or met in secret,,,

Let's set aside the "secret meeting". That does not matter.

The author is saying the same thing you are.

Read the paragraph I quoted and then conclusion (that it never would have passed).

All of the things he describes would have been anathema's to the founders.

you want me to debate something that never happened???
WHY??

they never intended any of those things,,,

No, I don't think we'd be debating because I think we agree.

The founders didn't want any of those things.

The article says the same thing we are.

That is where I am confused.

Why do you believe the author wants those things ?

 

[progressive hunter]

Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-

This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.


Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.

FFS!!!

"meeting in secret"????
the founders didnt meet in secret,,,

this is just some bullshit propaganda cause the problem is the people in government that keep getting farther from the constitution and not the constitution itself,,,

and we all know thats the democrat and republican partys.

I don't understand your post.

What is FFS ?

The author states:

Suppose the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had come out of the secret assembly and said the following to the America people:

We have come up with a proposal for a brand new governmental structure that we would like you to consider. It consists of a federal government consisting of a gigantic welfare state and a national-security state consisting of a Pentagon, a military-industrial complex, a CIA, and a NSA.

Under the welfare state, the federal government will wield the power to tax any portion of your income it wants and give the money to others. It will also wield the power to charge people for this service.

It will also wield the power to control, manage, and regulate your economic activities. Enterprises will not be free to conduct their activities without governmental supervision and control.

Federal officials will wield the power to punish you if you ingest substances that they disapprove of.

There will be a giant military-intelligence establishment. These will wield the power to police the world through force of arms, the power to assassinate and torture people, including Americans, and the power to spy and keep secret files on people, including Americans.

He says:

What would the reaction of the American people have been? They would have died laughing. They would have thought it to be one great big joke. Once they realized that the proposal was serious, they would have rejected at once and continued living under the Articles of Confederation.

It is unclear that this is totally true. There were many tories who still longed for England. And you had the wolf in sheeps clothing....Alexander Hamilton, who was very much in favor of a strong central government.

Overall, I think it was probably true.

Finally, I am not sure what you are arguing as you appear to agree with the article. The constitution is a great document (some would say truly inspired).

FFS is for fucks sake,,,

as for what the author said its 100% wrong cause none of it was what the founders intended and they didnt meet in secret,,,

What part of it is wrong ?

I really am confused by statement.

Didn't the founders intend a limited government ?

yes they did,,,but they never intended a welfare state or met in secret,,,

Let's set aside the "secret meeting". That does not matter.

The author is saying the same thing you are.

Read the paragraph I quoted and then conclusion (that it never would have passed).

All of the things he describes would have been anathema's to the founders.

you want me to debate something that never happened???
WHY??

they never intended any of those things,,,

No, I don't think we'd be debating because I think we agree.

The founders didn't want any of those things.

The article says the same thing we are.

That is where I am confused.

Why do you believe the author wants those things ?

my bigggest point is its a stupid question to ask cause none of its true,,,

 

[MadChemist]

Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-

This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.


Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.

FFS!!!

"meeting in secret"????
the founders didnt meet in secret,,,

this is just some bullshit propaganda cause the problem is the people in government that keep getting farther from the constitution and not the constitution itself,,,

and we all know thats the democrat and republican partys.

I don't understand your post.

What is FFS ?

The author states:

Suppose the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had come out of the secret assembly and said the following to the America people:

We have come up with a proposal for a brand new governmental structure that we would like you to consider. It consists of a federal government consisting of a gigantic welfare state and a national-security state consisting of a Pentagon, a military-industrial complex, a CIA, and a NSA.

Under the welfare state, the federal government will wield the power to tax any portion of your income it wants and give the money to others. It will also wield the power to charge people for this service.

It will also wield the power to control, manage, and regulate your economic activities. Enterprises will not be free to conduct their activities without governmental supervision and control.

Federal officials will wield the power to punish you if you ingest substances that they disapprove of.

There will be a giant military-intelligence establishment. These will wield the power to police the world through force of arms, the power to assassinate and torture people, including Americans, and the power to spy and keep secret files on people, including Americans.

He says:

What would the reaction of the American people have been? They would have died laughing. They would have thought it to be one great big joke. Once they realized that the proposal was serious, they would have rejected at once and continued living under the Articles of Confederation.

It is unclear that this is totally true. There were many tories who still longed for England. And you had the wolf in sheeps clothing....Alexander Hamilton, who was very much in favor of a strong central government.

Overall, I think it was probably true.

Finally, I am not sure what you are arguing as you appear to agree with the article. The constitution is a great document (some would say truly inspired).

FFS is for fucks sake,,,

as for what the author said its 100% wrong cause none of it was what the founders intended and they didnt meet in secret,,,

What part of it is wrong ?

I really am confused by statement.

Didn't the founders intend a limited government ?

yes they did,,,but they never intended a welfare state or met in secret,,,

Let's set aside the "secret meeting". That does not matter.

The author is saying the same thing you are.

Read the paragraph I quoted and then conclusion (that it never would have passed).

All of the things he describes would have been anathema's to the founders.

you want me to debate something that never happened???
WHY??

they never intended any of those things,,,

No, I don't think we'd be debating because I think we agree.

The founders didn't want any of those things.

The article says the same thing we are.

That is where I am confused.

Why do you believe the author wants those things ?

my bigggest point is its a stupid question to ask cause none of its true,,,

On this we disagree.

We do have a large Military Industrial Complex.

We do have a large welfare state.

We do have a progressive tax.

We have lots of things the constitution never contemplated.

The founders would have found all of them repulsive.

 

[progressive hunter]

Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-

This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.


Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.

FFS!!!

"meeting in secret"????
the founders didnt meet in secret,,,

this is just some bullshit propaganda cause the problem is the people in government that keep getting farther from the constitution and not the constitution itself,,,

and we all know thats the democrat and republican partys.

I don't understand your post.

What is FFS ?

The author states:

Suppose the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had come out of the secret assembly and said the following to the America people:

We have come up with a proposal for a brand new governmental structure that we would like you to consider. It consists of a federal government consisting of a gigantic welfare state and a national-security state consisting of a Pentagon, a military-industrial complex, a CIA, and a NSA.

Under the welfare state, the federal government will wield the power to tax any portion of your income it wants and give the money to others. It will also wield the power to charge people for this service.

It will also wield the power to control, manage, and regulate your economic activities. Enterprises will not be free to conduct their activities without governmental supervision and control.

Federal officials will wield the power to punish you if you ingest substances that they disapprove of.

There will be a giant military-intelligence establishment. These will wield the power to police the world through force of arms, the power to assassinate and torture people, including Americans, and the power to spy and keep secret files on people, including Americans.

He says:

What would the reaction of the American people have been? They would have died laughing. They would have thought it to be one great big joke. Once they realized that the proposal was serious, they would have rejected at once and continued living under the Articles of Confederation.

It is unclear that this is totally true. There were many tories who still longed for England. And you had the wolf in sheeps clothing....Alexander Hamilton, who was very much in favor of a strong central government.

Overall, I think it was probably true.

Finally, I am not sure what you are arguing as you appear to agree with the article. The constitution is a great document (some would say truly inspired).

FFS is for fucks sake,,,

as for what the author said its 100% wrong cause none of it was what the founders intended and they didnt meet in secret,,,

What part of it is wrong ?

I really am confused by statement.

Didn't the founders intend a limited government ?

yes they did,,,but they never intended a welfare state or met in secret,,,

Let's set aside the "secret meeting". That does not matter.

The author is saying the same thing you are.

Read the paragraph I quoted and then conclusion (that it never would have passed).

All of the things he describes would have been anathema's to the founders.

you want me to debate something that never happened???
WHY??

they never intended any of those things,,,

No, I don't think we'd be debating because I think we agree.

The founders didn't want any of those things.

The article says the same thing we are.

That is where I am confused.

Why do you believe the author wants those things ?

my bigggest point is its a stupid question to ask cause none of its true,,,

On this we disagree.

We do have a large Military Industrial Complex.

We do have a large welfare state.

We do have a progressive tax.

We have lots of things the constitution never contemplated.

The founders would have found all of them repulsive.

FFS!!!!!

 

[MadChemist]

Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-

This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.


Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.

FFS!!!

"meeting in secret"????
the founders didnt meet in secret,,,

this is just some bullshit propaganda cause the problem is the people in government that keep getting farther from the constitution and not the constitution itself,,,

and we all know thats the democrat and republican partys.

I don't understand your post.

What is FFS ?

The author states:

Suppose the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had come out of the secret assembly and said the following to the America people:

We have come up with a proposal for a brand new governmental structure that we would like you to consider. It consists of a federal government consisting of a gigantic welfare state and a national-security state consisting of a Pentagon, a military-industrial complex, a CIA, and a NSA.

Under the welfare state, the federal government will wield the power to tax any portion of your income it wants and give the money to others. It will also wield the power to charge people for this service.

It will also wield the power to control, manage, and regulate your economic activities. Enterprises will not be free to conduct their activities without governmental supervision and control.

Federal officials will wield the power to punish you if you ingest substances that they disapprove of.

There will be a giant military-intelligence establishment. These will wield the power to police the world through force of arms, the power to assassinate and torture people, including Americans, and the power to spy and keep secret files on people, including Americans.

He says:

What would the reaction of the American people have been? They would have died laughing. They would have thought it to be one great big joke. Once they realized that the proposal was serious, they would have rejected at once and continued living under the Articles of Confederation.

It is unclear that this is totally true. There were many tories who still longed for England. And you had the wolf in sheeps clothing....Alexander Hamilton, who was very much in favor of a strong central government.

Overall, I think it was probably true.

Finally, I am not sure what you are arguing as you appear to agree with the article. The constitution is a great document (some would say truly inspired).

FFS is for fucks sake,,,

as for what the author said its 100% wrong cause none of it was what the founders intended and they didnt meet in secret,,,

What part of it is wrong ?

I really am confused by statement.

Didn't the founders intend a limited government ?

yes they did,,,but they never intended a welfare state or met in secret,,,

Let's set aside the "secret meeting". That does not matter.

The author is saying the same thing you are.

Read the paragraph I quoted and then conclusion (that it never would have passed).

All of the things he describes would have been anathema's to the founders.

you want me to debate something that never happened???
WHY??

they never intended any of those things,,,

No, I don't think we'd be debating because I think we agree.

The founders didn't want any of those things.

The article says the same thing we are.

That is where I am confused.

Why do you believe the author wants those things ?

my bigggest point is its a stupid question to ask cause none of its true,,,

On this we disagree.

We do have a large Military Industrial Complex.

We do have a large welfare state.

We do have a progressive tax.

We have lots of things the constitution never contemplated.

The founders would have found all of them repulsive.

FFS!!!!!

You disagree that we have them ?

Or do you disagree that the founders would have found them repulsive ?