Yeah doooooon't think so Sprinkles. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 in a schoolhouse in Ripon Wisconsin, long after Jefferson and Madison had run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. That's a historical, recorded FACT and there's nothing your relentless revisionist fiction can do about that.
If our Constitution made liberalism, in effect, illegal what should we do with them?.
- Thread starter EdwardBaiamonte
- Start date
Yeah doooooon't think so Sprinkles. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 in a schoolhouse in Ripon Wisconsin, long after Jefferson and Madison had run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. That's a historical, recorded FACT and there's nothing your relentless revisionist fiction can do about that.
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 63,066
- 68,549
- 3,605
The classical meaning means the opposite of authoritarianism.
However, people use the term to describe those today who advocate for a centralized collectivist state. As such, they are inherently authoritarian because they need to control everyone around them via their power
Conversely, the Founding Fathers established Federalism, where the states ran their own affairs as the Federal government played the role of referee.
Today, Federalism has been turned upside down.
Instead of this pissing contest of "my side is the side of the Founders and my opponents side is that of tyranny", why not just post what the Founding fathers actually said and compare them to our political ideology today?
Left wingers use the General Welfare clause to justify the nanny state. Problem is, the person that wrote the General Welfare clause commented on what he wrote, showing us that it was never designed to usher in the nanny state and socialism.
James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
James Madison Quote
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
James Madison
~ James Madison
(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties. February 7, 1792, referring to a bill to subsidize cod fisherman
http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm
This thread title doesn't mention "left wingers". It mentions Liberalism. Those are two different things.
You know that --- right?
I should have used the term Modern liberal.
Again --- "Liberal" is Liberal. It's not dependent on era. All "modern Liberal" tells us is that the person in question is currently alive. As opposed to being a Jefferson/Madison zombie crawling out of the crypt to found a political party decades after they're already dead.
Which is off the point anyway, that being that you just conflated "Liberals" with "left wingers". You can't do that.
Ask the OP. He brought up the idea of Liberalism being made "illegal" via its own Constitution.
Just after which he went into all manner of incoherent warbling about describing Europe, China and the British Empire as "magic liberal" places, whatever the fuck that means, and your guess is as good as mine.
Once AGAIN ---- the conservatives of the Founding Fathers' time were called "Loyalists". They were the ones who wanted to be ruled by Britain. The FFs rebelled against that idea, and philosophically against the idea of royalty itself, which is the essence of Liberalism. The conservatives believed in, and still believe in, a striated society where some are "destined" to rule and others to be ruled.
Once again you're leaning on the crutch that "some people misuse the term, therefore let's throw up our hands".
And once again that's on THEM.
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 63,066
- 68,549
- 3,605
One of the reasons I oppose a centralized collectivist state is the lack of representation.
So when does your vote count the most? Is it when you are voting for a state governor or a President? Naturally, it is when you are voting for a governor. There are not as many votes so it counts more, and the person you are voting for lives in the same state you do, which assumes a mutual interest is at play.
Conversely, voting for a President is basically a wasted vote due to the large number of voters and the electoral system.
Additionally, the President is suppose to represent the entire country and does not much care about your local issues as would a governor.
So as we see, the centralized collectivist system is inferior to Federalism in terms of voter representation, and was not a lack of representation what the entire Revolution was all about?
Unfortunately for us, the Federal government has usurped much of the states power to the point that the states are held hostage to what the Federal government dictates to them. So the power that really matters today is that of the Federal government, for which there is very little representation.
Natural Citizen
American Made
- Aug 8, 2016
- 28,907
- 29,061
- 2,445
Well, wait a second. We're gonna have to clarify some things first, before we delve into this too deeply.
Whose good works are the reason they're still fonding our balls at the airport? I was under the impression this was a bipartisan agreement in Washington? And I'm pretty sure Toby Keith was in the mix some how, too. I, for one, do not consent to this. Not at all.
And another thing. Whose good deed was it to keep the Federal Reserve? I'm under the impression that's a bipartisan affair, too. I want that thing gone. Like yesterday.
I'l try to think of some more stuff, but those two good deeds are what pop into my nawgin first.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #28
JGalt
Diamond Member
- Mar 9, 2011
- 79,147
- 102,329
- 3,635
You're a cheap date. I made you spend the last two hours of your precious time defining, re-defining, revising, and defending the definition of what "liberalism" is supposed to be.
A raccoon enthralled with a ball of tinfoil isn't half this much fun.
Freiheit
Silver Member
- Sep 30, 2015
- 984
- 173
- 90
I want to know who thought the Patriot Act enhanced the general welfare. Signing that bill made G.W. Bush, in my eyes,
the most reprehesible, worst president in the history of this country.
You're a cheap date. I made you spend the last two hours of your precious time defining, re-defining, revising, and defending the definition of what "liberalism" is supposed to be.
A raccoon enthralled with a ball of tinfoil isn't half this much fun.
I don't need to "define/re-define" jack shit. This definition was established way before you or I got here.
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 63,066
- 68,549
- 3,605
Instead of this pissing contest of "my side is the side of the Founders and my opponents side is that of tyranny", why not just post what the Founding fathers actually said and compare them to our political ideology today?
Left wingers use the General Welfare clause to justify the nanny state. Problem is, the person that wrote the General Welfare clause commented on what he wrote, showing us that it was never designed to usher in the nanny state and socialism.
James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
James Madison Quote
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
James Madison
~ James Madison
(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties. February 7, 1792, referring to a bill to subsidize cod fisherman
http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm
This thread title doesn't mention "left wingers". It mentions Liberalism. Those are two different things.
You know that --- right?
I should have used the term Modern liberal.
Again --- "Liberal" is Liberal. It's not dependent on era. All "modern Liberal" tells us is that the person in question is currently alive. As opposed to being a Jefferson/Madison zombie crawling out of the crypt to found a political party decades after they're already dead.
Which is off the point anyway, that being that you just conflated "Liberals" with "left wingers". You can't do that.
Ask the OP. He brought up the idea of Liberalism being made "illegal" via its own Constitution.
Just after which he went into all manner of incoherent warbling about describing Europe, China and the British Empire as "magic liberal" places, whatever the fuck that means, and your guess is as good as mine.
Once AGAIN ---- the conservatives of the Founding Fathers' time were called "Loyalists". They were the ones who wanted to be ruled by Britain. The FFs rebelled against that idea, and philosophically against the idea of royalty itself, which is the essence of Liberalism. The conservatives believed in, and still believe in, a striated society where some are "destined" to rule and others to be ruled.
It was clear that the Founding Fathers intended a limited government. I don't think you would even argue with that. Today, who strives for a limited government? Neither party, that's who, although there are a smattering of very silent conservative voices who do.
But even though the Founding Fathers had just fought a bloody revolution to be free from tyranny, they inexplicably adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to speak out against those in government. Luckily, Thomas Jefferson rose up to fight this and succeeded in large measure against them. However, he took full advantage of those unconstitutional laws before getting rid of most of it. Then what was left, FDR used to lock up innocent Japanese Americans.
So as we see, centralized power is seductive and almost irresistible, even for those who had just fought to be free from it. It is indeed remarkable then that Jefferson accomplished what he did in fighting most of it off. In fact, many did not want to sign the Constitution because they felt that it would devolve into dictatorship again.
Most probably don't even realize that the first Constitution was the Articles of Confederation, but after a few years the consensus was that it did not power the Federal government enough, so they went to the Constitution that we have today. This worked fairly well for over a hundred years before the Progressives amended it and further empowered the Federal government via the Federal Income tax, something that SCOTUS struck down as Unconstitutional a decade prior, and they also created their own bank with the Fed.
After they did this, it shifted the balance towards a Federal government that would destroy the concept of Federalism once and for all. There is no going back. Once you lose your freedom, you have to fight a bloody war to get it back.
Natural Citizen
American Made
- Aug 8, 2016
- 28,907
- 29,061
- 2,445
I'm still baffled at how they got away with calling it the Patriot Act.
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 63,066
- 68,549
- 3,605
It's the psychology of words is all.
If you are not a Patriot, then you oppose them. LOL
This is why I don't generally haggle over terms that are twisted in this way, and instead discuss ideological concepts which is much harder to twist around.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #35
only the right wing, claimed that.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,159
- 1,100
- Thread starter
- #36
smattering?? Trump has huge tax cut and huge opposition to Obamacare!!
Instead of this pissing contest of "my side is the side of the Founders and my opponents side is that of tyranny", why not just post what the Founding fathers actually said and compare them to our political ideology today?
Left wingers use the General Welfare clause to justify the nanny state. Problem is, the person that wrote the General Welfare clause commented on what he wrote, showing us that it was never designed to usher in the nanny state and socialism.
James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
James Madison Quote
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
James Madison
~ James Madison
(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties. February 7, 1792, referring to a bill to subsidize cod fisherman
http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm
This thread title doesn't mention "left wingers". It mentions Liberalism. Those are two different things.
You know that --- right?
I should have used the term Modern liberal.
Again --- "Liberal" is Liberal. It's not dependent on era. All "modern Liberal" tells us is that the person in question is currently alive. As opposed to being a Jefferson/Madison zombie crawling out of the crypt to found a political party decades after they're already dead.
Which is off the point anyway, that being that you just conflated "Liberals" with "left wingers". You can't do that.
Ask the OP. He brought up the idea of Liberalism being made "illegal" via its own Constitution.
Just after which he went into all manner of incoherent warbling about describing Europe, China and the British Empire as "magic liberal" places, whatever the fuck that means, and your guess is as good as mine.
Once AGAIN ---- the conservatives of the Founding Fathers' time were called "Loyalists". They were the ones who wanted to be ruled by Britain. The FFs rebelled against that idea, and philosophically against the idea of royalty itself, which is the essence of Liberalism. The conservatives believed in, and still believe in, a striated society where some are "destined" to rule and others to be ruled.
It was clear that the Founding Fathers intended a limited government. I don't think you would even argue with that. Today, who strives for a limited government? Neither party, that's who, although there are a smattering of very silent conservative voices who do.
But even though the Founding Fathers had just fought a bloody revolution to be free from tyranny, they inexplicably adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to speak out against those in government. Luckily, Thomas Jefferson rose up to fight this and succeeded in large measure against them. However, he took full advantage of those unconstitutional laws before getting rid of most of it. Then what was left, FDR used to lock up innocent Japanese Americans.
So as we see, centralized power is seductive and almost irresistible, even for those who had just fought to be free from it. It is indeed remarkable then that Jefferson accomplished what he did in fighting most of it off. In fact, many did not want to sign the Constitution because they felt that it would devolve into dictatorship again.
Most probably don't even realize that the first Constitution was the Articles of Confederation, but after a few years the consensus was that it did not power the Federal government enough, so they went to the Constitution that we have today. This worked fairly well for over a hundred years before the Progressives amended it and further empowered the Federal government via the Federal Income tax, something that SCOTUS struck down as Unconstitutional a decade prior, and they also created their own bank with the Fed.
After they did this, it shifted the balance towards a Federal government that would destroy the concept of Federalism once and for all. There is no going back. Once you lose your freedom, you have to fight a bloody war to get it back.
Not sure what the point of all that verbiage is but now you're on to political parties. Liberalism is not a political party.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,159
- 1,100
- Thread starter
- #38
This is a misunderstanding!!. Articles worked fine and not one state would have voted to ratify Constitution had they not been lied to ie told that it was a living Constitution that could mean whatever we wanted it to mean!!
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 63,066
- 68,549
- 3,605
You conclude that a tax cut equals a limited government?
Tell me, the exponentially increasing debt that is one of the results, does that promote a limited government as well? It seems to me that debt equals slavery, something neither party will own up to because both have created the largest debt in the history of mankind.
Now he did get rid of a number of regulations, which is leaning towards a limited government.
But regulations is another pet peeve of mine. Here Congress has usurped their own power willingly by creating a Fourth Branch of government in the Executive Branch. Here we have a army of regulators that pass regulations that are just as powerful as laws passed by Congress. Trouble is, that is not Constitutional. These regulators cannot be voted in or out. It is an outrage.
Every year the government churns out about 40,000 new regulations and laws, and with every law comes decreased liberty, the opposite of the term liberal.
It's more euphemism. The way we call the incidental slaughter of innocent civilians "collateral damage". Or the way a bankruptcy is called a "reorganization".
It's "PATRIOT Act" for what it's worth -- an acronym. But obviously made up to pretend it's something it isn't. Much like the national anthem exercise at a football game.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Trump tariffs to hit small farms in Maga heartlands hardest, analysis predicts- Started by Tommy Tainant
- Replies: 13
-
3 former Memphis officers acquitted in fatal beating of Tyre Nichols after he fled a traffic stop- Started by Zincwarrior
- Replies: 7
