If the Bill of Rights makes liberalism illegal how does liberalism survive?

[anynameyouwish]

1. trump said "the only good democrat is a dead democrat"

tell me....how much free speech do DEAD people have?

He was speaking figuratively. No one has killed Democrats. They just impeached him with there total power of free speech and are running ahead of him in the polls thanks to their free speech.

That's your representative example?? You just proved it was total BS!! See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

" See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? "

I already KNEW why you say it.

YOU are "ignorant"

my liberalism is rational;

legalize pot, stop destroying lives just because people smoke pot!

gays are citizens and deserve the same rights, protections and freedoms

laws should be based on reason and logic and NOT the bible.

if you really want to MAGA then we really NEED excellent, affordable education for all

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

my liberalism is rational;
if you really want to MAGA then we really NEED excellent, affordable education for all

you mean your liberalism is childlike stupid and naive. Everyone supports excellent affordable education. Issue this time is: ,reparations, the treasonous green new deal, defund the police, defund ice, open the borders to all, provide free healthcare and education to all, raise taxes on business to drive more jobs off shore, empty the prisons, riot/loot, pamper blacks when they are killed by police less often than white.

Now do you understand?

 

[Markle]

1. trump said "the only good democrat is a dead democrat"

tell me....how much free speech do DEAD people have?

He was speaking figuratively. No one has killed Democrats. They just impeached him with there total power of free speech and are running ahead of him in the polls thanks to their free speech.

That's your representative example?? You just proved it was total BS!! See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

" See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? "

I already KNEW why you say it.

YOU are "ignorant"

my liberalism is rational;

legalize pot, stop destroying lives just because people smoke pot!

gays are citizens and deserve the same rights, protections and freedoms

laws should be based on reason and logic and NOT the bible.

if you really want to MAGA then we really NEED excellent, affordable education for all

Everything on your list is being done or has been done. What else do you want?

 

[Markle]

" can you give a representative example of this or is it pure BS? "

1. trump said "the only good democrat is a dead democrat"

tell me....how much free speech do DEAD people have?

2. I won't bother to go looking for them but MANY posters on this board have talked about "DESTROYING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY"

how much free speech will they have after you have destroyed them?

3. cons will always defend a conservative athlete "he has a right to his free speech!"
but will always say to a liberal athlete "shut up and play"

4. just recently a poster on this board said he wanted to "lynch me" AND "take me out back and put a bullet in my head"

isn't THAT an EXTREME form of CENSORSHIP?

if he lynches me....I will be CENSORED forever!

should you require more examples i can certainly take the time to go through HUNDREDS of files to find THOUSANDS more examples.....

Yeah, you didn't understand the question, did you? Want to try it again?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Conservatives and liberals are one hand washing the other.

Conservatives like Reagan Trump Goldwater are for preserving our past and slow change while liberals like Hitler Stalin and Mao were for instant change to perfect the world, as the saw fit. immediately. Now do you understand?

Reagan was pro- gun control. Goldwater was pro-homosexual:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm

Goldwater was okay, but did not have the weight to play in the big boys league. His opposition to the Council on Foreign Relations ought to make him a hero among Americans. Other than that, the Republicans have tried to appease the left for way too long - until they are now supporting leftist causes in exchange for the acceptance of the masses.

 

[Regent23]

when did the girl scouts take away anyones freedom of speech???

The second president, John Adams, a conservative, had his conservative Congress pass the Subversive Act making it illegal to critisize Government, which violated the Bill of Rights. When Jefferson took office he corrected the situation.
Originally It was the liberals that demanded a Bill of Rights. 2

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

when did the girl scouts take away anyones freedom of speech???

The girl scouts never took our freedom of speech away and our founders did not worry that they would but they did worry that the government would take away our freedom of speech. The whole constitution especially the Bill of Rights is written to make sure the government doesn’t become liberal like the one we have now.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The second president, John Adams, a conservative, had his conservative Congress pass the Subversive Act making it illegal to critisize Government, which violated the Bill of Rights. When Jefferson took office he corrected the situation.
Originally It was the liberals that demanded a Bill of Rights. 2

Don’t be totally absurd and illiterate Jefferson was the champion of limiting government and Adams was a liberal for a large English style government. How can you be so illiterate?

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, the Constitution is all about strictly limiting govt while the Democrats are all about strictly unlimiting govt. So how do they survive in America?

1. First they don't believe in Constitutional laws and limits as Conservatives do
2. So forcing Constitutionalism on liberals is, in itself, unconstitutional because they don't believe in it as a political religion
3. This creates a double standard where
A. For Conservatives who believe limits on govt prevent it from being abused to impose beliefs on others, so they cannot force Constitutionalism on liberals by this very belief in religious freedom
B. but for Liberals who don't believe in such limits, as long as they believe that majority rule, judicial ruling, or executive order is all it takes to justify a mandate, they will use their party power to elect people to office to use all three branches of govt to mandate their beliefs

EdwardBaiamonte I am in agreement with you that it should be illegal to abuse govt to establish political beliefs, religion or creed that violates beliefs, rights or creeds of other citizens. And that party/media should not be abused to conspire to violate civil rights of others by discrimination by creed, nor commit fraud, misrepresentation, or other abuse by falsely advertising to the public to solicit donations or votes by promising to enact any such policies that are "unconstitutional" and aren't valid plans. What do you think about writing up a list of grievance points against Democrats abusing party, post that publicly and send it as a petition to State Gov, AG, Party leaders, Senators and Congress. And ask for a public conference on barring parties from both (a) imposing political beliefs through govt in violation of Constitutional rights, laws, limits, and beliefs (b) misrepresenting such abuse to voters and donors as if this is legal and legitimate in order to solicit donations and votes (c) require all parties to rectify and reimburse taxpayers for costs of such abuses, and require political parties to register through the state as political religious organizations barred from campaigning on any fraudulent claims falsely promising unconstitutional legislative or executive agenda

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, the Constitution is all about strictly limiting govt while the Democrats are all about strictly unlimiting govt. So how do they survive in America?

1. First they don't believe in Constitutional laws and limits as Conservatives do
2. So forcing Constitutionalism on liberals is, in itself, unconstitutional because they don't believe in it as a political religion
3. This creates a double standard where
A. For Conservatives who believe limits on govt prevent it from being abused to impose beliefs on others, so they cannot force Constitutionalism on liberals by this very belief in religious freedom
B. but for Liberals who don't believe in such limits, as long as they believe that majority rule, judicial ruling, or executive order is all it takes to justify a mandate, they will use their party power to elect people to office to use all three branches of govt to mandate their beliefs

EdwardBaiamonte I am in agreement with you that it should be illegal to abuse govt to establish political beliefs, religion or creed that violates beliefs, rights or creeds of other citizens. And that party/media should not be abused to conspire to violate civil rights of others by discrimination by creed, nor commit fraud, misrepresentation, or other abuse by falsely advertising to the public to solicit donations or votes by promising to enact any such policies that are "unconstitutional" and aren't valid plans. What do you think about writing up a list of grievance points against Democrats abusing party, post that publicly and send it as a petition to State Gov, AG, Party leaders, Senators and Congress. And ask for a public conference on barring parties from both (a) imposing political beliefs through govt in violation of Constitutional rights, laws, limits, and beliefs (b) misrepresenting such abuse to voters and donors as if this is legal and legitimate in order to solicit donations and votes (c) require all parties to rectify and reimburse taxpayers for costs of such abuses, and require political parties to register through the state as political religious organizations barred from campaigning on any fraudulent claims falsely promising unconstitutional legislative or executive agenda

You make no sense. Forcing constitutionalism on liberals is what the Constitution requires. We all live under the constitution. To serve in office we take a constitutional oath to preserve defend and protect the Constitution.

Now do you understand?

 

[progressive hunter]

when did the girl scouts take away anyones freedom of speech???

The second president, John Adams, a conservative, had his conservative Congress pass the Subversive Act making it illegal to critisize Government, which violated the Bill of Rights. When Jefferson took office he corrected the situation.
Originally It was the liberals that demanded a Bill of Rights. 2

those liberals are not the same as our liberals,,,ours are evil and theirs believed in freeedom

 

[Regent23]

when did the girl scouts take away anyones freedom of speech???

The second president, John Adams, a conservative, had his conservative Congress pass the Subversive Act making it illegal to critisize Government, which violated the Bill of Rights. When Jefferson took office he corrected the situation.
Originally It was the liberals that demanded a Bill of Rights. 2

those liberals are not the same as our liberals,,,ours are evil and theirs believed in freeedom

Sounds as few bothered to check on America's early history. It's all there in the history books. and is simple to find.

 

[Regent23]

when did the girl scouts take away anyones freedom of speech???

The second president, John Adams, a conservative, had his conservative Congress pass the Subversive Act making it illegal to critisize Government, which violated the Bill of Rights. When Jefferson took office he corrected the situation.
Originally It was the liberals that demanded a Bill of Rights. 2

those liberals are not the same as our liberals,,,ours are evil and theirs believed in freeedom

Can there be some "core beliefs" to liberalism and conservatism that do not change? You might start with the Declaration of Independence, that lays out one of the ideologies. Books on political ideologies, sold in any college book store, also might help.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can there be some "core beliefs" to liberalism and conservatism that do not change?

Totally stupid of course. Core beliefs may or may no change and definitions may or may not change. Today cons are for freedom and against govt. In 1776 that was our Founders position! So they were conservatives using todays definitions and beliefs.

Today libs are closed minded bigots for an all powerful state orthodoxy that cancels the opposition much like George 3 HItler Stalin Mao Pol Pot AOC Warren Sanders Biden. Do you need to learn this every other week?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Our genius Founders were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary.

Why might that be?

The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers? But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights.

They did not foresee "liberalism" to be the organizing principle oppressing the citizenry.

Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now libcommieism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!

No. The founders in all their genius as you like to describe them, were well aware of the inadequacies of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers describe the inadequacies as corruptions, because they could not describe them as "faults" or "inadequacies" otherwise they would have been obligated to correct the inadequacies before the public would have been properly assured of the charter's quality.

Yes that’s true. At the time the liberals and anti-federalist were, like conservatives and libertarians of today, wishing to constrain or limit the federal government anyway possible. They knew the federal government has been a source of evil on earth.

How can that be true - what federal governments were they able to study, and how did they get accurate information as to how the governments operated???

. . . Therefore they created a country based on a very very limited govt . . .

They violated the limited government immediately. The only security department mentioned was treasury, and state and defense were implied; but none of them were properly defined. A central bank was established with a legislature not approved by the people. And as you know there are now a hundred agencies and only about twenty oversight committees with some subcommittees.

Liberalism is not made illegal by the Bill of Rights.
The rebellion we are enduring can only be quelled by a peace treaty - a reordering of the inadequate chartering system.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why might that be?

They thought a Bill of Rights might not be necessary because the Constitution detailed what govt actions could be. Restricting free speech was not something govt could do under Constitution ergo a Bill of Rights to protect free speech was not necessary and might even be dangerous since it gave govt management over free speech which liberal govt might then subvert to their advantage..

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They did not foresee "liberalism" to be the organizing principle oppressing the citizenry.

of course they did. Their entire idea was to give us freedom from liberal schemes to better our lives because such schemes had been the source of evil throughout human history. Now do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No. The founders in all their genius as you like to describe them, were well aware of the inadequacies of the Constitution.

all agree; so what???? Do you have any idea what your subject is????? You were responding to paragraph which said we can still go back to original meaning and scope of Constitution despite how far liberals have torn us from its intended purpose to keep us free from big liberal govt schemes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How can that be true - what federal governments were they able to study, and how did they get accurate information as to how the governments operated???

Simple: they were geniuses who studied all of human history. Did you think they were guessing at what kind of govt to create??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They violated the limited government immediately.

Yes they should have been much clearer about their intent. Even they had no idea how insidious creeping relentless and cancerous liberalism could be. We have seen the great 20th Century liberals Hitler Stalin Mao Pol Pot Castro and still many today are embracing liberal govt. Our Founders imagined that freedom was natural, that a taste of it would serve to keep us on the right path, but they were dead wrong.