Our founding fathers were not conservative

[bigrebnc1775]

I am dealing with maroons who think they are adults.

Jake if you want to continue this bickering do it in a PM and stop derailing this thread.

You are nothing here, bigrebnc, and you know it. Move along, son.

I'm not moving any where junior but if you want to continue the bickering lets do it in the PM version. I am tired of derailing this thread, because of your assine comments.

 

[Sallow]

Nope.

In fact..there are conservatives in the party.

The present republican party purged itself of Liberals. Even the moderates are called RINOs.

There is no such thing in the Democratic party.

You're just plain wrong. The moderates who have opposed Obama's agenda have been getting ripped by the left for the past two years. All you have to do is read the lefty blogs and Web sites to see that. Many of them failed to get reelected this year too. Heath Shuler challenged Pelosi for Minority Leader and he lost in a landslide, withe the vast majority of the caucus choosing the ultra-leftist Pelosi over the common sense center.

The correct term is "Thrown Under The Bus", from Grandma to Hillary, it's the same MO.

There is no "correct term". What is not being understood is that the Democratic Party is not Binary like the Republican party. One can have liberals, progressive, conservatives and moderates with Democrats. That's simply no the case with Republicans. Either you are an extremist conservative or you are not. They have a litmus test as well. And they are moving more and more to the right. They are making Birchers look sane.

 

[Intense]

You're just plain wrong. The moderates who have opposed Obama's agenda have been getting ripped by the left for the past two years. All you have to do is read the lefty blogs and Web sites to see that. Many of them failed to get reelected this year too. Heath Shuler challenged Pelosi for Minority Leader and he lost in a landslide, withe the vast majority of the caucus choosing the ultra-leftist Pelosi over the common sense center.

The correct term is "Thrown Under The Bus", from Grandma to Hillary, it's the same MO.

There is no "correct term". What is not being understood is that the Democratic Party is not Binary like the Republican party. One can have liberals, progressive, conservatives and moderates with Democrats. That's simply no the case with Republicans. Either you are an extremist conservative or you are not. They have a litmus test as well. And they are moving more and more to the right. They are making Birchers look sane.

Watch out now or you might as well get thrown under the Bus. I know you came here to cheer us up and all, I respect that, , I just don't want you to get hurt by your Party, for having an original thought or opinion.

 

[Intense]

I'm putting out an APB and a Bad Premise Alert.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The correct term is "Thrown Under The Bus", from Grandma to Hillary, it's the same MO.

There is no "correct term". What is not being understood is that the Democratic Party is not Binary like the Republican party. One can have liberals, progressive, conservatives and moderates with Democrats. That's simply no the case with Republicans. Either you are an extremist conservative or you are not. They have a litmus test as well. And they are moving more and more to the right. They are making Birchers look sane.

Watch out now or you might as well get thrown under the Bus. I know you came here to cheer us up and all, I respect that, , I just don't want you to get hurt by your Party, for having an original thought or opinion.

Are there two differant parties? I think the whole political system in D.C. has thrown America under the bus.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You're just plain wrong. The moderates who have opposed Obama's agenda have been getting ripped by the left for the past two years. All you have to do is read the lefty blogs and Web sites to see that. Many of them failed to get reelected this year too. Heath Shuler challenged Pelosi for Minority Leader and he lost in a landslide, withe the vast majority of the caucus choosing the ultra-leftist Pelosi over the common sense center.

The correct term is "Thrown Under The Bus", from Grandma to Hillary, it's the same MO.

There is no "correct term". What is not being understood is that the Democratic Party is not Binary like the Republican party. One can have liberals, progressive, conservatives and moderates with Democrats. That's simply no the case with Republicans. Either you are an extremist conservative or you are not. They have a litmus test as well. And they are moving more and more to the right. They are making Birchers look sane.

Not always true. The Tea Party tried a takeover here in the summer of 09 at the town meetings. The chief warned them ahead of time that yelling and screaming would not be tolerated, and after three of them were arrested and fine for being stupid in public, they sullenly believed it.

We have Tea Wacks, conservatives, a few racists like bigreb (we take their votes but give them no say in local policy decisions), a couple of centrists, and one liberal who makes life miserable for the rest of us.

We are not diverse as the Dems, but we are not lockstep one way here, Sallow, and that is the way with many other areas in the Deep South as well.

 

[Harry Dresden]

our forefathers were FREEDOM loving individualists who were willing to stand up to repressive tyranny.

I believe MANY conservatives AND liberals of today would do the very same thing.

you bet they would Rik....

 

[AmericanFirst]

there, I said it. Feel free to prove me wrong with empirical fact. go on

You are right. There was no such thing as liberal or conservative back then. Our founding fathers were christians, which the liberals hate.

 

[JBeukema]

At the risk of repeating myself.... it is ridiculous to compare the beliefs of the founders to either 'liberals' or 'conservatives' as we understand those terms today.

The founders were individuals. Fact. They didn't all think alike. Fact. Y'all look like fools arguing this shit. Fact.

They were Liberals by definition. Adherents of Liberalism.


Anyone who denies that fact is ignorant at best.

They were Anti Tyrant, Anti Statist. Liberalism Today is the opposite. Ignorance has nothing to do with it. They wanted Liberty.

Liberalism is Liberalism. To say x doesn't equal x is either ignorance or simple dishonesty.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, let's think it through.

The fundamental values espoused by the Founders and Framers when it comes to government is in line with the thinking of today's conservatives.

The liberals reject the Founders' and Framers' notions of the proper role of government, by and large.

So, if it's true that in their day the Founders were not "conservatives," it's also true that in our day they would be anything but "liberals."

They were not like most of our liberal politicians of today, that is true.

That said, if a modern politician were to say any of those quotes i put up in the founders/revolutionary quote thread, AM radio types would call that person a commie, socialist, anarchist or peacenik.

I say this not to defend modern liberalism, but to correct the error of modern conservatism

I do SO love people who fall in love with one of their own posts that they go off and start a whole new thread just to say, "I was so ******* brilliant!" and expect the rest of us to go off and dig through some other thread just to be able to figure out what they're babbling about.

Here's a suggestion. If you thought that other post was so profound and insightful, GO BACK TO THAT THREAD and discuss it. If you want to start a new thread, then you're going to have to show your ******* work AGAIN and dazzle us with your alleged "brilliance".

I will tell you frankly right now that I sincerely doubt you're going to accomplish it if all you have is a bunch of cherrypicked quotes from selected individuals, as though there were only four Founding Fathers and their thoughts, ideas, and positions were so simplistic that they could be fully represented in a quote or two.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is no doubt that the founding fathers were liberals. If not, we would be speaking with a British accent. For the most part they were afraid of political parties fearing that they would divide the government and make it totally ineffective. There was only one party, the Federalist who controlled the government till 1801. The Democratic Republican Party came on the scene in 1788.

There is really little resemblance to either of our political party. The founders on these parties would be horrified at the political parties of today. For the most part, the founders were well to do planters and businessmen, isolationist who's primary interest was economic freedom from the British. The only freedom they were really interested in was their own freedom. They owned slaves or were for most supported slavery. They were not particularly religions and would not have agreed that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation. Many of the founders believed that the government should be controlled by the landowners and were against the popular vote.

If you MUST get all your information from Wikipedia, at LEAST make the effort to read a bit more in-depth. The Federalists and their opponents, the Democrat-Republican Party, were founded around the same time. Just because the Federalists had control of the government doesn't mean they were the only political party, dumbass.

Furthermore, moron, both parties had much more complex platforms and issues than you credit them with. Just because you view the world from the simplistic, puerile perspective of a retarded five-year-old doesn't mean that's actually how the world is.

 

[Flopper]

To suggest that Jefferson should of turned slaves loose, without the means to be self-sufficient, in a world where they would be Lambs amongst Wolves shows nothing less than ignorance of history and the culture of the world during those times.

Good post, however isn't that exactly what Lincoln did when he freed the slaves. I don't recall the government doing anything to make them self-sufficient.

 

[Cuyo]

there, I said it. Feel free to prove me wrong with empirical fact. go on

You are right. There was no such thing as liberal or conservative back then. Our founding fathers were christians, which the liberals hate.

Wrong on both counts. Many founding fathers were agnostic; I suspect all were, while they did do political posturing just the same as today's politicians do. As far as liberals, they certainly were. They were profoundly influenced by John Locke.

 

[Flopper]

In 1791 the Federal government socialized healthcare insurance imposing a tax that was withheld from the sailor’s pay to support the Marine Hospital Service offering free healthcare to merchant seaman.

Congress also approve the founding of the First Bank of the United States 20% owned by the government which competed with local commercial banks.

Madison was pushing for establishing a national brewery which would compete with commercial brewers.

The founding fathers were afraid of a democracy. Thomas Jefferson said "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." You will not find the word democracy or democratic anywhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

There is no doubt that the Tea Party would consider the founders liberals and probably Marxist.


First Bank of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Our Founding Father's Socialized Healthcare System - Paul J. O'Rourke - Open Salon

From your last link

Our Founders realized that a healthy work force was essential to our economic health and growth. It was for this reason that, in July of 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law an act “For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” establishing the Marine Hospital Service.

This Federal government socialized healthcare insurance was funded by a tax that was withheld from the sailor’s pay, and then turned over to the government by the ship’s owner.




If this is even true this is equal to the VA not socialism. dDo you have any gov. links beside the word of another socialist progressive?

Well not quite. The Marine Hospital Service served only the Merchant Marines which at the time were privately owned ships with civilian crews. Over the years the Service included the Coast Guard.

When the Marine Hospital Service was established by Congress it was funded by a tax paid by the seamen. It was the first publicly funded healthcare agency in the US.

Marine Hospital Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Flopper]

I think there is a general misunderstanding that somehow Karl Marx was the first person to conceive of the idea of socialism.

I think the idea of socialism goes back a lot further than Marx.

"Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need."
Acts 4:32-35

Talk about redistribution of the wealth..

 

[Cecilie1200]

The founders were very much liberal. They were also not in lockstep with each other. Some had more conservative values then others. Some owned slaves. But that's the thing with Liberals..there is room for growth.

With Conservatives the meme..if it ain't broke don't fix it..is the rule.

Well, nice of you to admit that liberals are all in favor of fixing things that aren't broken, and seem to think there's something wrong with letting things that work continue to do so.

 

[mdn2000]

Are you sure your talking to me because you have stated I said things I did not.

You opened with the comment, "To equate slavery as worst than feudalism is to show complete ignorance and in the context of this thread its purpose is politics. Anarchist and Marxist repeat this premise to portray the USA as a nation not worthy of being."

Your premise is false in the context of the discussion.

**** you if you don't like being called on it.

First off, the statement is not a premise but fact. Second that you are so quick to run off with extreme insults with vulgar language shows you must have your tongue licking the fecal matter from chomsky's asshole, how filth like you can exist outside of a cesspool is an example of the imperfection of man as well as the depravity of intellect that has plagued society through the ages. Your ideas are weak and cannot stand up to the strength of our founding, your ideas can only be posted anonymous on a message board or said in the secret of a septic tank.

I will wipe you from the bottom of my boots, for I feel like I just stepped in dog shit.

You opened with the comment, "To equate slavery as worst than feudalism is to show complete ignorance and in the context of this thread its purpose is politics. Anarchist and Marxist repeat this premise to portray the USA as a nation not worthy of being.

Again no premise and I must reiterate for Jakey here has done everything but engage in a discussion of what I stated.

Yes to equate slavery as worst than feudalism is a demonstration of how little Jakeyfool knows of history. Feudalism is Kings and Queens, Slavery is not a type of monarchy or government, that is why you cannot compare the two, it is ignorant to do so, had Jakey stated Marxism murdered more innocent people than Feudalism that is a comparison of systems of governments. That is an apt comparison.

Slavery is what it is, people put into bondage and forced to serve. Slavery happened under Feudalism, Slavery happened under Dictatorships, Slavery happened under Democracies.

I have heard and spoken with people who are Marxist, I have spoken to those who only parrot Chomsky, one thing Chomsky/Anarchist/States is exactly what Jakey stated here.

My comment is clear and factual. I specifically stated who I was speaking of, Anarchist and Marxist. Jakey did a surgical cut and paste to quote me, Jakey left much I said out and decided to include my quote below when attacking, demeaning, and attempted to misconstrue what I stated, Jakey's first attack quoted just my name and left my facts out of his post, Jakey states he is smart and knowledgeable, clear and concise so I take Jakey for his word. Jakey took extreme offense to MDN stating what is fact. Jakey is defending Marxist and Anarchist by attacking me, by calling me a racist.

Anarchist and Marxist repeat this premise to portray the USA as a nation not worthy of being.

I am married to a Negro-Portuguese woman, I am conservative, I am white, I am middle aged, my children are mixed race. It is obvious my children will one day be confronted by a person that is a bigot as Jakey is. What do I teach them, what do I tell them, I cannot tell them to simply ignore Jakey, bigots, Anarchist, and Marxist are guilty of some of the most horrific crimes against humanity. I have challenged Jakey to explain his post, three times, Jakey refused to edit or modify his post, further Jakey just Private Messaged me with a warning.

So what do I tell my children about the type of bigotry and what I can only see as hate, what do I tell my mixed race children when a bigot such as jakey calls their father a racist.

I unfortunately have had the pleasure of being confronted by many bullies, for some reason in High School I got picked on and pushed around, I learned early on you cannot run from bullies, they will find you one day, thus you must confront them in front of your friends and if front of their friends, to run from a bully emboldens a bully and put myself in dangerous situations I always managed to escape, dangerous as in the position of physically fight two people with more awaiting the outcome, times like that I took my beating.

So one must confront the hate when hateful people push you around.

In school I was the tall, skinny, 120 lb weakling (today I am 6'2" at 200lbs), in the ninth grade the class bully from the fooball team started pushing me around and broke a chain on my neck, I bit my tongue and said, "you sucker", that was it, he pushed me physically as I tried to talk my way out, he pushed me again and rubbed his clenched fist under my chin, that was it, the fight was on, I hit the bully hard and furious and broke his nose in three places, not bad for a 120 lb weakling.

So now I have a bully hear on the boards, Jakey called me a racist and continues to demean and impugn me, when challenged to clarify his bigotry Jakey acts as a bully and warns me in private message.

What do I tell my children, I will teach them to be men, to stand up to the bullies and bigots, to be wary, to be prepared, that people such as this are very dangerous.

I will teach them the history of the KKK, the history of the murders committed by Anarchists, they will learn the death and destruction brought upon the world my Marxism, Fascism and the Nazis.

I thank Jake for reminding me of the ugliness of human nature.

JakeyStark; I will add MDN to your group. I am thrilled to see you racists and America haters exposed for what you are.

 

[mdn2000]

You're just plain wrong. The moderates who have opposed Obama's agenda have been getting ripped by the left for the past two years. All you have to do is read the lefty blogs and Web sites to see that. Many of them failed to get reelected this year too. Heath Shuler challenged Pelosi for Minority Leader and he lost in a landslide, withe the vast majority of the caucus choosing the ultra-leftist Pelosi over the common sense center.

The correct term is "Thrown Under The Bus", from Grandma to Hillary, it's the same MO.

There is no "correct term". What is not being understood is that the Democratic Party is not Binary like the Republican party. One can have liberals, progressive, conservatives and moderates with Democrats. That's simply no the case with Republicans. Either you are an extremist conservative or you are not. They have a litmus test as well. And they are moving more and more to the right. They are making Birchers look sane.

Conservatives are not extreme, I want everyone not to be taxed personally, I want everyone to be able to start a business without having to pay fees that prevent the poor from being business owners, I want cheap energy for everyone so that housing and food is affordable, I want to live save from criminals, I want all humans to have a chance at life, I want the tyrant in Europe my family fled as refugees destroyed. I want to be able to say what I want and think what I want, and you call that extreme.

Liberals/Anarchsit/Marxist are extreme.

 

[frazzledgear]

there, I said it. Feel free to prove me wrong with empirical fact. go on

They were not social revolutionaries, they did not try to remake society itself or change the moral code at all. They did not suddenly favor legalized prostitution or abortion or unwed motherhood or the welfare state or believe people had no right to make all sorts of immoralities illegal even. In fact, they firmly believed the people had the right to decide what laws they CHOSE to be governed by since they firmly believed in the right of self-governance, an astonishing and revolutionary idea. At the time. NONE of what they wrote or the Constitution itself was intended to remake the society from the one that existed into something different. They were political revolutionaries only. At the time their political beliefs really were off the wall, way out there revolutionary! This was an era where nations were ruled by inherited royalty and self governance did not exist! But today their positions are not revolutionary at all. The system of government they created bears NO resemblance to the historically proven failures of systems so beloved by modern liberals of the massive, powerful nanny state -something the founders would AND DID soundly reject. They FEARED a strong, large centralized government -but liberalism REQUIRES a large, powerful centralized government! You can't have a nanny state without one.

You have to engage in some intense mental gymnastics to stupidly insist they were not conservatives when the word "conservative" was actually chosen to describe people who are CONSERVATIVE about deviating too far from the Constitution that the founders created! Are you so seriously ignorant of history you don't even know the foundation of why conservatives are even called conservatives? If I oppose deviating too far from the Constitution as written and with the intent it was written, I am a conservative. Since they wrote it, the founders can't be LESS conservative than me!! LOL The founders left a slew of their writings that gives great insight into where they stood politically and how that would compare with political positions of today. There is NO NEED to guess about it!

And clearly you haven't ready any of them! I suggest you start off with reading the Federalist Papers from beginning to end -documents left by the founders compiled together to explain what they did and why, what they were thinking, what influenced their thinking, why they rejected doing it another way, what they hoped to achieve, protect, guarantee by the inclusion and/or omission of specific phrases and words in the Constitution. Only after you have done that come back and repeat that ridiculous piece of idiocy. And be prepared to back it up using THEIR words -and use them IN CONTEXT. (One of the most deceitful stunts liberals like to do is pull a sentence or phrase from one or another of the founder's statements or writings, separate it from its context in which it was said or written -in order to pretend it refers and applies to something unrelated to pretend it was said to bolster THEIR position. Even when that position is something the author of those words would and did vigorously disagree!)

Enough of this pretense that the founders were the equivalent of modern liberals and would be right there with you today! When they had the opportunity to create a system of government -they chose a system based on INDIVIDUALISM and limited government. But liberals live and breathe COLLECTIVISM and "group rights" and massive, powerful government that "takes care" of grown ups as their parental replacement who knows what is best for them. Individualism is denounced by the far left as a hindrance to the best interests of the collective. The founders repeatedly rejected that! Worse yet, modern liberals hold individual rights, especially when it is the rights of those who disagree with them - in utter disdain. Otherwise you wouldn't hear liberals and ONLY liberals constantly shrieking about how government should curtail free speech and the free flow of information -but only if it comes from Fox News, not any lying ass liberal station of course! Liberals, not conservatives and sure as hell not the founders, believe some speech (their opponents' naturally) is just "too dangerous" to allow others to hear -which is why a lying asshole like Rockefeller who is no friend to the truth, thinks it is the role of government to silence some political speech as "bad"! Fearing and stifling certain political speech is definitely a liberal thing -no conservative calls for government intervention or claims it has a role in regulating political speech! Neither did the founders who said free speech meant you would absolutely hear speech with which you disagreed and even found repugnant and offensive! And pretty much said, get over it -its the price of FREEDOM because the alternative is NOT acceptable!

It is pretty stupid to make an unfounded statement and then demand others prove you are wrong. Get over yourself. I KNOW you are wrong but I am not obligated to do YOUR research when I've already done my own to know what an asinine statement you made! When you make a stupid assertion like that, then YOU bear the burden of proving the stupid claim. Not anyone else.

 

[Agit8r]

"they did not try to remake society itself or change the moral code at all"

That is a questionable statement to say the least. I'll dig into that at length later, but for now I simply note that they at least strove to separate the wheat from the chaff

The Jefferson Bible

Age of Reason

"The Gothic idea that we are to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion & in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion & government, by whom it has been recommended, & whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure; and the moment of their showing it is fast ripening; and the signs of it will be their respect for you, & growing detestation of those who have dishonored our country by endeavors to disturb our tranquility in it."

-- Thomas Jefferson; letter to Joseph Priestley
From Revolution to Reconstruction: Presidents: Thomas Jefferson: Letters: "A SUBLIME LUXURY"