Our founding fathers were not conservative

[JakeStarkey]

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

Okay, I'm coming in late because it's Christmas and I'm busy, but, I see everyone has made the mistake of accepting the flawed premise.

Sorry, that's where conservatives always go wrong. They accept the premise and think they have to argue from that stand point. Wrong.

Agit8r, just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Instead of you taking the Dan Rather stand, "well you haven't proved otherwise" YOU need to back up YOUR argument.

So, let's see YOUR arguments proving your premise and we go from there.

Otherwise, you have simply put forth a premise you cannot support and it falls flat right there.

Day late and a dollar short, as always. You have just described yourself, honey.

 

[teapartysamurai]

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

Okay, I'm coming in late because it's Christmas and I'm busy, but, I see everyone has made the mistake of accepting the flawed premise.

Sorry, that's where conservatives always go wrong. They accept the premise and think they have to argue from that stand point. Wrong.

Agit8r, just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Instead of you taking the Dan Rather stand, "well you haven't proved otherwise" YOU need to back up YOUR argument.

So, let's see YOUR arguments proving your premise and we go from there.

Otherwise, you have simply put forth a premise you cannot support and it falls flat right there.

Day late and a dollar short, as always. You have just described yourself, honey.

I'm sorry but no. The libs are WAY late on this. This thread has been going on how long and no one UNTIL NOW thought, helloooooooooooooo, you need to back up your premise before we go a step further.

Libs just say so and then conservatives have to back up the argument????????

Anybody ever heard a logic??????

Under what logic do liberals think THEY put forth a premise MINUS EVIDENCE and it stands MINUS EVIDENCE.

There is a reason Dan Rather was laughed at, when he said "no one has proved otherwise."

Because they DON'T HAVE TO PROVE OTHERWISE.

Present your evidence liberals and then we will talk. Until then, this thread should have been dead from the get go.

 

[Intense]

In this case they are..

No, they are not. Secession came months before anything resembling rebellion.
Secession in no way necessitates an insurrection or rebellion.

Even if your theory were correct and a state asked to secede..the moment the Congress and/or the President said no..it's over.

As neither Congress not the President have any legal authority to tell a state it cannot leave, and a state need not ask permission to do so... No.

You are utterly wrong on both counts. There isn't even a gray area about this. The Constitution is pretty clear. And it's supreme.

It is so clear that we have so many controversial 5-4 splits in the most critical decisions, further supported by connecting dots that aren't even there. Good one! You have a good head, and good reasoning skills, the damage was done when you were young, impressionable, and lied to. We all were. Some day you may come to see that.

 

[teapartysamurai]

No, they are not. Secession came months before anything resembling rebellion.
Secession in no way necessitates an insurrection or rebellion.


As neither Congress not the President have any legal authority to tell a state it cannot leave, and a state need not ask permission to do so... No.

You are utterly wrong on both counts. There isn't even a gray area about this. The Constitution is pretty clear. And it's supreme.

It is so clear that we have so many controversial 5-4 splits in the most critical decisions, further supported by connecting dots that aren't even there. Good one! You have a good head, and good reasoning skills, the damage was done when you were young, impressionable, and lied to. We all were. Some day you may come to see that.

Unfortunately, I think the Civil War made this argument moot.

 

[Intense]

I think this is a whale of a thread. Although I do not agree with many of the positions held by agit8r, I think it's appropriate to give him due credit for this thread.

Whatever position(s) we may hold, I wish MANY many more Americans would take up this discussion in earnest and often.

I do pick up on some Chameleon tendencies here, imitation to facilitate a hijacking. There is an agenda behind the action, the distortion.

We were being played from the opening post. Some of us anyway. Tainted from the start. Every Thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Okay, I'm coming in late because it's Christmas and I'm busy, but, I see everyone has made the mistake of accepting the flawed premise.

Sorry, that's where conservatives always go wrong. They accept the premise and think they have to argue from that stand point. Wrong.

Agit8r, just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Instead of you taking the Dan Rather stand, "well you haven't proved otherwise" YOU need to back up YOUR argument.

So, let's see YOUR arguments proving your premise and we go from there.

Otherwise, you have simply put forth a premise you cannot support and it falls flat right there.

Day late and a dollar short, as always. You have just described yourself, honey.

I'm sorry but no. The libs are WAY late on this. This thread has been going on how long and no one UNTIL NOW thought, helloooooooooooooo, you need to back up your premise before we go a step further.

Libs just say so and then conservatives have to back up the argument????????

Anybody ever heard a logic??????

Under what logic do liberals think THEY put forth a premise MINUS EVIDENCE and it stands MINUS EVIDENCE.

There is a reason Dan Rather was laughed at, when he said "no one has proved otherwise."

Because they DON'T HAVE TO PROVE OTHERWISE.

Present your evidence liberals and then we will talk. Until then, this thread should have been dead from the get go.

You don't use logic, TPS. Like all fascist rightwingers, you use the big lie and propaganda. Many leftwingers do the same thing. You are like Dan Rather; you have not proved otherwise. Until you do, you are just a blabber.

 

[Sallow]

You are utterly wrong on both counts. There isn't even a gray area about this. The Constitution is pretty clear. And it's supreme.

The constitution only applies to those that are party to it.
After a state seceeeds, the constiution no long applies to it.

That being the case, nothing I said could possibly be wrong:
-Secession came months before anything resembling rebellion. Fact
-Thus, secession in no way necessitates an insurrection or rebellion. Fact
-There is no constitutional requirement for a state to ask to leave the union. Fact
-There is no constitutional prohibition agianst a state leafing the union. Fact
-There is no Constitutional authority granted to the givernment to prohbibit a state from seceeding. Fact.

Disagree? Cite the Constitution.

I have..in this very thread. It would be redundant to cut and paste it again.

Everything you posted is wrong. Once joining the United States..indivdual states have no way out under the Constitution. Statehood is forever.

 

[Liability]

You are utterly wrong on both counts. There isn't even a gray area about this. The Constitution is pretty clear. And it's supreme.

The constitution only applies to those that are party to it.
After a state seceeeds, the constiution no long applies to it.

That being the case, nothing I said could possibly be wrong:
-Secession came months before anything resembling rebellion. Fact
-Thus, secession in no way necessitates an insurrection or rebellion. Fact
-There is no constitutional requirement for a state to ask to leave the union. Fact
-There is no constitutional prohibition agianst a state leafing the union. Fact
-There is no Constitutional authority granted to the givernment to prohbibit a state from seceeding. Fact.

Disagree? Cite the Constitution.

I have..in this very thread. It would be redundant to cut and paste it again.

Everything you posted is wrong. Once joining the United States..indivdual states have no way out under the Constitution. Statehood is forever.

Sounds like an article of faith. But there is nothing in the text of the Constitution that supports that belief.

It may be argued that the Civil War settled the question.

It didn't. The Sallow view (which is the view I had always accepted as truth) prevailed. However, it often happens in history that before an idea can gain acceptance, it first goes through a round or multiple round of rejection. Oppressors oppress. Their victims get oppressed. Rebellions get put down and the rebellious get punished. And yet, sometimes, they try again -- and again. And sometimes the oppressed prevail.

In the context of the Union, the States ceded SOME of their sovereignty to the Federal Union UPON CONDITIONS. Those conditions were rather carefully spelled out in the Constitution. To the extent that one of the Parties (a State) feels that the agreement has been broken and the conditions violated, that might well be sufficient for the State to terminate the agreement. You may disagree, but there's not a single solitary word in the Constitution to the contrary.

 

[Intense]

You are utterly wrong on both counts. There isn't even a gray area about this. The Constitution is pretty clear. And it's supreme.

It is so clear that we have so many controversial 5-4 splits in the most critical decisions, further supported by connecting dots that aren't even there. Good one! You have a good head, and good reasoning skills, the damage was done when you were young, impressionable, and lied to. We all were. Some day you may come to see that.

Unfortunately, I think the Civil War made this argument moot.

Not at all. The Will of the Super Majority is Paramount not the will of the Court, which is subservient to the will of the People. True, the powers that be want to deny that and hide that truth, but the bottom line is that it is the truth. Why do you think so much is spent on manipulating facts to effect opinion?Why is it so important to perpetuate a lie, giving the impression that we are powerless against the powers that be to effect change or reestablish justice?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "Will of the Super Majority" is not the government of the land, only the Constitution, which protects the rights of the minority from infringement by the super majority.

 

[Intense]

The "Will of the Super Majority" is not the government of the land, only the Constitution, which protects the rights of the minority from infringement by the super majority.

With 75% of the Populace behind any consideration you have nothing Jake. Tyranny is Tyranny, under any mask. You have lost the concept of Liberty, of Limits to Federal Authority, of Unalienable Rights, coming from our Creator, not Government. You forget that there are issues between each individual and our Maker that Government and Society have Zero say in.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your statement is hot air. You are not a judge of anything. You certainly have no authority to judge anyone's relationship with his or her Maker. For shame. You sound like a silly little tyrant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unfortunately, I think the Civil War made this argument moot.

That's that the discussion always boils down to - might makes right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have..in this very thread. It would be redundant to cut and paste it again.

You'll have to do better than that.-- 'cause, you see, I am exceptionally familiar with the Constitution and I can tell you with absolute certainty that there's nothing in it thats says what you say it says.

So... cite the constitution, or admit you cannot.

Everything you posted is wrong.

Not that you or anyone else has shown.

Once joining the United States..indivdual states have no way out under the Constitution. Statehood is forever.

Cite the part of the constitution that says this.

 

[mdn2000]

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.



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.

Jakey, did you miss my post or are you a coward as well as a bully.

Bub, you falsely imputed certain belief and behavior to me, and I immediately and forcefully corrected your actions. I always will do so. All of the material above does not excuse your bad behavior.

Don't like it, ignore me.

Ignore your private messages as well, Jakey, you could of stated that whiny homosexual rant here and not in my private messages. Funny how the bullies are always afraid, cowards. I falsely imputed a certain belief or yours, what was that belief, you have a right to stay in the closet. I will be more than happy to have the debate, you should start a thread. Your behavior is exactly for all of us to see, I am not the only one pointing out that your human behavior is the same as the people who served side by side with Hitler, Mao, or Stalin.

Founding fathers fought against people like Jakey, the revolution was against the type of human nature Jakey is an example of, our founding fathers did fight our create a government for that embrace the thoughts and actions of Jakey, that Jakey lives here is our bad luck, Jakey's good luck.

 

[Sheldon]

Our founding fathers were not conservative

Of course not. Conservatives don't start revolutions. I think they were called the Tories back then?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The "Will of the Super Majority" is not the government of the land, only the Constitution, which protects the rights of the minority from infringement by the super majority.

You fail to understand that with a 75% majority, the Constitution can be changed - and chaned in any manner you might choose to discuss.
This would include the elimination of the protections of the rights of the minority.

 

[Sallow]

The constitution only applies to those that are party to it.
After a state seceeeds, the constiution no long applies to it.

That being the case, nothing I said could possibly be wrong:
-Secession came months before anything resembling rebellion. Fact
-Thus, secession in no way necessitates an insurrection or rebellion. Fact
-There is no constitutional requirement for a state to ask to leave the union. Fact
-There is no constitutional prohibition agianst a state leafing the union. Fact
-There is no Constitutional authority granted to the givernment to prohbibit a state from seceeding. Fact.

Disagree? Cite the Constitution.

I have..in this very thread. It would be redundant to cut and paste it again.

Everything you posted is wrong. Once joining the United States..indivdual states have no way out under the Constitution. Statehood is forever.

Sounds like an article of faith. But there is nothing in the text of the Constitution that supports that belief.

It may be argued that the Civil War settled the question.

It didn't. The Sallow view (which is the view I had always accepted as truth) prevailed. However, it often happens in history that before an idea can gain acceptance, it first goes through a round or multiple round of rejection. Oppressors oppress. Their victims get oppressed. Rebellions get put down and the rebellious get punished. And yet, sometimes, they try again -- and again. And sometimes the oppressed prevail.

In the context of the Union, the States ceded SOME of their sovereignty to the Federal Union UPON CONDITIONS. Those conditions were rather carefully spelled out in the Constitution. To the extent that one of the Parties (a State) feels that the agreement has been broken and the conditions violated, that might well be sufficient for the State to terminate the agreement. You may disagree, but there's not a single solitary word in the Constitution to the contrary.

Again..the Constitution doesn't permit secession. However states can try. History always seems to favor the victor.

 

[Sallow]

I have..in this very thread. It would be redundant to cut and paste it again.

You'll have to do better than that.-- 'cause, you see, I am exceptionally familiar with the Constitution and I can tell you with absolute certainty that there's nothing in it thats says what you say it says.

So... cite the constitution, or admit you cannot.

Everything you posted is wrong.

Not that you or anyone else has shown.

Once joining the United States..indivdual states have no way out under the Constitution. Statehood is forever.

Cite the part of the constitution that says this.

You could have gone through the thread..

But what the heck..

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 3 - New States

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Now..you find the part that allows Secession.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again..the Constitution doesn't permit secession

It doesn't need to - in fact, more importantly, it doesn't PROHIBIT secession.
Given that, the states reserve the right, as per Amendment X.

History always seems to favor the victor.

Might makes right, eh?