Our founding fathers were not conservative

[Affrayer]

Let's not compare todays politicans with the founders of this country.

Why not.

When Bush Jr left office his approval rating was in the teens. Now it is much higher, around 47. What did he do to deserve the higher rating? Nothing! So what caused the change? Time...

Over time this country tends to glorify even the most heinous monstrosity so I'm sure the framers of the Constitution are far less deserving of the respect you serve them up.

In fact the framers of the Constitution initially left out individual rights in their entirety. They allowed slavery. They didn't trust the voters and had the Senate appointed by their fellow politicians. It was far from a "perfect" document.

Just like today's scumdog politicians, the politicians of the past had their faults too...

 

[Sallow]

-Nothing- in the Constitution supprts this.
The power to raise and support armies is in -no way- tied to the power to declare war; both powers are completely independent of one another.

Let me guess , you are either a ******* lifer in the armed forces enjoying the gravy train or employed by KBR, Halliburton or similar war profiteer.

No.. I am someone who is able to read plain English; the fact that I am exceptionally well-schooled in the Constition is beyind that fact.

-Nothing- in the constitution subordinates the power to raise armies to the power to declare war; nothing requires the latter before the former is available for exercise. To argiue otherwise denotes an unfathomable degree of ignorance.

You simply don't know or understand the Constitution.

 

[Douger]

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

Sured they were.
Inbred genocidal maniac is quite conservative.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let me guess , you are either a ******* lifer in the armed forces enjoying the gravy train or employed by KBR, Halliburton or similar war profiteer.

No.. I am someone who is able to read plain English; the fact that I am exceptionally well-schooled in the Constition is beyind that fact.

-Nothing- in the constitution subordinates the power to raise armies to the power to declare war; nothing requires the latter before the former is available for exercise. To argiue otherwise denotes an unfathomable degree of ignorance.

You simply don't know or understand the Constitution.

Not that you can or that you will even try, but if you think you can show that the power to raise/support armies is necessarily tied to a declaration of war and cannot be exercised absent same - please, have at it.

Your lack of effective response will say all that needs been said on the issue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let me guess , you are either a ******* lifer in the armed forces enjoying the gravy train or employed by KBR, Halliburton or similar war profiteer.

No.. I am someone who is able to read plain English; the fact that I am exceptionally well-schooled in the Constition is beyind that fact.

-Nothing- in the constitution subordinates the power to raise armies to the power to declare war; nothing requires the latter before the former is available for exercise. To argiue otherwise denotes an unfathomable degree of ignorance.

HUH?
WHY the **** do you want standing armies if you
1) read plain English
2) are not employed by the military or conflicted by interest?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

None of this petulance addresses anything I said.
You argue that the power to raise/support armies amy only be exercised after Congress dedlares war. Nothing in the Constitution supports this.
Disagree? Cite the text that renders the former subordinate to the latter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Nor were they 21st century Democrats. You have to look at 1932 - 45 Germany to find THEM.

What a load of unmitigated bullshit.

Much like the claims that the Constitution specifically phobits secession and states that the 2nd amdment protects a collective, not individual, right to arms that you continue to refuse to even TRY to support.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Aside from the fact that there's been no attempt by the OP to support this assertion...

It fully depends on how you define "conservative" and if you're discussing individual members of the Founding Fathers or the group taken as a whole.


It certainly does not go too far to say that, as a whole, modern American liberals would refer to them as "right-wing extremists".

 

[Contumacious]

No.. I am someone who is able to read plain English; the fact that I am exceptionally well-schooled in the Constition is beyind that fact.

-Nothing- in the constitution subordinates the power to raise armies to the power to declare war; nothing requires the latter before the former is available for exercise. To argiue otherwise denotes an unfathomable degree of ignorance.

HUH?
WHY the **** do you want standing armies if you
1) read plain English
2) are not employed by the military or conflicted by interest?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

None of this petulance addresses anything I said.
You argue that the power to raise/support armies amy only be exercised after Congress dedlares war. Nothing in the Constitution supports this.
Disagree? Cite the text that renders the former subordinate to the latter.

WHY the **** do you want standing armies if you
1) read plain English
2) are not employed by the military or conflicted by interest?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Hint: The answer should begin


Because_______________________________________.

.

 

[Intense]

No.. I am someone who is able to read plain English; the fact that I am exceptionally well-schooled in the Constition is beyind that fact.

-Nothing- in the constitution subordinates the power to raise armies to the power to declare war; nothing requires the latter before the former is available for exercise. To argiue otherwise denotes an unfathomable degree of ignorance.

HUH?

WHY the **** do you want standing armies if you

1) read plain English

2) are not employed by the military or conflicted by interest?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

In present day the world is a very hostile place, with the tyrant understanding the threat of force of arms, where reason fails. It is Human Nature.

Are not Government workers conflicted in the same way? The Military has a strict chain of command. Government has Unions, which it's employee's seem more loyal to.

 

[M14 Shooter]

WHY the **** do you want standing armies if you
1) read plain English
2) are not employed by the military or conflicted by interest?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Hint: The answer you begin
Because_______________________________________.

A large font only serves to better illustrate the compete lack of substance in your claim.

You argue that the power to raise/support armies may only be exercised after Congress declares war. Nothing in the Constitution supports this.
Disagree? Cite the text that renders the former subordinate to the latter.

Your response will begin with:
Article X, section Y, clause Z:

 

[beowolfe]

That's true. They were however, not statists either.

that is true. they were not

Are the two of you sure about that?

Statism (or etatism) is a scholarly term in political philosophy either emphasising the role of the state in analysing political change; or, in describing political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals.

Since Jefferson wrote most of the Declaration of Independence, look at how he used government when he was POTUS. He practically doubled the size of the nation using the power of the state (Louisiana Purchase). He again used the power of the state (contracting with Lewis & Clark) to figure out what he had bought and how best to use it.


If the founding fathers were any single thing, they were pragmatists. If they were not any single thing, they were not conservative because in their time, conservatives were monarchists.

 

[Contumacious]

HUH?

WHY the **** do you want standing armies if you

1) read plain English

2) are not employed by the military or conflicted by interest?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

In present day the world is a very hostile place, with the tyrant understanding the threat of force of arms, where reason fails. It is Human Nature.

Are not Government workers conflicted in the same way? The Military has a strict chain of command. Government has Unions, which it's employee's seem more loyal to.

"I have always been, and always shall be against a standing army of any kind; to me it is a terrible thing, whether under that of a parliamentary, or any other designation; a standing army is still a standing army by whatever name it is called; they are a body of men distinct from the body of the people; they are governed by different laws, and blind obedience, and an entire submission to the orders of their commanding officer, is their only principle; the nations around us, sir, are already enslaved, and have been enslaved by those very means; by means of their standing armies they have every one lost their liberties; it is indeed impossible that the liberties of the people in any country can be preserved where a numerous standing army is kept up. Shall we then take our measures from the example of our neighbours? No, sir, on the contrary, from their misfortunes we ought to learn to avoid those rocks upon which they have split."

Robert Yates
(1738—1801),

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

WHY the **** do you want standing armies if you
1) read plain English
2) are not employed by the military or conflicted by interest?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Hint: The answer you begin
Because_______________________________________.

A large font only serves to better illustrate the compete lack of substance in your claim.

You argue that the power to raise/support armies amy only be exercised after Congress declares war. Nothing in the Constitution supports this.
Disagree? Cite the text that renders the former subordinate to the latter.

Your response will begin with:
Article X, section Y, clause Z:

What?! You mean you don't believe the Constitution requires Congress to declare war, and THEN start collecting and training the army?! Say it ain't so!!!

 

[Contumacious]

WHY the **** do you want standing armies if you
1) read plain English
2) are not employed by the military or conflicted by interest?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Hint: The answer you begin
Because_______________________________________.

A large font only serves to better illustrate the compete lack of substance in your claim.

You argue that the power to raise/support armies amy only be exercised after Congress declares war. Nothing in the Constitution supports this.
Disagree? Cite the text that renders the former subordinate to the latter.

Your response will begin with:
Article X, section Y, clause Z:

Forget about what the Constitution says, let say for a second that you are correct. Now , answer the ******* question:

WHY do you want standing armies?!?!?!?!


.

 

[M14 Shooter]

WHY the **** do you want standing armies if you
1) read plain English
2) are not employed by the military or conflicted by interest?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Hint: The answer you begin
Because_______________________________________.

A large font only serves to better illustrate the compete lack of substance in your claim.

You argue that the power to raise/support armies amy only be exercised after Congress declares war. Nothing in the Constitution supports this.
Disagree? Cite the text that renders the former subordinate to the latter.

Your response will begin with:
Article X, section Y, clause Z:

What?! You mean you don't believe the Constitution requires Congress to declare war, and THEN start collecting and training the army?! Say it ain't so!!!

I'm sure there -are- people who believe such nonsense... but there's really no reason to pay them any heed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Forget about what the Constitution says...

No, lets not.
Your premise is unsupportable. Period.

 

[Contumacious]

A large font only serves to better illustrate the compete lack of substance in your claim.

You argue that the power to raise/support armies amy only be exercised after Congress declares war. Nothing in the Constitution supports this.
Disagree? Cite the text that renders the former subordinate to the latter.

Your response will begin with:
Article X, section Y, clause Z:

What?! You mean you don't believe the Constitution requires Congress to declare war, and THEN start collecting and training the army?! Say it ain't so!!!

I'm sure there -are- people who believe such nonsense... but there's really no reason to pay them any heed.

yes, indeed, pure nonsense.

So what is your MOS, private?

Latrine urine & feces specialist?

Come on, 'fess up.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What?! You mean you don't believe the Constitution requires Congress to declare war, and THEN start collecting and training the army?! Say it ain't so!!!

I'm sure there -are- people who believe such nonsense... but there's really no reason to pay them any heed.

yes, indeed, pure nonsense.

To describe the idea that Congress cannot raise and support armies until after a declaration of war as "nonsense" is ... rather generous.

 

[Liability]

To correct the obviously incorrect thread headline:

Our founding fathers were conservative as we use that term today. Conservatives of this day and age are trying to conserve the FOUNDER'S notions of the proper LIMITED role of government.

By stark contrast, today's libs are intolerant of that very premise.

So if the term "conservative" is used to refer to an individual's political philosophy of conservatism today, then there is no alternative rational way to label the Founders and Framers than the accolade, "conservatives."

 

[JakeStarkey]

One of your weaker analyses, Liability. Your supervising manager will be very disappointed.