Our founding fathers were not conservative

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

JokeyFakey. You have frequently graced us with your utterly witless commentary. But that was a classic example.

Oh, and by the way. Your attempt to label the "analysis" as "weak" means exactly diddly and squat.

The "analysis" was, of course, in actuality (which is one of your more pronounced areas of major weakness), what we like to call "right the **** on the mark!" Since it was spot on and fully correct, you never had any chance of recognizing it.

Libs DO (you, of course, should know this as the big time lib you clearly are) reject the notion of a LIMITED Government. This is why the present day libs are quite different than the Framers and Founders.
 
Inept in expression and inane in ability, your stumbling daily amuses me. In more than a year, you have demonstrated no grace, no elegance, no sentiment of expression or vibrancy. You are the poster child of predictability as well as emblematic of pedestrian mumbling. You are the belushi of banality.
 
Inept in expression and inane in ability, your stumbling daily amuses me. In more than a year, you have demonstrated no grace, no elegance, no sentiment of expression or vibrancy. You are the poster child of predictability as well as emblematic of pedestrian mumbling. You are the belushi of banality.

Your own vaunted but utterly misguided ego is eloquently expressed in your faux analysis of my alleged shortcomings. What you lack in intellectual prowess and ability in logical reasoning, you compensate for with an unduly large supply of dishonesty and a microscopic amount of integrity, Jokey.

Tell us again how you are "really" a Republican, Jokey. :lol: That one is a sure-fire crowd please-er. Makes the rest of us laugh ALL the time.

You probably still haven't figured out that you are almost universally recognized as a liar on the basis of that one whopper, alone.
 
Your analysis continues uninspired as it is incorrect. America is served by your banality as much as Foxfyre's inspired comments on Christ and Christmas in another thread tonight, because in your darkness your words backdrop the light of what America can achieve when personal greed is sublimated to community need.
 
Your analysis continues uninspired as it is incorrect. America is served by your banality as much as Foxfyre's inspired comments on Christ and Christmas in another thread tonight, because in your darkness your words backdrop the light of what America can achieve when personal greed is sublimated to community need.

LOL!

When you've got nothing (as here) it shows.
 
You may have the last word on this tonight because you obviously have lost the word as well. :lol: Good night, L.
 
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."

I take issue with that. There were Liberals among the founders that gave the cons a run for their money. ie. Gen. Welfare Clause <<<The Santa Clause statute
 
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."

I take issue with that. There were Liberals among the founders that gave the cons a run for their money. ie. Gen. Welfare Clause <<<The Santa Clause statute

Just because you want to interpret it that way doesn't mean they wrote it that way. Your willful incompetence with the English language is not their fault, and they could not reasonably have been expected to anticipate it.
 
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!!! :eusa_whistle:
I'm sure there -are- people who believe such nonsense... but there's really no reason to pay them any heed.

I disagree. If you don't listen to them, you can't mock them mercilessly, and life wouldn't be as much fun without that.
 
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...

Why not? because you cannot take a modern term and place it to match it to a group of people in the past.
Liberals want a big government to provide handouts
The founders wanted a strong effective central government
The two do not match up.
 
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."

I take issue with that. There were Liberals among the founders that gave the cons a run for their money. ie. Gen. Welfare Clause <<<The Santa Clause statute

The General Welfare Clause is NOT what you libbies seem to imagine it is.

You all seem to imagine (rather ignorantly at that) that the words of the PREAMBLE have the same force as what the Constitution then spells out. You don't even grasp the import of the term "preamble."
 
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."

I take issue with that. There were Liberals among the founders that gave the cons a run for their money. ie. Gen. Welfare Clause <<<The Santa Clause statute

The General Welfare Clause is NOT what you libbies seem to imagine it is.

You all seem to imagine (rather ignorantly at that) that the words of the PREAMBLE have the same force as what the Constitution then spells out. You don't even grasp the import of the term "preamble."

Let's be real. Our government has NEVER adhered to a strict construction of the constitution; from the Washington administration, til this day.

Furthermore, plutocrats were never for a strict construction--even in rhetoric--until the "general welfare" came into conflict with their rife accumulations :P
 
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."

I take issue with that. There were Liberals among the founders that gave the cons a run for their money. ie. Gen. Welfare Clause <<<The Santa Clause statute

The General Welfare Clause is NOT what you libbies seem to imagine it is.

You all seem to imagine (rather ignorantly at that) that the words of the PREAMBLE have the same force as what the Constitution then spells out. You don't even grasp the import of the term "preamble."

I am going by what Alexander Hamilton said about the matter in great detail, and I didn't mention the preamble, which further supports Art. 1. Sec. 8. But just confine your thoughts to Alexander Hamilton's clearly defined words, OK? Read his full intention of what General Welfare means, and you will be enlightened.

The phrase (Gen. Welfare) is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.


( Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures )

---------------

Ok? Now do you have a better undertsanding of what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they signed on?
 
Last edited:
I take issue with that. There were Liberals among the founders that gave the cons a run for their money. ie. Gen. Welfare Clause <<<The Santa Clause statute

The General Welfare Clause is NOT what you libbies seem to imagine it is.

You all seem to imagine (rather ignorantly at that) that the words of the PREAMBLE have the same force as what the Constitution then spells out. You don't even grasp the import of the term "preamble."

Let's be real. Our government has NEVER adhered to a strict construction of the constitution; from the Washington administration, til this day.

Furthermore, plutocrats were never for a strict construction--even in rhetoric--until the "general welfare" came into conflict with their rife accumulations :P

You're right. Let's be real. The fact that people try to skirt the boundaries and twist the law to suit themselves is no reason that the rest of us should throw up our hands in despair and just let them get away with it.

Furthermore, people who shrug and say, "There's always been corruption, so there's no point in trying to do better" don't deserve anything more than a shitty, corrupt, oppressive government. Humanity improves by aspiring toward its best ideals, not by surrendering to its lowest impulses.
 
I take issue with that. There were Liberals among the founders that gave the cons a run for their money. ie. Gen. Welfare Clause <<<The Santa Clause statute

The General Welfare Clause is NOT what you libbies seem to imagine it is.

You all seem to imagine (rather ignorantly at that) that the words of the PREAMBLE have the same force as what the Constitution then spells out. You don't even grasp the import of the term "preamble."

I am going by what Alexander Hamilton said about the matter in great detail, and I didn't mention the preamble, which further supports Art. 1. Sec. 8. But just confine your thoughts to Alexander Hamilton's clearly defined words, OK? Read his full intention of what General Welfare means, and you will be enlightened.

The phrase (Gen. Welfare) is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.


( Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures )

---------------

Ok? Now do you have a better undertsanding of what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they signed on?

Alexander Hamilton, the monarchist who wanted America to have its own king and was shunted off into the Treasury by the other Founding Fathers because they disagreed so profoundly with him, is supposed to be accepted, wholly and all by himself, as the final word on what the entirety of the Founding Fathers wanted and intended?

You're even dumber than I thought you were, which I would have thought would require a rewriting of the laws of physics and anatomy.
 
15th post
The General Welfare Clause is NOT what you libbies seem to imagine it is.

You all seem to imagine (rather ignorantly at that) that the words of the PREAMBLE have the same force as what the Constitution then spells out. You don't even grasp the import of the term "preamble."

Let's be real. Our government has NEVER adhered to a strict construction of the constitution; from the Washington administration, til this day.

Furthermore, plutocrats were never for a strict construction--even in rhetoric--until the "general welfare" came into conflict with their rife accumulations :P

You're right. Let's be real. The fact that people try to skirt the boundaries and twist the law to suit themselves is no reason that the rest of us should throw up our hands in despair and just let them get away with it.

Furthermore, people who shrug and say, "There's always been corruption, so there's no point in trying to do better" don't deserve anything more than a shitty, corrupt, oppressive government. Humanity improves by aspiring toward its best ideals, not by surrendering to its lowest impulses.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cecilie1200 again."
 
Let's be real. Our government has NEVER adhered to a strict construction of the constitution; from the Washington administration, til this day.

Furthermore, plutocrats were never for a strict construction--even in rhetoric--until the "general welfare" came into conflict with their rife accumulations :P

You're right. Let's be real. The fact that people try to skirt the boundaries and twist the law to suit themselves is no reason that the rest of us should throw up our hands in despair and just let them get away with it.

Furthermore, people who shrug and say, "There's always been corruption, so there's no point in trying to do better" don't deserve anything more than a shitty, corrupt, oppressive government. Humanity improves by aspiring toward its best ideals, not by surrendering to its lowest impulses.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cecilie1200 again."

Aw, shucks. :redface:
 
there, I said it. Feel free to prove me wrong with empirical fact. go on :eusa_eh:

I prove you wrong:

U.S. founded as Christian nation
By David L. Shelley, pastor, East Athens Baptist Church

Published November 6, 2003



Sir: There has been no small commotion, in recent years, as to the constitutionality of Christian symbols and citations of Scripture in government owned facilities. Rising from the debate are cries that the U. S. Constitution requires a "separation of church and state" - a Jeffersonian phrase not found in the Declaration of Independence nor the U. S. Constitution.

This separation theme is often interpreted to mean that American government should be devoid of any references to religion. Most recently, there has ensued a judicial battle over such things as the appearance of the Old Testament Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments, in government-owned courthouses and the statement, "One nation under God," as recited in the Pledge of Allegiance. Those who oppose such religious symbolism state that these are inherently "unconstitutional" and should thereby be stricken from the government landscape.

If this reasoning is carried to its logical conclusions, we would eventually remove "In God We Trust" from our nation's currency, cease the more than 200 year tradition of having prayers said in Congress, and ultimately deface the architecture of most federal buildings in Washington, D.C. - for, even the U. S. Supreme Court building contains an artistic rendering of the Ten Commandments.

At the heart of this matter, the question arises, "Was America founded as a Christian nation?" The answer to that question is impeccably clear.

Of the 55 colonial delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, 52 (or 94.5%) were members of Christian churches. Contrary to the widespread misinformation about the prevalence of Deism among the framers, only 3 of the delegates considered themselves to be such (merely 5.5%).

One can ascertain the worldview of the framers of the Constitution by reading their writings. Research in a 1984 article appearing in the American Political Science Review detailed a study of over 17,000 written works by the framers during the era of the late 1700s.

One might conclude that the sources quoted by these writers would indicate the books that they were reading. Did you know that of the quotations from other works that the framers cited in their writings, 34% came from the Bible? The two most often-cited, non-biblical, writers were Baron Charles Montesquieu and Sir William Blackstone: two European legal writers with clearly biblical views of law and government.

If this is not convincing proof that America was founded as a Christian nation, consider the following statements written by the framers themselves:

ï George Washington wrote, "It is impossible rightly to govern the world without God and the Bible."

ï Patrick Henry, who must have known that one day Americans would doubt the Christian foundation of the nation, wrote, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

ï James Madison, who must have known that one day Americans might question the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments in the federal milieu, stated, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

Let there be no doubt about it; America was founded by Christians and the U. S. Constitution was based upon the eternal laws of God as revealed in the Bible. To think that the Ten Commandments are not historically relevant to the foundations of the American legal system is preposterous.

America may not act like much of a Christian nation today, but it certainly was when our founding documents were written. As our founding father, John Adams, said, "The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

If Americans remove God from the federal infrastructure, we will only be destroying the very foundation upon which this nation was built.

U.S. founded as Christian nation
 
CONSERVATIVE in political terms means clinging to the past way of doing things.

If you happened to live in a world where most of the world's governments were run by MONACHIES then creating a government based on such a RADICALLY LIBERAL notion as a government for of and by the PEOPLE?

You were not REMOTELY conservative for YOUR TIME.

This debate is so utterly silly.

What isn't silly, though, is that some of you people actually BELIEVE that YOUR DEFINITION of the words liberal and conservative -- that pure load of nothing but partisan blather that passes as serious political science in places like these, is believed by millions of clueless American know-nothings.

Speaking as a political scientist by training, I'm here to tell some of you that everything you think you know about poli-sci is wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom