Our founding fathers were not conservative
- Thread starter Agit8r
- Start date
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #802
For liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, from John Scalzi. I Hate Your Politics Whatever
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
Even if it was true that "conservatism" was a philosophy it was destroyed by Roosevelt in 1935.
FDR created a massive welfare/warfare state which the "conservatives" - beginning with Eisenhower - did not try to dismantle . Their philosophies have merged to such extent that the only way I can differentiate Bush from Obama is by their color.
.
Last edited:
The T
George S. Patton Party
And as you, myself, and others pointed out? Modern Conservatives hold in high reverence the mastery of what the Founders gave us, and the want of those of us whom truly understand American Exceptionalism as opposed to the destructive path we are on now wanting to keep any semblence of what they gave us.
Modern Conservative are indeed Classic Liberals when the stakes are Liberty interspersed with Law and Order as handed to us not so long ago.
Liability
Locked Account.
Even if it was true that "conservatism" was a philosophy it was destroyed by Roosevelt in 1935.
FDR created a massive welfare/warfare state which the "conservatives" - beginning with Eisenhower - did not try to dismantle . Their philosophies have merged to such extent that the only way I can differentiate Bush from Obama is their color.
.
There is a difference between Republicans and Conservatives.
None of you guys get it.
Let's illustrate my contention. Here's a scenario:
Let's say you're on a train heading to work. In a nearby seat two other commuters are engaged in a genuine conversation about political philosophy. You don't want to be an eavesdropper, but they're speaking in normal conversational tones and volume and you can't help but hear them. Plus, you find that it's an interesting conversation.
Here's the Set-Up:
First commuter says to second commuter, "Well, personally, as for my political beliefs, I believe that our government enacts way too much legislation, taxes us way too much, engages in far too many 'programs' and spends far too much money. In a properly run government, their ability to behave in that fashion should be carefully constrained. Yes. I believe in limiting the power of government within bounds that we set for them."
Now, here's the question:
Is First Commuter, the above speaker, a conservative or a liberal?
Affrayer
Member
- Dec 16, 2010
- 179
- 14
- 16
That's the "talk" but we've all seen the truth of their "walk" and it's in the opposite direction.
They talk smaller government but they walk government expansion.
They talk fiscal responsibility but they walk gross fiscal irresponsibility.
They talk peace but they walk unnecessary war.
They talk border security but they walk open borders.
On and on, the walk is the opposite of the talk!
Liability
Locked Account.
Who is this "they" you speak of?
Agit8r
Gold Member
- Dec 4, 2010
- 12,141
- 2,210
- 245
- Thread starter
- #808
I find it a bit absurd to view the constituional compromise as the be all and end all of what originalism was all about. Though it can be said to set bounds for the FEDERAL government, it is by no means a complete picture of what American government was all about. When we read the state (or more especially the commonwealth) constitutions, we see a fuller set of metes and bounds that government in general was supposed to be based on. Take for instance the 1776 Constitution of Virginia which includes this description:
"That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."
Similarily, from the 1776 Constitution of Pennsylvania:
That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or soft of men, who are a part only of that community, And that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish government in such manner as shall be by that community judged most conducive to the public weal.
...and the 1780 Constitution of Massachusetts:
"Government is instituted for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government, and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."
Now THAT's American!
"That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."
Similarily, from the 1776 Constitution of Pennsylvania:
That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or soft of men, who are a part only of that community, And that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish government in such manner as shall be by that community judged most conducive to the public weal.
...and the 1780 Constitution of Massachusetts:
"Government is instituted for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government, and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."
Now THAT's American!
Affrayer
Member
- Dec 16, 2010
- 179
- 14
- 16
He sounds just like Bush Jr...but I got to ask, who cares about the talk? I want to know the "walk."
Affrayer
Member
- Dec 16, 2010
- 179
- 14
- 16
The people who talk the talk...
Liability
Locked Account.
So you don't choose to answer. Ok. That means you talk talk and only talk meaningless talk at that.
Check.
Affrayer
Member
- Dec 16, 2010
- 179
- 14
- 16
Now THAT's American!
On paper perhaps but let me remind you that the Constitution specifically says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...." Yet the USSC had no trouble violating that and stepped in to influence the choice of electors in Bush V. Gore.
After the 14th amendment and the process of incorporation, State Constitutions became moot.
Affrayer
Member
- Dec 16, 2010
- 179
- 14
- 16
But I did. Those people who talk the talk...
If you're still confused simply review your own "talk" and use yourself as an example.
The T
George S. Patton Party
Really? And whom might you speaking of? (Assuming first though that you have not donned partisan spectacles)...
Liability
Locked Account.
No. You didn't. You are a walking talking platitude. But we can all see that you have ducked the actual question.
You pretend to discuss some unidentified folks who "talk the talk but don't walk the walk." But when asked, directly, who THOSE folks might be, you resort to childish evasion. Technically, it's just simplistic tautology. But whatever. You are spineless. It aint no thang.
I only asked in order to drag you out into the light. Your evasive answer serves the same purpose.
Liability
Locked Account.
Now THAT's American!
On paper perhaps but let me remind you that the Constitution specifically says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...." Yet the USSC had no trouble violating that and stepped in to influence the choice of electors in Bush V. Gore.
After the 14th amendment and the process of incorporation, State Constitutions became moot.
You got that wrong, too. No surprise. The Legislature of Florida had not directed how the electors were to get appointed. The Florida Courts were doing it, and worse yet, doing it on the fly and after the fact. They were, in fact, as the SCOTUS correctly observed, violating the principles of one man one vote. The lawless action of the Florida Supreme Court got prevented. Boo hoo.
President Bush won.
Get the **** OVER it already.
Affrayer
Member
- Dec 16, 2010
- 179
- 14
- 16
I guess you could say that starting after Goldwater, everyone on the right.
After Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr, McCain, Palin, Rove, and the rest of the right wing pirates, I can see clearly without glasses.
Agit8r
Gold Member
- Dec 4, 2010
- 12,141
- 2,210
- 245
- Thread starter
- #818
Now THAT's American!
On paper perhaps but let me remind you that the Constitution specifically says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...." Yet the USSC had no trouble violating that and stepped in to influence the choice of electors in Bush V. Gore.
After the 14th amendment and the process of incorporation, State Constitutions became moot.
Incorporation Doctrine only holds that state and local governments may not violate the Bill of Rights, whereas before the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal gov't
Affrayer
Member
- Dec 16, 2010
- 179
- 14
- 16
Wait, let me guess, you're one of those right wingers with their head shoved so far up their patoot that all they see is tonsils.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...you're so silly it's pathetic.
Why don't you educate yourself instead of farting and stinking up the place: Bush v. Gore/Dissent/Ginsburg - Wikisource
BTW: According to the Florida Constitution, if there is confusion in the law the Florida Supreme Court is supposed to adjudicate the matter....
Last edited:
The T
George S. Patton Party
Even if it was true that "conservatism" was a philosophy it was destroyed by Roosevelt in 1935.
FDR created a massive welfare/warfare state which the "conservatives" - beginning with Eisenhower - did not try to dismantle . Their philosophies have merged to such extent that the only way I can differentiate Bush from Obama is their color.
.
There is a difference between Republicans and Conservatives.
None of you guys get it.
Let's illustrate my contention. Here's a scenario:
Let's say you're on a train heading to work. In a nearby seat two other commuters are engaged in a genuine conversation about political philosophy. You don't want to be an eavesdropper, but they're speaking in normal conversational tones and volume and you can't help but hear them. Plus, you find that it's an interesting conversation.
Here's the Set-Up:
First commuter says to second commuter, "Well, personally, as for my political beliefs, I believe that our government enacts way too much legislation, taxes us way too much, engages in far too many 'programs' and spends far too much money. In a properly run government, their ability to behave in that fashion should be carefully constrained. Yes. I believe in limiting the power of government within bounds that we set for them."
Now, here's the question:
Is First Commuter, the above speaker, a conservative or a liberal?
In that last sentence? One could clearly assume the speaker is a Conservative...however the troubling part
Now I would argue that a true Conservative, would strive to watchdog his/her own government to ensure those bounds were never exceeded to start with. (Witness the path we are currently upon).
Now are those bounds what we let them get away with?
I realize I might be parsing a bit...and assuming much...Similar threads
