Our founding fathers were not conservative

[The T]

Really? And whom might you speaking of?

I guess you could say that starting after Goldwater, everyone on the right.

(Assuming first though that you have not donned partisan spectacles)...

After Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr, McCain, Palin, Rove, and the rest of the right wing pirates, I can see clearly without glasses.

And therefore seeing the who's who list that you have fronted? It is abundantly clear to me that you do indeed have the spectacles on and have forgotten.

And ODD isn't it that you didn't list anyone from the other side of the coin...so therfore my argument is valid, and renders yours inept, biased.

 

[Affrayer]

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

Well let's say that another way, incorporation is the process which allows the USSC to use their interpretation of the Federal Constitution to supersede the State Constitutions in matters that predate the 14th amendment.

Which pretty much makes those State Constitutions moot...

 

[Liability]

You got that wrong, too. No surprise.

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.

No, stupid. You are an unthinking uber-liberal and thus engaged in projection. That's all.

The Legislature of Florida had not directed how the electors were to get appointed.

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....

I did educate myself. That's how I know you're flatly wrong. You spew meaningless tripe lib talking points. But you don't even understand the basis for the Court's decision in Bush v. Gore.

Instead of relying on the crap in Wiki, why not (just a thought, it may not kill you to think for yourself on the basis of first hand information for a change, dipshit) read the actual SCOTUS decision?

Here. I'll help you out. BUSH v. GORE

And it helps (even if it makes your eyes weep blood, you mental midget) to read the entire decision, stupid. I realize you prefer to rely on the dissent (since you favor the dissent, inasmuch as your side lost the Court case). But you really need to read the whole case.

There is actually some legitimate criticism to make of Bush v. Gore. But it's not the bullshit an asshole like you points to.

 

[Agit8r]

Nonetheless, my point had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, but rather that conservative politicians openly mock the idea that

"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"

And supposed conservatives goosestep along with them

 

[The T]

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

Well let's say that another way, incorporation is the process which allows the USSC to use their interpretation of the Federal Constitution to supersede the State Constitutions in matters that predate the 14th amendment.

Which pretty much makes those State Constitutions moot...

Yeah nevermind the pesky 9th and 10th amendments.

Face it bub? You're a Statist in the true Marxist fashion.

 

[Affrayer]

And therefore seeing the who's who list that you have fronted? It is abundantly clear to me that you do indeed have the spectacles on and have forgotten.

And another right winger who is reading comprehension challenged issues.

Appearently you are not bright enough to figure out what "anyone on the right after Goldwater" means. So let me spell it out for you.

The entire right wing, after Goldwater, consists of lying rat bastard propagandists. Nothing they say isn't a lie.

 

[Liability]

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

within bounds that we set for them."

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...

We have boundaries already set. Historically, I agree that "we" have failed (badly) to make sure that our government stayed within those boundaries. But the fact that we have failed doesn't undercut the position of a conservative. It just means that we fell short.

Obviously, if one objects to limiting the role of the government, then one is not a conservative.

Putting it in other words, if one FAVORS removing such limits so that the Government has the flexibility and authority to legislate outside of such boundaries, then one is probably a liberal.

 

[Affrayer]

No...

Could you move your tonsils aside so I can hear you?

I did educate myself.

So you're still playing with your own poop...

The Florida legislation passed laws that directed how electors were to be appointed.

 

[Liability]

And therefore seeing the who's who list that you have fronted? It is abundantly clear to me that you do indeed have the spectacles on and have forgotten.

And another right winger who is reading comprehension challenged issues.

Appearently you are not bright enough to figure out what "anyone on the right after Goldwater" means. So let me spell it out for you.

The entire right wing, after Goldwater, consists of lying rat bastard propagandists. Nothing they say isn't a lie.

With that ^ post, Afraider has outed himself as nothing more than just another worthless troll. Seriously. It's a contender for "dumbest post of the year. " What a ******* asshole he is.

 

[Affrayer]

And supposed conservatives goosestep along with them

Hey, I tried my best to disagree with you, I failed.

 

[The T]

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

within bounds that we set for them."

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...

We have boundaries already set. Historically, I agree that "we" have failed (badly) to make sure that our government stayed within those boundaries. But the fact that we have failed doesn't undercut the position of a conservative. It just means that we fell short.

Obviously, if one objects to limiting the role of the government, then one is not a conservative.

Putting it in other words, if one FAVORS removing such limits so that the Government has the flexibility and authority to legislate outside of such boundaries, then one is probably a liberal.

Which is what I origionally thought and denied my Occam Razor tendancies in forethought, and chose rather to stray. My first instinct was correct in the light you presented.

-Thanks-

Now I wonder why no other answers to your well crafted scenario?

 

[The T]

And therefore seeing the who's who list that you have fronted? It is abundantly clear to me that you do indeed have the spectacles on and have forgotten.

And another right winger who is reading comprehension challenged issues.

Appearently you are not bright enough to figure out what "anyone on the right after Goldwater" means. So let me spell it out for you.

The entire right wing, after Goldwater, consists of lying rat bastard propagandists. Nothing they say isn't a lie.

Translation: ..."The T was correct about me and my partisan spectacles...why am I even here..."?

 

[Affrayer]

Yeah nevermind the pesky 9th and 10th amendments.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that the USSC has consistently ignored those two amendments?

 

[The T]

No...

Could you move your tonsils aside so I can hear you?

I did educate myself.

So you're still playing with your own poop...

The Florida legislation passed laws that directed how electors were to be appointed.

Another Disgruntled true Statist with no affinity for the RULE of Law...

Quaint...and common.

 

[AVG-JOE]

under this argument, the Founding Fathers were, well, conservative.

Bullshit.

The Constitution is a Libertarian document.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henryhttp://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.htmlhttp://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

Does he sound like a "conservative"? He definitely was not a lily pad liberal!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Yeah! Look at the quote! Patrick didn't want no LIBERAL crap! He wanted LIBERTY!

 

[Affrayer]

With that ^ post...

Since with your weak reading comprehension it doesn't matter what I write, let me just comment on your ability to endlessly fart. Are you a cabbage patch doll?

 

[Affrayer]

Translation: ...

You can't read very well...

 

[Liability]

With that ^ post...

Since with your weak reading comprehension it doesn't matter what I write, let me just comment on your ability to endlessly fart. Are you a cabbage patch doll?

It is not my reading comprehension that's weak, Afraider. Obviously, it was more than adequate to promptly get you to out yourself as nothing but a troll.

And you have also revealed yourself to be a laughably weak one even by the "standards" associated with trolls.

You are dismissed, little one.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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?

She's a LIBERAL, silly.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html

 

[The T]

Translation: ...

You can't read very well...

*I* Read you very well.

Now run along.