Our founding fathers were not conservative

[Agit8r]

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!

Henry did not support ratifying the constitution. In addition, he introduced legislation to publicly fund the ward system. ...just sayin'

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Good (insert your preferred Deity here) damn, T! You are one bad-ass label tosser. If I ever meet someone who needs one, I'll tell them to ask for your resume.

Kudos, Bro'.

 

[Liability]

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

No. He's a conservative. Libs favor the nanny state. Libs object to setting limits on the boundaries of what the government can do. It is conservatives -- and only conservatives -- who reject statism

Your link to your other thread is silly since the thesis of that thread rejects the actual meaning of words.

It was rather radical of the Founders to suggest that we should set up our own government and constitute it in a way that did not permit the clergy to have a say in it. And to constitute it in a way that limited its powers and authority to legislate. And to constitute it in a way that had it work at intentional cross purposes. And to constitute it in a way that demanded checks and balances in order to give some force to the limitations imposed on its very creation.

What they were doing IN THEIR DAY was not "conservative." But conservatives of TODAY embrace what they crafted, then. It is today's liberals who reject it and would attempt to endlessly tinker with it to give the Federal Government much more intrusive powers.

Not one of today's liberals would honestly argue the position espoused by the fictional First Commuter. Not one.

 

[The 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.

Good (insert your preferred Deity here) damn, T! You are one bad-ass label tosser. If I ever meet someone who needs one, I'll tell them to ask for your resume.

Kudos, Bro'.

...

 

[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?

She's a LIBERAL, silly.

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

No. He's a conservative. Libs favor the nanny state. Libs object to setting limits on the boundaries of what the government can do. It is conservatives -- and only conservatives -- who reject statism

Your link to your other thread is silly since the thesis of that thread rejects the actual meaning of words.

It was rather radical of the Founders to suggest that we should set up our own government and constitute it in a way that did not permit the clergy to have a say in it. And to constitute it in a way that limited its powers and authority to legislate. And to constitute it in a way that had it work at intentional cross purposes. And to constitute it in a way that demanded checks and balances in order to give some force to the limitations imposed on its very creation.

What they were doing IN THEIR DAY was not "conservative." But conservatives of TODAY embrace what they crafted, then. It is today's liberals who reject it and would attempt to endlessly tinker with it to give the Federal Government much more intrusive powers.

Not one of today's liberals would honestly argue the position espoused by the fictional First Commuter. Not one.

And what they did in that day would be termed radical by today's standards and even in their day.

But since we are 200+ years along after the fact is inmaterial, and would be crying over spilled milk. (And milk that had long spoiled...and not germain to the discussion).

I write this comment to head off those that I have witnessed calling the Founders Terrorists of thier day. So those of you even thinking it?

Don't bother. It's long settled.

 

[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

No. He's a conservative. Libs favor the nanny state. Libs object to setting limits on the boundaries of what the government can do. It is conservatives -- and only conservatives -- who reject statism

Your link to your other thread is silly since the thesis of that thread rejects the actual meaning of words.

It was rather radical of the Founders to suggest that we should set up our own government and constitute it in a way that did not permit the clergy to have a say in it. And to constitute it in a way that limited its powers and authority to legislate. And to constitute it in a way that had it work at intentional cross purposes. And to constitute it in a way that demanded checks and balances in order to give some force to the limitations imposed on its very creation.

What they were doing IN THEIR DAY was not "conservative." But conservatives of TODAY embrace what they crafted, then. It is today's liberals who reject it and would attempt to endlessly tinker with it to give the Federal Government much more intrusive powers.

Not one of today's liberals would honestly argue the position espoused by the fictional First Commuter. Not one.

Did you read the history book text I offered up in the post I linked? If you don't trust my source, look it up your self what it meant to be a 'liberal' in 1775. Come back with links and then we'll talk.

 

[Agit8r]

She's a LIBERAL, silly.

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

No. He's a conservative. Libs favor the nanny state. Libs object to setting limits on the boundaries of what the government can do. It is conservatives -- and only conservatives -- who reject statism

Your link to your other thread is silly since the thesis of that thread rejects the actual meaning of words.

It was rather radical of the Founders to suggest that we should set up our own government and constitute it in a way that did not permit the clergy to have a say in it. And to constitute it in a way that limited its powers and authority to legislate. And to constitute it in a way that had it work at intentional cross purposes. And to constitute it in a way that demanded checks and balances in order to give some force to the limitations imposed on its very creation.

What they were doing IN THEIR DAY was not "conservative." But conservatives of TODAY embrace what they crafted, then. It is today's liberals who reject it and would attempt to endlessly tinker with it to give the Federal Government much more intrusive powers.

Not one of today's liberals would honestly argue the position espoused by the fictional First Commuter. Not one.

And what they did in that day would be termed radical by today's standards and even in their day.

But since we are 200+ years along after the fact is inmaterial, and would be crying over spilled milk. (And milk that had long spoiled...and not germain to the discussion).

I write this comment to head off those that I have witnessed calling the Founders Terrorists of thier day. So those of you even thinking it?

Don't bother. It's long settled.

yes. believing that government is constituted for the common good, and not for one class of men ONLY, would be considered radical today

 

[The T]

No. He's a conservative. Libs favor the nanny state. Libs object to setting limits on the boundaries of what the government can do. It is conservatives -- and only conservatives -- who reject statism

Your link to your other thread is silly since the thesis of that thread rejects the actual meaning of words.

It was rather radical of the Founders to suggest that we should set up our own government and constitute it in a way that did not permit the clergy to have a say in it. And to constitute it in a way that limited its powers and authority to legislate. And to constitute it in a way that had it work at intentional cross purposes. And to constitute it in a way that demanded checks and balances in order to give some force to the limitations imposed on its very creation.

What they were doing IN THEIR DAY was not "conservative." But conservatives of TODAY embrace what they crafted, then. It is today's liberals who reject it and would attempt to endlessly tinker with it to give the Federal Government much more intrusive powers.

Not one of today's liberals would honestly argue the position espoused by the fictional First Commuter. Not one.

And what they did in that day would be termed radical by today's standards and even in their day.

But since we are 200+ years along after the fact is inmaterial, and would be crying over spilled milk. (And milk that had long spoiled...and not germain to the discussion).

I write this comment to head off those that I have witnessed calling the Founders Terrorists of thier day. So those of you even thinking it?

Don't bother. It's long settled.

yes. believing that government is constituted for the common good, and not for one class of men ONLY, would be considered radical today

And even that which you speak was addressed properly through amendment process. Imagine that?

 

[Agit8r]

And what they did in that day would be termed radical by today's standards and even in their day.

But since we are 200+ years along after the fact is inmaterial, and would be crying over spilled milk. (And milk that had long spoiled...and not germain to the discussion).

I write this comment to head off those that I have witnessed calling the Founders Terrorists of thier day. So those of you even thinking it?

Don't bother. It's long settled.

yes. believing that government is constituted for the common good, and not for one class of men ONLY, would be considered radical today

And even that which you speak was addressed properly through amendment process. Imagine that?

please explain?

 

[The T]

yes. believing that government is constituted for the common good, and not for one class of men ONLY, would be considered radical today

And even that which you speak was addressed properly through amendment process. Imagine that?

please explain?

Go back and read what you wrote.

Now Consider amendments that followed the original ones that righted perceived wrongs as to what you wrote.

I won't enumerate them for you. I think you're smart enough to catch on.

And how does it relate to the proper process in the rule of LAW, that being the Constitution is supreme as to what LAW is written, and the propensity for lawmakers to craft law without the prescribed process, and citing which Article of the Constitution allows what they write in an effort to skirt it for their own partisan goals/agendas?

 

[Liability]

She's a LIBERAL, silly.

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

No. He's a conservative. Libs favor the nanny state. Libs object to setting limits on the boundaries of what the government can do. It is conservatives -- and only conservatives -- who reject statism

Your link to your other thread is silly since the thesis of that thread rejects the actual meaning of words.

It was rather radical of the Founders to suggest that we should set up our own government and constitute it in a way that did not permit the clergy to have a say in it. And to constitute it in a way that limited its powers and authority to legislate. And to constitute it in a way that had it work at intentional cross purposes. And to constitute it in a way that demanded checks and balances in order to give some force to the limitations imposed on its very creation.

What they were doing IN THEIR DAY was not "conservative." But conservatives of TODAY embrace what they crafted, then. It is today's liberals who reject it and would attempt to endlessly tinker with it to give the Federal Government much more intrusive powers.

Not one of today's liberals would honestly argue the position espoused by the fictional First Commuter. Not one.

Did you read the history book text I offered up in the post I linked? If you don't trust my source, look it up your self what it meant to be a 'liberal' in 1775. Come back with links and then we'll talk.

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse of if it just happens naturally with you.

I made a perfectly clear distinction.

I wasn't alive in 1776 despite what my kids think.

So, using just a dash of common sense, I choose to go by today's meanings of the terms "liberal" and "conservative." What those terms might have meant IN THE DAY of the Founders and Framers is beside the point. You could call them A's and Z's. Makes no difference.

What does matter is that using TODAY'S meanings, if alive TODAY, the Founders and Framers would be conservatives BECAUSE the Founders and the Framers favored Limiting Government. Today's liberals do not.

 

[The T]

No. He's a conservative. Libs favor the nanny state. Libs object to setting limits on the boundaries of what the government can do. It is conservatives -- and only conservatives -- who reject statism

Your link to your other thread is silly since the thesis of that thread rejects the actual meaning of words.

It was rather radical of the Founders to suggest that we should set up our own government and constitute it in a way that did not permit the clergy to have a say in it. And to constitute it in a way that limited its powers and authority to legislate. And to constitute it in a way that had it work at intentional cross purposes. And to constitute it in a way that demanded checks and balances in order to give some force to the limitations imposed on its very creation.

What they were doing IN THEIR DAY was not "conservative." But conservatives of TODAY embrace what they crafted, then. It is today's liberals who reject it and would attempt to endlessly tinker with it to give the Federal Government much more intrusive powers.

Not one of today's liberals would honestly argue the position espoused by the fictional First Commuter. Not one.

Did you read the history book text I offered up in the post I linked? If you don't trust my source, look it up your self what it meant to be a 'liberal' in 1775. Come back with links and then we'll talk.

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse of if it just happens naturally with you.

I made a perfectly clear distinction.

I wasn't alive in 1776 despite what my kids think.

So, using just a dash of common sense, I choose to go by today's meanings of the terms "liberal" and "conservative." What those terms might have meant IN THE DAY of the Founders and Framers is beside the point. You could call them A's and Z's. Makes no difference.

What does matter is that using TODAY'S meanings, if alive TODAY, the Founders and Framers would be conservatives BECAUSE the Founders and the Framers favored Limiting Government. Today's liberals do not.

How much more simple could you make it sans leading some by the hand to see the distinction(s).

Today's Liberals (read Statists) belive that Government exists to run everything and that people aren't capable of settling matters amongst themselves/communities without Federal intrusiveness that tends to over ride the 9th and 10th Amendments that were designed to give the States and people power to settle these issues in their own fashion(s).

People are different, and a cookie-cutter Imperial Fed solution for equal result across the board is no solution either. It flies in the face of the Founders intent, a Federalsim.

There are still soverign States last time I looked. And that would make me a Conservative along with the Founders I suppose.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No. He's a conservative. Libs favor the nanny state. Libs object to setting limits on the boundaries of what the government can do. It is conservatives -- and only conservatives -- who reject statism

Your link to your other thread is silly since the thesis of that thread rejects the actual meaning of words.

It was rather radical of the Founders to suggest that we should set up our own government and constitute it in a way that did not permit the clergy to have a say in it. And to constitute it in a way that limited its powers and authority to legislate. And to constitute it in a way that had it work at intentional cross purposes. And to constitute it in a way that demanded checks and balances in order to give some force to the limitations imposed on its very creation.

What they were doing IN THEIR DAY was not "conservative." But conservatives of TODAY embrace what they crafted, then. It is today's liberals who reject it and would attempt to endlessly tinker with it to give the Federal Government much more intrusive powers.

Not one of today's liberals would honestly argue the position espoused by the fictional First Commuter. Not one.

Did you read the history book text I offered up in the post I linked? If you don't trust my source, look it up your self what it meant to be a 'liberal' in 1775. Come back with links and then we'll talk.

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse of if it just happens naturally with you.

I made a perfectly clear distinction.

I wasn't alive in 1776 despite what my kids think.

So, using just a dash of common sense, I choose to go by today's meanings of the terms "liberal" and "conservative." What those terms might have meant IN THE DAY of the Founders and Framers is beside the point. You could call them A's and Z's. Makes no difference.

What does matter is that using TODAY'S meanings, if alive TODAY, the Founders and Framers would be conservatives BECAUSE the Founders and the Framers favored Limiting Government. Today's liberals do not.

And THAT sir, is the reason you have lost sight of the concept behind 'America'.

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

 

[Intense]

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!

Henry did not support ratifying the constitution. In addition, he introduced legislation to publicly fund the ward system. ...just sayin'

Many of the Founders didn't trust the Federal Power Grab. Hamilton had to lie to them about checks and balances and Enumerated Powers to get the Constitution Ratified.

Tyrant's are all the same, wanting more power over each of us than we each have over ourselves.

 

[naomibee]

Did you read the history book text I offered up in the post I linked? If you don't trust my source, look it up your self what it meant to be a 'liberal' in 1775. Come back with links and then we'll talk.

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse of if it just happens naturally with you.

I made a perfectly clear distinction.

I wasn't alive in 1776 despite what my kids think.

So, using just a dash of common sense, I choose to go by today's meanings of the terms "liberal" and "conservative." What those terms might have meant IN THE DAY of the Founders and Framers is beside the point. You could call them A's and Z's. Makes no difference.

What does matter is that using TODAY'S meanings, if alive TODAY, the Founders and Framers would be conservatives BECAUSE the Founders and the Framers favored Limiting Government. Today's liberals do not.

How much more simple could you make it sans leading some by the hand to see the distinction(s).

Today's Liberals (read Statists) belive that Government exists to run everything and that people aren't capable of settling matters amongst themselves/communities without Federal intrusiveness that tends to over ride the 9th and 10th Amendments that were designed to give the States and people power to settle these issues in their own fashion(s).

People are different, and a cookie-cutter Imperial Fed solution for equal result across the board is no solution either. It flies in the face of the Founders intent, a Federalsim.

There are still soverign States last time I looked. And that would make me a Conservative along with the Founders I suppose.

mine would be one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Bullshit.
The Constitution is a Libertarian document.

The definition of 'conservative', in the context referenced above, is 'maintaining what we have'. That was the exact impetus behind the revolution - to retain the rights of Englishmen which had been reduced in the 10 or so years prior.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

This is absolutely unsupportable. The only reference made to this in any of 2000 election mess what that the legislature, not the courts, shall define the means thru which such things are decided.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Absolutely correct.

 

[Liability]

Did you read the history book text I offered up in the post I linked? If you don't trust my source, look it up your self what it meant to be a 'liberal' in 1775. Come back with links and then we'll talk.

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse of if it just happens naturally with you.

I made a perfectly clear distinction.

I wasn't alive in 1776 despite what my kids think.

So, using just a dash of common sense, I choose to go by today's meanings of the terms "liberal" and "conservative." What those terms might have meant IN THE DAY of the Founders and Framers is beside the point. You could call them A's and Z's. Makes no difference.

What does matter is that using TODAY'S meanings, if alive TODAY, the Founders and Framers would be conservatives BECAUSE the Founders and the Framers favored Limiting Government. Today's liberals do not.

And THAT sir, is the reason you have lost sight of the concept behind 'America'.

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

What you just posted is, naturally, just plain unmitigated gibberish. I am not the one (between the two of us) who has lost sight of the "concept" behind America. That would be (and is) you.

You libbies are truly blind to the silly position your logic has placed you in.

The concept behind America is not to be found in any of the lib talking points. The concepts that undergird the foundation of our Republic are in fact numerous and multifaceted. But one thing we can say with crystal certainty is that we rejected FROM THE VERY OUTSET that the government should be unfettered by limitations. You libs are aghast at that. This is why it is YOU and your dopey ilk who are entirely out of touch with what America actually means.

 

[The T]

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse of if it just happens naturally with you.

I made a perfectly clear distinction.

I wasn't alive in 1776 despite what my kids think.

So, using just a dash of common sense, I choose to go by today's meanings of the terms "liberal" and "conservative." What those terms might have meant IN THE DAY of the Founders and Framers is beside the point. You could call them A's and Z's. Makes no difference.

What does matter is that using TODAY'S meanings, if alive TODAY, the Founders and Framers would be conservatives BECAUSE the Founders and the Framers favored Limiting Government. Today's liberals do not.

And THAT sir, is the reason you have lost sight of the concept behind 'America'.

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

What you just posted is, naturally, just plain unmitigated gibberish. I am not the one (between the two of us) who has lost sight of the "concept" behind America. That would be (and is) you.

You libbies are truly blind to the silly position your logic has placed you in.

The concept behind America is not to be found in any of the lib talking points. The concepts that undergird the foundation of our Republic are in fact numerous and multifaceted. But one thing we can say with crystal certainty is that we rejected FROM THE VERY OUTSET that the government should be unfettered by limitations. You libs are aghast at that. This is why it is YOU and your dopey ilk who are entirely out of touch with what America actually means.

Joey refuses to get out of the Modern Day mindset and see thing for what they were when we were founded. Nevermind going to the Federalist/Anti Federalists...he relies upon some other dopey authors [A SHORT HISTORY OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION by John B. Harrison, Richard E. Sullivan & Dennis Sherman – Chapter 43 ]...

To make a point.

As wrong as the point is.