Our founding fathers were not conservative

[bigrebnc1775]

You have the last word, bigrebnc, since you have failed to carry the conversation. We are going caroling. Have good thoughts for us. We will continue your education about the Constitution next time. You are making some progress. That's good.

I do not have to do anything prove anything or carry anything. You made the claim you must produce what you claim.

OK Jake don't brake any windows while you're caroling.

 

[Liability]

You have the last word, bigrebnc, since you have failed to carry the conversation. We are going caroling. Have good thoughts for us. We will continue your education about the Constitution next time. You are making some progress. That's good.

I do not have to do anything prove anything or carry anything. You made the claim you must produce what you claim.

He won't.

Unintentionally, of course, he just proved again what I said about him earlier. So, if nothing else, there's that.

 

[Neotrotsky]

[Nonsense like yours keeps me very busy. And when I am wrong or make a mistake, I admit it here on the board. I am secure in my beliefs, my character, and my patriotism. The far left and the far right are dangerous to America and its future. Yes, your types keep me busy.

Really, some tend to notice that you either stop posting on a subject or just claim "you won" in some manner But hey, it is your story and you can tell it anyway you want

Yes, that is exactly what your type would say. Not worried about it.

Thanks for showing my point

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have the last word, bigrebnc, since you have failed to carry the conversation. We are going caroling. Have good thoughts for us. We will continue your education about the Constitution next time. You are making some progress. That's good.

I do not have to do anything prove anything or carry anything. You made the claim you must produce what you claim.

He won't.

Unintentionally, of course, he just proved again what I said about him earlier. So, if nothing else, there's that.

Since he just slithered away does this mean I won again?

 

[michael39]

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

They obviously weren't conservative. They were revolutionaries, which makes them radicals.

They WERE radical revolutionaries who revolted against big government. They recognized RIGHTS come from GOD and NOT the Government. They hold NOTHING in common witrh todays Liberals Interestingly they were called LIBERAL in their day because they recognized that the INDIVIDUAL was sovereign.

They were what we would call Conservative and Libertarian today. So get used to it

 

[Neotrotsky]

I suspect "Maggie" or some other "supporter" will be here soon to defend his honor

 

[Intense]

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

They obviously weren't conservative. They were revolutionaries, which makes them radicals.

They WERE radical revolutionaries who revolted against big government. They recognized RIGHTS come from GOD and NOT the Government. They hold NOTHING in common witrh todays Liberals Interestingly they were called LIBERAL in their day because they recognized that the INDIVIDUAL was sovereign.

They were what we would call Conservative and Libertarian today. So get used to it

Shhhhh!!!! that's a secret....... Careful.... the Libs are just coming out of a coma... We don't want to shock them with the truth.

 

[The T]

I do not have to do anything prove anything or carry anything. You made the claim you must produce what you claim.

He won't.

Unintentionally, of course, he just proved again what I said about him earlier. So, if nothing else, there's that.

Since he just slithered away does this mean I won again?

All it means is that you've forced Fakey into his spider hole...only to lick the wounds suffered...and regroup in his doctrine of Dipshittery.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I suspect "Maggie" or some other "supporter" will be here soon to defend his honor

Jillian maybe but I don't think maggie is a big supporter of jake.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He won't.

Unintentionally, of course, he just proved again what I said about him earlier. So, if nothing else, there's that.

Since he just slithered away does this mean I won again?

All it means is that you've forced Fakey into his spider hole...only to lick the wounds suffered...and regroup in his doctrine of Dipshittery.

I know it's just a dream that junior will one day become a man.

 

[Oscar Wao]

"Conservative" in what sense?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They obviously weren't conservative. They were revolutionaries, which makes them radicals.

They WERE radical revolutionaries who revolted against big government. They recognized RIGHTS come from GOD and NOT the Government. They hold NOTHING in common witrh todays Liberals Interestingly they were called LIBERAL in their day because they recognized that the INDIVIDUAL was sovereign.

They were what we would call Conservative and Libertarian today. So get used to it

Shhhhh!!!! that's a secret....... Careful.... the Libs are just coming out of a coma... We don't want to shock them with the truth.

Shock is good.

 

[Liability]

I suspect "Maggie" or some other "supporter" will be here soon to defend his honor

Jillian maybe but I don't think maggie is a big supporter of jake.

Jillian can be objective. Magoo is away on sabbatical. Unless one of Fakey's uber-liberoidal pals takes up the slack, JokeyFakey is on his own.

And I guarantee that JokeyFakey will never support with quoted text and link a single thing he claims he "taught" bigreb. JokeyFakey tends not to give much of a shit about being honest.

 

[The T]

Since he just slithered away does this mean I won again?

All it means is that you've forced Fakey into his spider hole...only to lick the wounds suffered...and regroup in his doctrine of Dipshittery.

I know it's just a dream that junior will one day become a man.

And he will somehow earn the pay of the idiots that sent him to USMB.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I suspect "Maggie" or some other "supporter" will be here soon to defend his honor

Jillian maybe but I don't think maggie is a big supporter of jake.

Jillian can be objective. Magoo is away on sabbatical. Unless one of Fakey's uber-liberoidal pals takes up the slack, JokeyFakey is on his own.

And I guarantee that JokeyFakey will never support with quoted text and link a single thing he claims he claims he "taught" bigreb. JokeyFakey tends not to give much of a shit about being honest.

OK truth doesn't matter I suspect will drop by next.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

They obviously weren't conservative. They were revolutionaries, which makes them radicals.

They WERE radical revolutionaries who revolted against big government. They recognized RIGHTS come from GOD and NOT the Government. They hold NOTHING in common witrh todays Liberals Interestingly they were called LIBERAL in their day because they recognized that the INDIVIDUAL was sovereign.

They were what we would call Conservative and Libertarian today. So get used to it

OK now back on topic . Nice post

 

[Agit8r]

I notice that nobody acknowledged that our founders (or at least those who supported a limited government) were humanists, regardless of their religious denomination o_0

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I notice that nobody acknowledged that our founders (or at least those who supported a limited government) were humanists, regardless of their religious denomination o_0

OK but lets set one ground rule
When you are trying to define what a person was back in the 18th century lets use the word that you are trying to discribe them as by what it meant during that period of time.


Civic humanism
The civic humanists of Renaissance Florence argued that the best form of government resulted from the participation of all citizens (by which they meant a select group of wealthy males) in decision-making. They lauded involvement in public affairs over private concerns and disapproved of significant variations in wealth amongst the elite.
Direct democracy was a practical possibility amongst the merchant elites of Italian city states, but it was difficult to apply in major Western states like England, France, and Spain.
The greatest spokesman for Florentine civic humanism was Niccolo Machiavelli, whose Discourses (published 1531) transmitted his admiration for Roman republicanism to Europe.
The message from Machiavelli was a somewhat mixed one, since he was also the author of The Prince (published 1532). This short work advised rulers to set aside moral constraints when it was necessary to further the interests of their dynasty and country. The doctrine of "reason of state" (as it became known) was also to find adherents in early-modern Europe.
[Read a sample of Machiavelli's political writing].
Intellectual trends in the 17th century

Later Types of Humanism

By the 18th century the word humanism had come to be identified with a purely secular attitude--one that often rejected Christianity altogether. In the 20th century the term has taken on a number of different, often conflicting, meanings. In the works of the pragmatist philosopher Ferdinand Schiller (1864-1937) humanism is seen as that philosophical understanding which stems from human activity. Irving Babbitt used the word to describe a program of reaction against romanticism and naturalism in literature. Jean Paul Sartre developed a scientific humanism preaching human worth based on Marxist theory, and the Roman Catholic Jacques Maritain tried to formulate a new Christian humanism based on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. The American Humanist Association, which grew out of the Unitarian movement, holds that human beings can satisfy religious needs from within, discarding the concept of God as inconsistent with advanced thought and human freedom. In recent years, fundamentalist Christian groups in the United States have declared their opposition to "secular humanism," an antireligious ideology that they believe pervades American society, including the major churches, and that they blame for its moral failings.
http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/humanist.htm

 

[Agit8r]

I notice that nobody acknowledged that our founders (or at least those who supported a limited government) were humanists, regardless of their religious denomination o_0

OK but lets set one ground rule
When you are trying to define what a person was back in the 18th century lets use the word that you are trying to discribe them as by what it meant during that period of time.


Civic humanism
The civic humanists of Renaissance Florence argued that the best form of government resulted from the participation of all citizens (by which they meant a select group of wealthy males) in decision-making. They lauded involvement in public affairs over private concerns and disapproved of significant variations in wealth amongst the elite.
Direct democracy was a practical possibility amongst the merchant elites of Italian city states, but it was difficult to apply in major Western states like England, France, and Spain.
The greatest spokesman for Florentine civic humanism was Niccolo Machiavelli, whose Discourses (published 1531) transmitted his admiration for Roman republicanism to Europe.
The message from Machiavelli was a somewhat mixed one, since he was also the author of The Prince (published 1532). This short work advised rulers to set aside moral constraints when it was necessary to further the interests of their dynasty and country. The doctrine of "reason of state" (as it became known) was also to find adherents in early-modern Europe.
[Read a sample of Machiavelli's political writing].
Intellectual trends in the 17th century

Later Types of Humanism

By the 18th century the word humanism had come to be identified with a purely secular attitude--one that often rejected Christianity altogether. In the 20th century the term has taken on a number of different, often conflicting, meanings. In the works of the pragmatist philosopher Ferdinand Schiller (1864-1937) humanism is seen as that philosophical understanding which stems from human activity. Irving Babbitt used the word to describe a program of reaction against romanticism and naturalism in literature. Jean Paul Sartre developed a scientific humanism preaching human worth based on Marxist theory, and the Roman Catholic Jacques Maritain tried to formulate a new Christian humanism based on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. The American Humanist Association, which grew out of the Unitarian movement, holds that human beings can satisfy religious needs from within, discarding the concept of God as inconsistent with advanced thought and human freedom. In recent years, fundamentalist Christian groups in the United States have declared their opposition to "secular humanism," an antireligious ideology that they believe pervades American society, including the major churches, and that they blame for its moral failings.
Humanism

No. Humanism as in religious or ethical duties being encompassed in the earthly realm rather than the cosmic

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I notice that nobody acknowledged that our founders (or at least those who supported a limited government) were humanists, regardless of their religious denomination o_0

OK but lets set one ground rule
When you are trying to define what a person was back in the 18th century lets use the word that you are trying to discribe them as by what it meant during that period of time.


Civic humanism
The civic humanists of Renaissance Florence argued that the best form of government resulted from the participation of all citizens (by which they meant a select group of wealthy males) in decision-making. They lauded involvement in public affairs over private concerns and disapproved of significant variations in wealth amongst the elite.
Direct democracy was a practical possibility amongst the merchant elites of Italian city states, but it was difficult to apply in major Western states like England, France, and Spain.
The greatest spokesman for Florentine civic humanism was Niccolo Machiavelli, whose Discourses (published 1531) transmitted his admiration for Roman republicanism to Europe.
The message from Machiavelli was a somewhat mixed one, since he was also the author of The Prince (published 1532). This short work advised rulers to set aside moral constraints when it was necessary to further the interests of their dynasty and country. The doctrine of "reason of state" (as it became known) was also to find adherents in early-modern Europe.
[Read a sample of Machiavelli's political writing].
Intellectual trends in the 17th century

Later Types of Humanism

By the 18th century the word humanism had come to be identified with a purely secular attitude--one that often rejected Christianity altogether. In the 20th century the term has taken on a number of different, often conflicting, meanings. In the works of the pragmatist philosopher Ferdinand Schiller (1864-1937) humanism is seen as that philosophical understanding which stems from human activity. Irving Babbitt used the word to describe a program of reaction against romanticism and naturalism in literature. Jean Paul Sartre developed a scientific humanism preaching human worth based on Marxist theory, and the Roman Catholic Jacques Maritain tried to formulate a new Christian humanism based on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. The American Humanist Association, which grew out of the Unitarian movement, holds that human beings can satisfy religious needs from within, discarding the concept of God as inconsistent with advanced thought and human freedom. In recent years, fundamentalist Christian groups in the United States have declared their opposition to "secular humanism," an antireligious ideology that they believe pervades American society, including the major churches, and that they blame for its moral failings.
Humanism

No. Humanism as in religious or ethical duties being encompassed in the earthly realm rather than the cosmic

Nope I just gave you the definition of the meaning backin the 18th century.

By the 18th century the word humanism had come to be identified with a purely secular attitude--one that often rejected Christianity altogether.