Our founding fathers were not conservative

[JohnnyApplesack]

Jesus DEFINITELY wasn't a capitalist.

I've got the proof right in the bible.

Judas was

Very true. Jesus was an old timey Che Guevara or Ho Chi Minh. Same schtick.

 

[Agit8r]

Jesus DEFINITELY wasn't a capitalist.

I've got the proof right in the bible.

Judas was

Very true. Jesus was an old timey Che Guevara or Ho Chi Minh. Same schtick.

Just because he came to bring a sword... and all that stuff about the rich not being fit for heaven?

 

[Cecilie1200]

When I post a quote I include the SOURCE, just in case somebody actually has enough intellectual fortitude to try to prove me wrong by looking it up. For instance, when I post:

"Of all occupations those are the least desirable in a free state which produce the most servile dependence of one class of citizens on another class. This dependence must increase as the mutuality of wants is diminished. Where the wants on one side are the absolute necessaries and on the other are neither absolute necessaries, nor result from the habitual economy of life, but are the mere caprices of fancy, the evil is in its extreme"

-- James Madison, 'Fashion' National Gazette, 1792

one may look it up and find that the Father of our Constitution was sympathizing with garment workers in England--the country that his political opponents wished for America to emulate.

Or when I post:

"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation."

-- Thomas Jefferson; letter to James Madison (October 28, 1785)

one may find that Jefferson is sympathizing with a victim of the French aristocratic system that preceded the revolution that he all the other advocates of limited government at the time supported.

I think that I learned how to cite sources sometime in junior high, but then again our teachers collectively bargained

Pretty sure I didn't ask you any of this.

One more time for the thinking-impaired: if you're going to make the claim that quotes are "taken out of context", then provide proof that you are, in fact, correct, and that the context changes the meaning of the quote. Otherwise, you are just doing basically the same thing you are bitching about the other poster doing: making unsubstantiated claims.

When I want a dissertation on how you source things when you actually bother to source them, I'll let you know.

If you don't have a source, your quote is f~cking fictional.

If you don't have proof, your accusation is a lie. And the more you dodge, the more obvious it becomes that you KNOW it's a lie, and were just trying to divert.

 

[Cecilie1200]

many liberals are "relatively religious Christians" so, even in the cases where you are correct, this proves nothing.

Strict Construction has never existed in this country from the Washington administration onward. it is only a theory now as then. Our supposed strict constructionists justices are equally activist as as the liberal judges. so I guess that some Founding Fathers were like modern conservatives; John Adams, Hamilton, Fisher Ames, John Marshall...

Screw "strict construction."

But, they didn't draft the Constitution to have it ignored, either.

I think it was intentionally ambiguous. The whole point was that current majorities could interpret and evolve the document to fit the time IMO. If it was meant to be strictly interpreted, the language would have been far more straightforward.

The problem isn't the language. The problem is the nation full of uneducated, illiterate mouthbreathers being spoonfed propaganda by a bunch of dishonest partisan ambulance chasers.

The language of the Constitution is only hard to understand if you're TRYING not to understand it because you hate what it says, or you're too dumb to figure out how to operate a dictionary.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They wrote it unambiguously using words understood more than well enough in their day. And it's not really all that difficult to understand today, either.

It's like this load forgot about the passage of time, fer chrisakes! Has no idea why his clock ticks...lol

I know, let's up the ante and reuse 18th Century dental techniques, and start bleeding patients when they get sick.

Old school, baby!


....fuckin morons.

Or here's a thought. If you think the laws need to be updated, how about you actually CHANGE them officially, rather than just making it up as you go along?

It's like these dumbasses forgot the concept and purpose of rules and procedures, fer Chrissakes! Have no idea why you don't suddenly start bringing a bat to football practice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Uh, it's very true Jesus wasn't a socialist.

He was a COMMUNIST, ya dumb fucks.

Really? I must have missed the part of the Bible where Jesus started advocating political systems. What was that, the second chapter of the Book of Asshattery?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jesus DEFINITELY wasn't a capitalist.

I've got the proof right in the bible.

Judas was

Very true. Jesus was an old timey Che Guevara or Ho Chi Minh. Same schtick.

Che Guevara was a guerrilla who participated in revolutions to overthrow governments, and a brutal, murdering bastard into the bargain. Ho Chi Minh was a brutal dictator who authorized the assassinations of political rivals and the murderous purges of thousands of people to consolidate his power.

Would you care to point me to where Jesus Christ did ANY of that?

 

[Agit8r]

Pretty sure I didn't ask you any of this.

One more time for the thinking-impaired: if you're going to make the claim that quotes are "taken out of context", then provide proof that you are, in fact, correct, and that the context changes the meaning of the quote. Otherwise, you are just doing basically the same thing you are bitching about the other poster doing: making unsubstantiated claims.

When I want a dissertation on how you source things when you actually bother to source them, I'll let you know.

If you don't have a source, your quote is f~cking fictional.

If you don't have proof, your accusation is a lie. And the more you dodge, the more obvious it becomes that you KNOW it's a lie, and were just trying to divert.

Though I cannot prove that Jefferson didn't say any of these things any more than I can prove that he didn't call Nicholas Trist "Turdblossom." This is about as close as is possible: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/j/jefferson-quotes.htm

 

[grunt11b]

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

*sarcasm. You are correct, the greatest and most prosperous nation the world has ever seen was brought to being by the old world European principles of spreading the wealth and communism.*sarcasm


The found fathers where not conservatives, you are correct, because at that time they where called liberals, which at that time that named entailed being a "Conservative". So I guess you are correct, in name only they where liberals, but in ideology they where indeed conservatives.

 

[grunt11b]

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.

Revolutionaries during the revolution, conservatives when they framed the constitution and bill of rights. Don't let the professors convince you that the founders where radicals when they where not.

 

[grunt11b]

It's disturbing to see how many young minds are warped with the progressive state of view on America these days. And people wonder how this country has gone to shit in a hand basket.

 

[Agit8r]

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.

Revolutionaries during the revolution, conservatives when they framed the constitution and bill of rights. Don't let the professors convince you that the founders where radicals when they where not.

I have never been taught by a professor actually. I am wondering how conservatives interpret the following founding principles?

"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 incontestible 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." -- Declaration of Rights of Massachusetts (1780)

 

[grunt11b]

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

Revolutionaries during the revolution, conservatives when they framed the constitution and bill of rights. Don't let the professors convince you that the founders where radicals when they where not.

I have never been taught by a professor actually. I am wondering how conservatives interpret the following founding principles?

"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 incontestible 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." -- Declaration of Rights of Massachusetts (1780)

It means you get what you vote for, like we are seeing right now. It does not mean however that you are entitled to whatever the hell you want and that other people should have to pay for it. The government was designed to protect the citizens and provide equal justice for everyone.
Maybe I am misinterpreting what you are asking, if so...let me know cuz I might be reading you wrong on this one.

 

[Agit8r]

Revolutionaries during the revolution, conservatives when they framed the constitution and bill of rights. Don't let the professors convince you that the founders where radicals when they where not.

I have never been taught by a professor actually. I am wondering how conservatives interpret the following founding principles?

"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 incontestible 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." -- Declaration of Rights of Massachusetts (1780)

It means you get what you vote for, like we are seeing right now. It does not mean however that you are entitled to whatever the hell you want and that other people should have to pay for it. The government was designed to protect the citizens and provide equal justice for everyone.
Maybe I am misinterpreting what you are asking, if so...let me know cuz I might be reading you wrong on this one.

The issue is that our present government opperates primarily for the benefit of one class of men, completely at odds with what our founders intended. Our founders were for a system of merit, not privilege.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Revolutionaries during the revolution, conservatives when they framed the constitution and bill of rights. Don't let the professors convince you that the founders where radicals when they where not.

The Founders fought for what they used to have before the King and parliament started to screw with them - they fought for their rights as Englishmen. This is the essence of conservative - to preserve what you have always had.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have never been taught by a professor actually. I am wondering how conservatives interpret the following founding principles?

"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 incontestible 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." -- Declaration of Rights of Massachusetts (1780)

This is simply a restatement of the Declaration of Independence, primarily its opneing paragraphs. "Interpretation" for each is the same.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have never been taught by a professor actually. I am wondering how conservatives interpret the following founding principles?

"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 incontestible 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." -- Declaration of Rights of Massachusetts (1780)

It means you get what you vote for, like we are seeing right now. It does not mean however that you are entitled to whatever the hell you want and that other people should have to pay for it. The government was designed to protect the citizens and provide equal justice for everyone.
Maybe I am misinterpreting what you are asking, if so...let me know cuz I might be reading you wrong on this one.

The issue is that our present government opperates primarily for the benefit of one class of men...

Yes. Those who make careers in government.
What do you suppose the FF would suggest we do about that?

 

[Brutus]

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

Not conservative?? Of course they were, they never dreamed of Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security or anything like them, and they proved it by the legislation they didn't introduce after they formed and ran the country.

Liberals really have no place in the American tradition and in fact stand in open opposition to our most fundamental principle: freedom and liberty from government. They really belong in Cuba, not here.

 

[Liability]

Just to re-correct the erroneous title to and thesis of this dopey thread, let it be noted that if we use TODAY's general and proper definition of the term "conservative," then the only thing we can label our Founders and Framers (accurately) is: "Conservative."

That's right, by that definition, Our founding fathers most certainly were "Conservatives."

That is all.

 

[G.T.]

A group of men who risked their lives for the principles of freedom and liberty....yet owned slaves.