Our founding fathers were not conservative

[JakeStarkey]

The Jeffersonian ideology was a different sort of LIBERALISM than either of those. It was that no one should be under the oppressive thumb of government OR the thumb of feudal lords

"we both consider the people as our children, and love them with parental affection. But you love them as infants whom you are afraid to trust without nurses; and I as adults whom I freely leave to self-government." -- Thomas Jefferson (to P. S. Dupont De Nemours, April 24, 1816)

"I hope we shall take warning from the example [of England] and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan (Nov. 16, 1916)

Jefferson was a slave owner, man, which was worse than a feudal lord.

Being a slave owner then was socially acceptable. Some people owned them but allowed them nearly complete freedom. Back then having a slave and treating them like family was better then the alternatives, which was cutting them loose and making them live in abject poverty.

I'm not saying Jefferson was that way but being a slave-owner wasn't the same then.

Maybe you should go back and reread your history books. Slavery was bad but what followed was even worse in some cases.

Social acceptability excuses the immorality and horror of slave ownership? Slave ownership is worse than feudalism. You truly do not know history, do you?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

So... they were left-wing nanny staters?



Fucking hilarious I say.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"offering quotes out of context (as others here have noted you are doing), maybe you can expound a bit."

I have painstakingly provided sources, and offered quotes that really present principles that stand on their own (although the near-vegetarianism one was just to be trollish). are you asking for links? I can provide them if you would like

Jefferson letter to James Madison 1785
Jefferson to Madison by Thomas Jefferson

James Madison; Parties
Equality: James Madison, Parties

James Madison; A Candid State of Parties
http://www.constitution.org/jm/17920926_candid.txt

Thomas Paine; Rights of Man, Part the Second
Republican Government: Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Part 2

Thomas Paine; Dissertation on the First Principles of Government
Representation: Thomas Paine, Dissertation on the First Principles of Government

Jefferson letter to William Plumer
The writings of Thomas Jefferson - Google Books

No. Although the links are appreciated, your contention here is mistaken. The quotes very much fail to stand on their own. They are taken out of context and they do not reveal whatever it is you seem to imagine YOU are maintaining.

Many of us already are familiar with the expressed thinking of the Founders and Framers. Quoting them, as you have, out of context and our of sequence reveals effectively nothing about your position.

The Founders and Framers were students of Philosophy and of History. They seemed to appreciate better than any who had come before them that there was a great value in setting up a government where values and interests were made to work against each other. They simultaneously recognized the need for government and the dire things a government could do. So they deliberately went about the task (imperfect though it may have been and remains to this day) of cobbling together a FORM of government that came with internal checks and balances.

The checks and balances came in a VARIETY of forms. The BRANCHES of Government were put (to some extent) at cross purposes. Even Congress itself got DIVIDED into two houses designed (at least initially) to represent varied interests and serve as a self-institutional check on power. But it went further. The STATES were still sovereigns except to the extent they had ceded SOME of their respective sovereign powers CONDITIONALLY to the Federal Government. FEDERALISM is an important check and balance to the undue aggrandizement of power by the Federal government. And of course, the PEOPLE themselves retained their own authorities and powers except as otherwise specified. And they got he VOTE which is a potentially MASSIVE power to stay the hand of the Federal Government.

Within that context, I can support MUCH of what they said in those random quotes you offer on that basis.

How about you?

Do you agree with them (and with me) that too much centralization of power in the Federal Government is a dangerous thing and worthy of being avoided?

Do you further agree with them and with me (and it's not even remotely a contradiction) that the government they sought to create ought to not be so hobbled by checks and balances that it was incapable of doing the very things we seek to have our governments do?


If not, then what IS your thesis precisely? How do those various quotes support YOUR position?

I whole heartedly agree. While the founders indeed recognized the need for a central government, they also regarded centralized government with great suspicion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're confusing your isms'.

Liberalism is not Socialism/Fascism.

And Marxism is not even remotely liberal.

Liberalism means allowing everyone to live their lives in freedom....not under the thumb of an abusive government.

You truly do not understand. Socialism is the nationalization of the private means of production and distribution. Which industry has been nationalized? Do not mistake the bailouts for nationalization; they are not. The First U.S. Bank was partially owned by the government. You really do need to understand your terms, mudwhistle.

He has a point..however it is slight.

The Constitution does nationalize two former privately owned industries..the Postal Service and the Military.

Ok I am sure yoiu have a source.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Jefferson was a slave owner, man, which was worse than a feudal lord.

Being a slave owner then was socially acceptable. Some people owned them but allowed them nearly complete freedom. Back then having a slave and treating them like family was better then the alternatives, which was cutting them loose and making them live in abject poverty.

I'm not saying Jefferson was that way but being a slave-owner wasn't the same then.

Maybe you should go back and reread your history books. Slavery was bad but what followed was even worse in some cases.

Social acceptability excuses the immorality and horror of slave ownership? Slave ownership is worse than feudalism. You truly do not know history, do you?

Your uncle tom version wasn't true when the book was written and it isn't true now.
Harriet Beecher Stowe writings were written to move the abolition movement, she never went to the south.
Harriet Beecher Stowe: ?Uncle Tom's Cabin? | NewsInHistory.com

I'm not going to argue about slavery but lets keep it factual. It was wrong. They had laws to protect the abuse of slave master against the slave. A large portion of slaves could earn money . How else do you think former slaves became freemen?

Oh and by the way there are records showing that Blacks also owned slaves.

 

[mudwhistle]

You're confusing your isms'.

Liberalism is not Socialism/Fascism.

And Marxism is not even remotely liberal.

Liberalism means allowing everyone to live their lives in freedom....not under the thumb of an abusive government.

You truly do not understand. Socialism is the nationalization of the private means of production and distribution. Which industry has been nationalized? Do not mistake the bailouts for nationalization; they are not. The First U.S. Bank was partially owned by the government. You really do need to understand your terms, mudwhistle.

He has a point..however it is slight.

The Constitution does nationalize two former privately owned industries..the Postal Service and the Military.

You're fucken high bud.

Btw....Jake....you don't understand what's happened. It doesn't have to be official when a takeover has taken place. The only difference is on paper but it's thuggery just the same. You just want to be literal instead of realistic or even honest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You truly do not understand. Socialism is the nationalization of the private means of production and distribution. Which industry has been nationalized? Do not mistake the bailouts for nationalization; they are not. The First U.S. Bank was partially owned by the government. You really do need to understand your terms, mudwhistle.

He has a point..however it is slight.

The Constitution does nationalize two former privately owned industries..the Postal Service and the Military.

You're fucken high bud.

Nope, bud. You don't understand classic definitions.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He has a point..however it is slight.

The Constitution does nationalize two former privately owned industries..the Postal Service and the Military.

You're fucken high bud.

Nope, bud. You don't understand classic definitions.

Smoke another one jake

 

[JakeStarkey]

Being a slave owner then was socially acceptable. Some people owned them but allowed them nearly complete freedom. Back then having a slave and treating them like family was better then the alternatives, which was cutting them loose and making them live in abject poverty.

I'm not saying Jefferson was that way but being a slave-owner wasn't the same then.

Maybe you should go back and reread your history books. Slavery was bad but what followed was even worse in some cases.

Social acceptability excuses the immorality and horror of slave ownership? Slave ownership is worse than feudalism. You truly do not know history, do you?

Your uncle tom version wasn't true when the book was written and it isn't true now.
Harriet Beecher Stowe writings were written to move the abolition movement, she never went to the south.
Harriet Beecher Stowe: ?Uncle Tom's Cabin? | NewsInHistory.com

I'm not going to argue about slavery but lets keep it factual. It was wrong. They had laws to protect the abuse of slave master against the slave. A large portion of slaves could earn money . How else do you think former slaves became freemen?

Oh and by the way there are records showing that Blacks also owned slaves.

I am not going to let you argue lies about slavery, kiddo. You clearly do not understand American history. You go read Uncle Tom, if you want, because I wasn't referring to that. Your argumentation is simply pathetic. Who gives a shit if blacks owned blacks, you racist moron? That excuses nothing.

Take your lies elsewhere. Slavery was immoral, unChristian, and absolutely unChristlike. Take your racist rhetoric elsewhere, for it is absolutely shameful.

 

[mudwhistle]

He has a point..however it is slight.

The Constitution does nationalize two former privately owned industries..the Postal Service and the Military.

You're fucken high bud.

Nope, bud. You don't understand classic definitions.

The hell I don't.

There is nothing classic about today's liberal you fucken ingrate. I've been trying to get it across to you that we're not talking about classic definitions.

What's the matter....can't you read English dip-shit????

 

[Neotrotsky]

You have backed off! Good for you. The banks are paying the monies off and the tax payers are making money on the bail out. The auto companies are steadily retiring their debt to the taxpayers. Health care insurance reform is not socialism but government regulation (go study what that means).

No, we are not strongly tilting to socialism.

My premise and assumptions are quite right, and you are talking out of your ass.

Jake,
you do know that you can achieve socialism through gov't fiat alone?

Indeed, there is a direct correlation between gov't involvement and economics of scale.

Our own history shows that as gov't regulates more and more of an industry, the industries have to become larger with fewer competitors to deal with the gov't.

As such, at that point the industries work harder to get gov't monies and stop as much competition as possible.

All this gov't intervention creates nothing more than Crony Capitalism

The main point being that Statism in any form is bad

This Health Care regulation as you call it

Are you really that naive to believe that it won't hurt the market place for health care?
Do you really believe that it won't push us towards a single payer option ?

Even Barney Frank admitted that it was a "back door" (his words not mine) to the single payer

Remember Papa Obama secret deals with Big Pharma - Why would that be?

Is that how real free markets work ?

How many gov't waivers from PapaObama Care has the gov't "decreed" so far via HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ?- last count was over 200
Sounds more like a modern "feudal state" than a free market state

Prove your third line as true and we can go from there. You better go ask John Rockefeller or his ghost first before you respond.

So we can assume that you do not believe that to be true?

Sorry Jake Crony Capitalism is Crony Capitalism, if it is due to the ambitions of an individual or by the direction of the state

You better go ask John Rockefeller or his ghost how much gov't influence he had to "buy" to build and protect his trust

Then again you may "feel better" if Crony Capitalism is driven by the state

 

[JakeStarkey]

You sure have not show that you do. You have shown that you are the rube at the snakeoil wagon who buys every bottle pushed by the barker. You are priceless.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake,
you do know that you can achieve socialism through gov't fiat alone?

Indeed, there is a direct correlation between gov't involvement and economics of scale.

Our own history shows that as gov't regulates more and more of an industry, the industries have to become larger with fewer competitors to deal with the gov't.

As such, at that point the industries work harder to get gov't monies and stop as much competition as possible.

All this gov't intervention creates nothing more than Crony Capitalism

The main point being that Statism in any form is bad

This Health Care regulation as you call it

Are you really that naive to believe that it won't hurt the market place for health care?
Do you really believe that it won't push us towards a single payer option ?

Even Barney Frank admitted that it was a "back door" (his words not mine) to the single payer

Remember Papa Obama secret deals with Big Pharma - Why would that be?

Is that how real free markets work ?

How many gov't waivers from PapaObama Care has the gov't "decreed" so far via HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ?- last count was over 200
Sounds more like a modern "feudal state" than a free market state

Prove your third line as true and we can go from there. You better go ask John Rockefeller or his ghost first before you respond.

So we can assume that you do not believe that to be true?

Prove your third line. If you can't, your premise is fail.

 

[mudwhistle]

Prove your third line as true and we can go from there. You better go ask John Rockefeller or his ghost first before you respond.

So we can assume that you do not believe that to be true?

Prove your third line. If you can't, your premise is fail.

You're entire argument is a fail.

 

[mudwhistle]

You sure have not show that you do. You have shown that you are the rube at the snakeoil wagon who buys every bottle pushed by the barker. You are priceless.

And you're a stink-butt, nimrod with breath that smells like ass.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Social acceptability excuses the immorality and horror of slave ownership? Slave ownership is worse than feudalism. You truly do not know history, do you?

Your uncle tom version wasn't true when the book was written and it isn't true now.
Harriet Beecher Stowe writings were written to move the abolition movement, she never went to the south.
Harriet Beecher Stowe: ?Uncle Tom's Cabin? | NewsInHistory.com

I'm not going to argue about slavery but lets keep it factual. It was wrong. They had laws to protect the abuse of slave master against the slave. A large portion of slaves could earn money . How else do you think former slaves became freemen?

Oh and by the way there are records showing that Blacks also owned slaves.

I am not going to let you argue lies about slavery, kiddo. You clearly do not understand American history. You go read Uncle Tom, if you want, because I wasn't referring to that. Your argumentation is simply pathetic. Who gives a shit if blacks owned blacks, you racist moron? That excuses nothing.

Take your lies elsewhere. Slavery was immoral, unChristian, and absolutely unChristlike. Take your racist rhetoric elsewhere, for it is absolutely shameful.

What lies junior? give some facts junior.
Explian how someone can write about a subject and never see how it was done junior?
Explian why Blacks in the south owned slaves junior?
Explain why records show that some slaves bought their freedom junior?

Junior if slavery was so bad why did former slaves buy slaves?

In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.

The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms

Stop confuseing your bigorty for the truth. you are more racist than I could ever imagine a person could be in the 21th century.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You sure have not show that you do. You have shown that you are the rube at the snakeoil wagon who buys every bottle pushed by the barker. You are priceless.

And you're a stink-butt, nimrod with breath that smells like ass.

Neener neener neener. You are such a goof, doof.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your uncle tom version wasn't true when the book was written and it isn't true now.
Harriet Beecher Stowe writings were written to move the abolition movement, she never went to the south.
Harriet Beecher Stowe: ?Uncle Tom's Cabin? | NewsInHistory.com

I'm not going to argue about slavery but lets keep it factual. It was wrong. They had laws to protect the abuse of slave master against the slave. A large portion of slaves could earn money . How else do you think former slaves became freemen?

Oh and by the way there are records showing that Blacks also owned slaves.

I am not going to let you argue lies about slavery, kiddo. You clearly do not understand American history. You go read Uncle Tom, if you want, because I wasn't referring to that. Your argumentation is simply pathetic. Who gives a shit if blacks owned blacks, you racist moron? That excuses nothing.

Take your lies elsewhere. Slavery was immoral, unChristian, and absolutely unChristlike. Take your racist rhetoric elsewhere, for it is absolutely shameful.

<snip on bigreb's defense of slavery>

American Negro chattel slavery was unrighteous, the road to hell, immoral, and an offense to all that is good with America. The merchants of slavery and the spiritual death that came with it were smashed at the cost of almost 700,000 lives counting the civilians.

You are a teller of the Big Lie.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Prove your third line as true and we can go from there. You better go ask John Rockefeller or his ghost first before you respond.

So we can assume that you do not believe that to be true?

Prove your third line. If you can't, your premise is fail.

Avoidance again

You left out this part:

So we can assume that you do not believe that to be true?

Sorry Jake Crony Capitalism is Crony Capitalism, if it is due to the ambitions of an individual or by the direction of the state

You better go ask John Rockefeller or his ghost how much gov't influence he had to "buy" to build and protect his trust

Then again you may "feel better" if Crony Capitalism is driven by the state


Refute that maybe you could have a honest debate

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am not going to let you argue lies about slavery, kiddo. You clearly do not understand American history. You go read Uncle Tom, if you want, because I wasn't referring to that. Your argumentation is simply pathetic. Who gives a shit if blacks owned blacks, you racist moron? That excuses nothing.

Take your lies elsewhere. Slavery was immoral, unChristian, and absolutely unChristlike. Take your racist rhetoric elsewhere, for it is absolutely shameful.

<snip on bigreb's defense of slavery>

American Negro chattel slavery was unrighteous, the road to hell, immoral, and an offense to all that is good with America. The merchants of slavery and the spiritual death that came with it were smashed at the cost of almost 700,000 lives counting the civilians.

You are a teller of the Big Lie.

A very dishonest reply by jake the snake starkey I would never chop up your reply asswipe.