"Smaller government" advocates

[frigidweirdo]

Correct, but it's like cancer. Soon it will make all marriages a joke.

Like with a 50% divorce rate.

Oh, wait, that happened BEFORE gay marriage was legalized in the whole country.

Straight people made it a joke.

Divorces make it a joke? Not like a joke it will be when man is legal to marry his cow, or woman is legal to marry her dog. After all, that's the path we are currently on.

But a man CAN'T marry his cow. So, you're talking about something that doesn't exist in order to avoid talking about what does exist.

Marriage is a joke, it's meaningless except for some tax breaks like with inheritance laws. As in institution it's a joke.

Couples getting married early just so they can **** because someone's filled their head with this notion that you shouldn't sleep with someone until you're married, then they get married and it doesn't last because they got married for the wrong reasons.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

There is already a 5 year time limit on TANF.

And....?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

There is already a 5 year time limit on TANF.

And....?

Sorry, misread your post.

I have no idea what benefit comes from denying TANF to children whose mommy is too young to have worked 5 years.

The left isn't really "giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it". You can't give TANF unless you have needy children. SSI - for people unable to work. People on housing assistance who are able to work must work and must pay 30% of their income as rent.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

There is already a 5 year time limit on TANF.

And....?

Sorry, misread your post.

I have no idea what benefit comes from denying TANF to children whose mommy is too young to have worked 5 years.

The left isn't really "giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it". You can't give TANF unless you have needy children. SSI - for people unable to work. People on housing assistance who are able to work must work and must pay 30% of their income as rent.

Well, I'm going to disagree. Kids who are needy need something, but giving the money to their parents isn't necessarily the best way of going about it.
If kids need food, then give them food, at school or somewhere where they can get DECENT FOOD and regularly.
I think there needs to be a change in how people see the support of children who parents who are bad, or who can't afford.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Decay in morality huh? The first 90 years of the USA had slavery...

Fascinatin' ... And for the last 40 years, Blacks have been addled by drugs, subsistence and all so the Democrat Party could coerce them out of their votes... And THAT is Modern Democrats, not the ones that can only be seen in painted renderings because they lived so long ago that a photography didn't exist.

Of course, back then... those Democrats would have eatin' you degenerate Democrats alive, because as fucked up as you claim them to be, you're a moral wasteland.

But it is HYSTERICAL that you... a debauched degenerate, deign to criticize those dead for 250 years... LOL! For their immorality.

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up... .

 

[Interpol]

Most small gov't advocates are the biggest hypocrites.

What are the three programs we spend the most taxpayer money on? Social Security, Medicare, Defense.

Republican voting block that turns out every single goddamned election, no matter what, is white and older. They never waste an opportunity to vote for less gov't for you, never themselves, since they're the biggest block of people who get monthly SS checks, Medicare, and military pensions.

In any and all polls on Social Security and Medicare, more than 60% of Republican voters always say to not mess with those programs.

They say they want small gov't, but they survive because we fortunately have a big-hearted gov't that doesn't pull the plug on these assholes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Most small gov't advocates are the biggest hypocrites.

What are the three programs we spend the most taxpayer money on? Social Security, Medicare, Defense.

Republican voting block that turns out every single goddamned election, no matter what, is white and older. They never waste an opportunity to vote for less gov't for you, never themselves, since they're the biggest block of people who get monthly SS checks, Medicare, and military pensions.

In any and all polls on Social Security and Medicare, more than 60% of Republican voters always say to not mess with those programs.

They say they want small gov't, but they survive because we fortunately have a big-hearted gov't that doesn't pull the plug on these assholes.

Well maybe the reason is we were FORCED all of our lives to contribute to these programs. After all, when you include your employers contribution (which indirectly comes out of your pay anyway) Social Security is the second highest tax you pay. Of course we don't want anybody to mess with it. Why should we pay into funds all of our lives and not get anything back in return?

If you think we won't support less government, then have your representatives make up a plan to phase these programs out of existence while not screwing the people that put in the most. Then we can purchase our own Senior healthcare insurance and have our own retirement fund and will do ten times better than the government.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, but it's like cancer. Soon it will make all marriages a joke.

Like with a 50% divorce rate.

Oh, wait, that happened BEFORE gay marriage was legalized in the whole country.

Straight people made it a joke.

Divorces make it a joke? Not like a joke it will be when man is legal to marry his cow, or woman is legal to marry her dog. After all, that's the path we are currently on.

But a man CAN'T marry his cow. So, you're talking about something that doesn't exist in order to avoid talking about what does exist.

Marriage is a joke, it's meaningless except for some tax breaks like with inheritance laws. As in institution it's a joke.

Couples getting married early just so they can **** because someone's filled their head with this notion that you shouldn't sleep with someone until you're married, then they get married and it doesn't last because they got married for the wrong reasons.

And do you know one person that's ever done that perhaps besides your grandparents????

Why shouldn't a person be able to marry his cow? After all, he shouldn't be denied the benefits that married homosexual couples get. We're talking about liberty here, aren't we? What.....you don't want to see our government sanction a man marrying a cow because it crosses "your" line of what marriage should be? You said it yourself, marriage is a joke anyway, right?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

What do I want to dish out? I don't want to dish out anything. I just happen to believe that marriage is the institution of one man and one woman. That's not dishing anything out. It's just like calling my chair a chair. Sure, I could call my chair a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make it a fire hydrant. It's still a chair.

You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters. Marriage is not a right, it's a religious rite that was adopted by the government in order to provide benefits to the normal family. And no, Don, Sam and their adopted son is not a normal family.

Fine, you believe something. Is that belief enough to stop people from marrying when it is contrary to your belief? No it isn't.

Why is marriage not a right? Who decides whether it is a right or not?

It's a religious rite? Well that changed a long time ago, didn't it? Non-Religious people get married and the govt has been handing out benefits to married people for a long time too.

Things change, you can go with the times or you can be left behind.

If that's changing with the times, I would rather be left behind. I would rather stand my ground than be complicit in the decay of morality just because it happens to be popular. So what happens if we end up with a Democrat President the next few decades that loads up our Supreme Court with liberals that decide it's not our Constitutional right to own firearms? Will you change with the times willingly? Or the other way with conservative Presidents who load up the Supreme Court with other conservatives that rules abortion is murder and therefore illegal? Still want to change with the times?

I have no doubt many people, throughout history, would like to be left behind.

If you ever read an author like Borges, then perhaps you see why death and growing old is an important part of life. It allows for change that those who are older just don't want.

Decay in morality huh? The first 90 years of the USA had slavery, the next 90 years had segregation, throughout history black people, gay people etc have been treated with disdain, and you're talking to me about MORALITY?

The constitution protects the right to own guns. It also protects people from the mob rule of govt that often wants to treat people differently.

If something is right, I will be in favor of it. If it is wrong, I am against it. I didn't say everyone supported the changing of the times, but the changing of the times is what it is. In the US the changing of the times goes both good and bad. Good in that people's freedoms are being recognized, even when many are against other people having freedom, in the name of morality, but at the same time politics is becoming an absolute partisan joke.

I see, so what you're saying is that when guns and abortions become illegal because of "changing times" you will go right along with the program, won't you? I mean, you're going to die off anyway so that future generations can setup their own idea of liberty in this country. Who knows, you may even be alive to witness the first dog and woman marriage after the SC rules it constitutional........you know, changing times and all.

In our ever changing times, it no longer matters what the Constitution says or the intent of our founders, what matters is how judges interpret the Constitution. The way they interpret the Constitution is the law of the land. Unfortunately in many cases, it's usually partisan.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Correct, but it's like cancer. Soon it will make all marriages a joke.

Like with a 50% divorce rate.

Oh, wait, that happened BEFORE gay marriage was legalized in the whole country.

Straight people made it a joke.

Divorces make it a joke? Not like a joke it will be when man is legal to marry his cow, or woman is legal to marry her dog. After all, that's the path we are currently on.

But a man CAN'T marry his cow. So, you're talking about something that doesn't exist in order to avoid talking about what does exist.

Marriage is a joke, it's meaningless except for some tax breaks like with inheritance laws. As in institution it's a joke.

Couples getting married early just so they can **** because someone's filled their head with this notion that you shouldn't sleep with someone until you're married, then they get married and it doesn't last because they got married for the wrong reasons.

And do you know one person that's ever done that perhaps besides your grandparents????

Why shouldn't a person be able to marry his cow? After all, he shouldn't be denied the benefits that married homosexual couples get. We're talking about liberty here, aren't we? What.....you don't want to see our government sanction a man marrying a cow because it crosses "your" line of what marriage should be? You said it yourself, marriage is a joke anyway, right?

Yeah I do. I've known people who got married as virgins, and married quite young at that.

Why shouldn't someone be able to marry cow?

Consent, that's the main answer. A cow can't consent to marry. Just like children can't consent to marry. It's quite simple.

Last I heard, gay people were able to say yes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why shouldn't someone be able to marry cow?

Maybe because they want to... milk it... for all it's worth.

Aha...ah...ahem.

I'll let myself out.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Correct, but it's like cancer. Soon it will make all marriages a joke.

Like with a 50% divorce rate.

Oh, wait, that happened BEFORE gay marriage was legalized in the whole country.

Straight people made it a joke.

Divorces make it a joke? Not like a joke it will be when man is legal to marry his cow, or woman is legal to marry her dog. After all, that's the path we are currently on.

But a man CAN'T marry his cow. So, you're talking about something that doesn't exist in order to avoid talking about what does exist.

Marriage is a joke, it's meaningless except for some tax breaks like with inheritance laws. As in institution it's a joke.

Couples getting married early just so they can **** because someone's filled their head with this notion that you shouldn't sleep with someone until you're married, then they get married and it doesn't last because they got married for the wrong reasons.

Marriage is nothing but a property contract

 

[frigidweirdo]

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

What do I want to dish out? I don't want to dish out anything. I just happen to believe that marriage is the institution of one man and one woman. That's not dishing anything out. It's just like calling my chair a chair. Sure, I could call my chair a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make it a fire hydrant. It's still a chair.

You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters. Marriage is not a right, it's a religious rite that was adopted by the government in order to provide benefits to the normal family. And no, Don, Sam and their adopted son is not a normal family.

Fine, you believe something. Is that belief enough to stop people from marrying when it is contrary to your belief? No it isn't.

Why is marriage not a right? Who decides whether it is a right or not?

It's a religious rite? Well that changed a long time ago, didn't it? Non-Religious people get married and the govt has been handing out benefits to married people for a long time too.

Things change, you can go with the times or you can be left behind.

If that's changing with the times, I would rather be left behind. I would rather stand my ground than be complicit in the decay of morality just because it happens to be popular. So what happens if we end up with a Democrat President the next few decades that loads up our Supreme Court with liberals that decide it's not our Constitutional right to own firearms? Will you change with the times willingly? Or the other way with conservative Presidents who load up the Supreme Court with other conservatives that rules abortion is murder and therefore illegal? Still want to change with the times?

I have no doubt many people, throughout history, would like to be left behind.

If you ever read an author like Borges, then perhaps you see why death and growing old is an important part of life. It allows for change that those who are older just don't want.

Decay in morality huh? The first 90 years of the USA had slavery, the next 90 years had segregation, throughout history black people, gay people etc have been treated with disdain, and you're talking to me about MORALITY?

The constitution protects the right to own guns. It also protects people from the mob rule of govt that often wants to treat people differently.

If something is right, I will be in favor of it. If it is wrong, I am against it. I didn't say everyone supported the changing of the times, but the changing of the times is what it is. In the US the changing of the times goes both good and bad. Good in that people's freedoms are being recognized, even when many are against other people having freedom, in the name of morality, but at the same time politics is becoming an absolute partisan joke.

I see, so what you're saying is that when guns and abortions become illegal because of "changing times" you will go right along with the program, won't you? I mean, you're going to die off anyway so that future generations can setup their own idea of liberty in this country. Who knows, you may even be alive to witness the first dog and woman marriage after the SC rules it constitutional........you know, changing times and all.

In our ever changing times, it no longer matters what the Constitution says or the intent of our founders, what matters is how judges interpret the Constitution. The way they interpret the Constitution is the law of the land. Unfortunately in many cases, it's usually partisan.

Then again the times are changing AWAY from repressive policies, not towards. That is the point. You're getting all annoyed at things which are progressing away from people being restricted.

You think people are setting up new ideas of liberty? The reality is this liberty has been around for 150 years, it's just not been implemented properly.

Why you have an issue with two consenting adults getting married is beyond me. It doesn't harm you in any way at all. You say it's about morals. But then morals have changed and for the better.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why shouldn't someone be able to marry cow?

Maybe because they want to... milk it... for all it's worth.

Aha...ah...ahem.

I'll let myself out.

And you almost pulled it off, almost.....

 

[kaz]

Then again the times are changing AWAY from repressive policies, not towards

Four words: O ba ma care

Are you insane?

 

[dcraelin]

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

Then the conversation about marriage being recognized across any relationship is a misnomer. Why bring it up then? That is dishonest in its presentation. You openly support marriage rights only being offered to those that agree with your lifestyle.

That is not only big government but also rather anti-freedom. It is the core problem with giving the government a say or morality or doling out 'rights' - at some point in time you are no longer going to agree with that morality.

We can do 2 things here - remove the government from marriage entirely (no more benefits derived from marrying) OR we can recognize whatever marriage 2 adults wish to enter into. I really do not care what direction it goes in but I certainly cannot support the government selectively giving benefits out to only those that it agrees are living 'properly.'

I think the gay rights advocates, hypocritically, show no sympathy for single people. Why should people receive tax benefits solely because of their relationship status.................THAT is unfair..............and if the court ruled as it did it should have also made sure no tax benefits could be allowed based solely on marriage status.............they did not which shows one flaw in their reasoning.

I wouldn't say that is hypocritical. The left thinks the government should shower tons of people with special benefits. That is not hypocritical - it is just wrong IMHO.

Much of gay rights supporters are hypocritical though because they focus on a single group that is 'popular' to support at this time rather than actual marriage rights.

well, they claim they want everybody treated the same.....yet they did not advocate that......nor did the gay marriage supporters on the court rule in that consistent way......which makes them hypocrites.

 

[dcraelin]

We can do 2 things here - remove the government from marriage entirely (no more benefits derived from marrying) OR we can recognize whatever marriage 2 adults wish to enter into.

Or we can just recognize the source of the angst as bing that of irrational fools, who are incapable of objective reason, this they're unable of recognizing that Marriage is defined by the laws of nature; specifically human physiology... wherein two distinct but complementing genders, with each respectively designed to join with the other.

That is a mere rationalization in showing governmental benefits on one group by taking from another.

Call it natural all you want - it is not for the government to support one group that does things 'correctly.' Not if you truly believe that the government should stay out of our business.

On the irrepressible recognition that this represents what is OKA: The Biological Imperative, and that such comes with great benefit to the species... the importance of which stands well above the abyss of irrational need of a tiny minority of weak minded freaks, whose very existence represents inviability.

Which for those keeping score, is something a viable culture needs to avoid.

A 'viable' culture simply needs to let people live as they will without putting others at risk/limiting their rights.

I think the gay rights advocates, hypocritically, show no sympathy for single people. Why should people receive tax benefits solely because of their relationship status.................THAT is unfair..............and if the court ruled as it did it should have also made sure no tax benefits could be allowed based solely on marriage status.............they did not which shows one flaw in their reasoning.

Beautiful... yet ANOTHER self evident flaw in the latest whim of the Supreme Legislature has been well noted.

Well said.

It really is not a flaw in the ruling at all. It is a fundamental flaw with the government being allowed to give benefits to one group of people to the exclusion of others/

I THOUGHT that is what the gay marriage case was all about............stopping the government from giving benefits to the exclusion of others.....but nope it was really "yooo-hoo, special rights for us too".

 

[dcraelin]

You openly support marriage rights only being offered to those that agree with your lifestyle.

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman. It's called The Biological Imperative. Look it up... .

Be careful to fully consider the word "imperative" and note that its weight registers in an entirely superior to the 'choice', with regard to one's lifestyle.

What you want marriage to be is irrelevant.

Without regard to what I want, or what you want...

Nature defines Marriage as: The Joining of One Man and One Woman. This being demonstrated through the Biological imperative, wherein Nature designed the human species (and all mammals) with two distinct, but complementing genders, each specifically designed to join with the other. ]

Nope. There is no marriage in 'nature'. There is only marriage within human societies as we invented it and we define it. It is whatever we say it is. As its our creation.

That you recognize that this is irrefutable... inarguable and otherwise irrepressible, SHOULD BE sufficient to turn you from your former position and toward that inalterable reality.

Your personal opinion isn't 'irrefutable', nor 'inarguable' nor 'reality'. Its just your opinion. You've deluded yourself into believing that anything you think, anything at all, is objective fact.

Its simply not so. Your subjective opinions are not objective reality, no matter how many times you type 'irrefutable'. Its just you, citing you, making an argument that can't withstand an even passing application of logic or reason.

the pot calling the kettle black

 

[dcraelin]

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

The "founding fathers" did not want a bill of Rights at all. It was pressure by the Constitutions opponents that led to the Bill of Rights..

And it definitely wasn't to protect from so-called "mob rule" but to protect from elitists ensconced in government.

The seven key Founding Fathers (as the term is quite loose) were Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jay, Jefferson, Madison and Washington.

Well, James Madison wrote the first drafts of the Bill of Rights, he was a Founding Father. He clearly wanted a BoRs, otherwise why write the damn thing?

Massachusetts Historical Society: the Beehive

"On this day in 1789, President George Washington wrote a short letter to each state’s governor, enclosing a copy of twelve proposed amendments to the new United States Constitution for consideration, which Congress had passed on September 25 with the signatures of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, Vice President John Adams. Of the twelve, ten received the necessary ratification and collectively became known as the Bill of Rights."

"These amendments corresponded with many of the changes for which John Adams had expressed a desire when he first read the proposed Constitution. “A Declaration of Rights I wish to see with all my Heart,”

So, Washington and Adams supported the Bill of Rights.

What was Benjamin Franklin's perspective on The Bill of Rights?

"Ben Franklin was pleased with the Congress and the Bill of Rights, stating, Congress had done its work "with a greater degree of temper, prudence and unanimity than could well have been expected, and our future prospects seem very favorable." Franklin believed in the freedom of the press which is guaranteed in the First Amendment."

So Franklin was for the Bill of Rights.

Hamilton was against the Bill of Rights.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: The Bill of Rights

""I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387"

""A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers 12:440"

Jefferson was for the Bill of Rights.

So, ONE of the seven important guys was against, I couldn't find out anything (at a quick search) about Jay, he was a Supreme Court justice at the time and didn't have an input in the process, and the rest were clearly in favor.

So how you can say the Founding Fathers were against is beyond me. SOME were against, but clearly not enough as it passed through Congress and the States.

I believe you can go back and see arguments at the Virginia ratification convention that show that Madison actively lobbied Against the inclusion of a Bill of rights. As to why he wrote it later?, because of popular pressure to have some (including by his friend Jefferson) and so he could mold them as he wanted. (may explain the convoluted phrasing of the 2nd amendment).

Washington was present at the Constitutional Convention and I believe as far as we know about this secretive nontransparent meeting, he never raised objections to the exclusion of a bill of rights. ditto for Franklin, tho I believe he was more open to that....he did argue against the inane set up of the Senate and actually against having a Senate at all, or a president.

Adams wasnt present at the convention so you may be right there,....but he seems to have ha wavering options on things and some later think he developed a sympathy for monarchy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... Marriage is a joke, it's meaningless except for some tax breaks like with inheritance laws. As in institution it's a joke. ...

Anyone need anything else to know where the Left is on Marriage?

Now we're seeing this on a routine basis... throughout the cult, more and more queers are admitting publicly that they have no respect for marriage.

So... knowing that, would you would-be 'moderates' be as considerate of their feelings in demanding that what the Left has left of marriage be stripped away?

There are few ways that the cult could more accurately confess to their intent... .