What drives anti-government extremists?

[Darkwind]

The opposite of conservative

lib·er·al
adjective \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\

: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism


ull Definition of LIBERAL
1
a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education>
b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2
a : marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver>
b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal>


5
: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms


Liberal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

This just in: government involvement in social and political change is not one of our founding principles.

The Founders would disagree. Try reading about them...

Clearly, you don't know about them at all.

 

[Dad2three]

Ooo, ooo, lookie here. I found a really mean anti-government extremist.....

"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."
John Kennedy

Well it was the paranoid far left LBJ that banned churches from being to contribute to political campaigns as he was scared he would be unseated by yet another "Catholic".

TAX FREE CHURCHES SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN POLITICS? LOL


In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.

Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

The IRS has published Revenue Ruling 2007-41, which outlines how churches, and all 501(c)(3) organizations, can stay within the law regarding the ban on political activity. Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena.


Charities, Churches and Politics

 

[R.C. Christian]

Freedom loving patriots are what drives what you morons consider "anti-government extremists". We're called racists one day and terrorists the next. That's how the rules work in a polarized world where 1 party owns the show.

 

[Stephanie]

Quite true. Parliament's attemps to impose an Anglican Episcopate on the colonists early in the eighteenth century aroused suspicions of precedent and the subordination of liberty to prerogative that proved absolutely real in the 1760s and '70s.

The Americans, members of the commonwealth who enjoyed unprecedented liberties and trememdous levels of happiness and prosperity, confronted a torrent of government intrusion and Toryism with violence and in short order. They concluded during the passage and implemantation of the Stamp Act, the Townsend duties, the Sugar Act, the Tea Act, the Boston Port Act, The Administration of Justice Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, the Quebec Act, the Quartering Act, the creation of the American Board of Customs Commissioners, stricter enforcement of the Navigation Laws, arbitrary judicial tenure and salaries, and a flurry of other measures and intrusions by Britain that her ministers had embarked on a "deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery."*

One of those opposing the Whigs was Lord Bute, who said that the people "have too much liberty." Does he sound like a typical lefty? Of course he does. “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

* Thomas Jefferson

Exactly so. Why did they the King need all these taxes?

To pay for his adventurism in America and to cover the costs of government (His) programs that were deemed necessary.

Reminds Me of all the government programs sold to the American people about a compassionate government.

In other words, they dream it up, and the subjects will just have to pay for it.

Conservatives generally have no idea the 13 colonies agreed to pay England back for defending it during the French and Indian War

what a horses ass
man I feel sorry for anyone who lives around you

 

[norwegen]

That's anti-monarchy little moron. And later on when the anti-government nutters went against Washington, he crushed their insurrectionist asses.

Did you know Thomas Jefferson was one of these "anti-government nutters"?

I doubt you did.

The LIBERAL Jefferson who gave US a strong federal Gov't and was concerned with the wealthy getting to strong in the US?

Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, reduced the size of the federal government virtually to the point that the only exposure most Americans had to it was mail delivery. No administration before or since has been smaller.

I just read some of your other posts. Please don't be upset if I don't answer any more.

 

[regent]

Force? Oh that's the US CONSTITUTION!!!

Pretender. You have no credibility.

Remember social studies in junior high school? We all learned that there are three branches of the federal government: the Legislative Branch, which makes laws and sets taxes; the Executive Branch, which ENFORCES and administers federal law and represents the nation internationally; and the Judicial Branch, which interprets the law within the framework of the Constitution.

Yep, I also remember George Washington leading an army to arrest those that wouldn't pay the whiskey tax.

 

[Dot Com]

How come nobody wants to talk about Kornze, Harry Reid and his son?

Weird, Bundy stopped paying in 1993 AND the BLM tried several times to work it out, BUT NOW YOU WANT A STRAWMAN? lol

What's the deal with Kornze and Reid? There's nothing corrupt there, huh. They killed livestock. Just part of the job, huh. They pushed people around and used police dogs. You think that's appropriate for your federal government?

"your" federal government?

 

[Dad2three]

The opposite of conservative

lib·er·al
adjective \&#712;li-b(&#601;-)r&#601;l\

: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism


ull Definition of LIBERAL
1
a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education>
b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2
a : marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver>
b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal>


5
: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms


Liberal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

This just in: government involvement in social and political change is not one of our founding principles.

They often confuse the definition of modern liberalism with that of classical liberalism. In the classical liberalism, the ideology was that some government was necessary, but only in as much as could be taken. Thomas Paine was very eloquent about government and a necessary evil comparison.

I believe the exact quote is:

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.

The most RADICAL LIBERALS OF THEIR DAYS, weren't considered liberal by today's liberals? lol

 

[regent]

"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."



General Douglas MacArthur.

 

[norwegen]

The opposite of conservative

lib·er·al
adjective \&#712;li-b(&#601;-)r&#601;l\

: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism


ull Definition of LIBERAL
1
a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education>
b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2
a : marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver>
b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal>


5
: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms


Liberal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

This just in: government involvement in social and political change is not one of our founding principles.

They often confuse the definition of modern liberalism with that of classical liberalism. In the classical liberalism, the ideology was that some government was necessary, but only in as much as could be taken. Thomas Paine was very eloquent about government and a necessary evil comparison.

I believe the exact quote is:

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.

Yes, I was surprised in the months after my joining this forum at the level of confusion regarding this.

If our founding was a leftist movement, maybe a lefty here can explain the need for that leftist movement 130 years later, the Progressive Era.

Granted, the end of the revolutionary era was to the left of our earlier revolutionary principles, but even so, the Constitution in no way allowed for the feeding of a leviathan.

 

[tinydancer]

I have my own beliefs and opinions, but I'd really like to hear from others.

In the 60's I rioted against left wing crazies who thought they could shove every ******* thing down our throat because they thought they could. Against the pigs and they were pigs then Against the government. Because they were assholes beyond belief.

I've had a spell where life really did get better and I didn't have to go to the mats again.

But now five plus mother ******* decades later I'm ready to riot again. This old girl can show you how to push the envelope.

 

[Dad2three]

Did you know Thomas Jefferson was one of these "anti-government nutters"?

I doubt you did.

The LIBERAL Jefferson who gave US a strong federal Gov't and was concerned with the wealthy getting to strong in the US?

Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, reduced the size of the federal government virtually to the point that the only exposure most Americans had to it was mail delivery. No administration before or since has been smaller.

I just read some of your other posts. Please don't be upset if I don't answer any more.

A Republican? Oh you meant a VERY LIBERAL guy who was a PROGRESSIVE by ANEMONES standards?

"Many of the opposition [to the new Federal Constitution] wish to take from Congress the power of internal taxation. calculation
has convinced me that this would be very mischievous." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788.


"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.



"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.




Jefferson the guy who doubled the US with the Louisiana purchase? Who after he Barbary Coast pirates rethought his shrinking of the Navy? The guy who gave US the Executive Privilege?

 

[Dad2three]

This just in: government involvement in social and political change is not one of our founding principles.

They often confuse the definition of modern liberalism with that of classical liberalism. In the classical liberalism, the ideology was that some government was necessary, but only in as much as could be taken. Thomas Paine was very eloquent about government and a necessary evil comparison.

I believe the exact quote is:

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.

Yes, I was surprised in the months after my joining this forum at the level of confusion regarding this.

If our founding was a leftist movement, maybe a lefty here can explain the need for that leftist movement 130 years later, the Progressive Era.

Granted, the end of the revolutionary era was to the left of our earlier revolutionary principles, but even so, the Constitution in no way allowed for the feeding of a leviathan.

Weird, you can't use reason and logic





(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.




Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation




Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders


American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

 

[tinydancer]

This just in: government involvement in social and political change is not one of our founding principles.

They often confuse the definition of modern liberalism with that of classical liberalism. In the classical liberalism, the ideology was that some government was necessary, but only in as much as could be taken. Thomas Paine was very eloquent about government and a necessary evil comparison.

I believe the exact quote is:

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.

Yes, I was surprised in the months after my joining this forum at the level of confusion regarding this.

If our founding was a leftist movement, maybe a lefty here can explain the need for that leftist movement 130 years later, the Progressive Era.

Granted, the end of the revolutionary era was to the left of our earlier revolutionary principles, but even so, the Constitution in no way allowed for the feeding of a leviathan.

I cannot help you with the ideology of the left in America today. A mish mash. A mix of different garbage of socialisms.

If one wants to really at least witness the bizarre philosophy of the left win these days study Elizabeth Warren.

And I won't put money on it yet not quite yet but the left will run Warren against Clinton.

 

[Ibentoken]

Newsweek and Wikipedia. Harvard?

 

[Dad2three]

They often confuse the definition of modern liberalism with that of classical liberalism. In the classical liberalism, the ideology was that some government was necessary, but only in as much as could be taken. Thomas Paine was very eloquent about government and a necessary evil comparison.

I believe the exact quote is:

Yes, I was surprised in the months after my joining this forum at the level of confusion regarding this.

If our founding was a leftist movement, maybe a lefty here can explain the need for that leftist movement 130 years later, the Progressive Era.

Granted, the end of the revolutionary era was to the left of our earlier revolutionary principles, but even so, the Constitution in no way allowed for the feeding of a leviathan.

I cannot help you with the ideology of the left in America today. A mish mash. A mix of different garbage of socialisms.

If one wants to really at least witness the bizarre philosophy of the left win these days study Elizabeth Warren.

And I won't put money on it yet not quite yet but the left will run Warren against Clinton.

Okay, let's use the word "socialism," which is somewhat ambiguous.

But we can keep it simple.

Socialism - We're all in this boat together, we should help each other.

Conservatism - Every man for himself!

 

[Dad2three]

Newsweek and Wikipedia. Harvard?

Don't like the Founders quotes Bubba?

Or policy the US used? NOT Adam Smith's nonsense, nor Uncle Milties!

 

[Darkwind]

This just in: government involvement in social and political change is not one of our founding principles.

They often confuse the definition of modern liberalism with that of classical liberalism. In the classical liberalism, the ideology was that some government was necessary, but only in as much as could be taken. Thomas Paine was very eloquent about government and a necessary evil comparison.

I believe the exact quote is:

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.

The most RADICAL LIBERALS OF THEIR DAYS, weren't considered liberal by today's liberals? lol

Today, they would be considered 'Conservatives'.....they believed that government was necessary to preserve the liberties and freedoms for the people from outside influences and nations, but held to the belief that the citizens should make their own way in life, free of the obstacles and impediments placed upon them by a government that would, by its very nature, turn predatory.

They were right.

That is why the Constitution is a document that serves to limit the power of government in favor of the States; or the people themselves.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

This just in: government involvement in social and political change is not one of our founding principles.

They often confuse the definition of modern liberalism with that of classical liberalism. In the classical liberalism, the ideology was that some government was necessary, but only in as much as could be taken. Thomas Paine was very eloquent about government and a necessary evil comparison.

I believe the exact quote is:

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.

The most RADICAL LIBERALS OF THEIR DAYS, weren't considered liberal by today's liberals? lol

Liberals who overthrew their corrupt tyrannical government, unlike the current crop of fake "liberals" who are sitting on the sidelines cheering on the corrupt tyrants.

 

[Ibentoken]

Yes, I was surprised in the months after my joining this forum at the level of confusion regarding this.

If our founding was a leftist movement, maybe a lefty here can explain the need for that leftist movement 130 years later, the Progressive Era.

Granted, the end of the revolutionary era was to the left of our earlier revolutionary principles, but even so, the Constitution in no way allowed for the feeding of a leviathan.

I cannot help you with the ideology of the left in America today. A mish mash. A mix of different garbage of socialisms.

If one wants to really at least witness the bizarre philosophy of the left win these days study Elizabeth Warren.

And I won't put money on it yet not quite yet but the left will run Warren against Clinton.

Okay, let's use the word "socialism," which is somewhat ambiguous.

But we can keep it simple.

Socialism - We're all in this boat together, we should help each other.

Conservatism - Every man for himself!

Yeah, carve your own path. The Pioneer spirit. Independence. You need a nanny to pick you up and give you a lollipop every time you fall down?