What drives anti-government extremists?

[Harry Dresden]

Actually it was anti-European religious dogma Govt.

who was in charge?....

Depends on who you ask since the French help the colonists.

well i dont think the French were who the Colonists were rebelling against.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yes I agree, but the far left is the bigger problem once they are removed form power the far left will be easy to remove. Extremists of any kind should not be in power.

However here in the states the far right does not have near the control the far left has.

And the far right and the far left are technically one in the same.

However here in the states the far right does not have near the control the far left has.


i dont agree....they are ******* up the Republicans as much as the Far Left is ******* up the Democrats......

Of course one that leans far left would say that.

Then again what do you consider to be "far right"?

Of course one that leans far left would say that.

yea im a far lefty ....what far lefty would say the far left is ******* up the party?....and if you notice you took offense at what i said....only a far righty would do that.....so i guess i was right about you......and i have already answered your question a while ago.....

 

[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:

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.

Just MORE right wing garbage, I'm shocked Conservative? lol

THEY CHOSE A STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T OVER THE WEAKER ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION

14. “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson



“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789


“It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin. Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties.”
~Founding Father James Monroe, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817


Take Alexander Hamilton, who exercised a profound influence on George Washington’s thought. Even though Hamilton is often invoked by populist conservatives, he was neither conservative nor a conservative when it came to nation building. Indeed, consider five ways that Hamilton was not conservative either in his day or ours. (1) He was a devotee of one of the most revolutionary thinkers of his day, Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations helped launch the permanent revolution that a later economist would famously characterize as “creative destruction.” (2) Moreover, Hamilton’s early opposition to slavery was a relative novelty in its day: he was on the side of the innovators, not the conservators, when it came to abolishing the peculiar institution. (3) It was also Hamilton’s idea to hold an extra-constitutional convention that would brazenly disregard the Confederation Congress’s instructions to the delegates, throw out America’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and write an entirely new charter. (4) Hamilton was "America's apostle of ultra-nationalism," notes Donald D'Elia. He wanted to locate the lion’s share of power in the national government. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he asserted that the states should be reduced to provinces -- mere administrative arms of the national government. Tellingly, Hamilton's first articles in defense of the Constitution were submitted under the name of Caesar. (5) In the Federalist essays 30 and 31 that followed, he argued forcefully to empower the new national government to raise taxes without limit, if necessary, on citizens. (How many tea-party conservatives are aware of this fact?)



Like Hamilton, James Madison was neither conservative nor a conservative when it came to framing the new constitution. He was downright radical in his new formulation of the republic, and his Federalist Paper 37 argued forcefully for innovation: “The novelty of the undertaking [of founding the United States on the principles of a new constitution] immediately strikes us. It has been shown, in the course of these papers, that the other confederacies which could be consulted as precedents, have been vitiated by erroneous principles, and can therefore furnish no light than that of beacons, which give warning of the course to be shunned, without pointing out that which ought to be pursued.”

It is also worth pointing out, while dwelling on the Father of the Constitution, that of the 18 congressional powers enumerated in Article I, section 8, only half deal with foreign affairs and defense. The other half invite congressional domination over the states in many matters that the states believed they were competent to handle. This, among other things, is what so vexed and frightened the Anti-Federalists about the Federalists’ work in Philadelphia.

The other titans of the American founding also present problems for conservatives. Many see in George Washington the temperament of a conservative. To be sure his personal virtue and his love of Addison’s Cato were signs of his regard for classical republicanism. But anti-imperial conservatives sometimes overlook that Washington championed the idea of American empire.




.... It is odd that today's populist conservative ideologues lionize the most radical founders -- Hamilton, Madison, and the rest -- but ignore the true conservative of 1776, John Dickinson.


History Gadfly: American Founding (8): Conservatives or Radicals?

 

[Dad2three]

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?

Conservatives/Libertarians believe in myths and fairy tales, nothing of substance

 

[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:

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.

BZZ wrong, They overthrew their Gov't because they wanted representation and then chose not to pay back monies the Crown used to defend the Colonies in the French/Indian wars, as they had agreed...

 

[Ibentoken]

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.

BZZ wrong, They overthrew their Gov't because they wanted representation and then chose not to pay back monies the Crown used to defend the Colonies in the French/Indian wars, as they had agreed...

So you defend what Harry Reid and his boy Kornze did, huh. You still think that this is about Bundy and grazing fees?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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.

BZZ wrong, They overthrew their Gov't because they wanted representation and then chose not to pay back monies the Crown used to defend the Colonies in the French/Indian wars, as they had agreed...

The because of why King George was overthrown makes no nevermind here.

It was the liberals of the day who did so, while Tories like you sat on the sidelines and made excuses for tyrants.

 

[Ibentoken]

Next thing he's going to tell me is the KKK was founded by republicans.

 

[Lakhota]

Next thing he's going to tell me is the KKK was founded by republicans.

No, Christians.

 

[Darkwind]

Next thing he's going to tell me is the KKK was founded by republicans.

No, Christians.

No, try again.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Just MORE right wing garbage, I'm shocked Conservative? lol

THEY CHOSE A STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T OVER THE WEAKER ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION

14. “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson



“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789


“It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin. Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties.”
~Founding Father James Monroe, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817


Take Alexander Hamilton, who exercised a profound influence on George Washington’s thought. Even though Hamilton is often invoked by populist conservatives, he was neither conservative nor a conservative when it came to nation building. Indeed, consider five ways that Hamilton was not conservative either in his day or ours. (1) He was a devotee of one of the most revolutionary thinkers of his day, Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations helped launch the permanent revolution that a later economist would famously characterize as “creative destruction.” (2) Moreover, Hamilton’s early opposition to slavery was a relative novelty in its day: he was on the side of the innovators, not the conservators, when it came to abolishing the peculiar institution. (3) It was also Hamilton’s idea to hold an extra-constitutional convention that would brazenly disregard the Confederation Congress’s instructions to the delegates, throw out America’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and write an entirely new charter. (4) Hamilton was "America's apostle of ultra-nationalism," notes Donald D'Elia. He wanted to locate the lion’s share of power in the national government. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he asserted that the states should be reduced to provinces -- mere administrative arms of the national government. Tellingly, Hamilton's first articles in defense of the Constitution were submitted under the name of Caesar. (5) In the Federalist essays 30 and 31 that followed, he argued forcefully to empower the new national government to raise taxes without limit, if necessary, on citizens. (How many tea-party conservatives are aware of this fact?)



Like Hamilton, James Madison was neither conservative nor a conservative when it came to framing the new constitution. He was downright radical in his new formulation of the republic, and his Federalist Paper 37 argued forcefully for innovation: “The novelty of the undertaking [of founding the United States on the principles of a new constitution] immediately strikes us. It has been shown, in the course of these papers, that the other confederacies which could be consulted as precedents, have been vitiated by erroneous principles, and can therefore furnish no light than that of beacons, which give warning of the course to be shunned, without pointing out that which ought to be pursued.”

It is also worth pointing out, while dwelling on the Father of the Constitution, that of the 18 congressional powers enumerated in Article I, section 8, only half deal with foreign affairs and defense. The other half invite congressional domination over the states in many matters that the states believed they were competent to handle. This, among other things, is what so vexed and frightened the Anti-Federalists about the Federalists’ work in Philadelphia.

The other titans of the American founding also present problems for conservatives. Many see in George Washington the temperament of a conservative. To be sure his personal virtue and his love of Addison’s Cato were signs of his regard for classical republicanism. But anti-imperial conservatives sometimes overlook that Washington championed the idea of American empire.




.... It is odd that today's populist conservative ideologues lionize the most radical founders -- Hamilton, Madison, and the rest -- but ignore the true conservative of 1776, John Dickinson.


History Gadfly: American Founding (8): Conservatives or Radicals?

Wow, is that what passes for informed citizenry in the liberal blogosphere? You have to really work hard to be that wrong.

 

[dblack]

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?

Conservatives/Libertarians believe in myths and fairy tales, nothing of substance

Substantive post!

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

 

[Ibentoken]

Next thing he's going to tell me is the KKK was founded by republicans.

No, Christians.

Democrats. Can't help yourself, can you. Your dishonesty is terminal.

 

[KNB]

Southern Democrats, who became Southern Dixiecrats, who became Southern Republicans.

See the word "SOUTHERN"? Racist Confederate slave states. The ones who fought to keep their slaves.

 

[norwegen]

Next thing he's going to tell me is the KKK was founded by republicans.

No, Christians.

Democrats. Can't help yourself, can you. Your dishonesty is terminal.

A politically motivated group - a group that hanged Republicans and Republican sympathizers - might don a cloak of Christianity to justify their motivations. In similar fashion, Christianity was used to justify the buying and selling of people, another practice in conflict with Whig politics.

Christianity makes a good pretext for Democrat atrocities.

 

[Erand7899]

Southern Democrats, who became Southern Dixiecrats, who became Southern Republicans.

See the word "SOUTHERN"? Racist Confederate slave states. The ones who fought to keep their slaves.

The ones who fought to defeat Northern Agression died over a century ago. They are gone and buried, and none of them were alive when Republicans finally won back the Southern States from the Democrat fiefdom that kept Black people down for almost a hundred years.

BTW, the last state to do away with slavery was a Northern state.

Racism itself, was just as rampant in the Northern and Western States as it was in the South, and was just as violent. Even today, many liberal cities are racist shitholes with people still killing each other over the color of their skin.

 

[Erand7899]

There we have our answer. To REAL Americans, it's "enforcement of laws", to others it's "government harrasment".

You didn't answer the question. Was there a court order or authority who sent in armed BLM agents to kill cattle and harass and intimidation with physical violence? Answer that.

FALSE PREMISE, DISTORTIONS AND LIES, THE ONLY THING RIGHT WINGERS EVER HAVE


Under BLM permits first issued in 1954, Bundy grazed his cattle legally and paid his grazing fees on an area of public land later called the "Bunkerville Allotment" in Clark County until 1993. As a protest in 1993, Bundy did not pay to renew his permit and it was canceled one year later.


Though the agency made several attempts to allow Bundy to renew his permit, Bundy declared that he no longer recognized the BLM's authority to regulate his grazing and asserted that he had "vested rights" to graze on the land.



Federal courts have consistently ruled against Bundy, finding that he is a trespasser with no right to graze cattle on federal public land and authorizing the BLM to remove his cattle and levy damages for unauthorized use.


1998_U_S__Dist__LEXIS_23835



Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government - The Washington Post

In 1993, the BLM reduced the number of cattle units entitled to graze on public lands, below the level necessary to sustain the ranches that were using the public lands and paying to do so.

That may seem to be an inconsequental fact to you, but it is the basis of the entire feud between the ranchers and the BLM. Bundy was the last rancher standing because he told the BLM to go to hell and continued with the previous allotment.

I have always wondered why people find it necessary to reject all facts that are contrary to the partisan stands that they take. Why not just be honest and consider all of the information before you jump off the deep end. At least, you would have an intelligent position to stand on.

 

[Erand7899]

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?

The correct word is "stronger", and Jefferson never envisioned the government we have today.

BTW, Jefferson was in France when the United States Constitution was written and submitted to the states for adoption. He had little to do with the creation of the Constitution or the text of it. He didn't give us anything.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

BZZ wrong, They overthrew their Gov't because they wanted representation and then chose not to pay back monies the Crown used to defend the Colonies in the French/Indian wars, as they had agreed...

So you defend what Harry Reid and his boy Kornze did, huh. You still think that this is about Bundy and grazing fees?

Defend a false premise created 20+ years AFTER Bundy CHOSE to stop paying his grazing fees? Not very smart are you!

 

[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?

The correct word is "stronger", and Jefferson never envisioned the government we have today.

BTW, Jefferson was in France when the United States Constitution was written and submitted to the states for adoption. He had little to do with the creation of the Constitution or the text of it. He didn't give us anything.

Can't imagine any person living in the birth of the US can imagine the size or scope of the current world. But yes, TJ was anti federalist, but DID double the size of US with the purchase of Louisiana AND wanted a purer form of democracy AND a nation based on agriculture. Think either of those would work?

And NO, TJ WASN'T AN ANTI GOV'T NUTTER!