R
rdean
Guest
Why do conservatives want to go back to the 18th century?
They could legally kill people back then, They miss the good old days.
They could legally kill people back then, They miss the good old days.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.
1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?
It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.
As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.
It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.
1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?
It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.
As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.
It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.
1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?
It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.
As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.
Aren't the 1950s the Promised Land for conservatives?It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.
1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?
It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.
As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.
So Matthew do you think libs are any different? I said it a million times on here libs want us to go back to the 1950s when we had a super high tax rate and the world was in ruins so we didn't have any competition in manufacturing.
.
Aren't the 1950s the Promised Land for conservatives?It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.
1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?
It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.
As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.
So Matthew do you think libs are any different? I said it a million times on here libs want us to go back to the 1950s when we had a super high tax rate and the world was in ruins so we didn't have any competition in manufacturing.
.
It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.
1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?
It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.
As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.
It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.
1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?
It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.
As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.
Well then we can go back to low wages and bad working conditions. We are in reverse right now...slowly but surely we will regress back to that time. We ain't as great as we like to think. Never was.