# If our Constitution made liberalism, in effect, illegal what should we do with them?.



## EdwardBaiamonte

Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?


----------



## JGalt

Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.

The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.


----------



## Pogo

JGalt said:


> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.



Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.


/thread


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?



Deport them to North Korea where they are already doing everything that they want


----------



## JGalt

Pogo said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
Click to expand...


/Not thread

Modern-day liberalism has little to do with the Colonial definition of "liberalism". The description “liberal” was used in colonial America as the political description for those seeking to change government to a more *limited* role (Lockean). In today’s context they would more likely be called “libertarian” not progressive. Even so, libertarianism is closely aligned with conservatism, as they both seek a limited government with constrained powers, the rights of the individual over the power of the state, and lower taxes.

Modern-day liberalism embraces none of those values, and more resembles socialism than anything else. Modern-day liberalism believes in higher taxes, more dependence of government, and the willingness to forfeit certain personal liberties in exchange for the "security" big government affords them.

Worse than that, modern-day liberalism seeks to impose what is "best" for everyone, by using the force and power of the government. We've seen this time and time again: No soda drinks over 16 ounces, no straws, restrictive gun laws, burdensome regulations on business and industry, restrictive consumer laws, and on, and on, and on.


----------



## Freiheit

JGalt said:


> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.



Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism.  Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.


----------



## Pogo

JGalt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /Not thread
> 
> Modern-day liberalism has little to do with the Colonial definition of "liberalism". The description “liberal” was used in colonial America as the political description for those seeking to change government to a more *limited* role (Lockean). In today’s context they would more likely be called “libertarian” not progressive. Even so, libertarianism is closely aligned with conservatism, as they both seek a limited government with constrained powers, the rights of the individual over the power of the state, and lower taxes.
> 
> Modern-day liberalism embraces none of those values, and more resembles socialism than anything else. Modern-day liberalism believes in higher taxes, more dependence of government, and the willingness to forfeit certain personal liberties in exchange for the "security" big government affords them.
> 
> Worse than that, modern-day liberalism seeks to impose what is "best" for everyone, by using the force and power of the government. We've seen this time and time again: No soda drinks over 16 ounces, no straws, restrictive gun laws, burdensome regulations on business and industry, restrictive consumer laws, and on, and on, and on.
Click to expand...



Still /thread.

You can't just arbitrarily decide you want to start calling a term to mean its own opposite.  Language doesn't work that way.  Liberalism is Liberalism is Liberalism, period.  It means the government takes a minimal role in the public's affairs and that it operates with the consent of the governed.  That IS what it means, period.  The fact that you, or Special Ed (good intellectual company there) choose to remain ignorant _about _that meaning is in no way the fault of the term.  The fault is yours.

Oh and speaking of misused terms, nobody brought up "Progressive", which was a socio-political movement of a hundred years ago.

So just to reiterate:

/thread


----------



## Freiheit

Were exactly is Liberalism declared illegal in the constitution?  Chapter and verse.


----------



## Pogo

Freiheit said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism.  Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.
Click to expand...


The post about "classic Liberalism" is classic revisionism.  The conservatives at the time the Constitution was writ were the Loylalists who wanted to remain England's colony and believed in government hierarchy/meritocracy.  The conservatives were King George's people.  Now he wants to open the history books and change everybody's clothes because his own people were on the wrong side.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JGalt said:


> Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism.  Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.



Our founders were classical liberals ie for freedom from big liberal govt just like modern conservatives/libertarians. Make sense now?


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism.  Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our founders were classical liberals ie for freedom from big liberal govt just like modern conservatives/libertarians. Make sense now?
Click to expand...


Once AGAIN that's patently impossible since they fought for freedom from a *royalist *government, the very _opposite_ of Liberalism.

Once again Special Ed is hoist with his own retard.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism.  Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The post about "classic Liberalism" is classic revisionism.  The conservatives at the time the Constitution was writ were the Loylalists who wanted to remain England's colony and believed in government hierarchy/meritocracy.  The conservatives were King George's people.  Now he wants to open the history books and change everybody's clothes because his own people were on the wrong side.
Click to expand...


Using today's definitions Founders were conservative/libertarian ie for very limited govt while using today's definitions liberals are statist monarchists/socialists.  Todays liberals hate our founding liberals since the founding liberals were for freedom from govt!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> Once AGAIN that's patently impossible since they fought for freedom from a *royalist *government, the very _opposite_ of Liberalism.
> .



yes founding liberals( conservatives using todays definition) fought for freedom from big govt as todays conservatives/libertarians do. 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism.  Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The post about "classic Liberalism" is classic revisionism.  The conservatives at the time the Constitution was writ were the Loylalists who wanted to remain England's colony and believed in government hierarchy/meritocracy.  The conservatives were King George's people.  Now he wants to open the history books and change everybody's clothes because his own people were on the wrong side.
Click to expand...


this is a liberal who cant imagine that definitions of words change over time.
he's apparently  liberal today because he is against royalist govt today!!LOL!!!


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN that's patently impossible since they fought for freedom from a *royalist *government, the very _opposite_ of Liberalism.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes founding liberals( conservatives using todays definition) fought for freedom from big govt as todays conservatives/libertarians do. 1+1=2
Click to expand...


Yuh huh.  Why don't you regale the class once again with your charming stories about how Thomas Jefferson founded the Republican Party twenty-eight years after his own death.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN that's patently impossible since they fought for freedom from a *royalist *government, the very _opposite_ of Liberalism.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes founding liberals( conservatives using todays definition) fought for freedom from big govt as todays conservatives/libertarians do. 1+1=2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.  Why don't you regale the class once again with your charming stories about how Thomas Jefferson founded the Republican Party twenty-eight years after his own death.
Click to expand...


Jefferson and Madison founded Republican Party in 1793 to stand for freedom from govt. And? liberal trying to change subject after he  lost yet another debate?


----------



## Votto

Pogo said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /Not thread
> 
> Modern-day liberalism has little to do with the Colonial definition of "liberalism". The description “liberal” was used in colonial America as the political description for those seeking to change government to a more *limited* role (Lockean). In today’s context they would more likely be called “libertarian” not progressive. Even so, libertarianism is closely aligned with conservatism, as they both seek a limited government with constrained powers, the rights of the individual over the power of the state, and lower taxes.
> 
> Modern-day liberalism embraces none of those values, and more resembles socialism than anything else. Modern-day liberalism believes in higher taxes, more dependence of government, and the willingness to forfeit certain personal liberties in exchange for the "security" big government affords them.
> 
> Worse than that, modern-day liberalism seeks to impose what is "best" for everyone, by using the force and power of the government. We've seen this time and time again: No soda drinks over 16 ounces, no straws, restrictive gun laws, burdensome regulations on business and industry, restrictive consumer laws, and on, and on, and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still /thread.
> 
> You can't just arbitrarily decide you want to start calling a term to mean its own opposite.  Language doesn't work that way.  Liberalism is Liberalism is Liberalism, period.  It means the government takes a minimal role in the public's affairs and that it operates with the consent of the governed.  That IS what it means, period.  The fact that you, or Special Ed (good intellectual company there) choose to remain ignorant _about _that meaning is in no way the fault of the term.  The fault is yours.
> 
> Oh and speaking of misused terms, nobody brought up "Progressive", which was a socio-political movement of a hundred years ago.
> 
> So just to reiterate:
> 
> /thread
Click to expand...


Instead of this pissing contest of "my side is the side of the Founders and my opponents side is that of tyranny", why not just post what the Founding fathers actually said and compare them to our political ideology today?

Left wingers use the General Welfare clause to justify the nanny state.  Problem is, the person that wrote the General Welfare clause commented on what he wrote in the Constitution, showing us once and for all that it was never designed to usher in the nanny state and socialism.

The Republic has been subverted by them.

James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
 
* James Madison Quote*
*“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”*





James Madison
~ James Madison
(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties. February 7, 1792, referring to a bill to subsidize cod fisherman
http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm


----------



## Pogo

Votto said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /Not thread
> 
> Modern-day liberalism has little to do with the Colonial definition of "liberalism". The description “liberal” was used in colonial America as the political description for those seeking to change government to a more *limited* role (Lockean). In today’s context they would more likely be called “libertarian” not progressive. Even so, libertarianism is closely aligned with conservatism, as they both seek a limited government with constrained powers, the rights of the individual over the power of the state, and lower taxes.
> 
> Modern-day liberalism embraces none of those values, and more resembles socialism than anything else. Modern-day liberalism believes in higher taxes, more dependence of government, and the willingness to forfeit certain personal liberties in exchange for the "security" big government affords them.
> 
> Worse than that, modern-day liberalism seeks to impose what is "best" for everyone, by using the force and power of the government. We've seen this time and time again: No soda drinks over 16 ounces, no straws, restrictive gun laws, burdensome regulations on business and industry, restrictive consumer laws, and on, and on, and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still /thread.
> 
> You can't just arbitrarily decide you want to start calling a term to mean its own opposite.  Language doesn't work that way.  Liberalism is Liberalism is Liberalism, period.  It means the government takes a minimal role in the public's affairs and that it operates with the consent of the governed.  That IS what it means, period.  The fact that you, or Special Ed (good intellectual company there) choose to remain ignorant _about _that meaning is in no way the fault of the term.  The fault is yours.
> 
> Oh and speaking of misused terms, nobody brought up "Progressive", which was a socio-political movement of a hundred years ago.
> 
> So just to reiterate:
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of this pissing contest of "my side is the side of the Founders and my opponents side is that of tyranny", why not just post what the Founding fathers actually said and compare them to our political ideology today?
> 
> Left wingers use the General Welfare clause to justify the nanny state.  Problem is, the person that wrote the General Welfare clause commented on what he wrote, showing us that it was never designed to usher in the nanny state and socialism.
> 
> James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
> 
> * James Madison Quote*
> *“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison
> ~ James Madison
> (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
> On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties. February 7, 1792, referring to a bill to subsidize cod fisherman
> http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm
Click to expand...


This thread title doesn't mention "left wingers".  It mentions Liberalism.  Those are two different things.

You know that --- right?


----------



## Votto

Pogo said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /Not thread
> 
> Modern-day liberalism has little to do with the Colonial definition of "liberalism". The description “liberal” was used in colonial America as the political description for those seeking to change government to a more *limited* role (Lockean). In today’s context they would more likely be called “libertarian” not progressive. Even so, libertarianism is closely aligned with conservatism, as they both seek a limited government with constrained powers, the rights of the individual over the power of the state, and lower taxes.
> 
> Modern-day liberalism embraces none of those values, and more resembles socialism than anything else. Modern-day liberalism believes in higher taxes, more dependence of government, and the willingness to forfeit certain personal liberties in exchange for the "security" big government affords them.
> 
> Worse than that, modern-day liberalism seeks to impose what is "best" for everyone, by using the force and power of the government. We've seen this time and time again: No soda drinks over 16 ounces, no straws, restrictive gun laws, burdensome regulations on business and industry, restrictive consumer laws, and on, and on, and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still /thread.
> 
> You can't just arbitrarily decide you want to start calling a term to mean its own opposite.  Language doesn't work that way.  Liberalism is Liberalism is Liberalism, period.  It means the government takes a minimal role in the public's affairs and that it operates with the consent of the governed.  That IS what it means, period.  The fact that you, or Special Ed (good intellectual company there) choose to remain ignorant _about _that meaning is in no way the fault of the term.  The fault is yours.
> 
> Oh and speaking of misused terms, nobody brought up "Progressive", which was a socio-political movement of a hundred years ago.
> 
> So just to reiterate:
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of this pissing contest of "my side is the side of the Founders and my opponents side is that of tyranny", why not just post what the Founding fathers actually said and compare them to our political ideology today?
> 
> Left wingers use the General Welfare clause to justify the nanny state.  Problem is, the person that wrote the General Welfare clause commented on what he wrote, showing us that it was never designed to usher in the nanny state and socialism.
> 
> James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
> 
> * James Madison Quote*
> *“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison
> ~ James Madison
> (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
> On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties. February 7, 1792, referring to a bill to subsidize cod fisherman
> http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread title doesn't mention "left wingers".  It mentions Liberalism.  Those are two different things.
> 
> You know that --- right?
Click to expand...


I should have used the term Modern liberal.

I don't think it really matters what names are used, so why do you?

What IS important though is identifying the ideologies and matching them appropriately with what we have today.

Using this criteria, the Founding Fathers appear ultra conservative.


----------



## danielpalos

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?


Can you define, liberalism?


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN that's patently impossible since they fought for freedom from a *royalist *government, the very _opposite_ of Liberalism.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes founding liberals( conservatives using todays definition) fought for freedom from big govt as todays conservatives/libertarians do. 1+1=2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.  Why don't you regale the class once again with your charming stories about how Thomas Jefferson founded the Republican Party twenty-eight years after his own death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jefferson and Madison founded Republican Party in 1793 to stand for freedom from govt. And? liberal trying to change subject after he  lost yet another debate?
Click to expand...


Yeah doooooon't think so Sprinkles.  The Republican Party was founded in *1854* in a schoolhouse in Ripon Wisconsin, long after Jefferson and Madison had run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.  That's a historical, recorded FACT and there's nothing your relentless revisionist fiction can do about that.


----------



## Freiheit

That people can govern themselves is perhaps the most radical, liberal political theory ever.


----------



## Votto

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you define, liberalism?
Click to expand...


The classical meaning means the opposite of authoritarianism.

However, people use the term to describe those today who advocate for a centralized collectivist state.  As such, they are inherently authoritarian because they need to control everyone around them via their power

Conversely, the Founding Fathers established Federalism, where the states ran their own affairs as the Federal government played the role of referee.

Today, Federalism has been turned upside down.


----------



## Pogo

Votto said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /Not thread
> 
> Modern-day liberalism has little to do with the Colonial definition of "liberalism". The description “liberal” was used in colonial America as the political description for those seeking to change government to a more *limited* role (Lockean). In today’s context they would more likely be called “libertarian” not progressive. Even so, libertarianism is closely aligned with conservatism, as they both seek a limited government with constrained powers, the rights of the individual over the power of the state, and lower taxes.
> 
> Modern-day liberalism embraces none of those values, and more resembles socialism than anything else. Modern-day liberalism believes in higher taxes, more dependence of government, and the willingness to forfeit certain personal liberties in exchange for the "security" big government affords them.
> 
> Worse than that, modern-day liberalism seeks to impose what is "best" for everyone, by using the force and power of the government. We've seen this time and time again: No soda drinks over 16 ounces, no straws, restrictive gun laws, burdensome regulations on business and industry, restrictive consumer laws, and on, and on, and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still /thread.
> 
> You can't just arbitrarily decide you want to start calling a term to mean its own opposite.  Language doesn't work that way.  Liberalism is Liberalism is Liberalism, period.  It means the government takes a minimal role in the public's affairs and that it operates with the consent of the governed.  That IS what it means, period.  The fact that you, or Special Ed (good intellectual company there) choose to remain ignorant _about _that meaning is in no way the fault of the term.  The fault is yours.
> 
> Oh and speaking of misused terms, nobody brought up "Progressive", which was a socio-political movement of a hundred years ago.
> 
> So just to reiterate:
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of this pissing contest of "my side is the side of the Founders and my opponents side is that of tyranny", why not just post what the Founding fathers actually said and compare them to our political ideology today?
> 
> Left wingers use the General Welfare clause to justify the nanny state.  Problem is, the person that wrote the General Welfare clause commented on what he wrote, showing us that it was never designed to usher in the nanny state and socialism.
> 
> James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
> 
> * James Madison Quote*
> *“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison
> ~ James Madison
> (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
> On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties. February 7, 1792, referring to a bill to subsidize cod fisherman
> http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread title doesn't mention "left wingers".  It mentions Liberalism.  Those are two different things.
> 
> You know that --- right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should have used the term Modern liberal.
Click to expand...


Again --- "Liberal" is Liberal.  It's not dependent on era.  All "modern Liberal" tells us is that the person in question is currently alive.  As opposed to being a Jefferson/Madison zombie crawling out of the crypt to found a political party decades after they're already dead.

Which is off the point anyway, that being that you just conflated "Liberals" with "left wingers".  You can't do that.



Votto said:


> I don't think it really matters what names are used, so why do you?



Ask the OP.  He brought up the idea of Liberalism being made "illegal" via _its own Constitution._

Just after which he went into all manner of incoherent warbling about describing Europe, China and the British Empire as "magic liberal" places, whatever the fuck that means, and your guess is as good as mine.




Votto said:


> What IS important though is identifying the ideologies and matching them appropriately with what we have today.
> 
> Using this criteria, the Founding Fathers appear ultra conservative.



Once AGAIN ---- the conservatives of the Founding Fathers' time were called "Loyalists".  They were the ones who _*wanted to*_ be ruled by Britain.  The FFs rebelled against that idea, and philosophically against the idea of royalty itself, _which is the essence of Liberalism_.  The conservatives believed in, and still believe in, a striated society where some are "destined" to rule and others to be ruled.


----------



## Pogo

Votto said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you define, liberalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The classical meaning means the opposite of authoritarianism.
> 
> However, people use the term to describe those today who advocate for a centralized collectivist state.  As such, they are inherently authoritarian because they need to control everyone around them via their power
> 
> Conversely, the Founding Fathers established Federalism, where the states ran their own affairs as the Federal government played the role of referee.
> 
> Today, Federalism has been turned upside down.
Click to expand...


Once again you're leaning on the crutch that "some people misuse the term, therefore let's throw up our hands".

And once again that's on THEM.


----------



## Votto

Freiheit said:


> That people can govern themselves is perhaps the most radical, liberal political theory ever.



One of the reasons I oppose a centralized collectivist state is the lack of representation.

So when does your vote count the most?  Is it when you are voting for a state governor or a President?  Naturally, it is when you are voting for a governor.  There are not as many votes so it counts more, and the person you are voting for lives in the same state you do, which assumes a mutual interest is at play.

Conversely, voting for a President is basically a wasted vote due to the large number of voters and the electoral system.

Additionally, the President is suppose to represent the entire country and does not much care about your local issues as would a governor.

So as we see, the centralized collectivist system is inferior to Federalism in terms of voter representation, and was not a lack of representation what the entire Revolution was all about?

Unfortunately for us, the Federal government has usurped much of the states power to the point that the states are held hostage to what the Federal government dictates to them.  So the power that really matters today is that of the Federal government, for which there is very little representation.


----------



## Natural Citizen

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?



Well, wait a second. We're gonna have to clarify some things first, before we delve into this too deeply.

Whose good works are the reason they're still fonding our balls at the airport? I was under the impression this was a bipartisan agreement in Washington? And I'm pretty sure Toby Keith was in the mix some how, too. I, for one, do not consent to this. Not at all. 

And another thing. Whose good deed was it to keep the Federal Reserve? I'm under the impression that's a bipartisan affair, too. I want that thing gone. Like yesterday. 

I'l try to think of some more stuff, but those two good deeds are what pop into my nawgin first.


----------



## danielpalos

Votto said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you define, liberalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The classical meaning means the opposite of authoritarianism.
> 
> However, people use the term to describe those today who advocate for a centralized collectivist state.  As such, they are inherently authoritarian because they need to control everyone around them via their power
> 
> Conversely, the Founding Fathers established Federalism, where the states ran their own affairs as the Federal government played the role of referee.
> 
> Today, Federalism has been turned upside down.
Click to expand...

This is what we are supposed to be doing:



> *We the People* of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## JGalt

Pogo said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you define, liberalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The classical meaning means the opposite of authoritarianism.
> 
> However, people use the term to describe those today who advocate for a centralized collectivist state.  As such, they are inherently authoritarian because they need to control everyone around them via their power
> 
> Conversely, the Founding Fathers established Federalism, where the states ran their own affairs as the Federal government played the role of referee.
> 
> Today, Federalism has been turned upside down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you're leaning on the crutch that "some people misuse the term, therefore let's throw up our hands".
> 
> And once again that's on THEM.
Click to expand...


You're a cheap date. I made you spend the last two hours of your precious time defining, re-defining, revising, and defending the definition of what "liberalism" is supposed to be.

A raccoon enthralled with a ball of tinfoil isn't half this much fun.


----------



## Freiheit

Natural Citizen said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, wait a second. We're gonna have to clarify some things first, before we delve into this too deeply.
> 
> Whose good works are the reason they're still fonding our balls at the airport? I was under the impression this was a bipartisan agreement in Washington? And I'm pretty sure Toby Keith was in the mix some how, too. I, for one, do not consent to this. Not at all.
> 
> And another thing. Whose good deed was it to keep the Federal Reserve? I'm under the impression that's a bipartisan affair, too. I want that thing gone. Like yesterday.
> 
> I'l try to think of some more stuff, but those two good deeds are what pop into my nawgin first.
Click to expand...


I want to know who thought the Patriot Act enhanced the general welfare.  Signing that bill made G.W. Bush, in my eyes,
the most reprehesible, worst president in the history of this country.


----------



## Pogo

JGalt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you define, liberalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The classical meaning means the opposite of authoritarianism.
> 
> However, people use the term to describe those today who advocate for a centralized collectivist state.  As such, they are inherently authoritarian because they need to control everyone around them via their power
> 
> Conversely, the Founding Fathers established Federalism, where the states ran their own affairs as the Federal government played the role of referee.
> 
> Today, Federalism has been turned upside down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you're leaning on the crutch that "some people misuse the term, therefore let's throw up our hands".
> 
> And once again that's on THEM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a cheap date. I made you spend the last two hours of your precious time defining, re-defining, revising, and defending the definition of what "liberalism" is supposed to be.
> 
> A raccoon enthralled with a ball of tinfoil isn't half this much fun.
Click to expand...


I don't need to "define/re-define" jack shit.  This definition was established way before you or I got here.


----------



## Votto

Pogo said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> /Not thread
> 
> Modern-day liberalism has little to do with the Colonial definition of "liberalism". The description “liberal” was used in colonial America as the political description for those seeking to change government to a more *limited* role (Lockean). In today’s context they would more likely be called “libertarian” not progressive. Even so, libertarianism is closely aligned with conservatism, as they both seek a limited government with constrained powers, the rights of the individual over the power of the state, and lower taxes.
> 
> Modern-day liberalism embraces none of those values, and more resembles socialism than anything else. Modern-day liberalism believes in higher taxes, more dependence of government, and the willingness to forfeit certain personal liberties in exchange for the "security" big government affords them.
> 
> Worse than that, modern-day liberalism seeks to impose what is "best" for everyone, by using the force and power of the government. We've seen this time and time again: No soda drinks over 16 ounces, no straws, restrictive gun laws, burdensome regulations on business and industry, restrictive consumer laws, and on, and on, and on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still /thread.
> 
> You can't just arbitrarily decide you want to start calling a term to mean its own opposite.  Language doesn't work that way.  Liberalism is Liberalism is Liberalism, period.  It means the government takes a minimal role in the public's affairs and that it operates with the consent of the governed.  That IS what it means, period.  The fact that you, or Special Ed (good intellectual company there) choose to remain ignorant _about _that meaning is in no way the fault of the term.  The fault is yours.
> 
> Oh and speaking of misused terms, nobody brought up "Progressive", which was a socio-political movement of a hundred years ago.
> 
> So just to reiterate:
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of this pissing contest of "my side is the side of the Founders and my opponents side is that of tyranny", why not just post what the Founding fathers actually said and compare them to our political ideology today?
> 
> Left wingers use the General Welfare clause to justify the nanny state.  Problem is, the person that wrote the General Welfare clause commented on what he wrote, showing us that it was never designed to usher in the nanny state and socialism.
> 
> James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
> 
> * James Madison Quote*
> *“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison
> ~ James Madison
> (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
> On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties. February 7, 1792, referring to a bill to subsidize cod fisherman
> http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread title doesn't mention "left wingers".  It mentions Liberalism.  Those are two different things.
> 
> You know that --- right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should have used the term Modern liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again --- "Liberal" is Liberal.  It's not dependent on era.  All "modern Liberal" tells us is that the person in question is currently alive.  As opposed to being a Jefferson/Madison zombie crawling out of the crypt to found a political party decades after they're already dead.
> 
> Which is off the point anyway, that being that you just conflated "Liberals" with "left wingers".  You can't do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it really matters what names are used, so why do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the OP.  He brought up the idea of Liberalism being made "illegal" via _its own Constitution._
> 
> Just after which he went into all manner of incoherent warbling about describing Europe, China and the British Empire as "magic liberal" places, whatever the fuck that means, and your guess is as good as mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> What IS important though is identifying the ideologies and matching them appropriately with what we have today.
> 
> Using this criteria, the Founding Fathers appear ultra conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN ---- the conservatives of the Founding Fathers' time were called "Loyalists".  They were the ones who _*wanted to*_ be ruled by Britain.  The FFs rebelled against that idea, and philosophically against the idea of royalty itself, _which is the essence of Liberalism_.  The conservatives believed in, and still believe in, a striated society where some are "destined" to rule and others to be ruled.
Click to expand...


It was clear that the Founding Fathers intended a limited government.  I don't think you would even argue with that.  Today, who strives for a limited government?  Neither party, that's who, although there are a smattering of very silent conservative voices who do.

But even though the Founding Fathers had just fought a bloody revolution to be free from tyranny, they inexplicably adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to speak out against those in government.  Luckily, Thomas Jefferson rose up to fight this and succeeded in large measure against them.  However, he took full advantage of those unconstitutional laws before getting rid of most of it.  Then what was left, FDR used to lock up innocent Japanese Americans.

So as we see, centralized power is seductive and almost irresistible, even for those who had just fought to be free from it.  It is indeed remarkable then that Jefferson accomplished what he did in fighting most of it off.  In fact, many did not want to sign the Constitution because they felt that it would devolve into dictatorship again.

Most probably don't even realize that the first Constitution was the Articles of Confederation, but after a few years the consensus was that it did not power the Federal government enough, so they went to the Constitution that we have today.  This worked fairly well for over a hundred years before the Progressives amended it and further empowered the Federal government via the Federal Income tax, something that SCOTUS struck down as Unconstitutional a decade prior, and they also created their own bank with the Fed.

After they did this, it shifted the balance towards a Federal government that would destroy the concept of Federalism once and for all.  There is no going back.  Once you lose your freedom, you have to fight a bloody war to get it back.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Freiheit said:


> I want to know who thought the Patriot Act enhanced the general welfare.  Signing that bill made G.W. Bush, in my eyes, the most reprehesible, worst president in the history of this country.



I'm still baffled at how they got away with calling it the Patriot Act.


----------



## Votto

Natural Citizen said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to know who thought the Patriot Act enhanced the general welfare.  Signing that bill made G.W. Bush, in my eyes, the most reprehesible, worst president in the history of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still baffled at how they got away with calling it the Patriot Act.
Click to expand...


It's the psychology of words is all.

If you are not a Patriot, then you oppose them.  LOL

This is why I don't generally haggle over terms that are twisted in this way, and instead discuss ideological concepts which is much harder to twist around.


----------



## danielpalos

Freiheit said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, wait a second. We're gonna have to clarify some things first, before we delve into this too deeply.
> 
> Whose good works are the reason they're still fonding our balls at the airport? I was under the impression this was a bipartisan agreement in Washington? And I'm pretty sure Toby Keith was in the mix some how, too. I, for one, do not consent to this. Not at all.
> 
> And another thing. Whose good deed was it to keep the Federal Reserve? I'm under the impression that's a bipartisan affair, too. I want that thing gone. Like yesterday.
> 
> I'l try to think of some more stuff, but those two good deeds are what pop into my nawgin first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to know who thought the Patriot Act enhanced the general welfare.  Signing that bill made G.W. Bush, in my eyes,
> the most reprehesible, worst president in the history of this country.
Click to expand...

only the right wing, claimed that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Votto said:


> Today, who strives for a limited government?  Neither party, that's who, although there are a smattering of very silent conservative voices who do.
> .



smattering?? Trump has huge tax cut and huge opposition to Obamacare!!


----------



## Pogo

Votto said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still /thread.
> 
> You can't just arbitrarily decide you want to start calling a term to mean its own opposite.  Language doesn't work that way.  Liberalism is Liberalism is Liberalism, period.  It means the government takes a minimal role in the public's affairs and that it operates with the consent of the governed.  That IS what it means, period.  The fact that you, or Special Ed (good intellectual company there) choose to remain ignorant _about _that meaning is in no way the fault of the term.  The fault is yours.
> 
> Oh and speaking of misused terms, nobody brought up "Progressive", which was a socio-political movement of a hundred years ago.
> 
> So just to reiterate:
> 
> /thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of this pissing contest of "my side is the side of the Founders and my opponents side is that of tyranny", why not just post what the Founding fathers actually said and compare them to our political ideology today?
> 
> Left wingers use the General Welfare clause to justify the nanny state.  Problem is, the person that wrote the General Welfare clause commented on what he wrote, showing us that it was never designed to usher in the nanny state and socialism.
> 
> James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
> 
> * James Madison Quote*
> *“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison
> ~ James Madison
> (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
> On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties. February 7, 1792, referring to a bill to subsidize cod fisherman
> http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread title doesn't mention "left wingers".  It mentions Liberalism.  Those are two different things.
> 
> You know that --- right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should have used the term Modern liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again --- "Liberal" is Liberal.  It's not dependent on era.  All "modern Liberal" tells us is that the person in question is currently alive.  As opposed to being a Jefferson/Madison zombie crawling out of the crypt to found a political party decades after they're already dead.
> 
> Which is off the point anyway, that being that you just conflated "Liberals" with "left wingers".  You can't do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it really matters what names are used, so why do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the OP.  He brought up the idea of Liberalism being made "illegal" via _its own Constitution._
> 
> Just after which he went into all manner of incoherent warbling about describing Europe, China and the British Empire as "magic liberal" places, whatever the fuck that means, and your guess is as good as mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> What IS important though is identifying the ideologies and matching them appropriately with what we have today.
> 
> Using this criteria, the Founding Fathers appear ultra conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN ---- the conservatives of the Founding Fathers' time were called "Loyalists".  They were the ones who _*wanted to*_ be ruled by Britain.  The FFs rebelled against that idea, and philosophically against the idea of royalty itself, _which is the essence of Liberalism_.  The conservatives believed in, and still believe in, a striated society where some are "destined" to rule and others to be ruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was clear that the Founding Fathers intended a limited government.  I don't think you would even argue with that.  Today, who strives for a limited government?  Neither party, that's who, although there are a smattering of very silent conservative voices who do.
> 
> But even though the Founding Fathers had just fought a bloody revolution to be free from tyranny, they inexplicably adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to speak out against those in government.  Luckily, Thomas Jefferson rose up to fight this and succeeded in large measure against them.  However, he took full advantage of those unconstitutional laws before getting rid of most of it.  Then what was left, FDR used to lock up innocent Japanese Americans.
> 
> So as we see, centralized power is seductive and almost irresistible, even for those who had just fought to be free from it.  It is indeed remarkable then that Jefferson accomplished what he did in fighting most of it off.  In fact, many did not want to sign the Constitution because they felt that it would devolve into dictatorship again.
> 
> Most probably don't even realize that the first Constitution was the Articles of Confederation, but after a few years the consensus was that it did not power the Federal government enough, so they went to the Constitution that we have today.  This worked fairly well for over a hundred years before the Progressives amended it and further empowered the Federal government via the Federal Income tax, something that SCOTUS struck down as Unconstitutional a decade prior, and they also created their own bank with the Fed.
> 
> After they did this, it shifted the balance towards a Federal government that would destroy the concept of Federalism once and for all.  There is no going back.  Once you lose your freedom, you have to fight a bloody war to get it back.
Click to expand...


Not sure what the point of all that verbiage is but now you're on to political parties.  Liberalism is not a political party.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Votto said:


> Most probably don't even realize that the first Constitution was the Articles of Confederation, but after a few years the consensus was that it did not power the Federal government enough, so they went to the Constitution that we have today.


This is a misunderstanding!!. Articles worked fine and not one state would have voted to ratify Constitution had they not been lied to ie told that it was a living Constitution that could mean whatever we wanted it to mean!!


----------



## Votto

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, who strives for a limited government?  Neither party, that's who, although there are a smattering of very silent conservative voices who do.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smattering?? Trump has huge tax cut and huge opposition to Obamacare!!
Click to expand...


You conclude that a tax cut equals a limited government?

Tell me, the exponentially increasing debt that is one of the results, does that promote a limited government as well?  It seems to me that debt equals slavery, something neither party will own up to because both have created the largest debt in the history of mankind.


Now he did get rid of a number of regulations, which is leaning towards a limited government.

But regulations is another pet peeve of mine.  Here Congress has usurped their own power willingly by creating a Fourth Branch of government in the Executive Branch.  Here we have a army of regulators that pass regulations that are just as powerful as laws passed by Congress.  Trouble is, that is not Constitutional.  These regulators cannot be voted in or out.  It is an outrage.

Every year the government churns out about 40,000 new regulations and laws, and with every law comes decreased liberty, the opposite of the term liberal.


----------



## Pogo

Natural Citizen said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to know who thought the Patriot Act enhanced the general welfare.  Signing that bill made G.W. Bush, in my eyes, the most reprehesible, worst president in the history of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still baffled at how they got away with calling it the Patriot Act.
Click to expand...


It's more euphemism.  The way we call the incidental slaughter of innocent civilians "collateral damage".  Or the way a bankruptcy is called a "reorganization".

It's "PATRIOT Act" for what it's worth -- an acronym.  But obviously made up to pretend it's something it isn't.  Much like the national anthem exercise at a football game.


----------



## Mr Natural

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> smattering?? Trump has huge tax cut and huge opposition to Obamacare!!



Followed by huge deficits and debt and nothing replacing Obamacare.

Well done,  Trumpy,  well done.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> I don't need to "define/re-define" jack shit.  This definition was established way before you or I got here.



conversations are based on definitions in common usage today, not definitions from other times and places. Imagine having a conversations wherein you must point out constantly you are using definitions from other times and places. 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Mr Clean said:


> Followed by huge deficits and debt and nothing replacing Obamacare.
> 
> Well done,  Trumpy,  well done.



Trump has done well indeed given the libsocialist cancer afflicting our country!


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to "define/re-define" jack shit.  This definition was established way before you or I got here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conversations are based on definitions in common usage today, not definitions from other times and places. Imagine having a conversations wherein you must point out constantly you are using definitions from other times and places. 1+1=2
Click to expand...


That's exactly what you're doing here suggesting the Liberals who wrote the Constitution should by that same document be made "illegal".  Which even if it were possible would be overtly anti-Liberal.

Not to mention whatever that drunk incoherency about "magic liberalism" in Europe and China was supposed to be.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> It's "PATRIOT Act" for what it's worth -- an acronym.  But obviously made up to pretend it's something it isn't.  Much like the national anthem exercise at a football game.


 It is Patriot Act to remind us it is part of  patriots war against terrorists


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> That's exactly what you're doing here suggesting the Liberals [conservatioves using today's definitions] who wrote the Constitution should by that same document be made "illegal".  Which even if it were possible would be overtly anti-Liberal.


 not if you are using today's definitions. 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> Not to mention whatever that drunk incoherency about "magic liberalism" in Europe and China was supposed to be.



liberals believe govt is magical and so can magically solve every problem. College too expensive? Let govt make it free? Pay to low? Let govt bump it up to $15/hr.


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, who strives for a limited government?  Neither party, that's who, although there are a smattering of very silent conservative voices who do.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smattering?? Trump has huge tax cut and huge opposition to Obamacare!!
Click to expand...

And a $1.3 trillion deficit. Where's your feigned outrage, con?


----------



## Mr Natural

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Trump has done well indeed given the libsocialist cancer afflicting our country!



Libsocialists (aka Democrats in your book) don’t control anything.

And yet your beloved republicans can’t seem to get anything done to relieve us of the Liberal curse.

Are the republicans really that ineffective and useless?


----------



## WTP

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?


You don't know what the Constitution says. Show us where it says anything about Liberal government is illegal? You can't, therefore, you are a liar, and you haven't a clue what is in the Constitution. Therefore, you have no understanding of its principles.


----------



## WTP

Freiheit said:


> Were exactly is Liberalism declared illegal in the constitution?  Chapter and verse.


He or she won't answer because it's a lie.


----------



## WTP

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, who strives for a limited government?  Neither party, that's who, although there are a smattering of very silent conservative voices who do.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smattering?? Trump has huge tax cut and huge opposition to Obamacare!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a $1.3 trillion deficit. Where's your feigned outrage, con?
Click to expand...

Small government!


----------



## miketx

Pogo said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
Click to expand...

How to Stop Lying


----------



## deanrd

It's always hilarious when right wing conservatives swear they are the moral ones.

Look at Trump.


----------



## regent

Read our founding documents for a clue to liberalism. The key was for all people to be treated as equally as possible. No more royalty and nobles with different blood that determined how one was treated. As America grew and some people were not able to live equally, government began to help those people. Schools were established for all people to be able to attend, even the crippled.
One question: is America and the world growing more liberal?


----------



## WTP

regent said:


> Read our founding documents for a clue to liberalism. The key was for all people to be treated as equally as possible. No more royalty and nobles with different blood that determined how one was treated. As America grew and some people were not able to live equally, government began to help those people. Schools were established for all people to be able to attend, even the crippled.
> One question: is America and the world growing more liberal?


If you think it is more "liberal", then you never paid attention to the clear message from our founders; *"We the people". *Take a minute to decide  for yourself what that meant, so long ago. For me, the message couldn't be clearer.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Read our founding documents for a clue to liberalism. The key was for all people to be treated as equally as possible.



you mean a clue to conservatism wherein govt was kept small because it had been the source of evil in human history. Both liberals and conservatives want people to be treated equally so that is meaningless.


----------



## regent

WTP said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read our founding documents for a clue to liberalism. The key was for all people to be treated as equally as possible. No more royalty and nobles with different blood that determined how one was treated. As America grew and some people were not able to live equally, government began to help those people. Schools were established for all people to be able to attend, even the crippled.
> One question: is America and the world growing more liberal?
> 
> 
> 
> If you think it is more "liberal", then you never paid attention to the clear message from our founders; *"We the people". *Take a minute to decide  for yourself what that meant, so long ago. For me, the message couldn't be clearer.
Click to expand...

Nope, only paid attention to both, our history and world history.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

WTP said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read our founding documents for a clue to liberalism. The key was for all people to be treated as equally as possible. No more royalty and nobles with different blood that determined how one was treated. As America grew and some people were not able to live equally, government began to help those people. Schools were established for all people to be able to attend, even the crippled.
> One question: is America and the world growing more liberal?
> 
> 
> 
> If you think it is more "liberal", then you never paid attention to the clear message from our founders; *"We the people". *Take a minute to decide  for yourself what that meant, so long ago. For me, the message couldn't be clearer.
Click to expand...


 why so afraid to tell us what the secret message is?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> One question: is America and the world growing more liberal?



obviously not since China just adopted Republican freedom and capitalism. Had it been up to liberals they would have stayed communist and keep experimenting with statism as more millions died. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

WTP said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were exactly is Liberalism declared illegal in the constitution?  Chapter and verse.
> 
> 
> 
> He or she won't answer because it's a lie.
Click to expand...


Constitution strictly limited federal govt to a few carefully enumerated powers thus in effect making liberalism illegal. This is why liberals spied for Stalin, elected Sanders, and want a living communist Constitution. Now you must understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, who strives for a limited government?  Neither party, that's who, although there are a smattering of very silent conservative voices who do.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smattering?? Trump has huge tax cut and huge opposition to Obamacare!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a $1.3 trillion deficit. Where's your feigned outrage, con?
Click to expand...


Conservatives have tried to make deficits illegal 30 times but Democrats killed each effort so now they are not trying. Do you understand?.


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, who strives for a limited government?  Neither party, that's who, although there are a smattering of very silent conservative voices who do.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smattering?? Trump has huge tax cut and huge opposition to Obamacare!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a $1.3 trillion deficit. Where's your feigned outrage, con?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives have tried to make deficits illegal 30 times but Democrats killed each effort so now they are not trying. Do you understand?.
Click to expand...

They could do so now since they control both chambers of Congress and the Executive branch.

Instead, they are giving us a $1.3 trillion deficit.

So again I ask since you shied the first time.... where’s your feigned outrage, con?


----------



## Mr Natural

L


EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Conservatives have tried to make deficits illegal 30 times but Democrats killed each effort so now they are not trying. Do you understand?.



I’d like to hear about those 30 times.  Would you mind expounding for  us people in the cheap seats?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Faun

Mr Clean said:


> L
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives have tried to make deficits illegal 30 times but Democrats killed each effort so now they are not trying. Do you understand?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’d like to hear about those 30 times.  Would you mind expounding for  us people in the cheap seats?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

You must have missed the part where Crazy Eddie was blaming Democrats’ failures to outlaw federal deficits for why Republicans are handing us a $1.3 trillion deficit.

Apparently, it’s our fault they can’t control themselves.


----------



## whitehall

The post is typical of the ignorant lefties who were brought up with a video game vision of history. It belongs in the rubber room with the space invader junk.


----------



## regent

whitehall said:


> The post is typical of the ignorant lefties who were brought up with a video game vision of history. It belongs in the rubber room with the space invader junk.


 Yes liberals still believe that only one president paid off the debt and it was a Democrat.


----------



## regent

Pogo said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism.  Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The post about "classic Liberalism" is classic revisionism.  The conservatives at the time the Constitution was writ were the Loylalists who wanted to remain England's colony and believed in government hierarchy/meritocracy.  The conservatives were King George's people.  Now he wants to open the history books and change everybody's clothes because his own people were on the wrong side.
Click to expand...

Conservatives have to change our Constitutional history or they look like conservative Federalsts.


----------



## regent

whitehall said:


> The post is typical of the ignorant lefties who were brought up with a video game vision of history. It belongs in the rubber room with the space invader junk.


How many times have I read on these boards that American historians are communists? Is that true or not?


----------



## dblack

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?


Special Ed is back!!!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> They could do so now since they control both chambers of Congress and the Executive branch.



if they really controlled by enough they could build a wall. Do you understand?1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The post is typical of the ignorant lefties who were brought up with a video game vision of history. It belongs in the rubber room with the space invader junk.
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have I read on these boards that American historians are communists? Is that true or not?
Click to expand...


they are very left wing although probably would  not self identify as communists given the 120 million dead!! Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> You must have missed the part where Crazy Eddie was blaming Democrats’ failures to outlaw federal deficits for why Republicans are handing us a $1.3 trillion deficit.
> 
> Apparently, it’s our fault they can’t control themselves.



Republican have tried 30 times to make deficits illegal but each effort was killed by liberals who exist only 
on the promise of always more welfare entitlements, which  would be jeopardized by a balanced  budget. Republicans will pass a BBA the second there is enough support for it! Do you understand now?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Freiheit said:


> Were exactly is Liberalism declared illegal in the constitution?  Chapter and verse.



by limiting central govt to a few enumerated powers our founders made liberalism illegal. This is 
the first day of the rest of your life! Astounding what your Marxist handlers kept from you isn't it??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> The conservatives at the time the Constitution was writ were the Loylalists who wanted to remain England's colony and believed in government hierarchy/meritocracy.  The conservatives were King George's people..



and the liberals in Germany 1932 wanted change to Hitler, and conservatives  were loyalists to Weimar Republic?? And in 1945 conservative were those who were loyal to Hitler and liberal were those who wanted to change to American values?

Isn't thinking fun?? 1+1=2 When we talk we use today's local definitions not defintions from other times and places. Notice a conservative is always a kindergarten teacher.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> You can't just arbitrarily decide you want to start calling a term to mean its own opposite.  Language doesn't work that way.


OMG!!!of course it does!!!! words are defined by common usage. William Buckey Jr. said conservatives were "those of us against govt" No one challenged it obviously!!! 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> Liberalism is Liberalism is Liberalism, period.  It means the government takes a minimal role in the public's affairs and that it operates with the consent of the governed.  That IS what it means, period.



so Obamacare is a minimal role in health care and capitalism is a major role? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


----------



## rightwinger

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?


Liberals wrote our Constitution 

They could have made conservatives illegal but let them stay


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism.  Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our founders were classical liberals ie for freedom from big liberal govt just like modern conservatives/libertarians. Make sense now?
Click to expand...

At least you’re consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

The liberals who founded this country are the same liberals today: advocates of the rule of law, defenders of citizens’ rights and protected liberties – rights and protected liberties not subject to ‘majority rule’ or the ‘will of the people’; rights and protected liberties safeguarded by the Constitution and its case law.

And conservatives today as during the Foundation Era have consistently opposed the rule of law and the inalienable rights of citizens, attempting to propagate the wrongheaded notion that citizens’ rights are subject to the ‘will of the people,’ and that government has the authority to determine who will and will not have his rights and protected liberties.

Proof of this is demonstrated by conservatives’ efforts to disadvantage gay and transgender Americans through force of law, to compel women to give birth against their will, and to undermine the right of minorities to vote.

Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers to protect the rights of citizens from the hateful political and social agenda conservatives pursue today.


----------



## rightwinger

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, who strives for a limited government?  Neither party, that's who, although there are a smattering of very silent conservative voices who do.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smattering?? Trump has huge tax cut and huge opposition to Obamacare!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a $1.3 trillion deficit. Where's your feigned outrage, con?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives have tried to make deficits illegal 30 times but Democrats killed each effort so now they are not trying. Do you understand?.
Click to expand...

Why have Conservatives never had a balanced budget?
You don’t need a law to do it


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could do so now since they control both chambers of Congress and the Executive branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if they really controlled by enough they could build a wall. Do you understand?1+1=2
Click to expand...

I understand that you rightards never stop bitching and moaning, even when you’re in control of the government.

Your team has complete control of the government now and they just gave us a $1.3 trillion deficit. *That’s on them, no one else.*

I have no doubt if Democrats did that, y’all would be screaming at the top of your lungs. Republicans do it and instead of complaining, you just blame Democrats.

So thanks. You prove you don’t care about the deficit; you don’t care about the debt; all you care about is partisan politics.


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed the part where Crazy Eddie was blaming Democrats’ failures to outlaw federal deficits for why Republicans are handing us a $1.3 trillion deficit.
> 
> Apparently, it’s our fault they can’t control themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican have tried 30 times to make deficits illegal but each effort was killed by liberals who exist only
> on the promise of always more welfare entitlements, which  would be jeopardized by a balanced  budget. Republicans will pass a BBA the second there is enough support for it! Do you understand now?
Click to expand...

You dumbfuck. Republicans don’t need to outlaw deficits to balance the budget.  

Instead of doing that, they gave us a $1.3 trillion deficit. Where’s your feigned outrage, con?


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were exactly is Liberalism declared illegal in the constitution?  Chapter and verse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by limiting central govt to a few enumerated powers our founders made liberalism illegal. This is
> the first day of the rest of your life! Astounding what your Marxist handlers kept from you isn't it??
Click to expand...

The enumerated powers aren’t the extent of the list. If it was, the Air Force would be unconstitutional.


----------



## rightwinger

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were exactly is Liberalism declared illegal in the constitution?  Chapter and verse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by limiting central govt to a few enumerated powers our founders made liberalism illegal. This is
> the first day of the rest of your life! Astounding what your Marxist handlers kept from you isn't it??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The enumerated powers aren’t the extent of the list. If it was, the Air Force would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

And the Space Force


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?


That as a rightist you consider being liberal ‘illegal’ and contemplate ‘what should be done with them’ is further confirmation of the fact that conservativism is fundamentally authoritarian, seeks to compel conformity, is hostile to expressions of individual liberty, and is completely repugnant to the founding principles of this Nation.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That as a rightist you consider being liberal ‘illegal’ and contemplate ‘what should be done with them’ is further confirmation of the fact that conservativism is fundamentally authoritarian, seeks to compel conformity, is hostile to expressions of individual liberty, and is completely repugnant to the founding principles of this Nation.



getting rid of killers or sex offenders for example does not make you authoritarian!! Liberals are opposed to basic principle of America and so they don't belong here among us in theory and they certainly should not be allowed to hold office  when they must lie while taking oath of office to preserve protect Constitutiion which in reality they want to turn into a living communist constitution. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were exactly is Liberalism declared illegal in the constitution?  Chapter and verse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by limiting central govt to a few enumerated powers our founders made liberalism illegal. This is
> the first day of the rest of your life! Astounding what your Marxist handlers kept from you isn't it??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The enumerated powers aren’t the extent of the list. If it was, the Air Force would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


Air Force is trivial extension of military 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> You dumbfuck. Republicans don’t need to outlaw deficits to balance the budget.



dear, obviously they do need to since nothing else has worked! 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> Instead of doing that, they gave us a $1.3 trillion deficit. Where’s your feigned outrage, con?



When there is enough support Republicans will pass BBA or balance budget without it. Democrats can never support this since huge budgets support their crippling welfare programs without which Democrats would have no raison detre. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> I understand that you rightards never stop bitching and moaning, even when you’re in control of the government.
> .



control when Trump cant build wall, fire AG, or get nominee for SCOTUS voted in???? See why we say liberals are so very very slow???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> Your team has complete control of the government now



see why we say liberals are so very very slow??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The liberals who founded this country are the same liberals today: advocates of the rule of law, defenders of citizens’ rights and protected liberties –.



got it, so liberals are for mom and apple pie and conservatives are opposed! Might have been nice to go to college before offering you opinion about things!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> How many times have I read on these boards that American historians are communists? Is that true or not?



liberal Art faculty are about 95% left wing


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism.  Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The post about "classic Liberalism" is classic revisionism.  The conservatives at the time the Constitution was writ were the Loylalists who wanted to remain England's colony and believed in government hierarchy/meritocracy.  The conservatives were King George's people.  Now he wants to open the history books and change everybody's clothes because his own people were on the wrong side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives have to change our Constitutional history or they look like conservative Federalsts.
Click to expand...


Jefferson and Madison formed Republican party in 1793 to oppose big govt federalism. Modernn Republicans still love the small govt agenda of Jefferson while modern liberal federalists hate it 100%


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you rightards never stop bitching and moaning, even when you’re in control of the government.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> control when Trump cant build wall, fire AG, or get nominee for SCOTUS voted in???? See why we say liberals are so very very slow???
Click to expand...

Speaking of slow, all presidents have such limitations and nothing you mentioned has anything to do with reducing the deficit. But then no one ever accused you of being a critical thinker.

So how many more excuses do you need for why the deficit blew up to $1.3 trillion under a Republican president, Republican-led House and a Republican-led Senate? When does reality seep in past your armor of ignorance? Ever??


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were exactly is Liberalism declared illegal in the constitution?  Chapter and verse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by limiting central govt to a few enumerated powers our founders made liberalism illegal. This is
> the first day of the rest of your life! Astounding what your Marxist handlers kept from you isn't it??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The enumerated powers aren’t the extent of the list. If it was, the Air Force would be unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Air Force is trivial extension of military 1+1=2
Click to expand...

The Air Force is not an enumerated power. You don't get to "extend" enumerated powers to ones you like when your idiotic position is that they are cast in stone and no others are allowed.


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of doing that, they gave us a $1.3 trillion deficit. Where’s your feigned outrage, con?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When there is enough support Republicans will pass BBA or balance budget without it. Democrats can never support this since huge budgets support their crippling welfare programs without which Democrats would have no raison detre. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

I understand that this budget is all on Republicans, despite your idiocy … and … I understand you're a hypocrite who can't find even feigned outrage over the right giving us a $1.3 trillion deficit.

Par for the course.


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your team has complete control of the government now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> see why we say liberals are so very very slow??
Click to expand...

No, I don't see that; although it's obvious in you.


----------



## JGalt

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you rightards never stop bitching and moaning, even when you’re in control of the government.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> control when Trump cant build wall, fire AG, or get nominee for SCOTUS voted in???? See why we say liberals are so very very slow???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of slow, all presidents have such limitations and nothing you mentioned has anything to do with reducing the deficit. But then no one ever accused you of being a critical thinker.
> 
> So how many more excuses do you need for why the deficit blew up to $1.3 trillion under a Republican president, Republican-led House and a Republican-led Senate? When does reality seep in past your armor of ignorance? Ever??
Click to expand...



You're bitching about a measly $1.3 trillion when your chocolate messiah doubled the national debt from $9 trillion to almost $20 trillion?


----------



## Faun

JGalt said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you rightards never stop bitching and moaning, even when you’re in control of the government.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> control when Trump cant build wall, fire AG, or get nominee for SCOTUS voted in???? See why we say liberals are so very very slow???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of slow, all presidents have such limitations and nothing you mentioned has anything to do with reducing the deficit. But then no one ever accused you of being a critical thinker.
> 
> So how many more excuses do you need for why the deficit blew up to $1.3 trillion under a Republican president, Republican-led House and a Republican-led Senate? When does reality seep in past your armor of ignorance? Ever??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're bitching about a measly $1.3 trillion when your chocolate messiah doubled the national debt from $9 trillion to almost $20 trillion?
Click to expand...

Most of the debt increase under Obama was due to the shit economy he was handed. Whereas Trump was handed a strong economy where the debt could have been reduced. Meanwhile, despite 8 years of bitching nd moaning about how much debt Obama added, Trump is on pace to add almost as much as Obama and not a peep from the rabid right.


----------



## danielpalos

This what we are supposed to be doing;



> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



Any questions?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of doing that, they gave us a $1.3 trillion deficit. Where’s your feigned outrage, con?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When there is enough support Republicans will pass BBA or balance budget without it. Democrats can never support this since huge budgets support their crippling welfare programs without which Democrats would have no raison detre. Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that this budget is all on Republicans, despite your idiocy … and … I understand you're a hypocrite who can't find even feigned outrage over the right giving us a $1.3 trillion deficit.
> 
> Par for the course.
Click to expand...


The right will deliver a BBA to make deficits illegal the second here is enough support for it and of course liberals will object because a balanced budget would threaten their need for ever growing entitlement payments with which to buy votes and subvert our democracy!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> The Air Force is not an enumerated power.



the military in effect is. 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> all presidents have such limitations



actually not all presidents have equal limitations on their ability to get things done! 1+1=2. Its always like being a kindergarten teacher


----------



## dblack

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?



Education is the key. For those who are able to see the error of their ways, we could set up special schools, to teach them how to live as proper patriots. For those who persist, forced labor is an effective form of persuasion. If all else fails, or we just get bored, there are more "final" solutions available.


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of doing that, they gave us a $1.3 trillion deficit. Where’s your feigned outrage, con?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When there is enough support Republicans will pass BBA or balance budget without it. Democrats can never support this since huge budgets support their crippling welfare programs without which Democrats would have no raison detre. Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that this budget is all on Republicans, despite your idiocy … and … I understand you're a hypocrite who can't find even feigned outrage over the right giving us a $1.3 trillion deficit.
> 
> Par for the course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right will deliver a BBA to make deficits illegal the second here is enough support for it and of course liberals will object because a balanced budget would threaten their need for ever growing entitlement payments with which to buy votes and subvert our democracy!
Click to expand...

Ah, so you’re a hypocrite who doesn’t care when Republicans add $1.3 trillion to the debt because there’s no law from stopping them. 

Figures.


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Air Force is not an enumerated power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the military in effect is. 1+1=2
Click to expand...

Now you’re lying. The word, “military,” doesn’t even appear in the Constitution. The enumerated powers authorize the Congress to only maintain an army and a navy. Anything else is beyond those enumerations. Glad to see you’re finally on board with the reality that Congress isn’t bound by them when it comes to providing for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.


----------



## Nosmo King

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?


Enroll in a Political Science course next quarter!  I'm sure there must be a community college near you.  After you learn about the constitution, read the mess you wrote here and try not to be too embarrassed.


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> all presidents have such limitations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually not all presidents have equal limitations on their ability to get things done! 1+1=2. Its always like being a kindergarten teacher
Click to expand...

You’re fucking deranged, Crazy Eddie. 

I never said they do. I said, “*such* limitations,” in response to you saying, _”...Trump cant build wall, fire AG, or get nominee for SCOTUS.”_

Need me to educate you on the meaning of _”such”_ in the context of your post?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Nosmo King said:


> Enroll in a Political Science course next quarter! .



If I need a course why are you so afraid to point out what you think I don't know? What have 
you learned from your fear?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> all presidents have such limitations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually not all presidents have equal limitations on their ability to get things done! 1+1=2. Its always like being a kindergarten teacher
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re fucking deranged, Crazy Eddie.
> 
> I never said they do. I said, “*such* limitations,” in response to you saying, _”...Trump cant build wall, fire AG, or get nominee for SCOTUS.”_
> 
> Need me to educate you on the meaning of _”such”_ in the context of your post?
Click to expand...

need you tell us what your point is, clearly. Thanks


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> The enumerated powers authorize the Congress to only maintain an army and a navy. Anything else is beyond those enumerations.



wrong of course , unless you are being way too strict. An army and navy were the military at the time. Today there  is no reason to assume govt would object to an Air Force as part of the military. If you asked Congress to authorize an Air Force we can assume 100% would do so don't waste the time. See how easily a liberal is dispatched?


----------



## Nosmo King

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enroll in a Political Science course next quarter! .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I need a course why are you so afraid to point out what you think I don't know? What have
> you learned from your fear?
Click to expand...

You want one party rule.  You do not accept compromise, which is the essential scaffolding,upon which the constitution you claim to venerate, is built.  You are less Conservative than Authoritarian.  And less American by default.


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> all presidents have such limitations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually not all presidents have equal limitations on their ability to get things done! 1+1=2. Its always like being a kindergarten teacher
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re fucking deranged, Crazy Eddie.
> 
> I never said they do. I said, “*such* limitations,” in response to you saying, _”...Trump cant build wall, fire AG, or get nominee for SCOTUS.”_
> 
> Need me to educate you on the meaning of _”such”_ in the context of your post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> need you tell us what your point is, clearly. Thanks
Click to expand...

I did. I’m not surprised the brain-dead conservative can’t understand.


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The enumerated powers authorize the Congress to only maintain an army and a navy. Anything else is beyond those enumerations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong of course , unless you are being way too strict. An army and navy were the military at the time. Today there  is no reason to assume govt would object to an Air Force as part of the military. If you asked Congress to authorize an Air Force we can assume 100% would do so don't waste the time. See how easily a liberal is dispatched?
Click to expand...

Great, now that we agree that the Congress is not limited to the enumerated powers, I guess we agree that the Congress can pass any law to provide for the general welfare of the nation.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> Great, now that we agree that the Congress is not limited to the enumerated powers,.


Well liberals are not limited since they are opposed to that fundamental principle of the Constitution. Thus should not be allowed to hold public office since that cant honestly take the oath of office. Do you understand? 
l


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> I guess we agree that the Congress can pass any law to provide for the general welfare of the nation.



If we agreed to that Congress could pass Nazi laws and merely claim they provided for the general welfare of the nation. See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? Is any other conclusion possible?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> . I’m not surprised the brain-dead conservative can’t understand.


 if so you would not be so afraid to tell us what I cant understand? What have you learned from your fear?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Nosmo King said:


> You want one party rule. .


 no at all two parties that are both loyal to the principles of Constitution, not one that is loyal American and one that is treasonous. Make sense now?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Nosmo King said:


> You do not accept compromise,.



sure I do but compromise between  two legitimate Constitutional parties, not between one legit and one libcommie!! This is kindergarten stuff!! Hope you get it??


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, now that we agree that the Congress is not limited to the enumerated powers,.
> 
> 
> 
> Well liberals are not limited since they are opposed to that fundamental principle of the Constitution. Thus should not be allowed to hold public office since that cant honestly take the oath of office. Do you understand?
> l
Click to expand...

I understand you’re batshit crazy. Does that help you?


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we agree that the Congress can pass any law to provide for the general welfare of the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we agreed to that Congress could pass Nazi laws and merely claim they provided for the general welfare of the nation. See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? Is any other conclusion possible?
Click to expand...

The Congress can pass any laws they want.

You should consider remedial courses in civics.


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> . I’m not surprised the brain-dead conservative can’t understand.
> 
> 
> 
> if so you would not be so afraid to tell us what I cant understand? What have you learned from your fear?
Click to expand...

You asked me to explain what I already did. That means you didn’t understand. The reason you can’t understand is because you’re a conservative. As such, G-d simply didn’t bless you with the necessary tools for comprehensive cognitive skills. But I have no doubt you’re well practiced at jumping up and down.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> That means you didn’t understand.



 if so you would not be so afraid to tell us what I didn't understand? What have you learned from your fear?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> The Congress can pass any laws they want.
> .


 You are trying to say is they can pass any law including a Nazi law if they ignore the Constitution..


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> I understand you’re batshit crazy. Does that help you?



 typical male liberal violence because you lack IQ for democratic debate


----------



## Nosmo King

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not accept compromise,.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure I do but compromise between  two legitimate Constitutional parties, not between one legit and one libcommie!! This is kindergarten stuff!! Hope you get it??
Click to expand...

You consideration of the Democrats as 'libcommie' is uninformed.  If you weren't braced by a politic that requires fear and suspicion to exist, you could understand that your neighbors are liberal.  Your family members are liberal and your business people in your community are liberal.  Not every one, but enough to clearly demonstrate that all those other people are not in a sinister cabal to destroy the constitution and by consequence nation.


----------



## Syriusly

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Congress can pass any laws they want.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to say is they can pass any law including a Nazi law if they ignore the Constitution..
Click to expand...

Congress can pass any law- including whatever you think is a 'Nazi' law- but it wouldn't mean that the law is Constitutional.

Which is why we have a Supreme Court which can invalidate an unconstitutional law passed by the Congress.

And has done so many times.


----------



## danielpalos

_T*he Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, *_

_*to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; *_​
_*but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;*_

Providing for the general welfare is a general power. 

The Romans already Proved; Government solves all problems.


----------



## danielpalos

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Congress can pass any laws they want.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to say is they can pass any law including a Nazi law if they ignore the Constitution..
Click to expand...

Congress is delegated this: 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, t_o pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States_; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.


----------



## DOTR

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?



   I think it would be sufficient to restrict the national franchise.  Its what the founders did. No need for camps or deportations until we try that first. 
   Leave them with a say locally only only in areas they pay from their own pockets.


----------



## danielpalos

How does a wall provide for the general welfare?


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That means you didn’t understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if so you would not be so afraid to tell us what I didn't understand? What have you learned from your fear?
Click to expand...

My post is still there and you’re welcome to re-read it as many times as necessary until you understand it.


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Congress can pass any laws they want.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to say is they can pass any law including a Nazi law if they ignore the Constitution..
Click to expand...

Imbecile, there is nothing to prevent Congress from passing any bill they wish. You really should study civics.


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you’re batshit crazy. Does that help you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> typical male liberal violence because you lack IQ for democratic debate
Click to expand...

You’re demented, Crazy Eddie. There was nothing violent about my post.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> You’re demented, Crazy Eddie. There was nothing violent about my post.



substance free male verbal violence is typical of liberalism. You should be proud.!
*Verbal Violence*
Verbal violence, most often also labeled _verbal abuse_, is a common variety of violence, which encompasses a relatively large spectrum of behaviors, including: accusing, undermining, verbal threatening, ordering, trivializing, constant forgetting, silencing, blaming, *name calling*, overtly criticizing.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Congress can pass any laws they want.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to say is they can pass any law including a Nazi law if they ignore the Constitution..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile, there is nothing to prevent Congress from passing any bill they wish. You really should study civics.
Click to expand...

*Verbal Violence*
Verbal violence, most often also labeled _verbal abuse_, is a common variety of violence, which encompasses a relatively large spectrum of behaviors, including: accusing, undermining, verbal threatening, ordering, trivializing, constant forgetting, silencing, blaming, *name calling*, overtly criticizing.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> l


I understand you’re batshit crazy. Does that help you?[/QUOTE]

oh no I understand you're re batshit crazy!!!

( this is a violent male liberal's idea of debate)


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Nosmo King said:


> , you could understand that your neighbors are liberal. ...........not in a sinister cabal to destroy the constitution and by consequence nation.



well the Germans were big govt liberal nuts in 1932 and had no idea what they were doing. Our liberals are blind too but its not a conscious sinister cabal. Its just based in pure ignorance.Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

DOTR said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would be sufficient to restrict the national franchise.  Its what the founders did. No need for camps or deportations until we try that first.
> Leave them with a say locally only only in areas they pay from their own pockets.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately liberals seem to have the upper hand and feel the more who vote the better our democracy is.  Its like saying the more who get to do brain surgery  the better the results will be, but that the state of the liberal IQ these days.


----------



## Nosmo King

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> , you could understand that your neighbors are liberal. ...........not in a sinister cabal to destroy the constitution and by consequence nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well the Germans were big govt liberal nuts in 1932 and had no idea what they were doing. Our liberals are blind too but its not a conscious sinister cabal. Its just based in pure ignorance.Do you understand?
Click to expand...

I disagree.  My politics are not born of ignorance.  My politics are born, if they were born of anything approaching ignorance, of aspiration.

Today's 'conservatism' (I also disagree that those who identify as conservative are really conservative) is instigational politics.  The Trumpian ideology calls for one to be fearful, hateful and suspicious.  There must be a group to blame as both enemy and source of all the woes of the world.  There are no solutions, only accusations.  Political opponents serve as scapegoats and are never regarded as Americans but  a group hell bent on destroying all things virtuous.

I would prefer to divine solutions from compromise rather than contention. Solutions that work for all Americans rather than benefit the wealthiest and then hope those wealthy will shower down largess.  I would hope that all citizens could enjoy all the rights every other citizens enjoy rather than castigate some as losers or morally deficient.  Aspirations.  Never instigations.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Nosmo King said:


> I disagree.  My politics are not born of ignorance.  My politics are born, if they were born of anything approaching ignorance, of aspiration.
> 
> .



so you mean you aspire to be a communist thinking that its better despite already killing 120 million?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Nosmo King said:


> The Trumpian ideology calls for one to be fearful, hateful and suspicious.  There must be a group to blame as both enemy and source of all the woes of the world. .



this is true and liberals are that group since they oppose the basic principles of America.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Nosmo King said:


> There are no solutions, only accusations.  .



no solutions?? 4.2% GDP and peace with North Korea


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Nosmo King said:


> Political opponents serve as scapegoats and are never regarded as Americans but  a group hell bent on destroying all things virtuous.
> .



liberals do want to destroy America as we know it which is why they support a communist now, Sanders!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Nosmo King said:


> I would prefer to divine solutions from compromise rather than contention.



why  would you compromise with libcommieism when it has already killed 120 million?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Nosmo King said:


> rather than castigate some as losers or morally deficient.  Aspirations.  Never instigations.



so you want to make libcommies heros despite already killing 120 million? Ever heard of Cuba/Florida?
Cuba is poor because it is libcommie! 1+1=2


----------



## danielpalos

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  My politics are not born of ignorance.  My politics are born, if they were born of anything approaching ignorance, of aspiration.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you mean you aspire to be a communist thinking that its better despite already killing 120 million?
Click to expand...

You keep bringing that up; that happened due to internal conflict, not business as usual.  How many people starve or die due to a simple lack of capital under any form of Capitalism; as Business as usual?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

danielpalos said:


> You keep bringing that up; that happened due to internal conflict, not business as usual.


just coincidental that USSR Red China, Nazis, Venezuela, East Germany, Cubann liberal statists  all killed starved and imprisioned their populations!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

danielpalos said:


> How many people starve or die due to a simple lack of capital under any form of Capitalism; as Business as usual?



 people are getting rich, not starving,  now that China has switched to Republican capitalism from libcommie statism. It's been in all the papers!!


----------



## danielpalos

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep bringing that up; that happened due to internal conflict, not business as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> just coincidental that USSR Red China, Nazis, Venezuela, East Germany, Cubann liberal statists  all killed starved and imprisioned their populations!!
Click to expand...

during times of Conflict; not because they couldn't afford it, like Capitalism and Business as usual.


----------



## Skylar

JGalt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /Not thread
> 
> Modern-day liberalism has little to do with the Colonial definition of "liberalism". The description “liberal” was used in colonial America as the political description for those seeking to change government to a more *limited* role (Lockean). In today’s context they would more likely be called “libertarian” not progressive. Even so, libertarianism is closely aligned with conservatism, as they both seek a limited government with constrained powers, the rights of the individual over the power of the state, and lower taxes.
> 
> Modern-day liberalism embraces none of those values, and more resembles socialism than anything else. Modern-day liberalism believes in higher taxes, more dependence of government, and the willingness to forfeit certain personal liberties in exchange for the "security" big government affords them.
> 
> Worse than that, modern-day liberalism seeks to impose what is "best" for everyone, by using the force and power of the government. We've seen this time and time again: No soda drinks over 16 ounces, no straws, restrictive gun laws, burdensome regulations on business and industry, restrictive consumer laws, and on, and on, and on.
Click to expand...


Most modern day liberals support democracy, an economy centered around capitalism and a strong social safety net. 

That's hardly incompatible with the Constitution. And certainly good for the people. Regulated capitalism is even good for Capitalism. As it mitigates the 'bust and boom' cycle that plagued the economy before the federal government started setting up economic buttressing like the Federal Reserve.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Skylar said:


> Most modern day liberals support democracy, an economy centered around capitalism and a strong social safety net.



modern day liberals support Sanders an open communist who supports single payer communist health care. Do you really think health care is only industry a Marxist wants to control? Also, you bounce off a safety net. Libcommies support a comfortable intergenerational house that creates a dependent voting cohort, not a safety net. Please don't ever use that term again.


----------



## Skylar

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most modern day liberals support democracy, an economy centered around capitalism and a strong social safety net.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> modern day liberals support Sanders an open communist who supports single payer communist health care. Do you really think health care is only industry a Marxist wants to control? Also, you bounce off a safety net. Libcommies support a comfortable intergenerational house that creates a dependent voting cohort, not a safety net. Please don't ever use that term again.
Click to expand...


Single payer heathcare would be part of the strong social safety net. Most modern democracies have them.

US citizens pay more per capita for healthcare than any nation on earth. And have one of the lowest satisfaction rates and among the worst health outcomes and among the lowest life expectencies in the western world.

Modern Day Liberals are split on the implemenation of a single payer system, but the trend seems to be supporting them. In the context of a regulated capitalist economy and a democratic republic government.


----------



## Oberon178

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?



Here is just more evidence a lot of right wingers need to be deported along with their fellow left winger partners.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Single payer heathcare would be part of the strong social safety net. Most modern democracies have them.



It's not a safety net though - it's nationalizing an industry. Those are very different propositions.

If liberals were simply trying to beef up the safety net, they'd get a lot less push back from conservatives and libertarians. Instead, they're trying to centralize control of one of life's necessities via government. That's very bad plan in my opinion.


----------



## danielpalos

...insist they come up with arguments, superior those of the nine hundred ninety-nine.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single payer heathcare would be part of the strong social safety net. Most modern democracies have them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a safety net though - it's nationalizing an industry. Those are very different propositions.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. As single payer system can create a system of national insurance. Not necessarily a nationally run healthcare system where the government employs all doctors.

Medicare for all would be single payer. With most medicare patients served by private doctors.



> If liberals were simply trying to beef up the safety net, they'd get a lot less push back from conservatives and libertarians. Instead, they're trying to centralize control of one of life's necessities via government. That's very bad plan in my opinion.



Oh, nonsense. Republicans aren't known for nuance. Nor is their opposition proportionate to degree of 'beefing of the safetynet'. They work in a solution binary. Its its their one-size-fits-all solution for every problem (tax cuts for the wealthy, less regulation for business, cut social services) or its the enemy. There's little to nothing in between.

Take Obamacare. It wasn't a nationalization of all of healthcare. It is a system of private healthcare insurance options with state run market places. The Heritage foundation itself proposed something similar in the 90s.

Yet we heard hysteric rants about 'death panels' and 'communism' and Obama trying to take over all of healthcare and impliment socialism across the country. There was no less 'push back'. There was the same 'its either our rote solution or its the enemy' approach they take regardless of circumstances. In the midst of a the great recession or at the peak of a strong economy...they offer the same solution.

Nor can you rely on them to come up with solutions for very serious problems like skyrocketing healthcare. In the 2012 presidential campaign while Hillary and Obama were battling it out on how to fix healthcare, the republican solution for people without health insurance was 'go to the emergency room'.

Republicans as a group don't really have solutions. They don't adapt. They don't problem solve. They trust in the market to create solutions. If the market isn't conducive to a solution, they've deny a problem exists. Their solution to climate change? Deny it exists. Their solution for wealth inequality? Deny its a problem. Their solution for skyrocketing healthcare costs? Go to the emergency room.

Even look at this thread. Most of our conservative posters here are using the same empty trope that was used for decades: label and ignore. Where they label anything but the rote solution from republicans as socialism and socialism as evil.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single payer heathcare would be part of the strong social safety net. Most modern democracies have them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a safety net though - it's nationalizing an industry. Those are very different propositions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. As single payer system can create a system of national insurance. Not necessarily a nationally run healthcare system where the government employs all doctors.
Click to expand...


The industry in question is the health _insurance _industry. That's what single payer would be nationalizing.



> If liberals were simply trying to beef up the safety net, they'd get a lot less push back from conservatives and libertarians. Instead, they're trying to centralize control of one of life's necessities via government. That's very bad plan in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, nonsense. Republicans aren't known for nuance.
Click to expand...


That's why I said "conservatives and libertarians", and not "Republicans". The Republicans had their chance to repeal ACA, and declined.


----------



## danielpalos

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour equivalent for simply being unemployed; how would our market based system be less efficient and not more efficient?


----------



## dblack

danielpalos said:


> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour equivalent for simply being unemployed; how would our market based system be less efficient and not more efficient?


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour equivalent for simply being unemployed; how would our market based system be less efficient and not more efficient?
Click to expand...

co-pay would be possible for someone with recourse to an income; 

could the insurance that goes with it, be far off.


----------



## dblack

danielpalos said:


> co-pay would be possible for someone with recourse to an income;
> 
> could the insurance that goes with it, be far off.



Just a three-hour tour....


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> co-pay would be possible for someone with recourse to an income;
> 
> could the insurance that goes with it, be far off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a three-hour tour....
Click to expand...

even a hospital could bill for it.


----------



## dblack

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> co-pay would be possible for someone with recourse to an income;
> 
> could the insurance that goes with it, be far off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a three-hour tour....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> even a hospital could bill for it.
Click to expand...


But what if the weather starts getting rough?


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> co-pay would be possible for someone with recourse to an income;
> 
> could the insurance that goes with it, be far off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a three-hour tour....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> even a hospital could bill for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if the weather starts getting rough?
Click to expand...

economics are self-taught simply for the self-interest of saving money by learning about more cost effective financial products and services.


----------



## dblack

Official poverty is for the General welFare - not the specific special pleading!


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> Official poverty is for the General welFare - not the specific special pleading!


the point is, capitalism should always be capitally fine and capitally wonderful Because Persons have an income to ensure capitalism happens.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single payer heathcare would be part of the strong social safety net. Most modern democracies have them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a safety net though - it's nationalizing an industry. Those are very different propositions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. As single payer system can create a system of national insurance. Not necessarily a nationally run healthcare system where the government employs all doctors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The industry in question is the health _insurance _industry. That's what single payer would be nationalizing.
Click to expand...


Except that it doesn't necessarily have to. Medicare for all wouldn't be the 'nationalization of healthcare'. It would be a single payer national insurance. The system providing the healthcare would still be private.



> That's why I said "conservatives and libertarians", and not "Republicans". The Republicans had their chance to repeal ACA, and declined.


Unless conservatives and republicans are mutually exclusive, that argument doesn't work.

I've given you *extensive* examples of how degree of change doesn't really play into degree of opposition. Feel free to address any of those points.


----------



## dblack

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Official poverty is for the General welFare - not the specific special pleading!
> 
> 
> 
> the point is, capitalism should always be capitally fine and capitally wonderful Because Persons have an income to ensure capitalism happens.
Click to expand...


Only bad capitalists lose money on Because Persons!


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> I've given you *extensive* examples of how degree of change doesn't really play into degree of opposition. Feel free to address any of those points.



First you address mine. I pointed out that health care reform hasn't been focused on safety nets. It's been focused on nationalizing health insurance. And you responded with the usual schtick about how doctors wouldn't be working, directly, for the government etc... All irrelevant to my point.

Liberal health care reform isn't about safety nets - its about centralizing control over health insurance. If it were simply a matter of expanding the safety net, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've given you *extensive* examples of how degree of change doesn't really play into degree of opposition. Feel free to address any of those points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you address mine. I pointed out that health care reform hasn't been focused on safety nets.
Click to expand...


You've *claimed* that healthcare reform hasn't been focused on safety nets. But that's simply not true. The propositions most commonly forwarded aren't nationalization of all healthcare, like a giant VA system for all citizens. But instead, Medicare for all..... a national health insurance. Where we have a single payer for all healthcare costs.

This isn't the 'nationalization of an entire industry'. Your characterization is simply wrong.



> It's been focused on nationalizing health insurance.



No, it hasn't. Its been focused on medicare for all. On a national health insurance program where payment for services is done by the federal government through a national insurance program, while the services themselves are delivered through private vendors.



> And you responded with the usual schtick about how doctors wouldn't be working, directly, for the government etc... All irrelevant to my point.



Your 'point' is factually inaccurate. Nationalization of all healthcare would be more like what the UK has, or what the VA delivers. Where everyone is an employee of the federal government and the federal government owns most of the hospitals. Instead, this would be a national insurance program where the government pays for services that are delivered through private vendors.

Like Medicare does now.



> Liberal health care reform isn't about safety nets - its about centralizing control over health insurance.



Health insurance is only a part of the Health Insurance industry. You're claim is that its the nationalization of the entire industry. That's factually inaccurate.



> If it were simply a matter of expanding the safety net, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.


Of course we would. As we are describing merely the expanding of the Medicare safety net. And yet, we're still having this discussion.


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Official poverty is for the General welFare - not the specific special pleading!
> 
> 
> 
> the point is, capitalism should always be capitally fine and capitally wonderful Because Persons have an income to ensure capitalism happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only bad capitalists lose money on Because Persons!
Click to expand...

market friendly products at market friendly prices!


----------



## dblack

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Official poverty is for the General welFare - not the specific special pleading!
> 
> 
> 
> the point is, capitalism should always be capitally fine and capitally wonderful Because Persons have an income to ensure capitalism happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only bad capitalists lose money on Because Persons!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> market friendly products at market friendly prices!
Click to expand...


We have a gEneRal Welfare claws - not a special humour. !


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Official poverty is for the General welFare - not the specific special pleading!
> 
> 
> 
> the point is, capitalism should always be capitally fine and capitally wonderful Because Persons have an income to ensure capitalism happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only bad capitalists lose money on Because Persons!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> market friendly products at market friendly prices!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a gEneRal Welfare claws - not a special humour. !
Click to expand...

everybody understands prices and menus, man.


----------



## night_son

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?



*Cult Deprogramming Therapy* followed by lots of beer and mandatory binge watching Bruce Campbell horror movies.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've given you *extensive* examples of how degree of change doesn't really play into degree of opposition. Feel free to address any of those points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you address mine. I pointed out that health care reform hasn't been focused on safety nets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've *claimed* that healthcare reform hasn't been focused on safety nets. But that's simply not true. The propositions most commonly forwarded aren't nationalization of all healthcare, like a giant VA system for all citizens. But instead, Medicare for all..... a national health insurance. Where we have a single payer for all healthcare costs.
> 
> This isn't the 'nationalization of an entire industry'. Your characterization is simply wrong.
Click to expand...


Right. It's nationalizing health insurance. You don't seem to deny that, but yet you don't want to admit it. What gives?


> Your 'point' is factually inaccurate. Nationalization of all healthcare...



Please try to pay attention. Your strawman is kaput. I claimed liberal health care reform is an effort to nationalize health care _*insurance*_. We seem to agree on that. But you don't much like the optics.



> Liberal health care reform isn't about safety nets - its about centralizing control over health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health insurance is only a part of the Health Insurance industry. You're claim is that its the nationalization of the entire industry.
Click to expand...

No. That's not my claim. Read again.



> Of course we would. As *we are describing merely the expanding of the Medicare safety net*. And yet, we're still having this discussion.



No, you're not. Expanding Medicare would be more along the lines of the public option. Single payer is nationalizing health insurance. How can we discuss the differing proposals if you won't even admit what you're after?


----------



## dblack

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Official poverty is for the General welFare - not the specific special pleading!
> 
> 
> 
> the point is, capitalism should always be capitally fine and capitally wonderful Because Persons have an income to ensure capitalism happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only bad capitalists lose money on Because Persons!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> market friendly products at market friendly prices!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a gEneRal Welfare claws - not a special humour. !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everybody understands prices and menus, man.
Click to expand...


Groovy, man. Give me the special.


----------



## night_son

Pogo said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
Click to expand...


The radical liberal revisionist train whooshes past the station. 

Our unique to the post-Enlightenment Era understanding, or definition of liberalism was based on Aristotle's own ancient belief in giving from oneself out of generosity and by free will--an apolitical philosophy existing outside of partisan politics; free thought, free will, individual rights. Liberalism 242 years ago was based on the virtue of* liberty* not progressivism or atheism or revolutionary collectivism or social justice or identity politics or class warfare or racism or militant feminism. The current ideology of American Liberalism is the opposite of what you insinuate to have been our Founder's Liberalism.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Your 'point' is factually inaccurate. Nationalization of all healthcare...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please try to pay attention. Your strawman is kaput. I claimed liberal health care reform is an effort to nationalize health care _*insurance*_. We seem to agree on that. But you don't much like the optics.
Click to expand...


What you've claimed is this:

_"It's not a safety net though - it's nationalizing an industry. Those are very different propositions.

If liberals were simply trying to beef up the safety net, they'd get a lot less push back from conservatives and libertarians. Instead, they're trying to centralize control of one of life's necessities via government. That's very bad plan in my opinion."_

Healthcare is one of life's necessitities. Health insurance is merely a means of paying for said necessity. You're equating the method of payment with the service itself. They're not the same thing.

*Why would a national health insurance be a bad thing? *Most industrialized nations have a single payer system. And most nations have longer life spans, most satisfiaction with their healthcare, and spend less per capita than we do.

What would is your basis of 'bad'? Mine would be cost, satisfaction and health outcomes. We pay more per capita than any nation on earth. We have low satisfaction levels. And we have poor health outcomes.

Single payer systems generally have better results on all fronts.

There's also the business angle. Businesses in most industrialized nations aren't burdened with healthcare costs like US businesss are. By providing funding through a single payer system, businesses would be freed from this burden and presumably, be more profitable.

So I ask again, why would a national health insurance be a bad thing? The process has been tested repeatedly, dozens and dozens of times around the world. Single payer works. Not only works, but by the standards of cost, satisfaction and health outcome, generally work better than what we have now.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> You're equating the method of payment with the service itself. They're not the same thing.



No I'm not. Read my posts.

*



			Why would a national health insurance be a bad thing?
		
Click to expand...

*


> Most industrialized nations have a single payer system. And most nations have longer life spans, most satisfiaction with their healthcare, and spend less per capita than we do.



Awesome. We can finally discuss the issue instead of chasing strawmen.

It's bad because it centralizes control over a fundamental human need, and coerces conformity in how we deal with it. It puts all our eggs in one basket and forces us all down one path.


----------



## Skylar

night_son said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The radical liberal revisionist train whooshes past the station.
> 
> Our unique to the post-Enlightenment Era understanding, or definition of liberalism was based on Aristotle's own ancient belief in giving from oneself out of generosity and by free will--an apolitical philosophy existing outside of partisan politics; free thought, free will, individual rights. Liberalism 242 years ago was based on the virtue of* liberty* not progressivism or atheism or revolutionary collectivism or social justice or identity politics or class warfare or racism or militant feminism. The current ideology of American Liberalism is the opposite of what you insinuate to have been our Founder's Liberalism.
Click to expand...


Kinda. The virtue of 'liberty' were applied very selectively and intentionally by the Founders. Most of the population didn't enjoy this 'liberty'. Slaves, women and non-property owners for example generally had far fewer rights than white male property owners. Whom the founders all were.

The nation was formed within a very specific context: white male land owners of different states banding together for common defense from England; a very real, very immediate existential threat. 

The system created catered to that context. It reinforced State Legislative power, which in turn reinforced the power of white, male landowners and slave holders. The concepts of 'liberty' embodied in say, the Declarations of Independance, were largely the promotion of some of the more marketable justifications for rebellion against England.

As things like Shay's rebellion demonstrate elegantly, the Founders didn't believe in put up with those rebelling against them. They crushed them.  Both the justification that the Founders used for their rebellion and the application of 'liberty' in their own society were very situational, very selective, and of immediate benefit to the ruling class at the time of the nation's founding.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're equating the method of payment with the service itself. They're not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not. Read my posts.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a national health insurance be a bad thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Most industrialized nations have a single payer system. And most nations have longer life spans, most satisfiaction with their healthcare, and spend less per capita than we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome. We can finally discuss the issue instead of chasing strawmen.
> 
> It's bad because it centralizes control over a fundamental human need, and coerces conformity in how we deal with it. It puts all our eggs in one basket and forces us all down one path.
Click to expand...


But it doesn't. A national health insurance makes healthcare more readily available for more people. It doesn't matter what healthcare options are available if you can't access them. And for tens of millions of Americans, those options are out of their reach.

Nationalized health insurance also allows for people to get the healthcare from private vendors. With the overwhelming majority of healthcare choices made by the individual and the healthcare provider.

And as I've pointed out in terms of cost, satisfaction and health outcomes, *the results are generally better under single payer than they are under the system we have now. *The populations of single payer systems generally live longer and in better health than we have now. The nations with single payer generally have fewer people without access to healthcare than we do now.

Its also better for business as it relieves businesses of the burden of paying for healthcare directly. Making US businesses more nimble and profitable, presumably.

These huge advantages have a track record of better outcomes, lower cost, longer life spans, better health, and higher satisfaction. Which is why the overwhelming majority of industrialized nations use single payer.

And why its growing in popularity here too. These are the policies that liberals support, based on rational, outcome based reasoning. And measurably better results at a lower price with broader availibility.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's bad because it centralizes control over a fundamental human need, and coerces conformity in how we deal with it. It puts all our eggs in one basket and forces us all down one path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it does. And we'll be the poorer for it.


----------



## night_son

Skylar said:


> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The radical liberal revisionist train whooshes past the station.
> 
> Our unique to the post-Enlightenment Era understanding, or definition of liberalism was based on Aristotle's own ancient belief in giving from oneself out of generosity and by free will--an apolitical philosophy existing outside of partisan politics; free thought, free will, individual rights. Liberalism 242 years ago was based on the virtue of* liberty* not progressivism or atheism or revolutionary collectivism or social justice or identity politics or class warfare or racism or militant feminism. The current ideology of American Liberalism is the opposite of what you insinuate to have been our Founder's Liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda. The virtue of 'liberty' were applied very selectively and intentionally by the Founders. Most of the population didn't enjoy this 'liberty'. Slaves, women and non-property owners for example generally had far fewer rights than white male property owners. Whom the founders all were.
> 
> The nation was formed within a very specific context: white male land owners of different states banding together for common defense from England; a very real, very immediate existential threat.
> 
> The system created catered to that context. It reinforced State Legislative power, which in turn reinforced the power of white, male landowners and slave holders. The concepts of 'liberty' embodied in say, the Declarations of Independance, were largely the promotion of some of the more marketable justifications for rebellion against England.
> 
> As things like Shay's rebellion demonstrate elegantly, the Founders didn't believe in put up with those rebelling against them. They crushed them.  Both the justification that the Founders used for their rebellion and the application of 'liberty' in their own society were very situational, very selective, and of immediate benefit to the ruling class at the time of the nation's founding.
Click to expand...


Poor deluded fellow USMB member. Here's the rub. The fly in the ointment (thanks John McClane). From myself to my father—all they way stretching back across our nation's scholastic tradition over a century to my great grandfather, whose wisdom I was fortunate enough to receive for the first ten years of my existence, all four generations of us learned *the same* version of American History. And now, suddenly, along come individual's such as yourself who recite like scripture, a suddenly altered version.

Now I wonder why and how that happened?

The answer is: the radical American Left has revised American history to align with its political, social and cultural ideology of identity politics, victim groups and national shame, which the radical Left intends to wield for the purpose of replacing deep patriotism with guilt over fabricated atrocities inserted neatly into our nation's history, in hopes of making later, recent generations of Americans such as yourself utterly despise their great country, their country's flag, anthem and pledge and world image. You have been deceived, duped, misled on high by falsified political, cultural and social history. Fortunately, for the survival of our nation, some of us cannot be so easily blinded by the same postmodern ideological wool pulled over your eyes.


----------



## night_son

Nosmo King said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> , you could understand that your neighbors are liberal. ...........not in a sinister cabal to destroy the constitution and by consequence nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well the Germans were big govt liberal nuts in 1932 and had no idea what they were doing. Our liberals are blind too but its not a conscious sinister cabal. Its just based in pure ignorance.Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree.  My politics are not born of ignorance.  My politics are born, if they were born of anything approaching ignorance, of aspiration.
> 
> Today's 'conservatism' (I also disagree that those who identify as conservative are really conservative) is instigational politics.  The Trumpian ideology calls for one to be fearful, hateful and suspicious.  There must be a group to blame as both enemy and source of all the woes of the world.  There are no solutions, only accusations.  Political opponents serve as scapegoats and are never regarded as Americans but  a group hell bent on destroying all things virtuous.
> 
> I would prefer to divine solutions from compromise rather than contention. Solutions that work for all Americans rather than benefit the wealthiest and then hope those wealthy will shower down largess.  I would hope that all citizens could enjoy all the rights every other citizens enjoy rather than castigate some as losers or morally deficient.  Aspirations.  Never instigations.
Click to expand...


Many of the mass murders of people by their own government have been carried out in the shadow of compromise. While the victims of mass murder sought to compromise, those who would become responsible for their deaths began the slaughter. When at last the people being killed in their tens of thousands awoke to what the other side was doing to them, it was far too late for them to save themselves by organizing into citizen armies and fighting back. This is the shadow of compromise laid bare before history's eyes. Do no be subverted into a form of recursive hunger for negotiation so open-minded you will continue to shake the hand of the enemy who had begun to take your life.


----------



## P@triot

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?


Deport them to Cuba so they can experience their socialist utopia first-hand.


----------



## Pogo

night_son said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The radical liberal revisionist train whooshes past the station.
> 
> Our unique to the post-Enlightenment Era understanding, or definition of liberalism was based on Aristotle's own ancient belief in giving from oneself out of generosity and by free will--an apolitical philosophy existing outside of partisan politics; free thought, free will, individual rights. Liberalism 242 years ago was based on the virtue of* liberty* not progressivism or atheism or revolutionary collectivism or social justice or identity politics or class warfare or racism or militant feminism. The current ideology of American Liberalism is the opposite of what you insinuate to have been our Founder's Liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda. The virtue of 'liberty' were applied very selectively and intentionally by the Founders. Most of the population didn't enjoy this 'liberty'. Slaves, women and non-property owners for example generally had far fewer rights than white male property owners. Whom the founders all were.
> 
> The nation was formed within a very specific context: white male land owners of different states banding together for common defense from England; a very real, very immediate existential threat.
> 
> The system created catered to that context. It reinforced State Legislative power, which in turn reinforced the power of white, male landowners and slave holders. The concepts of 'liberty' embodied in say, the Declarations of Independance, were largely the promotion of some of the more marketable justifications for rebellion against England.
> 
> As things like Shay's rebellion demonstrate elegantly, the Founders didn't believe in put up with those rebelling against them. They crushed them.  Both the justification that the Founders used for their rebellion and the application of 'liberty' in their own society were very situational, very selective, and of immediate benefit to the ruling class at the time of the nation's founding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor deluded fellow USMB member. Here's the rub. The fly in the ointment (thanks John McClane). From myself to my father—all they way stretching back across our nation's scholastic tradition over a century to my great grandfather, whose wisdom I was fortunate enough to receive for the first ten years of my existence, all four generations of us learned *the same* version of American History. And now, suddenly, along come individual's such as yourself who recite like scripture, a suddenly altered version.
> 
> Now I wonder why and how that happened?
> 
> The answer is: the radical American Left has revised American history to align with its political, social and cultural ideology of identity politics, victim groups and national shame, which the radical Left intends to wield for the purpose of replacing deep patriotism with guilt over fabricated atrocities inserted neatly into our nation's history, in hopes of making later, recent generations of Americans such as yourself utterly despise their great country, their country's flag, anthem and pledge and world image. You have been deceived, duped, misled on high by falsified political, cultural and social history. Fortunately, for the survival of our nation, some of us cannot be so easily blinded by the same postmodern ideological wool pulled over your eyes.
Click to expand...


I haven't seen an entity so cluelessly full of itself since I put a bottle of water into the freezer.  How quaint that some see fit to so freely festoon themselves with self-infatuated sophistry.

Unfortunately for all this diatribal hysteria the topic was _Liberalism_, not leftism or jingoism.  Perhaps all those generations of scholastia failed to take.

---- "s0n".


----------



## night_son

Pogo said:


> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The radical liberal revisionist train whooshes past the station.
> 
> Our unique to the post-Enlightenment Era understanding, or definition of liberalism was based on Aristotle's own ancient belief in giving from oneself out of generosity and by free will--an apolitical philosophy existing outside of partisan politics; free thought, free will, individual rights. Liberalism 242 years ago was based on the virtue of* liberty* not progressivism or atheism or revolutionary collectivism or social justice or identity politics or class warfare or racism or militant feminism. The current ideology of American Liberalism is the opposite of what you insinuate to have been our Founder's Liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda. The virtue of 'liberty' were applied very selectively and intentionally by the Founders. Most of the population didn't enjoy this 'liberty'. Slaves, women and non-property owners for example generally had far fewer rights than white male property owners. Whom the founders all were.
> 
> The nation was formed within a very specific context: white male land owners of different states banding together for common defense from England; a very real, very immediate existential threat.
> 
> The system created catered to that context. It reinforced State Legislative power, which in turn reinforced the power of white, male landowners and slave holders. The concepts of 'liberty' embodied in say, the Declarations of Independance, were largely the promotion of some of the more marketable justifications for rebellion against England.
> 
> As things like Shay's rebellion demonstrate elegantly, the Founders didn't believe in put up with those rebelling against them. They crushed them.  Both the justification that the Founders used for their rebellion and the application of 'liberty' in their own society were very situational, very selective, and of immediate benefit to the ruling class at the time of the nation's founding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor deluded fellow USMB member. Here's the rub. The fly in the ointment (thanks John McClane). From myself to my father—all they way stretching back across our nation's scholastic tradition over a century to my great grandfather, whose wisdom I was fortunate enough to receive for the first ten years of my existence, all four generations of us learned *the same* version of American History. And now, suddenly, along come individual's such as yourself who recite like scripture, a suddenly altered version.
> 
> Now I wonder why and how that happened?
> 
> The answer is: the radical American Left has revised American history to align with its political, social and cultural ideology of identity politics, victim groups and national shame, which the radical Left intends to wield for the purpose of replacing deep patriotism with guilt over fabricated atrocities inserted neatly into our nation's history, in hopes of making later, recent generations of Americans such as yourself utterly despise their great country, their country's flag, anthem and pledge and world image. You have been deceived, duped, misled on high by falsified political, cultural and social history. Fortunately, for the survival of our nation, some of us cannot be so easily blinded by the same postmodern ideological wool pulled over your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anything so cluelessly full of itself since I put a bottle of water into the freezer.  How quaint that some see fit to so freely festoon themselves with self-infatuated sophistry.
> 
> Unfortunately for all this diatribal hysteria the topic was _Liberalism_, not leftism or jingoism.  Perhaps all those generations of scholastia failed to take.
> 
> ---- "s0n".
Click to expand...


Mais malheureusement, you have confused the epistemological ethos of the three on the philosophical and ethical and ideological tree. But can you find the reverse gear? Or has your antiquated transmission vapor locked in low first gear?


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the point is, capitalism should always be capitally fine and capitally wonderful Because Persons have an income to ensure capitalism happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only bad capitalists lose money on Because Persons!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> market friendly products at market friendly prices!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a gEneRal Welfare claws - not a special humour. !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everybody understands prices and menus, man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Groovy, man. Give me the special.
Click to expand...

let's ask management.  they allege to have some "new plans in the works" we merely need clients to "take them for a test drive".


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's bad because it centralizes control over a fundamental human need, and coerces conformity in how we deal with it. It puts all our eggs in one basket and forces us all down one path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it does. And we'll be the poorer for it.
Click to expand...

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour; can be our social, "stop loss".


----------



## dblack

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's bad because it centralizes control over a fundamental human need, and coerces conformity in how we deal with it. It puts all our eggs in one basket and forces us all down one path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it does. And we'll be the poorer for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour; can be our social, "stop loss".
Click to expand...

Special pleading for offiCial fallacies. We have a clause.


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's bad because it centralizes control over a fundamental human need, and coerces conformity in how we deal with it. It puts all our eggs in one basket and forces us all down one path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it does. And we'll be the poorer for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour; can be our social, "stop loss".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Special pleading for offiCial fallacies. We have a clause.
Click to expand...

ensuring capital circulates must create demand; third party products are to be expected.  potentially, better products at lower cost, if it works outs.  past performance is no guarantee of future results.


----------



## dblack

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's bad because it centralizes control over a fundamental human need, and coerces conformity in how we deal with it. It puts all our eggs in one basket and forces us all down one path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it does. And we'll be the poorer for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour; can be our social, "stop loss".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Special pleading for offiCial fallacies. We have a clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ensuring capital circulates must create demand; third party products are to be expected.  potentially, better products at lower cost, if it works outs.  past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Click to expand...

OIC


----------



## Pogo

night_son said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The radical liberal revisionist train whooshes past the station.
> 
> Our unique to the post-Enlightenment Era understanding, or definition of liberalism was based on Aristotle's own ancient belief in giving from oneself out of generosity and by free will--an apolitical philosophy existing outside of partisan politics; free thought, free will, individual rights. Liberalism 242 years ago was based on the virtue of* liberty* not progressivism or atheism or revolutionary collectivism or social justice or identity politics or class warfare or racism or militant feminism. The current ideology of American Liberalism is the opposite of what you insinuate to have been our Founder's Liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda. The virtue of 'liberty' were applied very selectively and intentionally by the Founders. Most of the population didn't enjoy this 'liberty'. Slaves, women and non-property owners for example generally had far fewer rights than white male property owners. Whom the founders all were.
> 
> The nation was formed within a very specific context: white male land owners of different states banding together for common defense from England; a very real, very immediate existential threat.
> 
> The system created catered to that context. It reinforced State Legislative power, which in turn reinforced the power of white, male landowners and slave holders. The concepts of 'liberty' embodied in say, the Declarations of Independance, were largely the promotion of some of the more marketable justifications for rebellion against England.
> 
> As things like Shay's rebellion demonstrate elegantly, the Founders didn't believe in put up with those rebelling against them. They crushed them.  Both the justification that the Founders used for their rebellion and the application of 'liberty' in their own society were very situational, very selective, and of immediate benefit to the ruling class at the time of the nation's founding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor deluded fellow USMB member. Here's the rub. The fly in the ointment (thanks John McClane). From myself to my father—all they way stretching back across our nation's scholastic tradition over a century to my great grandfather, whose wisdom I was fortunate enough to receive for the first ten years of my existence, all four generations of us learned *the same* version of American History. And now, suddenly, along come individual's such as yourself who recite like scripture, a suddenly altered version.
> 
> Now I wonder why and how that happened?
> 
> The answer is: the radical American Left has revised American history to align with its political, social and cultural ideology of identity politics, victim groups and national shame, which the radical Left intends to wield for the purpose of replacing deep patriotism with guilt over fabricated atrocities inserted neatly into our nation's history, in hopes of making later, recent generations of Americans such as yourself utterly despise their great country, their country's flag, anthem and pledge and world image. You have been deceived, duped, misled on high by falsified political, cultural and social history. Fortunately, for the survival of our nation, some of us cannot be so easily blinded by the same postmodern ideological wool pulled over your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anything so cluelessly full of itself since I put a bottle of water into the freezer.  How quaint that some see fit to so freely festoon themselves with self-infatuated sophistry.
> 
> Unfortunately for all this diatribal hysteria the topic was _Liberalism_, not leftism or jingoism.  Perhaps all those generations of scholastia failed to take.
> 
> ---- "s0n".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mais malheureusement, you have confused the epistemological ethos of the three on the philosophical and ethical and ideological tree. But can you find the reverse gear? Or has your antiquated transmission vapor locked in low first gear?
Click to expand...


Mais malheureusement il n'y a pas de réponse.  Tant pis.  Go figure out what the topic is here.


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it does. And we'll be the poorer for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour; can be our social, "stop loss".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Special pleading for offiCial fallacies. We have a clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ensuring capital circulates must create demand; third party products are to be expected.  potentially, better products at lower cost, if it works outs.  past performance is no guarantee of future results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OIC
Click to expand...

not enough; we need the law of large numbers and truer forms of capitalism in our markets, for capital based purposes, of course.


----------



## regent

Pogo said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
Click to expand...

Of course our Constitution and our nation is based on liberalism, and we should be grateful that it is. It seems as if some Americans are not aware of the background of their own nation. I would suggest a study of American history, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution for evidence, and maybe add an accurate  definition of liberalism, to know the background of their own country. It may be too liberal for many, but America has always been liberal.


----------



## evenflow1969

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?


You are an idiot! First class!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

evenflow1969 said:


> You are an idiot! First class!



typical abusive violent liberal male!!!
Shame Shame ! Shame!( to a liberal violence is a good argument)


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Of course our Constitution and our nation is based on liberalism,



so then liberals like tiny tiny govt?? Who knew??


----------



## evenflow1969

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot! First class!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> typical abusive violent liberal male!!!
> Shame Shame ! Shame!( to a liberal violence is a good argument)
Click to expand...

Typical idiot liar! No violence mentioned. Your entire premise is a treat and yet accuse me of violence. Your seditous ass does belong at the end of a rope though.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

evenflow1969 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot! First class!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> typical abusive violent liberal male!!!
> Shame Shame ! Shame!( to a liberal violence is a good argument)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical idiot liar! No violence mentioned. Your entire premise is a treat and yet accuse me of violence. Your seditous ass does belong at the end of a rope though.
Click to expand...


typical abusive verbal violent liberal male!!!
Shame Shame ! Shame!( to a liberal violence is a good argument)


----------



## danielpalos

we have a general welfare clause; we should have no social problems in our Republic.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

danielpalos said:


> we have a general welfare clause; we should have no social problems in our Republic.



Says the naive libcommie fool who imagines govt (the source of evil in human history) is more likely to solve rather than create social problems.


----------



## danielpalos

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a general welfare clause; we should have no social problems in our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the naive libcommie fool who imagines govt (the source of evil in human history) is more likely to solve rather than create social problems.
Click to expand...

that power is general, not limited like the common defense.


----------



## dblack

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a general welfare clause; we should have no social problems in our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the naive libcommie fool who imagines govt (the source of evil in human history) is more likely to solve rather than create social problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that power is general, not limited like the common defense.
Click to expand...


Have you ever posted anything that wasn't incoherent trolling?


----------



## SavannahMann

Freedom for me, but not for thee. What a wonderful idea. Or something. 

Liberal idealism is among other things that the rights contained in the Constitution apply to everyone. Freedom of speech for example. 

So if we were to say that the Constitution prohibits anything liberal, that would include speech, and then we would have what? Certainly we would not have America. And you ask then what? Then we would have to start afresh with a new constitution. One that protected all citizens, not just the handful with approved thoughts.


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a general welfare clause; we should have no social problems in our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the naive libcommie fool who imagines govt (the source of evil in human history) is more likely to solve rather than create social problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that power is general, not limited like the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever posted anything that wasn't incoherent trolling?
Click to expand...

you are the one trolling; i have a valid argument.  you simply have no valid rebuttal and prefer to whine about it.

words matter.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

SavannahMann said:


> One that protected all citizens, not just the handful with approved thoughts.


 the Constitution does not approve of all thoughts and should not, obviously. This is why a Nazi or a liberal cant take the oath of office as the Constitution prescribes. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a general welfare clause; we should have no social problems in our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the naive libcommie fool who imagines govt (the source of evil in human history) is more likely to solve rather than create social problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that power is general, not limited like the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever posted anything that wasn't incoherent trolling?
Click to expand...

Danny does not speak English as a first language but is positive he is brilliant and poetic in  English! Go figure!


----------



## danielpalos

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a general welfare clause; we should have no social problems in our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the naive libcommie fool who imagines govt (the source of evil in human history) is more likely to solve rather than create social problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that power is general, not limited like the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever posted anything that wasn't incoherent trolling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Danny does not speak English as a first language but is positive he is brilliant and poetic in  English! Go figure!
Click to expand...

the power to provide for the general welfare is general; we merely need the metadata to prove it.


----------



## dblack

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a general welfare clause; we should have no social problems in our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the naive libcommie fool who imagines govt (the source of evil in human history) is more likely to solve rather than create social problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that power is general, not limited like the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever posted anything that wasn't incoherent trolling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Danny does not speak English as a first language but is positive he is brilliant and poetic in  English! Go figure!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the power to provide for the general welfare is general; we merely need the metadata to prove it.
Click to expand...

The white knight is talking backwards.


----------



## SavannahMann

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> One that protected all citizens, not just the handful with approved thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> the Constitution does not approve of all thoughts and should not, obviously. This is why a Nazi or a liberal cant take the oath of office as the Constitution prescribes. Do you understand?
Click to expand...


No. I am afraid I don’t. It wasn’t Liberals who put restrictions on the First Amendment. Liberals fought against the various requirements that were put out there to restrict meetings, and gatherings. Things like requiring that the meeting have an American Flag flying, and start the meeting with the Pledge of Allegance. 

I am one of those Liberals who supports the Second Amendment. So we’ll skip that for the moment. 

Liberals fought to insure that you and everyone were protected by the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments. It was Liberals who put a stop to Police beating confessions out of people, and abusing people. It was Liberals who argued and fought against the violation of the Fourth Amendment through Stop and Frisk nonsense. You are promised by the Consittution to be secure in your person, and papers. It was Liberals who fought to make that true in practice instead of just words. 

It was Liberals who fought to insure that all citizens were given the same rights to a lawyer, and the right to remain silent. 

It was Liberals who argued and fought for the actions to equal the high minded words in the Constitution. 

That’s why the Constitution means more today than it did when it was written. It is a good document. It is a good premise. It is a good set of rules, and a great framework for a limited government of, by, and for the people. But our actions and laws must support those rules, instead of seeking to get around them, or limit them. 

It is Liberals who objected the loudest to surveillance by the FBI on emails and other communications. It is Liberals who are arguing against the Stingray systems that steal your information from your phone. 

So no, I don’t see where some people can’t swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I did. I swore that oath when I joined the Army, and I was in for nine years. While I was in, and when I became a Sergeant and was put in charge of other Soldiers, I strove to care for those soldiers, and made an everliving pain in the ass of myself demanding that my Soldiers get what they were entitled to under Military Regulations. Things like pay, and benefits for themselves and their families. 

So I’m afraid I disagree with you on a lot of things here. Because I don’t see those who disagree with me as enemies, but Americans who have a different point of view and I embrace that because thank God for the First Amendment that allows people to have different opinions. Thank God we have the right to express those ideals. I may disagree with people, but I never believe they should not have the same rights as anyone else, nor the same opportunity.


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the naive libcommie fool who imagines govt (the source of evil in human history) is more likely to solve rather than create social problems.
> 
> 
> 
> that power is general, not limited like the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever posted anything that wasn't incoherent trolling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Danny does not speak English as a first language but is positive he is brilliant and poetic in  English! Go figure!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the power to provide for the general welfare is general; we merely need the metadata to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The white knight is talking backwards.
Click to expand...

We should, "run it by our new Supreme Court justice."


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

SavannahMann said:


> I don’t see those who disagree with me as enemies, .



well if Nazis and liberals are not your enemies they should be. Do you know why?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

SavannahMann said:


> I never believe they should not have the same rights as anyone else, nor the same opportunity.



actually Nazis and communists should not have the same rights!! Can you tell us why?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

SavannahMann said:


> So no, I don’t see where some people can’t swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.



so if a Nazi took the oath of office you would believe him???? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

SavannahMann said:


> It was Liberals who argued and fought for the actions to equal the high minded words in the Constitution.



how is that possible given that liberals oppose the basic principle of the Constitution??


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Liberals who argued and fought for the actions to equal the high minded words in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how is that possible given that liberals oppose the basic principle of the Constitution??
Click to expand...

How is it possible that someone could be this stupid, dishonest, and wrong.


----------



## SavannahMann

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Liberals who argued and fought for the actions to equal the high minded words in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how is that possible given that liberals oppose the basic principle of the Constitution??
Click to expand...


The basic principle of the Constitution is that we are a nation of laws, with checks and balances to insure we never have a dictator. The principle behind the Constitution and especially the bill of rights is freedom. That is why Liberals argues that beating confessions out of people was wrong. Do you know why it is wrong?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

SavannahMann said:


> /QUOTE]
> 
> The basic principle of the Constitution is that we are a nation of laws, with checks and balances to insure we never have a dictator.



wrong of course, basic principle was to oppose big liberal govt whether in the form of a dictator or not which is why Constitution limits what govt can do but not what a dictator can do. Did you know that England was very democratic at the time, not a dictatorship?

Why do you think liberals  spied for Stalin and voted for Sanders/Obama if they were not opposed to basic principle of America? Why do you think they want a living communist Constitution rather than one our Founders gave us?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> How is it possible that someone could be this stupid, dishonest, and wrong.


  typical violent liberal male!! democracy is debate and liberals are not suited to it but rather to violence.


----------



## SavannahMann

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> The basic principle of the Constitution is that we are a nation of laws, with checks and balances to insure we never have a dictator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong of course, basic principle was to oppose big liberal govt whether in the form of a dictator or not which is why Constitution limits what govt can do but not what a dictator can do. Did you know that England was very democratic at the time, not a dictatorship?
> 
> Why do you think liberals  spied for Stalin and voted for Sanders/Obama if they were not opposed to basic principle of America? Why do you think they want a living communist Constitution rather than one our Founders gave us?
Click to expand...


And Obama deported more illegals than George W. Obama gave even more freedom to the intelligence agencies than George W. Or Trump who are totally patriotic. Or something. Give it a rest. 

Trump deportations lag behind Obama levels

I’ve been hearing that propaganda all my life. If we elect Republicans we will lose a Woman’s right to choose. Four decades later nothing. If we elect a Democrat they’ll turn us communist. Four decades later nothing. Lose the hysteria and take your meds. 

If Conservatives are the friend to the a Constitution why is it that Conservatives are the ones who scream loudest when we are discussing the rights of those accused of crimes? The screams are never that a decision or action violated those rights. It is that the accused should have no rights. Yet it is Liberals who are the ones who demand that we follow the Constitution.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

SavannahMann said:


> And Obama deported more illegals than George W. Obama gave even more freedom to the intelligence agencies than George W. Or Trump who are totally patriotic. Or something. Give it a rest.


if you have any idea what you point is above why not tell us???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

SavannahMann said:


> If we elect a Democrat they’ll turn us communist. Four decades later nothing. Lose the hysteria and take your meds.


Its different now. When Uncle Joe asked them if they were communists they took the 5th, now they are openly running for president.  Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

SavannahMann said:


> If we elect Republicans we will lose a Woman’s right to choose. Four decades later nothing..



Its different now. Conservatives have a majority on court!! Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

SavannahMann said:


> If Conservatives are the friend to the a Constitution why is it that Conservatives are the ones who scream loudest when we are discussing the rights of those accused of crimes?



dear, being for the Constitution does not mean criminals should go free most of the time. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

SavannahMann said:


> It is that the accused should have no rights.



if this is true I will pay you $10,000. BEt??


----------



## Crepitus

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?


You kids always seem to forget that the framers were the liberals of their day.  So if anything was to turn out to be unconstitutional it would probably be conservatism.


----------



## pismoe

Crepitus said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?
> 
> 
> 
> You kids always seem to forget that the framers were the liberals of their day.  So if anything was to turn out to be unconstitutional it would probably be conservatism.
Click to expand...

--------------------------------------------------   things --- language and word meanings changed as i have heard your argument in the past .    But 'liberals' of the past were far different than todays ' modern libs'  .   Not much more to say so just a comment for now .   Maybe someone will see my comment and expand on what i just said  Crep .


----------



## regent

America was created as a liberal nation and remains so today. Our Constitution was created as  a liberal document and remains so today.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?


*Well the last bunch was called the Wigs, and they moved to Canada, perhaps we could move them there.?*


----------



## Mr Natural

Dan Stubbs said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?
> 
> 
> 
> *Well the last bunch was called the Wigs, and they moved to Canada, perhaps we could move them there.?*
Click to expand...






I’ll go!


----------



## pismoe

regent said:


> America was created as a liberal nation and remains so today. Our Constitution was created as  a liberal document and remains so today.


-----------------------------------------------  Thank You but i don't think that todays liberal is the same as the Founding Liberals Regent .   Maybe someone could reply or add feed back .


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

pismoe said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> America was created as a liberal nation and remains so today. Our Constitution was created as  a liberal document and remains so today.
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------  Thank You but i don't think that todays liberal is the same as the Founding Liberals Regent .   Maybe someone could reply or add feed back .
Click to expand...


Founders wanted very very tiny govt. They called it freedom. Today's liberals want ever growing govt to the point where they now have embraced Sanders, an open communist! Does anyone really think our Founders were communists?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Our Constitution was created as  a liberal document and remains so today.



If so modern liberals would not require a living communist Constitution!!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Crepitus said:


> You kids always seem to forget that the framers were the liberals of their day.



you mean conservatives of their day in that they wanted very very tiny govt or freedom from govt
just like modern conservatives and libertarians! 1+1=2


----------



## pismoe

thanks ED , i alway hear 'liberal dems' , progressives and what i call perverts alway making the claim that there is a connection between them and the Liberal Founding Fathers  and i think they are totally wrong Edward .


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

pismoe said:


> thanks ED , i alway hear 'liberal dems' , progressives and what i call perverts alway making the claim that there is a connection between them and the Liberal Founding Fathers  and i think they are totally wrong Edward .


OMG yes!! our Founders were fighting for freedom while today's liberals are fighting for Sanders communism!   Does anyone think our Founders were communists?


----------



## pismoe

also , i have always heard the Founders referred to as Classical Liberals although i don't really know or understand the 'meaning'  .  Anyway , there is no way that todays liberals are anything like the Founding Liberals as far as i can see Edward .


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

pismoe said:


> also , i have always heard the Founders referred to as Classical Liberals although i don't really know or understand the 'meaning'  .  Anyway , there is no way that today's liberals are anything like the Founding Liberals as far as i can see Edward .



Yes, Founders are called Classical Liberals by scholars so as not to confuse them with modern liberals who hold opposite views. Classical liberals wanted  liberty or freedom from govt while today's welfare for all liberals want total dependence on govt


----------



## Crepitus

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> You kids always seem to forget that the framers were the liberals of their day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean conservatives of their day in that they wanted very very tiny govt or freedom from govt
> just like modern conservatives and libertarians! 1+1=2
Click to expand...

No, I mean liberals in their day as in willing to break with the crown to gain their freedom.

You guys really need to stop avoiding schools.


----------



## pismoe

Todays libs are nothing like the Liberals of the Founders Day  Crep .   See the perverts and criminals that your liberal dem party embraces  Crep .


----------



## pismoe

no Founding Liberal would stand with modern day  Liberal .   See the groups and individual that support YOU liberals .  See your leaders like 'max waters' and 'antifa' and the violent rioters on college campus'es that want to prohibit Free Speech , want open borders and who destroy private property and who hurt people Crep .


----------



## Pogo

pismoe said:


> Todays libs are nothing like the Liberals of the Founders Day  Crep .   See the perverts and criminals that your liberal dem party embraces  Crep .



If you can't figure out how to use the term properly ---- that's _your_ fault, not the term's.


----------



## pismoe

seems that modern day 'liberals' are pretty much the 'dregs' and 'detritus' in modern society .    I mean , hey , look at your leaders like 'maxine waters' , 'rev al ' ,  illary  and 'mrobama' just to name a few 'dregs' POGO .


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Crepitus said:


> No, I mean liberals in their day as in willing to break with the crown to gain their freedom.
> 
> You guys really need to stop avoiding schools.


 so liberal then meant willing to break from crown to gain freedom?
and today it means willing to give your freedom to a Sanders communist government?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

pismoe said:


> seems that modern day 'liberals' are pretty much the 'dregs' and 'detritus' in modern society .    I mean , hey , look at your leaders like 'maxine waters' , 'rev al ' ,  illary  and 'mrobama' just to name a few 'dregs' POGO .



or notice that the most solid liberal neighborhoods are all ghettos voting for more welfare not the commonweal! Without those neighborhoods the Democrats would cease to exist!


"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin


----------



## danielpalos

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> seems that modern day 'liberals' are pretty much the 'dregs' and 'detritus' in modern society .    I mean , hey , look at your leaders like 'maxine waters' , 'rev al ' ,  illary  and 'mrobama' just to name a few 'dregs' POGO .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or notice that the most solid liberal neighborhoods are all ghettos voting for more welfare not the commonweal! Without those neighborhoods the Democrats would cease to exist!
> 
> 
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...

It is about solving the problems of our Republic.


----------



## pismoe

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> seems that modern day 'liberals' are pretty much the 'dregs' and 'detritus' in modern society .    I mean , hey , look at your leaders like 'maxine waters' , 'rev al ' ,  illary  and 'mrobama' just to name a few 'dregs' POGO .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or notice that the most solid liberal neighborhoods are all ghettos voting for more welfare not the commonweal! Without those neighborhoods the Democrats would cease to exist!
> 
> 
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------   and its both sides but for different reasons .  'dems' vote for welfare and free for then FREE STUFF .   -------  Conservatives of the 'bush' sort maybe TRUMP sort destroy this Republic in pursuit of MORE .  More money , more growth and in the pursuit of MORE are messing up this country .  --------------   IMO and just a comment Edward .


----------



## pismoe

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> seems that modern day 'liberals' are pretty much the 'dregs' and 'detritus' in modern society .    I mean , hey , look at your leaders like 'maxine waters' , 'rev al ' ,  illary  and 'mrobama' just to name a few 'dregs' POGO .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or notice that the most solid liberal neighborhoods are all ghettos voting for more welfare not the commonweal! Without those neighborhoods the Democrats would cease to exist!
> 
> 
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -Benjamin Franklin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about solving the problems of our Republic.
Click to expand...

--------------------------   what problems , everything is fine for me and most people i see and has been for 70 years and i am not rich though i am well fed .  All i want from Government is the  strongest Military and secure borders and i do get the STRONGEST Military Daniel .


----------



## danielpalos

pismoe said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> seems that modern day 'liberals' are pretty much the 'dregs' and 'detritus' in modern society .    I mean , hey , look at your leaders like 'maxine waters' , 'rev al ' ,  illary  and 'mrobama' just to name a few 'dregs' POGO .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or notice that the most solid liberal neighborhoods are all ghettos voting for more welfare not the commonweal! Without those neighborhoods the Democrats would cease to exist!
> 
> 
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -Benjamin Franklin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about solving the problems of our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------   what problems , everything is fine for me and most people i see and has been for 70 years and i am not rich though i am well fed .  All i want from Government is the  strongest Military and secure borders and i do get the STRONGEST Military Daniel .
Click to expand...

why alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror if everything is so, hunky dory?  

And, you should get what you pay for alleged capitalists and definitely not socialists relying on the other Peoples money; Strongest military in the world Tax Rates, right wingers.


----------



## pismoe

without the Military you have nothing Daniel . Those Wars on Drugs . go ahead suspend them as i don't use drugs .   Same for crime , no crime in my area .     War on terror , well get the enemy in his homeland before he gets here .    Course thats not working as we keep importing the Fifth Column Daniel .


----------



## danielpalos

pismoe said:


> without the Military you have nothing Daniel . Those Wars on Drugs . go ahead suspend them as i don't use drugs .   Same for crime , no crime in my area .     War on terror , well get the enemy in his homeland before he gets here .    Course thats not working as we keep importing the Fifth Column Daniel .


What did our Founding Fathers claim regarding Standing Armies?


----------



## Crepitus

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean liberals in their day as in willing to break with the crown to gain their freedom.
> 
> You guys really need to stop avoiding schools.
> 
> 
> 
> so liberal then meant willing to break from crown to gain freedom?
> and today it means willing to give your freedom to a Sanders communist government?
> 
> See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
Click to expand...

Liberalism means what it always has, moving forward not standing still or backsliding.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Crepitus said:


> Liberalism means what it always has, moving forward not standing still or backsliding.



So does that make Hitler Stalin and Mao liberals??


----------



## Crepitus

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism means what it always has, moving forward not standing still or backsliding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does that make Hitler Stalin and Mao liberals??
Click to expand...

Ummm, you think what those people did is "moving forward"?

You are one confused kid.  Get help.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?


As a Conservative and true believer in the Constitution I would never support a plan that outlawed an entire political group. Any dangerous fringe elements are a different matter.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Crepitus said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism means what it always has, moving forward not standing still or backsliding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does that make Hitler Stalin and Mao liberals??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm, you think what those people did is "moving forward"?
> .
Click to expand...


well HItler Stalin and Mao were socialists like Sanders, the leader of Democratic Party. How do you define moving forward? Is Sanders moving backwards/forward??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?
> 
> 
> 
> As a Conservative and true believer in the Constitution I would never support a plan that outlawed an entire political group. Any dangerous fringe elements are a different matter.
Click to expand...

 what could be a more dangerous fringe than Democrats who oppose the basic principle 
of  America?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Crepitus said:


> Liberalism means what it always has, moving forward not standing still or backsliding.


certainly Hitler  Stalin Mao and a billion followers thought they were moving forward. Do you understand?


----------



## danielpalos

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism means what it always has, moving forward not standing still or backsliding.
> 
> 
> 
> certainly Hitler  Stalin Mao and a billion followers thought they were moving forward. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

thank Goodness for left wingers like FDR.


----------



## Crepitus

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism means what it always has, moving forward not standing still or backsliding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does that make Hitler Stalin and Mao liberals??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm, you think what those people did is "moving forward"?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well HItler Stalin and Mao were socialists like Sanders, the leader of Democratic Party. How do you define moving forward? Is Sanders moving backwards/forward??
Click to expand...

Lol, those guys were fascist, your team not mine.

Bernie is moving forward of course.


----------



## Crepitus

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism means what it always has, moving forward not standing still or backsliding.
> 
> 
> 
> certainly Hitler  Stalin Mao and a billion followers thought they were moving forward. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

Lol, so do tRump and his loyal oompa-loompas.

But they aren't.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Crepitus said:


> Lol, so do tRump and his loyal oompa-loompas.
> 
> But they aren't.


great so according to your brilliant definition everyone thinks he is a liberal but apparently only you know who really is a liberal!! See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
Actually definitions:

liberal: mentally slow so like child imagines govt can provide magical solutions to every problem

conservative: intelligent so can understand  exactly what our Founders did, namely, that freedom works.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Crepitus said:


> Lol, those guys were fascist, your team not mine.
> 
> Bernie is moving forward of course.



why did our liberals spy for Stalin  and march in May Day parades if they were fascists? Are liberals fascists now?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Crepitus said:


> Bernie is moving forward of course.



How is socialism moving forward when it has already killed 120 million? Bernie wants to start out with a European style economy when they have 65% of our per capita GDP and even Krugman describes it as Eurosclerosis. See why we say liberalism is based in ignorance?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

danielpalos said:


> thank Goodness for left wingers like FDR.



exactly!! 16 years of world wide depression  capped off by a world war that killed 60 million is a liberals idea of success!


----------



## dblack

> If our Constitution made liberalism, in effect, illegal what should we do with them?




Build a wall! Duh.


----------



## danielpalos

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> thank Goodness for left wingers like FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly!! 16 years of world wide depression  capped off by a world war that killed 60 million is a liberals idea of success!
Click to expand...

WWII happened; and, we got a First World economy after Capitalism died in 1929.  The rest of the world is catching up.


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> If our Constitution made liberalism, in effect, illegal what should we do with them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Build a wall! Duh.
Click to expand...

tax increase economics for a wall; no financing, right wingers.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution.  And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written _expression of_ Liberalism.
> 
> 
> /thread
Click to expand...

Those liberals are the exact opposite of modern day liberals.  Your constant attempts to claim the two are equivalent doesn't pass the laugh test.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism.  Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The post about "classic Liberalism" is classic revisionism.  The conservatives at the time the Constitution was writ were the Loylalists who wanted to remain England's colony and believed in government hierarchy/meritocracy.  The conservatives were King George's people.  Now he wants to open the history books and change everybody's clothes because his own people were on the wrong side.
Click to expand...

Leftwing propaganda.  The term "conservative" was utterly meaningless at the time.  

The bottom line is that pretending you have anything in common with 18th Century liberals is a joke.


----------



## regent

Is aiding the poor a form of liberalism?


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> Is aiding the poor a form of liberalism?


Since when do liberals aid the poor?


----------



## regent

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is aiding the poor a form of liberalism?
> 
> 
> 
> Since when do liberals aid the poor?
Click to expand...

Aiding their fellow-man is one of the core beliefs of liberalism. One only  needs to read these posts to find the conservative core beliefs.


----------



## Pogo

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is aiding the poor a form of liberalism?
> 
> 
> 
> Since when do liberals aid the poor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aiding their fellow-man is one of the core beliefs of liberalism. One only  needs to read these posts to find the conservative core beliefs.
Click to expand...


The latter appears to be about smearing jelly all over one's face and giving everybody the finger.

Oh, and characterizing political science as "a joke".  Which is really the same thing.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism means what it always has, moving forward not standing still or backsliding.
> 
> 
> 
> certainly Hitler  Stalin Mao and a billion followers thought they were moving forward. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

Clearly you don’t understand.

Liberalism means to embrace change, celebrate diversity, and defend the rights and protected liberties of the American people from conservatives who, for the most part, seek to violate those rights and protected liberties.  

Indeed, it’s the fear of change central to conservative dogma that renders conservativism the bane of American liberty, justice, and the rule of law – as conservatives seek to compel conformity through the force of law, they invariably trample on the rights of the people.

Your posts are further proof of the right’s authoritarianism and contempt for citizens’ rights as liberties, such as your ridiculous advocacy that liberalism be made ‘illegal.’


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is aiding the poor a form of liberalism?
> 
> 
> 
> Since when do liberals aid the poor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aiding their fellow-man is one of the core beliefs of liberalism. One only  needs to read these posts to find the conservative core beliefs.
Click to expand...

18th Century liberals believed in charity, not welfare, moron.


----------



## danielpalos

socialism on a national basis is all the right wing knows.  we have a Commerce Clause, and our welfare clause is General, not Common.


----------



## dblack

danielpalos said:


> socialism on a national basis is all the right wing knows.  we have a Commerce Clause, and our welfare clause is General, not Common.



If you alter the phrasing slightly, you could make it a haiku.


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> socialism on a national basis is all the right wing knows.  we have a Commerce Clause, and our welfare clause is General, not Common.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you alter the phrasing slightly, you could make it a haiku.
Click to expand...

i merely need a superior argument in public venues.


----------



## regent

I wonder if charity or welfare are ever called socialism?


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> I wonder if charity or welfare are ever called socialism?


Charity obviously isn't socialism while welfare obviously is.


----------



## danielpalos

regent said:


> I wonder if charity or welfare are ever called socialism?


simply using the Other Peoples' tax money is socialism.


----------



## regent

danielpalos said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if charity or welfare are ever called socialism?
> 
> 
> 
> simply using the Other Peoples' tax money is socialism.
Click to expand...

So  America has always had  socialism since it was founded?


----------



## danielpalos

regent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if charity or welfare are ever called socialism?
> 
> 
> 
> simply using the Other Peoples' tax money is socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So  America has always had  socialism since it was founded?
Click to expand...

Social-ism starts with a social contract or Constitution.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if charity or welfare are ever called socialism?
> 
> 
> 
> simply using the Other Peoples' tax money is socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So  America has always had  socialism since it was founded?
Click to expand...

Government spending is socialism.  It always has been.  In the beginning of this country we kept it to the absolute minimum.  That was for a reason:  socialism sucks, period.  The fact that we had it when the country was founded doesn't make it good.  We also had murder and robbery.

Snowflakes lack the capacity to commit logic.  They always use the same old dumbass arguments.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Liberalism means to embrace change, celebrate diversity, and defend the rights and protected liberties of the American people from conservatives who, for the most part, seek to violate those rights and protected liberties.



socialism breeds stagnation not change. capitalism unifies the entire world. China adopted capitalism and is now a deeply integrated part of the ever changing world. Freedom changed the world from stone age to here not  socialism which killed 120 million.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> .
> 
> Liberalism means to embrace change, celebrate diversity, and defend the rights and protected liberties of the American people from conservatives who, for the most part, seek to violate those rights and protected liberties.
> ’


 if so why so afraid to name the most obvious  example of this?? what did we learn from your fear?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Indeed, it’s the fear of change central to conservative dogma that renders conservativism the bane of American liberty, justice, and the rule of law .’



Hitler Stalin and Mao had no fear of change, Liberals never do because they are far too stupid to understand the situation. Why do you think our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb??

See what happens when you skip college?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> your ridiculous advocacy that liberalism be made ‘illegal.’



liberalism is opposed to freedom the basic principle of America so why shouldn't it be made illegal?


----------



## bripat9643

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it’s the fear of change central to conservative dogma that renders conservativism the bane of American liberty, justice, and the rule of law .’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler Stalin and Mao had no fear of change, Liberals never do because they are far too stupid to understand the situation. Why do you think our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb??
> 
> See what happens when you skip college?
Click to expand...

Whenever I see these leftwing morons bleating about fear of change, I just look at all the socialist dictators who courageously marched where angels feared to tread.  Fear of change is a good thing, especially when we are talking about the changes that leftwing thugs want to make.


----------



## regent

bripat9643 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it’s the fear of change central to conservative dogma that renders conservativism the bane of American liberty, justice, and the rule of law .’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler Stalin and Mao had no fear of change, Liberals never do because they are far too stupid to understand the situation. Why do you think our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb??
> 
> See what happens when you skip college?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I see these leftwing morons bleating about fear of change, I just look at all the socialist dictators who outrageously marched where angels feared to tread.  Fear of change is a good thing, especially when we are talking about the changes that leftwing thugs want to make.
Click to expand...

I assume you did not skip college, so what do you think of that period of tremendous changes called "the Age of Enlightenment"?


----------



## Wyatt earp

regent said:


> I wonder if charity or welfare are ever called socialism?



I wonder if the left will ever know the difference between charity and taxes?


.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it’s the fear of change central to conservative dogma that renders conservativism the bane of American liberty, justice, and the rule of law .’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler Stalin and Mao had no fear of change, Liberals never do because they are far too stupid to understand the situation. Why do you think our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb??
> 
> See what happens when you skip college?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I see these leftwing morons bleating about fear of change, I just look at all the socialist dictators who outrageously marched where angels feared to tread.  Fear of change is a good thing, especially when we are talking about the changes that leftwing thugs want to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume you did not skip college, so what do you think of that period of tremendous changes called "the Age of Enlightenment"?
Click to expand...

What do you think about that period of tremendous changes called the 20th Century when we had gulags, two world wars and several instances of genocide?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> I assume you did not skip college, so what do you think of that period of tremendous changes called "the Age of Enlightenment"?



The Christian Enlightenment which gave birth to the idea of freedom from big liberal govt didn't get 120 million innocent people killed  like the libMarxist left wing enlightenment did!


----------



## Aurora Woman

JGalt said:


> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting.* So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.*



Not quite. They  borrowed many aspects of the new governing structure from the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. They also leaned heavily on old European standards.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Aurora Woman said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting.* So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. They  borrowed many aspects of the new governing structure from the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. They also leaned heavily on old European standards.
Click to expand...


maybe put the point is liberalism is anti American; so what should real Americans do about it?


----------



## Aurora Woman

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> maybe put the point is liberalism is anti American; so what should real Americans do about it?



This real American plans on voting for the best candidates. Most of them are, of course, people who have a (D) after their names.


----------



## JGalt

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Aurora Woman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting.* So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. They  borrowed many aspects of the new governing structure from the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. They also leaned heavily on old European standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe put the point is liberalism is anti American; so what should real Americans do about it?
Click to expand...


Vote them out of existence.. We haven't reached the "cartridge box" solution yet. Close, but not quite.


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Aurora Woman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting.* So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. They  borrowed many aspects of the new governing structure from the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. They also leaned heavily on old European standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe put the point is liberalism is anti American; so what should real Americans do about it?
Click to expand...


I told you way back when you started this thread, Emptypants --- Liberalism is _literally_ what _created _America.  It can't possibly be "anti-American" any more than water can be dry.

Your problem is you need to learn how to STFU and listen to your superiors, which means everybody.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Aurora Woman said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting.* So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. They  borrowed many aspects of the new governing structure from the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. They also leaned heavily on old European standards.
Click to expand...



*Our ruling*

The Facebook meme said "the U.S. Constitution owes its notion of democracy to the Iroquois Tribes."

There’s a grain of truth here: The Iroquois system of government was known to 18th century leaders in the colonies and the new republic, and it shared some similarities with post-revolutionary attempts at governance.

However, the meme overstates the consensus among historians. Major elements of the Iroquois system are altogether absent in the U.S. government, including hereditary, clan-based governance, and the meme focuses on Iroquois influences to the exclusion of European precedents that are at least as important, and likely more so.

On balance, we rate the claim Mostly False.


----------



## Darkwind

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?



If you are intellectually consistent, and actually do believe the Constitution is our saving grace, then you must come to the conclusion that you do nothing to liberals.

You either believe in freedom and liberty or you don't.  That applies to every American citizen, regardless of your agreement or disagreement with them.

BTW..we are NOT a Democracy.


----------



## bripat9643

Aurora Woman said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe put the point is liberalism is anti American; so what should real Americans do about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This real American plans on voting for the best candidates. Most of them are, of course, people who have a (D) after their names.
Click to expand...

Real Americans wouldn't think of voting for a Dim.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> -- Liberalism is _literally_ what _created _America.  .


You mean classical liberalism ie liberty from big govt. Modern liberalism is 100% opposed to classical liberalism to the point where it is now openly socialist. You have learned this 26 times now. Shall we go for 27?


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aurora Woman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting.* So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. They  borrowed many aspects of the new governing structure from the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. They also leaned heavily on old European standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe put the point is liberalism is anti American; so what should real Americans do about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you way back when you started this thread, Emptypants --- Liberalism is _literally_ what _created _America.  It can't possibly be "anti-American" any more than water can be dry.
> 
> Your problem is you need to learn how to STFU and listen to your superiors, which means everybody.
Click to expand...

As you have been told countless times, modern day liberalism has no connection of any kind with what the Founding Fathers believe.  Modern liberalism has it's roots in Marxism and Utopian socialism, not 18th Century liberalism.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

bripat9643 said:


> Real Americans wouldn't think of voting for a Dim.



yes but why are they allowed to hold office when Constitution requires an oath that they swear  to preserve, protect and defend Constitution? They are opposed to Constitution so cant legally hold office-right?


----------



## JGalt

Aurora Woman said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe put the point is liberalism is anti American; so what should real Americans do about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This real American plans on voting for the best candidates. Most of them are, of course, people who have a (D) after their names.
Click to expand...


Real Americans don't vote for Presidents who give enemies like Iran billions of dollars stacked up on a pallet, waiting to be loaded into a cargo plane.

Real Americans don't want to see millions of illegals including rapists, sexual offenders, murderers, drug dealers swarm into this country.

Real Americans don't leave other Americans to die in places like Benghazi, Libya, while lying to the American people and blaming it on a "Youtube video."

Real Americans don't work out deals where enemies like Russia gets access to a quarter of our uranium reserves.

Real Americans don't make hundreds of millions of dollars from speaking engagements to Russian oligarchs and Middle Eastern countries where women are treated like animals.

Real Americans don't support Presidents who hamstring our military by making gender-selection more important than funding and training. 

Real Americans don't run illegal private servers in someone's bathroom, allowing Russian and Chinese hackers to steal everyone's email.

Real Americans don't use the power of the IRS to harass political opponents, nor do they use the power of the Justice Department to gin up fake stories and phony investigations against their political adversaries.

I could go on.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Darkwind said:


> If you are intellectually consistent, and actually do believe the Constitution is our saving grace, then you must come to the conclusion that you do nothing to liberals.
> .


do nothing??? we can prevent them from holding office on grounds that they cant take oath of office-right?


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aurora Woman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting.* So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. They  borrowed many aspects of the new governing structure from the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. They also leaned heavily on old European standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe put the point is liberalism is anti American; so what should real Americans do about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you way back when you started this thread, Emptypants --- Liberalism is _literally_ what _created _America.  It can't possibly be "anti-American" any more than water can be dry.
> 
> Your problem is you need to learn how to STFU and listen to your superiors, which means everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you have been told countless times, modern day liberalism has no connection of any kind with what the Founding Fathers believe.  Modern liberalism has it's roots in Marxism and Utopian socialism, not 18th Century liberalism.
Click to expand...


There is no "modern Liberalism" that has "it is roots" anywhere, Learn-how-to-English Boi.  As YOU have been told, you don't get to just up and decide you'll turn a definition inside out just because your tiny little mind doesn't have the capacity to find a proper term.

Liberalism has "it is roots" in Locke and Voltaire and Jefferson and Madison, looooooooooong before Marx existed.  Break open the piggy bank and go buy a history book.  And share it with the OP with whose negative-number intellect you're competing.


----------



## JGalt

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aurora Woman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting.* So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. They  borrowed many aspects of the new governing structure from the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. They also leaned heavily on old European standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe put the point is liberalism is anti American; so what should real Americans do about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you way back when you started this thread, Emptypants --- Liberalism is _literally_ what _created _America.  It can't possibly be "anti-American" any more than water can be dry.
> 
> Your problem is you need to learn how to STFU and listen to your superiors, which means everybody.
Click to expand...



Quit trying to redefine political labels. You have absolutely nothing in common with "classic liberalism". Your ideology as is the majority of today's liberal's is more aligned with a sick mixture of Marxism, anarchism, and National Socialism.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aurora Woman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting.* So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. They  borrowed many aspects of the new governing structure from the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. They also leaned heavily on old European standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe put the point is liberalism is anti American; so what should real Americans do about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you way back when you started this thread, Emptypants --- Liberalism is _literally_ what _created _America.  It can't possibly be "anti-American" any more than water can be dry.
> 
> Your problem is you need to learn how to STFU and listen to your superiors, which means everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you have been told countless times, modern day liberalism has no connection of any kind with what the Founding Fathers believe.  Modern liberalism has it's roots in Marxism and Utopian socialism, not 18th Century liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "modern Liberalism" that has "it is roots" anywhere, Learn-how-to-English Boi.  As YOU have been told, you don't get to just up and decide you'll turn a definition inside out just because your tiny little mind doesn't have the capacity to find a proper term.
> 
> Liberalism has "it is roots" in Locke and Voltaire and Jefferson and Madison, looooooooooong before Marx existed.  Break open the piggy bank and go buy a history book.  And share it with the OP with whose negative-number intellect you're competing.
Click to expand...

Spare us.  We know you're full of shit, and you know you're full of shit.


----------



## regent

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it’s the fear of change central to conservative dogma that renders conservativism the bane of American liberty, justice, and the rule of law .’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler Stalin and Mao had no fear of change, Liberals never do because they are far too stupid to understand the situation. Why do you think our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb??
> 
> See what happens when you skip college?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I see these leftwing morons bleating about fear of change, I just look at all the socialist dictators who outrageously marched where angels feared to tread.  Fear of change is a good thing, especially when we are talking about the changes that leftwing thugs want to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume you did not skip college, so what do you think of that period of tremendous changes called "the Age of Enlightenment"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think about that period of tremendous changes called the 20th Century when we had gulags, two world wars and several instances of genocide?
Click to expand...

The Age of Enlightenment took a little longer and  it gave us the biggie, science, new views on governments and so forth. It was a period of great changes in the world of ideas. The Age led to great changes in man's thought process and led to a liberal America and a liberal government.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> Liberalism has "it is roots" in Locke and Voltaire and Jefferson and Madison, looooooooooong before Marx existed..



very true but those who call themselves liberal today 100% oppose the ideas of Jefferson and Madison so it would be senseless to call them liberal unless you wanted to be backwards about it.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it’s the fear of change central to conservative dogma that renders conservativism the bane of American liberty, justice, and the rule of law .’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler Stalin and Mao had no fear of change, Liberals never do because they are far too stupid to understand the situation. Why do you think our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb??
> 
> See what happens when you skip college?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I see these leftwing morons bleating about fear of change, I just look at all the socialist dictators who outrageously marched where angels feared to tread.  Fear of change is a good thing, especially when we are talking about the changes that leftwing thugs want to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume you did not skip college, so what do you think of that period of tremendous changes called "the Age of Enlightenment"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think about that period of tremendous changes called the 20th Century when we had gulags, two world wars and several instances of genocide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Age of Enlightenment took a little longer and  it gave us the biggie, science, new views on governments and so forth. It was a period of great changes in the world of ideas. The Age led to great changes in man's thought process and led to a liberal America and a liberal government.
Click to expand...

The left reached its apogee in the 20th Century, the age of Gulags, concentration camps, multiple genocides and two world wars.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> led to a liberal America and a liberal government.


if you mean liberal in the sense of a very very tiny govt your are correct! Todays liberals are openly socialist so it would hardly makes sense to call  them liberals  and our Founders liberals given opposite philosophies. 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

bripat9643 said:


> The left reached its apogee in the 20th Century, the age of Gulags, concentration camps, multiple genocides and two world wars.



Sure and it's just coincidental that our liberals spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb, and showed solidarity by marching in May Day parades!! It had nothing to do with their common ideology


----------



## Aurora Woman

bripat9643 said:


> Real Americans wouldn't think of voting for a Dim.



Thankfully you and your ilk are not allowed to define what constitutes a "real" American.


----------



## Darkwind

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are intellectually consistent, and actually do believe the Constitution is our saving grace, then you must come to the conclusion that you do nothing to liberals.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> do nothing??? we can prevent them from holding office on grounds that they cant take oath of office-right?
Click to expand...

Well, this will be interesting.

On what grounds would you strand that they cannot take the oath of office?


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if charity or welfare are ever called socialism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the left will ever know the difference between charity and taxes?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

the right can't tell the difference between the common Defense and the common Offense.


----------



## regent

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if charity or welfare are ever called socialism?
> 
> 
> 
> simply using the Other Peoples' tax money is socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So  America has always had  socialism since it was founded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government spending is socialism.  It always has been.  In the beginning of this country we kept it to the absolute minimum.  That was for a reason:  socialism sucks, period.  The fact that we had it when the country was founded doesn't make it good.  We also had murder and robbery.
> 
> Snowflakes lack the capacity to commit logic.  They always use the same old dumbass arguments.
Click to expand...

Speaking of logic: Isn't comparing murder and robbery to the founding of a nation called a False Analogy?


----------



## Pogo

JGalt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aurora Woman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.
> 
> The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting.* So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. They  borrowed many aspects of the new governing structure from the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. They also leaned heavily on old European standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe put the point is liberalism is anti American; so what should real Americans do about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you way back when you started this thread, Emptypants --- Liberalism is _literally_ what _created _America.  It can't possibly be "anti-American" any more than water can be dry.
> 
> Your problem is you need to learn how to STFU and listen to your superiors, which means everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quit trying to redefine political labels. You have absolutely nothing in common with "classic liberalism". Your ideology as is the majority of today's liberal's is more aligned with a sick mixture of Marxism, anarchism, and National Socialism.
Click to expand...


You don't know the first iota of what my ideology is.  Nor, apparently, do you know what the political terms you trade around like baseball cards mean either.  

I ain't the one "redefining" anything; I'm the linguistic archconservative in this joint.  Matter of fact I'm probably the only one left who still spells _Hallowe'en_ with the apostrophe.  I'm here to defend the English language and its terms from rhetorical rape.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler Stalin and Mao had no fear of change, Liberals never do because they are far too stupid to understand the situation. Why do you think our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb??
> 
> See what happens when you skip college?
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I see these leftwing morons bleating about fear of change, I just look at all the socialist dictators who outrageously marched where angels feared to tread.  Fear of change is a good thing, especially when we are talking about the changes that leftwing thugs want to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume you did not skip college, so what do you think of that period of tremendous changes called "the Age of Enlightenment"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think about that period of tremendous changes called the 20th Century when we had gulags, two world wars and several instances of genocide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Age of Enlightenment took a little longer and  it gave us the biggie, science, new views on governments and so forth. It was a period of great changes in the world of ideas. The Age led to great changes in man's thought process and led to a liberal America and a liberal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The left reached its apogee in the 20th Century, the age of Gulags, concentration camps, multiple genocides and two world wars.
Click to expand...


That's all very amusing Fingerboi, but this thread purports to be about Liberalism, not "the left".

Yeah I know ----- you don't have any clue what the difference is.  But then you don't need one; just give it the Finger.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> You don't know the first iota of what my ideology is. .



you're a leftist statist, the opposite of our Founders!!


----------



## bripat9643

Aurora Woman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real Americans wouldn't think of voting for a Dim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully you and your ilk are not allowed to define what constitutes a "real" American.
Click to expand...

Yes we are, moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I see these leftwing morons bleating about fear of change, I just look at all the socialist dictators who outrageously marched where angels feared to tread.  Fear of change is a good thing, especially when we are talking about the changes that leftwing thugs want to make.
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you did not skip college, so what do you think of that period of tremendous changes called "the Age of Enlightenment"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think about that period of tremendous changes called the 20th Century when we had gulags, two world wars and several instances of genocide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Age of Enlightenment took a little longer and  it gave us the biggie, science, new views on governments and so forth. It was a period of great changes in the world of ideas. The Age led to great changes in man's thought process and led to a liberal America and a liberal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The left reached its apogee in the 20th Century, the age of Gulags, concentration camps, multiple genocides and two world wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all very amusing Fingerboi, but this thread purports to be about Liberalism, not "the left".
> 
> Yeah I know ----- you don't have any clue what the difference is.  But then you don't need one; just give it the Finger.
Click to expand...

So you're admitting that Democrats are not liberals?  I agree with you.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if charity or welfare are ever called socialism?
> 
> 
> 
> simply using the Other Peoples' tax money is socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So  America has always had  socialism since it was founded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government spending is socialism.  It always has been.  In the beginning of this country we kept it to the absolute minimum.  That was for a reason:  socialism sucks, period.  The fact that we had it when the country was founded doesn't make it good.  We also had murder and robbery.
> 
> Snowflakes lack the capacity to commit logic.  They always use the same old dumbass arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of logic: Isn't comparing murder and robbery to the founding of a nation called a False Analogy?
Click to expand...

You only proved you lack the capacity to commit logic.  Your theory is that if it existed when the country was founded, then it's a good thing.  I proved that theory wrong.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you did not skip college, so what do you think of that period of tremendous changes called "the Age of Enlightenment"?
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think about that period of tremendous changes called the 20th Century when we had gulags, two world wars and several instances of genocide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Age of Enlightenment took a little longer and  it gave us the biggie, science, new views on governments and so forth. It was a period of great changes in the world of ideas. The Age led to great changes in man's thought process and led to a liberal America and a liberal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The left reached its apogee in the 20th Century, the age of Gulags, concentration camps, multiple genocides and two world wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all very amusing Fingerboi, but this thread purports to be about Liberalism, not "the left".
> 
> Yeah I know ----- you don't have any clue what the difference is.  But then you don't need one; just give it the Finger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're admitting that Democrats are not liberals?  I agree with you.
Click to expand...


I've never even made such a claim, shit-for-brains.

YOU / ME... know the difference.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think about that period of tremendous changes called the 20th Century when we had gulags, two world wars and several instances of genocide?
> 
> 
> 
> The Age of Enlightenment took a little longer and  it gave us the biggie, science, new views on governments and so forth. It was a period of great changes in the world of ideas. The Age led to great changes in man's thought process and led to a liberal America and a liberal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The left reached its apogee in the 20th Century, the age of Gulags, concentration camps, multiple genocides and two world wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all very amusing Fingerboi, but this thread purports to be about Liberalism, not "the left".
> 
> Yeah I know ----- you don't have any clue what the difference is.  But then you don't need one; just give it the Finger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're admitting that Democrats are not liberals?  I agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never even made such a claim, shit-for-brains.
> 
> YOU / ME... know the difference.
Click to expand...

You just said there's a difference between liberals and the left.  Since Democrats are all leftists, they aren't liberals.


----------



## Borillar

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Classic Liberalism is not based on communism and socialism.  Name your sources for "They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting." I would find it quite interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our founders were classical liberals ie for freedom from big liberal govt just like modern conservatives/libertarians. Make sense now?
Click to expand...

They founders wanted freedom from a Monarchy. The English Monarchy was hardly "liberal" in any sense of the word.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> I'm here to defend the English language and its terms from rhetorical rape.


but you lack the IQ to know that words can have several meanings and those meanings can change over time.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Borillar said:


> They founders wanted freedom from a Monarchy. The English Monarchy was hardly "liberal" in any sense of the word.


 Actually The Enlightenment was about freedom from liberal statist government whether monarchy, communist, or dictatorship. 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> I'm here to defend the English language and its terms from rhetorical rape.


 Hate to rock your world dear but you're here in a state of self-delusion pretending liberalism belongs in America and at the Founding.


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm here to defend the English language and its terms from rhetorical rape.
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to rock your world dear but you're here in a state of self-delusion pretending liberalism belongs in America and at the Founding.
Click to expand...


Sigh....

>> *Liberalism* is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support Civil rights, Democracy, Secularism, Gender equality, Racial equality, Internationalism, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press and Freedom of religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets.[11] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12]adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.[13]

Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688,[14] the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny.  << -- Wiki
​I told you this _as soon as you started this mindless retarded thread_, Dumbass.  Liberalism is the basis of the United States Constitution.  If you can't handle it ---------- fucking leave.


----------



## regent

America was not only founded on the liberalism that took hold of Europe and America but  it was the beginning of the end of monarchies. As the monarchies had taken care of the noble and royal class the new America would eventually take care of all it's citizens, even those needing aid. In this regard some 
governments changed over the years and people no longer feared governments.
For evidence, read our Declaration of Independence, and the document that carries out the declaration's intentions, the Constitution.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> Liberalism is the basis of the United States Constitution.



If you mean the basis of the Constitution is very very limited government you are correct! But today that is called conservatism or libertarianism, while liberalism is 100% opposed to limited govt.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> >> *Liberalism* is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2]​




absurd and vague definition since everyone imagines they are for liberty and equality! 1+1=2

you might as well say liberalism is good and conservatism is bad! Are you in kindergarten?​


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> *Liberalism* is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2]​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> absurd and vague definition since everyone imagines they are for liberty and equality! 1+1=2
> 
> you might as well say liberalism is good and conservatism is bad! Are you in kindergarten?​
Click to expand...

 I think you're starting to catch on.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm here to defend the English language and its terms from rhetorical rape.
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to rock your world dear but you're here in a state of self-delusion pretending liberalism belongs in America and at the Founding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh....
> 
> >> *Liberalism* is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support Civil rights, Democracy, Secularism, Gender equality, Racial equality, Internationalism, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press and Freedom of religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
> 
> Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets.[11] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12]adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.[13]
> 
> Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688,[14] the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny.  << -- Wiki
> ​I told you this _as soon as you started this mindless retarded thread_, Dumbass.  Liberalism is the basis of the United States Constitution.  If you can't handle it ---------- fucking leave.
Click to expand...

Spare us the references to 18th Century liberalism.  Modern liberalism bares no resemblance to it.

End of story.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm here to defend the English language and its terms from rhetorical rape.
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to rock your world dear but you're here in a state of self-delusion pretending liberalism belongs in America and at the Founding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh....
> 
> >> *Liberalism* is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support Civil rights, Democracy, Secularism, Gender equality, Racial equality, Internationalism, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press and Freedom of religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
> 
> Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets.[11] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12]adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.[13]
> 
> Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688,[14] the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny.  << -- Wiki
> ​I told you this _as soon as you started this mindless retarded thread_, Dumbass.  Liberalism is the basis of the United States Constitution.  If you can't handle it ---------- fucking leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spare us the references to 18th Century liberalism.  Modern liberalism bares no resemblance to it.
> 
> End of story.
Click to expand...


Sorry Fingerboy, I'm afraid your inability to navigate political (or any other) terms is not the terms' problem.

AGAIN, there are no temporal variants in what Liberalism is.  It just IS, and there's nothing you can do about that.  Not even sitting on the internet trying to pretend words mean their own opposites.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm here to defend the English language and its terms from rhetorical rape.
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to rock your world dear but you're here in a state of self-delusion pretending liberalism belongs in America and at the Founding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh....
> 
> >> *Liberalism* is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support Civil rights, Democracy, Secularism, Gender equality, Racial equality, Internationalism, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press and Freedom of religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
> 
> Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets.[11] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12]adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.[13]
> 
> Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688,[14] the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny.  << -- Wiki
> ​I told you this _as soon as you started this mindless retarded thread_, Dumbass.  Liberalism is the basis of the United States Constitution.  If you can't handle it ---------- fucking leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spare us the references to 18th Century liberalism.  Modern liberalism bares no resemblance to it.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Fingerboy, I'm afraid your inability to navigate political (or any other) terms is not the terms' problem.
> 
> AGAIN, there are no temporal variants in what Liberalism is.  It just IS, and there's nothing you can do about that.  Not even sitting on the internet trying to pretend words mean their own opposites.
Click to expand...

The problem is your incessant lying about the fact the term "liberal" applies to something entirely different than what it applied to in the 18th Century.  You theory that the meaning of words never changes is utterly idiotic.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm here to defend the English language and its terms from rhetorical rape.
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to rock your world dear but you're here in a state of self-delusion pretending liberalism belongs in America and at the Founding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh....
> 
> >> *Liberalism* is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support Civil rights, Democracy, Secularism, Gender equality, Racial equality, Internationalism, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press and Freedom of religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
> 
> Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets.[11] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12]adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.[13]
> 
> Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688,[14] the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny.  << -- Wiki
> ​I told you this _as soon as you started this mindless retarded thread_, Dumbass.  Liberalism is the basis of the United States Constitution.  If you can't handle it ---------- fucking leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spare us the references to 18th Century liberalism.  Modern liberalism bares no resemblance to it.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Fingerboy, I'm afraid your inability to navigate political (or any other) terms is not the terms' problem.
> 
> AGAIN, there are no temporal variants in what Liberalism is.  It just IS, and there's nothing you can do about that.  Not even sitting on the internet trying to pretend words mean their own opposites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is your incessant lying about the fact the term "liberal" applies to something entirely different than what it applied to in the 18th Century.  You theory that the meaning of words never changes is utterly idiotic.
Click to expand...


NO Fingerboy, the problem is that your ilk insists on pretending it means something completely different now, or that you have your fingers crossed behind your back when you type it so it doesn't count or some shit.

The OP has his head completely up its ass.  The Constitution making Liberalism illegal would be like the NFL prohibiting the use of footballs.  It would be like the Catholic Church banning Jesus.  It would be like McDonald's going to an all-salad menu.  You can't "make illegal" what you're literally CONSTITUTED OF.

If you can't figure that out you need to quit skipping school and go get an edumacation.


----------



## PoliticalChic

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm here to defend the English language and its terms from rhetorical rape.
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to rock your world dear but you're here in a state of self-delusion pretending liberalism belongs in America and at the Founding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh....
> 
> >> *Liberalism* is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support Civil rights, Democracy, Secularism, Gender equality, Racial equality, Internationalism, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press and Freedom of religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
> 
> Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets.[11] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12]adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.[13]
> 
> Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688,[14] the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny.  << -- Wiki
> ​I told you this _as soon as you started this mindless retarded thread_, Dumbass.  Liberalism is the basis of the United States Constitution.  If you can't handle it ---------- fucking leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spare us the references to 18th Century liberalism.  Modern liberalism bares no resemblance to it.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Fingerboy, I'm afraid your inability to navigate political (or any other) terms is not the terms' problem.
> 
> AGAIN, there are no temporal variants in what Liberalism is.  It just IS, and there's nothing you can do about that.  Not even sitting on the internet trying to pretend words mean their own opposites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is your incessant lying about the fact the term "liberal" applies to something entirely different than what it applied to in the 18th Century.  You theory that the meaning of words never changes is utterly idiotic.
Click to expand...




Communist John Dewey prevailed on the Socialist Party to change its name to "Liberal"

And those are today's Liberals.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to rock your world dear but you're here in a state of self-delusion pretending liberalism belongs in America and at the Founding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh....
> 
> >> *Liberalism* is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support Civil rights, Democracy, Secularism, Gender equality, Racial equality, Internationalism, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press and Freedom of religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
> 
> Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets.[11] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12]adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.[13]
> 
> Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688,[14] the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny.  << -- Wiki
> ​I told you this _as soon as you started this mindless retarded thread_, Dumbass.  Liberalism is the basis of the United States Constitution.  If you can't handle it ---------- fucking leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spare us the references to 18th Century liberalism.  Modern liberalism bares no resemblance to it.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Fingerboy, I'm afraid your inability to navigate political (or any other) terms is not the terms' problem.
> 
> AGAIN, there are no temporal variants in what Liberalism is.  It just IS, and there's nothing you can do about that.  Not even sitting on the internet trying to pretend words mean their own opposites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is your incessant lying about the fact the term "liberal" applies to something entirely different than what it applied to in the 18th Century.  You theory that the meaning of words never changes is utterly idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communist John Dewey prevailed on the Socialist Party to change its name to "Liberal"
> 
> And those are today's Liberals.
Click to expand...


Cult of Ignorance Goddess Speaketh.

----------- Link?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh....
> 
> >> *Liberalism* is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support Civil rights, Democracy, Secularism, Gender equality, Racial equality, Internationalism, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press and Freedom of religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
> 
> Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets.[11] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12]adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.[13]
> 
> Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688,[14] the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny.  << -- Wiki
> ​I told you this _as soon as you started this mindless retarded thread_, Dumbass.  Liberalism is the basis of the United States Constitution.  If you can't handle it ---------- fucking leave.
> 
> 
> 
> Spare us the references to 18th Century liberalism.  Modern liberalism bares no resemblance to it.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Fingerboy, I'm afraid your inability to navigate political (or any other) terms is not the terms' problem.
> 
> AGAIN, there are no temporal variants in what Liberalism is.  It just IS, and there's nothing you can do about that.  Not even sitting on the internet trying to pretend words mean their own opposites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is your incessant lying about the fact the term "liberal" applies to something entirely different than what it applied to in the 18th Century.  You theory that the meaning of words never changes is utterly idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communist John Dewey prevailed on the Socialist Party to change its name to "Liberal"
> 
> And those are today's Liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cult of Ignorance Goddess Speaketh.
> 
> ----------- Link?
Click to expand...





*"...[John] Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding.* Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, *Dewey initially embraced the term “socialism” to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. “*The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer,” Dewey declared, “is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism. The prejudice against the name may be a regrettable prejudice but its influence is so powerful that it is much more reasonable to imagine all but the most dogmatic Socialists joining a new party than to imagine any considerable part of the American people going over to them.”  Dewey’s influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in the light of this."  The Refounding of America | National Review



Now, slither off, Stinky.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to rock your world dear but you're here in a state of self-delusion pretending liberalism belongs in America and at the Founding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh....
> 
> >> *Liberalism* is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support Civil rights, Democracy, Secularism, Gender equality, Racial equality, Internationalism, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press and Freedom of religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
> 
> Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets.[11] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12]adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.[13]
> 
> Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688,[14] the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny.  << -- Wiki
> ​I told you this _as soon as you started this mindless retarded thread_, Dumbass.  Liberalism is the basis of the United States Constitution.  If you can't handle it ---------- fucking leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spare us the references to 18th Century liberalism.  Modern liberalism bares no resemblance to it.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Fingerboy, I'm afraid your inability to navigate political (or any other) terms is not the terms' problem.
> 
> AGAIN, there are no temporal variants in what Liberalism is.  It just IS, and there's nothing you can do about that.  Not even sitting on the internet trying to pretend words mean their own opposites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is your incessant lying about the fact the term "liberal" applies to something entirely different than what it applied to in the 18th Century.  You theory that the meaning of words never changes is utterly idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO Fingerboy, the problem is that your ilk insists on pretending it means something completely different now, or that you have your fingers crossed behind your back when you type it so it doesn't count or some shit.
> 
> The OP has his head completely up its ass.  The Constitution making Liberalism illegal would be like the NFL prohibiting the use of footballs.  It would be like the Catholic Church banning Jesus.  It would be like McDonald's going to an all-salad menu.  You can't "make illegal" what you're literally CONSTITUTED OF.
> 
> If you can't figure that out you need to quit skipping school and go get an edumacation.
Click to expand...

We don't pretend.  We know it.  We simply look at what the Found Fathers stood for, and then we look at what modern douchebag snowflakes stand for, and the two couldn't be more different.

You can lie and lie and lie and pretend you have something in common with 18th Century liberals, but anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that you don't.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> your ilk insists on pretending it means something completely different now,



1+1=2 common usage defines a word. Wm. Buckley Jr. was most important post war conservative. He defined it, in short,  as "those of us against government". Liberals then were the opposite and so had nothing in common with Founding ideas but nevertheless try to convince us every day with the most treasonous and egregious propaganda that communism is somehow American. Would anyone  in their right mind believe that for a second?


----------



## mamooth

We can argue about liberals, but we can't argue how the Trumpflakes on this thread are so openly Stalinist, with their talk about deporting fellow citizens for having differing political opinions. That's some serious brownshirt stuff.

And note how that liberals don't want to deport or prosecute those Trumpflakes for their Stalinist leanings. Being a Stalinist isn't a crime, so the Trump backers are safe. And deportation is not the answer to a criminal offense in any case.

So, as is always the case, moral, constitutional and intellectual high ground to the liberals.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

mamooth said:


> We can argue about liberals, but we can't argue how the Trumpflakes on this thread are so openly Stalinist, with their talk about deporting fellow citizens for having differing political opinions. That's some serious brownshirt stuff.



maybe not deport them but since Constitution prevents them from serving in office what good are they here?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

mamooth said:


> And note how that liberals don't want to deport or prosecute those Trumpflakes for their Stalinist leanings.



are you afraid to present the best example of these Stalinist leanings? What do you learn from your fear?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

mamooth said:


> Being a Stalinist isn't a crime,



so long as its just talk its not a crime. Our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb while he was slowly killing 60 million so deserve to be watched perhaps for signs that they intend to take action.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

mamooth said:


> So, as is always the case, moral, constitutional and intellectual high ground to the liberals.



how do you figure that?


----------

