Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LOL, and this post is disliked by the guy with the empty pants, dad2three, who is the one who made the claim and isn't backing it up.
An utter lack of understanding.The articles had some flaws but the Constitution has some of its own.....PatrickHenry's worries have largely come true. There are a lot of 'conservatives' with a flawed view of history.....its ironic most profess to worship the "founders" but dont realize the "founders" were in large part big government types. I think "liberal" and "conservative" are pigeon-holing labels that are largely useless in political discussion.Sorry, the VAST majority of sheeple then and now are conservatives. Conservatives fought EVERYTHING that made US great. They and their policy NEVER works ANYWHERE it's EVER been tried, the Articles were a perfect example of thatThe federalists were all for handing out political favors......and the first "breaking" of the understanding of general welfare I believe was for a national bank......so if those on the board here are complaining about redistribution not being constitutional they can blame the federalist backers of a national bank. If its ok for the bankers I dont think we should complain so much about welfare recipients.
Yes, there was coercion, lying, payoffs, just like in today's politics
The US Prez from Washington to perhaps the worst Prez pre Dubya, Andy Jackson, expanded federal powers, some GREATLY
The problem with conservatives, especially libertarians, it's ALL black and white thinking based on myths, fairy tales and lies
-
Do you even know, or understand, that the "founders" were attempting to throw off the shackles of an oppressive regime? They were, in Toto, NOT "big government types." All evidence and history shows you to be incorrect in every possible way. BTW, that is not "ironic" that is ignorance.To assert the underpinning of the fundamentals of political philosophy are "useless in political discussion" only makes you look like a highly maleducated maroon. Perhaps before you say another word on the subject, educate yourself.
You need to educate YOURSELF....THE US under the ARTICLES was the "shackles of an oppressive regime"?......no......try to follow along.....were not talking about the revolutionary war. We're talking about the transition from the Articles to the Constitution..something patriots like PatrickHenry and James Monroe opposed.
The people of England couldn't take care of themselves. Not with that government. That government let the rich rule the serfs. The people of Mexico can't take care of themselves. That government doesn't look out for the masses. The rich rule Mexico.
The only reason you can afford to be so cocky and arrogant is because of the liberal progressive democratic new deal pro labor government you had from FDR to Bush in 2000.
To be honest, Reagan was the first to attack the middle class but GW twisted the knife Reagan put in our backs.
30 years ago the American Middle Class was the best. Today people in Seattle wish they lived in Vancouver. Stupid fucking Americans.
Don't go on any of those free vacations where all you have to do is look at a timeshare. Seriously. I don't think I need government to take care of me, you do think you need it to take care of you. The liberal progressive democratic new deal pro labor government did that, LOL. Actually, I did that for you. By investing my money and growing a business and providing you a job. Government turns around and pummels me for that. You succeed in spite of government, not because of it. You just don't know that because you're not the one fighting the dragon. Your boss is.
LOL, you are the one who made the claim, skippy. You're asking me to back up YOUR claim. At least RW and liberal media didn't make your claim themselves, you did make your claim yourself. Explain the 28% corporate tax cut proposal in detail. Whether your claim it is just "closing loopholes" is ignorance or a lie is known only to you. I suspect ignorance. But it is your claim, you back it up.
LOL, finally, you brought back the context of the quote, though you made the quote you like large and the context small. Read this. He is talking about tax collection. He is saying that taxes are the property of government. You said this is Franklin saying that all money belongs to government. Do you seriously not understand this? Everything you are making giant is referring to his opposition to cheating on taxes, he is not saying all money belongs to government.
That you say you have "more" understanding that I, falls to my aggrandizing point. That you say you have more than a rudimentary understanding, well ok, is this your profession of choice? Are you a constitutional scholar or historian by profession? Not asking the question as a barb, more curiosity. While I would hold my skills as an Engineer against 99.9999% of all others I don't hold my understanding of history in the same regard.Just because you have some rudimentary understanding does not mean "most" don't. I don't know anyone that professes to worship the founders. Everyone that knows anything about the Constitution and it's founders knows, explicitly, that there was great debate, that some were for centralized control and power, and others for a republic of states and small federal government. I'm thinking you are just looking for a way to aggrandize yourself for coming to the realization of some facts about the founders.
When I say I agree with the founders on a subject, I mean I agree with the compromise document they created together. That does not mean I agree with everything said by each individual founder.
I dare say I have more understanding than u.....far more than rudimentary.....Most was a generalization but I think it fits............you can think whatever you want...........Then I would say that that way of putting it is misleading.........when people (mostly self-confessed "conservatives") say that they agree with the founders it seems they are trying to cloth themselves in self-righteous patriotism..........and ignore a debate on issues.
if anybody does the math of this one percent, they wouldn't have pity on them nor think they pay too much or not their fair share. if 1 percent has 4o or 50 percent of money, why shouldn't they pay comparable rates of tax burden? if not more.?
I'm a turf with a surf's salary. Eat shit and puke on it ya marxist rube.you guys are just surfs and were born surfs. seriously. you think anybody can take as much as they want and you will struggle through and survive cause you work harder or are smarter then others? lol. that's funny you big dummies
I did the work
We are fiscally conservative, but you call us "conservatives" not "fiscal conservatives." Why is that? I would have no problem with the latter. I have no problem with the former, I just think it shows how disingenuous you are. When pressed, you say you say the former because of fiscal conservatism. But you do it because you want to connect us with socons and neocons, which we are not.
On the other hand, calling is "libertarians" or "fiscal conservatives" provides no false connotation. They are accurate. Which is why you won't use them.
You mentioned this before. But you don't seem willing to follow through. If the Constitution was ratified based on a fraud, then it's null and void as "consent of the governed" and the authority of the federal government is likewise a fraud.
Maroon,.
While I love the engagement, and, unlike the environmentalist wackos on this forum, at least you tried to address the exact issue. It is 7am and I've not been asleep for about 24 hours, so I must defer our debate. If I forget, PLEASE remind me, as this topic is right up my wheelhouse. Please remind me if I don't respond in the next couple of days. Such fertile soil in which to plant my seed.....
The articles had some flaws but the Constitution has some of its own.....PatrickHenry's worries have largely come true. There are a lot of 'conservatives' with a flawed view of history.....its ironic most profess to worship the "founders" but dont realize the "founders" were in large part big government types. I think "liberal" and "conservative" are pigeon-holing labels that are largely useless in political discussion.
oh, did wittle surf get his feelins hurt? oh, why doeseth the truth by ye so my fair naive? seriously, your founding fathers are rolling over in their graves laughing at how they dooped you into your supposed state of freedom. lol. .go surf, i'm bored trying to enlighten youI'm a turf with a surf's salary. Eat shit and puke on it ya marxist rube.you guys are just surfs and were born surfs. seriously. you think anybody can take as much as they want and you will struggle through and survive cause you work harder or are smarter then others? lol. that's funny you big dummies
Translation: I needed somewhere to throw in the race card.
An utter lack of understanding.
Do you even know, or understand, that the "founders" were attempting to throw off the shackles of an oppressive regime? They were, in Toto, NOT "big government types." All evidence and history shows you to be incorrect in every possible way. BTW, that is not "ironic" that is ignorance.
To assert the underpinning of the fundamentals of political philosophy are "useless in political discussion" only makes you look like a highly maleducated maroon. Perhaps before you say another word on the subject, educate yourself.
That you say you have "more" understanding that I, falls to my aggrandizing point. That you say you have more than a rudimentary understanding, well ok, is this your profession of choice? Are you a constitutional scholar or historian by profession? Not asking the question as a barb, more curiosity. While I would hold my skills as an Engineer against 99.9999% of all others I don't hold my understanding of history in the same regard.I dare say I have more understanding than u.....far more than rudimentary.....Most was a generalization but I think it fits............you can think whatever you want...........Then I would say that that way of putting it is misleading.........when people (mostly self-confessed "conservatives") say that they agree with the founders it seems they are trying to cloth themselves in self-righteous patriotism..........and ignore a debate on issues.Just because you have some rudimentary understanding does not mean "most" don't. I don't know anyone that professes to worship the founders. Everyone that knows anything about the Constitution and it's founders knows, explicitly, that there was great debate, that some were for centralized control and power, and others for a republic of states and small federal government. I'm thinking you are just looking for a way to aggrandize yourself for coming to the realization of some facts about the founders.
When I say I agree with the founders on a subject, I mean I agree with the compromise document they created together. That does not mean I agree with everything said by each individual founder.
I agree with your point that some self professed conservatives are likely self-righteous partisan patriots who ignore debates on issues and merely wrap themselves up in the flag.
niether, they missed the entire point of the debate.An utter lack of understanding.
Do you even know, or understand, that the "founders" were attempting to throw off the shackles of an oppressive regime? They were, in Toto, NOT "big government types." All evidence and history shows you to be incorrect in every possible way. BTW, that is not "ironic" that is ignorance.
To assert the underpinning of the fundamentals of political philosophy are "useless in political discussion" only makes you look like a highly maleducated maroon. Perhaps before you say another word on the subject, educate yourself.
Weird, I thought they tried it with the Articles of Confederation for over a decade THEN chose a BIG FEDERAL GOV'T via the US Constitution?
Yes, the US was split between 'big Gov't federalists and states rights anti's, much like today, and guess which side won the debate?
The federal government could tax under the Articles.....but there was no easy way to enforce payment. Saying it was "recognized as such by the majority of the country" is overstatement. Part of the reason the Constitution was ratified was coercion......Rhode Island was threatened with a blockade if it didnt ratify. The Articles had its flaws,...but the Constitution was the dream document of the Federalists,which was a party that was rejected by the American people a few years after ratification.
