Classical liberalism

[kaz]

Polly Parot is reported for splicing a quote do respond to it out of context.

Here is the entire post so the reader has it context.

Polly Parrot (Kaz) shrieks that government has no role in the future of America. Polly does not understand that we are community as well as individuals. She gets to vote and then she is bound by the vote; she does not get to make choices that violate the choices of We the People.

She thinks that We the People, once they make a choice, makes us "just another country in the world with no more economic or military power and no more freedom than anyone else in the world. We are just like every other socialist country."

That is not only wrong, it is a pathetic attempt to undermine how we do things.

Neither libertarianism nor far right reactionary thinking improves the country, quite the opposite.

You are shrieking like a Parrot, imitating the other libertarian and far right reactionaries on the Board who cannot put their arguments into the context of American life, values, and institutions.

Polly Parrot (Kaz) shrieks that government has no role in the future of America

JakeStarkey is a moron, I've said no such thing.

I do have a question though, who exactly am I "parroting?"

You're an angry little boy. Did the reactionaries under your bed keep you up all night?

 

[bripat9643]

The founders had no concept of what a 21st century government was expected to do

That is why they left it to us

Wrong, they had a very good concept of what a 21st century government was supposed to do: very little.

They didn't leave it to you, numb nuts.

Why should we be bound to the beliefs of our ancestors? If the founders had been bound to the beliefs of their ancestors,

there would never have been a United States, or a Constitution forming a democratic republic.

I thought you claimed to be a liberal just like the Founding Fathers.

 

[bripat9643]

They gave us SCOTUS and Article III and the Bill of Rights to make sure folks like you did not persecute the minority without redress.

So accept the votes in October and November in Congress as a congressional referendum on TeaP stupidity.

That is not going to change.

There will be more tea party members in congress in January 2015 than there are today. you libs are losing, jake. Real americans are fed up and will kick you and your kind out this november.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

That's your favorite hobby, moron.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sure they did. It's written in the constitution that you leftards like to molest, ignore or interpret in ways that make no sense.

Arguing with these types about what government is suppose to do is pointless. To you, they are to provide everything for "free" and there is absolutely no corner of human action that should not be perverted heavily by governance.

Just admit you love authoritarianism and lets call it a day. Clearly you are against individual liberty and the constitution.

The did not, you doofus. That is why the Constitution is organic and mutable depending on the times and age. The document is not static.

True, and they gave us the way to change the constitution. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.

What is a crime is your preferred method of taking a 5/9 short cut to changing the constitution, that is not what they envisioned at all.

So what do you believe the founders gave us to determine the constitutionality of laws?

 

[bripat9643]

The did not, you doofus. That is why the Constitution is organic and mutable depending on the times and age. The document is not static.

True, and they gave us the way to change the constitution. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.

What is a crime is your preferred method of taking a 5/9 short cut to changing the constitution, that is not what they envisioned at all.

So what do you believe the founders gave us to determine the constitutionality of laws?

Nullification and secession.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The founders had no concept of what a 21st century government was expected to do
That is why they left it to us

Sure they did. It's written in the constitution that you leftards like to molest, ignore or interpret in ways that make no sense.

Arguing with these types about what government is suppose to do is pointless. To you, they are to provide everything for "free" and there is absolutely no corner of human action that should not be perverted heavily by governance.

Just admit you love authoritarianism and lets call it a day. Clearly you are against individual liberty and the constitution.

I can tell you what Jefferson thought about the 21st century, or any other century for that matter,

as it relates to what he and other founders thought:

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment....

...But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors...."

Letter to Samuel Kercheval | Teaching American History

Well, that would be all fine adn good. The problem is, that the way your type wants it is actually regressive. You want authoritarian government dictating, regulating and taxing from every facet of human action. And with this, you call it 'progress'.

I have no qualms with changes of the times. Things like the end of slavery and no law to hold the binds in place. I also see things like forced segregation as regression to those things. You can not FORCE humasn to do what you like and then call that 'progress', Dullard. It's ridiculous.

 

[kaz]

The did not, you doofus. That is why the Constitution is organic and mutable depending on the times and age. The document is not static.

True, and they gave us the way to change the constitution. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.

What is a crime is your preferred method of taking a 5/9 short cut to changing the constitution, that is not what they envisioned at all.

So what do you believe the founders gave us to determine the constitutionality of laws?

The Supreme Court gave itself the power in Marbury v. Madison. That did happen at the time of the founding fathers, and they generally accepted it because the judiciary was considered the weakest of the three branches and it never occurred to them that the judiciary would use judicial review as a way to become an unaccountable dictatorship. They didn't really think that one through.

As bad as the legislature is, at least it's accountable directly to the people in a way that no other branch is accountable.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You know what would be fun?

If nutters all had a discussion with each other in which they list all the horrible things that they believe about liberals. No evidence of any kind is needed....just lots of adjectives...maybe some invectives.

This is the best way to remain in the dark and to soothe your butthurt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

True, and they gave us the way to change the constitution. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.

What is a crime is your preferred method of taking a 5/9 short cut to changing the constitution, that is not what they envisioned at all.

So what do you believe the founders gave us to determine the constitutionality of laws?

The Supreme Court gave itself the power in Marbury v. Madison. That did happen at the time of the founding fathers, and they generally accepted it because the judiciary was considered the weakest of the three branches and it never occurred to them that the judiciary would use judicial review as a way to become an unaccountable dictatorship. They didn't really think that one through.

As bad as the legislature is, at least it's accountable directly to the people in a way that no other branch is accountable.

So founders leaving M v M as it was goes to whatever 'intent' you want attribute to them.

And if you want to change that, YOU can, as you point out, go the 2/3 2/3 3/4 route.

 

[eflatminor]

Our founding fathers had no preference for "limited government"

That may be the dumbest fucking thing you've yet written on this board...and that's saying something.

There were no "large governments" in the 18th century

Nope, THAT'S the dumbest thing you've ever written on this board.

 

[Kosh]

You know what would be fun?

If nutters all had a discussion with each other in which they list all the horrible things that they believe about liberals. No evidence of any kind is needed....just lots of adjectives...maybe some invectives.

This is the best way to remain in the dark and to soothe your butthurt.

So you mean have a far left bash anything to the right you thread?

 

[rightwinger]

Our founding fathers had no preference for "limited government"

That may be the dumbest fucking thing you've yet written on this board...and that's saying something.

There were no "large governments" in the 18th century

Nope, THAT'S the dumbest thing you've ever written on this board.

This is easy........name a country in the eighteenth century that would qualify as a "large government"

 

[NYcarbineer]

Our founding fathers had no preference for "limited government"

That may be the dumbest fucking thing you've yet written on this board...and that's saying something.

There were no "large governments" in the 18th century

Nope, THAT'S the dumbest thing you've ever written on this board.

The founders tried a very limited government with the Articles of Confederation and realized they didn't work.

 

[kaz]

So what do you believe the founders gave us to determine the constitutionality of laws?

The Supreme Court gave itself the power in Marbury v. Madison. That did happen at the time of the founding fathers, and they generally accepted it because the judiciary was considered the weakest of the three branches and it never occurred to them that the judiciary would use judicial review as a way to become an unaccountable dictatorship. They didn't really think that one through.

As bad as the legislature is, at least it's accountable directly to the people in a way that no other branch is accountable.

So founders leaving M v M as it was goes to whatever 'intent' you want attribute to them.

And if you want to change that, YOU can, as you point out, go the 2/3 2/3 3/4 route.

So your logic is that the supreme court can make up whatever constitutional change it wants on behalf of socialism, and if we want to undo it then we can follow the constitutional process to undo what the supreme court didn't follow the constitution to do when they did it.



BTW, you said the same thing when they ended Gore v. Bush, right? That Gore needed to go 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4? I know you and you'd nnnneeevvvvvveeeeerrrrrrr be hypocritical about something like that...

 

[kaz]

Our founding fathers had no preference for "limited government"

That may be the dumbest fucking thing you've yet written on this board...and that's saying something.

There were no "large governments" in the 18th century

Nope, THAT'S the dumbest thing you've ever written on this board.

The founders tried a very limited government with the Articles of Confederation and realized they didn't work.

Does your ass has to ache after doing that to yourself. That hurt just to watch.



Actually the articles of confederation to the constitution was going from no government to limited government. How you got socialism out of that, I'll never know.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You know what would be fun?

If nutters all had a discussion with each other in which they list all the horrible things that they believe about liberals. No evidence of any kind is needed....just lots of adjectives...maybe some invectives.

This is the best way to remain in the dark and to soothe your butthurt.

So you mean have a far left bash anything to the right you thread?

I am sure you imagine those....but they are not real. Investigate. You will see.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That may be the dumbest fucking thing you've yet written on this board...and that's saying something.



Nope, THAT'S the dumbest thing you've ever written on this board.

The founders tried a very limited government with the Articles of Confederation and realized they didn't work.

Does your ass has to ache after doing that to yourself. That hurt just to watch.



Actually the articles of confederation to the constitution was going from no government to limited government. How you got socialism out of that, I'll never know.

You're mentally retarded if you think the Articles of Confederation were 'no government'.

 

[Pheonixops]

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1]

Classical liberalism

The Left today is NOT "classically" liberal.

And?

....and most of you don't have a clue as to what you really are.

Who are the people that are constantly referring to "the Left" as Liberals in a disparaging manner today? Liberals and conservatives have different ideologies, people can try to whitewash it by referring to "Classical Liberals", but they still are Liberals and Left Wing in my opinion.

I think that most of the people who hurl the "He's a Libruuuul!" , are the ones who are misguided.

 

[Pheonixops]

What did liberals do that was so offensive to the conservatives? Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.
- Lawrence O’Donnell Jr.

The author forgot to add Public Schools or "government schools" as some of those jerk offs who claim to revere the Founding Fathers call it. Little did they know that:
"Jefferson wrote of his Virginia education plan in a letter to his friend George Wythe, "The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance."

George Washington called for a national university in his First Inaugural Address.

John Adams asked his son in Europe to collect books and ideas for republican schools. He called for public schools as the great equalizer to secure democracy."

Thomas Jefferson and education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Founding Fathers Appalled At Attacks On Public Education - The Winning Words Project

 

[JakeStarkey]

Polly Parot is reported for splicing a quote do respond to it out of context.

Here is the entire post so the reader has it context.

Polly Parrot (Kaz) shrieks that government has no role in the future of America. Polly does not understand that we are community as well as individuals. She gets to vote and then she is bound by the vote; she does not get to make choices that violate the choices of We the People.

She thinks that We the People, once they make a choice, makes us "just another country in the world with no more economic or military power and no more freedom than anyone else in the world. We are just like every other socialist country."

That is not only wrong, it is a pathetic attempt to undermine how we do things.

Neither libertarianism nor far right reactionary thinking improves the country, quite the opposite.

You are shrieking like a Parrot, imitating the other libertarian and far right reactionaries on the Board who cannot put their arguments into the context of American life, values, and institutions.

JakeStarkey is a moron, I've said no such thing.

I do have a question though, who exactly am I "parroting?"

You're an angry little boy. Did the reactionaries under your bed keep you up all night?

Polly Parrot is showing her anger.