Classical liberalism

[JakeStarkey]

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.

I thought you claimed to an anarchist, so you don't believe in any of it anyway.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Oh, go wah, Ms Polly. Amend the Constitution if you don't like SCOTUS Article III power. You are simply angry because you can't change it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kaz simply cannot logically discuss the OP and is out of touch with reality.

The AoC did not work well enough for the new expanding nation.

That is why the Convention was called, and the rest is history as they say.

Polly, nothing is going to change.

 

[Pheonixops]

Haha. Right man. Modern day liberals and old time liberals ae different creatures entirely

But both agree and agreed that the Constitution is a "living document", how about you?

 

[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.

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

Polly Parrot is showing her anger.

You are actually 8, aren't you?

I do admit you've been hitting a little too close to home. If you look out your window, there's a car across the street keeping an eye on you. Not that one, the blue one next to it. Yeah, there you go, yeah, that one.

Anyway, you were right, you haven't been imagining the reactionaries under your bed or in the closet, your parents were wrong. We really are there. BTW, nice Speed Racer pajamas.

 

[bripat9643]

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'.

They were an example of no federal government.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I thought you claimed to an anarchist, so you don't believe in any of it anyway.

I did say I was an anarchist, but I was talking to NYcarbineer, not your ugly ass.

 

[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.

Oh, go wah, Ms Polly. Amend the Constitution if you don't like SCOTUS Article III power. You are simply angry because you can't change it.

Hey, if I ever need a girlfriend to talk about my feelings with, you'll be the guy. However, in the meantime, man up and try to keep focused on the conversation and leave the emotional analysis to the girls. You also suck at it, you obviously have no idea how I feel.

Also, Judicial Review isn't in the Constitution, gay boy.

 

[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.

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

Every centrally planned society since the beginning of civilization. Pharaohs, Kings, Czars, Dictators...every tyrant that was just SURE he knew what was best for everyone else.

You just couldn't be this dumb...

 

[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.

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

Worked beautifully for the time period. We won the Revolutionary War under those laws. While the Constitution did expand the role of the federal government, it did so under a VERY SPECIFIC number of limited powers...which the fucking central planners have sought to overstep ever since. If that usurpation of power had resulted in improved results, you might have a case. However, as always, the increased central planning did more harm than good. Sorry, you DON'T know what's best for everyone else.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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

Every centrally planned society since the beginning of civilization. Pharaohs, Kings, Czars, Dictators...every tyrant that was just SURE he knew what was best for everyone else.

You just couldn't be this dumb...

Listen, you want "dumb", there's actually a poster on this board -- I don't see him here but his name rhymes with "Buttsoiler" -- who will swear to all of us that what defines "liberal" or "conservative" is the size of government.

Literally, all by itself.

Somewhere there's a giant scale, and it measures government in Gargantuan units. Anything over 42 is "liberal".

That's how far off this demagogue perversion of the definition of "Liberal" has taken us. Limblob dittoes actually believe this huckster horseshit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Polly Parrot is showing her anger.

You are actually 8, aren't you?

I do admit you've been hitting a little too close to home. If you look out your window, there's a car across the street keeping an eye on you. Not that one, the blue one next to it. Yeah, there you go, yeah, that one.

Anyway, you were right, you haven't been imagining the reactionaries under your bed or in the closet, your parents were wrong. We really are there. BTW, nice Speed Racer pajamas.

Your bitterness is obvious, Polly. Any chance of the far right reactionaries affecting next year's elections in your favor ended in this last October and November.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

I thought you claimed to an anarchist, so you don't believe in any of it anyway.

I did say I was an anarchist, but I was talking to NYcarbineer, not your ugly ass.

Your ugliness of answer merely underlines the correctness of my remark.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Oh, go wah, Ms Polly. Amend the Constitution if you don't like SCOTUS Article III power. You are simply angry because you can't change it.

Hey, if I ever need a girlfriend to talk about my feelings with, you'll be the guy. However, in the meantime, man up and try to keep focused on the conversation and leave the emotional analysis to the girls. You also suck at it, you obviously have no idea how I feel.

Also, Judicial Review isn't in the Constitution, gay boy.

You are as a bitter as server who got gypped on her tip.

Your opinion is immaterial. Amend the Constitution with 2/2 2/3 3/4 if you don't like SCOTUS using its Article III power. Oh, that's right. You can't.

 

[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.

Judicial review was already an established practice in the colonies/states before the Constitution.

Without judicial review the Constitution would become a set of suggestions. States could, for example, ban private ownership of handguns,

and the 2nd amendment could not be legally applied.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Worked beautifully for the time period. We won the Revolutionary War under those laws. While the Constitution did expand the role of the federal government, it did so under a VERY SPECIFIC number of limited powers...which the fucking central planners have sought to overstep ever since. If that usurpation of power had resulted in improved results, you might have a case. However, as always, the increased central planning did more harm than good. Sorry, you DON'T know what's best for everyone else.

You did not make it through college, did you?

The AoC was good with geographical and territorial legislation. It sucked at the rest of government.

While the U.S. Articles of Confederation was a plan of government based upon the principles fought for in the American Revolutionary War, it contained crucial flaws. It had no power of national taxation, no power to control trade, and it provided for a comparatively weak executive. Therefore, it could not enforce legislation. It was a "league of friendship" which was opposed to any type of national authority. The Articles of Confederation's greatest weakness, however, was that it had no direct origin in the people themselves–it knew only state sovereignty. Each state, therefore, had the power to collect its own taxes, issue currency, and provide for its own militia. The government could not govern efficiently because of a general lack of power to compel states to honor national obligations. The government's main activity was to control foreign policy and conclude treaties. Economic credibility was a major problem because the government owed $42 million (more than $40 billion today) after the Revolutionary War, and the debt was mainly owed to American patriots. This financial obligation was not paid off until the early part of the 1800's.

It would have been very difficult for our country to have created a stronger second constitution without learning from the mistakes of the first. The Articles of Confederation served as a "transition" between the Revolutionary War and the Constitution.

https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-confederation/

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Today's lefty is almost a pure Socialist.

They differ from Marx only in that they don't think they need violent revolution, and why should they--they have control of the White House. And also, they claim they don't want to Nationalize private property.

But, as soon as they get 51% on the Government Tit, reliably on the Tit, where they are sure Democratic voters, their idea of "redistribution" will look pretty much like Nationalization.

It is truly amazing that they are so committed to a Socialist policy with the examples of the U.S.S.R and Detroit so fresh...but most are motivated by jealousy and even hate...which are powerful and dangerous emotions. (See rdean & Franco on this board.)

I am scared for my children with such Loons in control.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, that Pocahontas from Massachusetts, that dick Schumer--with hate-filled acolytes like Lois Lerner. Lord help us.

Don't be scared. Politicians aren't in control of anything. Corporations are. Capitalism is well in hand.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

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

Every centrally planned society since the beginning of civilization. Pharaohs, Kings, Czars, Dictators...every tyrant that was just SURE he knew what was best for everyone else.

You just couldn't be this dumb...

Yes, those small, non-centralized fiefdoms in Europe worked real well...
The bottom line is that people with tyrannical personalities will ALWAYS work at controlling others, whether or not government is centralized.

 

[bripat9643]

I thought you claimed to an anarchist, so you don't believe in any of it anyway.

I did say I was an anarchist, but I was talking to NYcarbineer, not your ugly ass.

Your ugliness of answer merely underlines the correctness of my remark.

No, it underlines that your ass is ugly and stupid, like the rest of you.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Every centrally planned society since the beginning of civilization. Pharaohs, Kings, Czars, Dictators...every tyrant that was just SURE he knew what was best for everyone else.

You just couldn't be this dumb...

Yes, those small, non-centralized fiefdoms in Europe worked real well...
The bottom line is that people with tyrannical personalities will ALWAYS work at controlling others, whether or not government is centralized.

They can't do it if government isn't centralized.