GOP jobs agenda

[Dad2three]

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Franklin also said:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Oh his quote on stopping EXPORTS of corn? lol



On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1766



Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute

You are one stupid fucking asswipe.

The quote itself says nothing about corn and has no context in that regard. Except that he is arguing against not being able to export because the government thinks we need it here.

Extending his quote:

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.

************************

You are one sad sorry moron.

You'll argue anything that goes against your head-up-the-ass vision of the liberal world.

Extending the quote? Read the entire fucking newspaper post, I linked it, it's pretty self explanatory, DOESN'T refute Ben's original quote I posted, lol


Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Oh, I read it, shit for brains....Franklin, in context, was quite clear on his positions.

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.

Yes, he was talking about the gawddamn lazy British, lol

You'll NEVER be honest Bubba

 

[Listening]

Franklin also said:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Oh his quote on stopping EXPORTS of corn? lol



On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1766



Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute

You are one stupid fucking asswipe.

The quote itself says nothing about corn and has no context in that regard. Except that he is arguing against not being able to export because the government thinks we need it here.

Extending his quote:

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.

************************

You are one sad sorry moron.

You'll argue anything that goes against your head-up-the-ass vision of the liberal world.

Extending the quote? Read the entire fucking newspaper post, I linked it, it's pretty self explanatory, DOESN'T refute Ben's original quote I posted, lol


Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Oh, I read it, shit for brains....Franklin, in context, was quite clear on his positions.

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.

Yes, he was talking about the gawddamn lazy British, lol

You'll NEVER be honest Bubba

I don't recall him specifically calling out the british as being particularly lazy in the article. It is you, who once again trys to hide behind this kind of implied bullshit.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

With Republicans taking over Congress today, prepare to be dazzled with their jobs agenda. It is what we have been waiting six years for

In the new Congress, Republicans will have the majority in both the Senate and the House for the first time in eight years. As they get ready to take power, their rhetorical focus is clear: jobs, the economy, and more jobs.
So far, there are two main proposals on deck for the GOP. First, the Hire More Heroes Act, which would make it easier for small businesses that hire veterans to deny health care to their employees. Second, they want to immediately build the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would transport oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast.
On their own, these are both extremely small-bore policies. But as a jobs agenda, this doesn't even rise to the level of pitiful. It's the latest evidence that Republicans continue to struggle with basic macroeconomics — and it does not bode well for the nation should they win the White House in 2016.

Sorry Republicans The Keystone XL pipeline is not a jobs agenda - The Week

Your forgetting all the jobs bills passed by the House that are sitting in the Senate that needs to be passed now that they have the majority.

Tax giveaways to corporations is not a jobs bill, no matter what you call it.

Tax give aways?

ROFLMNAO!

The reader should recognize there, that what she's claiming is that Government is entitled to the product of the labor of its citizens. To which, in truth, it is not entitled, because it did not EARN IT, by PRODUCING IT. What's more, that product was created DESPITE GOVERNMENT'S FORCING THE COST OF PRODUCT UP.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Well, James Madison the Father of the US Constitution said: "Let's Eat from this bounty provided by the hands of Bocephus and Randall".

Now some might feel that because he said so, that Madison was a proponent of cannibalism. But of course, he was not suggesting that they eat the hands of Bo' and Randy... .

In this reasonable people can see the importance of context, when quoting from history. And through that, we can understand that Franklin, in his letter to Robert Morris, was speaking to the necessity of taxation for paying for legitimate government expenses. At that time, the US Federal Government was still operating under the Articles of Federation and was flat broke.

Franklin was stating his advocacy for the justification for taxation with no notion that some jackass on a Message Board would project his position as being representative of something akin to that which the United States had just fought to rid itself; the notion that all property belongs to the government in a time when Government has no means to discipline it's appetite for spending.

But how cool is it that to the Left, the Founding Father's were Marxists?

LOL! you can NOT hide the idiots.

 

[Dad2three]

Oh his quote on stopping EXPORTS of corn? lol



On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1766



Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute

You are one stupid fucking asswipe.

The quote itself says nothing about corn and has no context in that regard. Except that he is arguing against not being able to export because the government thinks we need it here.

Extending his quote:

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.

************************

You are one sad sorry moron.

You'll argue anything that goes against your head-up-the-ass vision of the liberal world.

Extending the quote? Read the entire fucking newspaper post, I linked it, it's pretty self explanatory, DOESN'T refute Ben's original quote I posted, lol


Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Oh, I read it, shit for brains....Franklin, in context, was quite clear on his positions.

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.

Yes, he was talking about the gawddamn lazy British, lol

You'll NEVER be honest Bubba

I don't recall him specifically calling out the british as being particularly lazy in the article. It is you, who once again trys to hide behind this kind of implied bullshit.

I guess my minor in history comes in handy once in awhile

" I affirm that there is no country (HE WAS SPEAKING OF ENGLAND) in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety"


On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1766

I am one of that class of people that feeds you all, and at present is abus’d by you all; in short I am a Farmer.

By your News-papers we are told, that God had sent a very short harvest to some other countries of Europe. I thought this might be in favour to Old England; and that now we should get a good price for our grain, which would bring in millions among us, and make us flow in money, that to be sure is scarce enough.

But the wisdom of Government forbad the exportation.
Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute

 

[Dad2three]

With Republicans taking over Congress today, prepare to be dazzled with their jobs agenda. It is what we have been waiting six years for

In the new Congress, Republicans will have the majority in both the Senate and the House for the first time in eight years. As they get ready to take power, their rhetorical focus is clear: jobs, the economy, and more jobs.
So far, there are two main proposals on deck for the GOP. First, the Hire More Heroes Act, which would make it easier for small businesses that hire veterans to deny health care to their employees. Second, they want to immediately build the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would transport oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast.
On their own, these are both extremely small-bore policies. But as a jobs agenda, this doesn't even rise to the level of pitiful. It's the latest evidence that Republicans continue to struggle with basic macroeconomics — and it does not bode well for the nation should they win the White House in 2016.

Sorry Republicans The Keystone XL pipeline is not a jobs agenda - The Week

Your forgetting all the jobs bills passed by the House that are sitting in the Senate that needs to be passed now that they have the majority.

Tax giveaways to corporations is not a jobs bill, no matter what you call it.

Tax give aways?

ROFLMNAO!

The reader should recognize there, that what she's claiming is that Government is entitled to the product of the labor of its citizens. To which, in truth, it is not entitled, because it did not EARN IT, by PRODUCING IT. What's more, that product was created DESPITE GOVERNMENT'S FORCING THE COST OF PRODUCT UP.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Well, James Madison the Father of the US Constitution said: "Let's Eat from this bounty provided by the hands of Bocephus and Randall".

Now some might feel that because he said so, that Madison was a proponent of cannibalism. But of course, he was not suggesting that they eat the hands of Bo' and Randy... .

In this reasonable people can see the importance of context, when quoting from history. And through that, we can understand that Franklin, in his letter to Robert Morris, was speaking to the necessity of taxation for paying for legitimate government expenses. At that time, the US Federal Government was still operating under the Articles of Federation and was flat broke.

Franklin was stating his advocacy for the justification for taxation with no notion that some jackass on a Message Board would project his position as being representative of something akin to that which the United States had just fought to rid itself; the notion that all property belongs to the government in a time when Government has no means to discipline it's appetite for spending.

But how cool is it that to the Left, the Founding Father's were Marxists?

LOL! you can NOT hide the idiots.

Madison? The guy who wanted a FEDERAL veto power over the states? lol

You are a deluded wingnutter who STILL can't accept reality. I'm NOT shocked by you klowns anymore, lol


Rid itself? Oh you mean they wanted representation AND didn't want to pay back England for the cost of previous wars to protect US?

 

[Kosh]

Your forgetting all the jobs bills passed by the House that are sitting in the Senate that needs to be passed now that they have the majority.

Tax giveaways to corporations is not a jobs bill, no matter what you call it.

Tax give aways?

ROFLMNAO!

The reader should recognize there, that what she's claiming is that Government is entitled to the product of the labor of its citizens. To which, in truth, it is not entitled, because it did not EARN IT, by PRODUCING IT. What's more, that product was created DESPITE GOVERNMENT'S FORCING THE COST OF PRODUCT UP.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Well, James Madison the Father of the US Constitution said: "Let's Eat from this bounty provided by the hands of Bocephus and Randall".

Now some might feel that because he said so, that Madison was a proponent of cannibalism. But of course, he was not suggesting that they eat the hands of Bo' and Randy... .

In this reasonable people can see the importance of context, when quoting from history. And through that, we can understand that Franklin, in his letter to Robert Morris, was speaking to the necessity of taxation for paying for legitimate government expenses. At that time, the US Federal Government was still operating under the Articles of Federation and was flat broke.

Franklin was stating his advocacy for the justification for taxation with no notion that some jackass on a Message Board would project his position as being representative of something akin to that which the United States had just fought to rid itself; the notion that all property belongs to the government in a time when Government has no means to discipline it's appetite for spending.

But how cool is it that to the Left, the Founding Father's were Marxists?

LOL! you can NOT hide the idiots.

Madison? The guy who wanted a FEDERAL veto power over the states? lol

You are a deluded wingnutter who STILL can't accept reality. I'm NOT shocked by you klowns anymore, lol


Rid itself? Oh you mean they wanted representation AND didn't want to pay back England for the cost of previous wars to protect US?

Proof the far left does not understand what the Constitution is or what it is about..

 

[Dad2three]

Tax giveaways to corporations is not a jobs bill, no matter what you call it.

Tax give aways?

ROFLMNAO!

The reader should recognize there, that what she's claiming is that Government is entitled to the product of the labor of its citizens. To which, in truth, it is not entitled, because it did not EARN IT, by PRODUCING IT. What's more, that product was created DESPITE GOVERNMENT'S FORCING THE COST OF PRODUCT UP.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Well, James Madison the Father of the US Constitution said: "Let's Eat from this bounty provided by the hands of Bocephus and Randall".

Now some might feel that because he said so, that Madison was a proponent of cannibalism. But of course, he was not suggesting that they eat the hands of Bo' and Randy... .

In this reasonable people can see the importance of context, when quoting from history. And through that, we can understand that Franklin, in his letter to Robert Morris, was speaking to the necessity of taxation for paying for legitimate government expenses. At that time, the US Federal Government was still operating under the Articles of Federation and was flat broke.

Franklin was stating his advocacy for the justification for taxation with no notion that some jackass on a Message Board would project his position as being representative of something akin to that which the United States had just fought to rid itself; the notion that all property belongs to the government in a time when Government has no means to discipline it's appetite for spending.

But how cool is it that to the Left, the Founding Father's were Marxists?

LOL! you can NOT hide the idiots.

Madison? The guy who wanted a FEDERAL veto power over the states? lol

You are a deluded wingnutter who STILL can't accept reality. I'm NOT shocked by you klowns anymore, lol


Rid itself? Oh you mean they wanted representation AND didn't want to pay back England for the cost of previous wars to protect US?

Proof the far left does not understand what the Constitution is or what it is about..

Oh I know what it was for, to get rid of that thing that was truly libertarian, the Articles of Confederation. To bad conservatives don't understand it, or the history before it

Thanks for NOT even trying to refute a damn posit though, lol

 

[Listening]

You are one stupid fucking asswipe.

The quote itself says nothing about corn and has no context in that regard. Except that he is arguing against not being able to export because the government thinks we need it here.

Extending his quote:

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.

************************

You are one sad sorry moron.

You'll argue anything that goes against your head-up-the-ass vision of the liberal world.

Extending the quote? Read the entire fucking newspaper post, I linked it, it's pretty self explanatory, DOESN'T refute Ben's original quote I posted, lol


Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Oh, I read it, shit for brains....Franklin, in context, was quite clear on his positions.

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.

Yes, he was talking about the gawddamn lazy British, lol

You'll NEVER be honest Bubba

I don't recall him specifically calling out the british as being particularly lazy in the article. It is you, who once again trys to hide behind this kind of implied bullshit.

I guess my minor in history comes in handy once in awhile

" I affirm that there is no country (HE WAS SPEAKING OF ENGLAND) in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety"


On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1766

I am one of that class of people that feeds you all, and at present is abus’d by you all; in short I am a Farmer.

By your News-papers we are told, that God had sent a very short harvest to some other countries of Europe. I thought this might be in favour to Old England; and that now we should get a good price for our grain, which would bring in millions among us, and make us flow in money, that to be sure is scarce enough.

But the wisdom of Government forbad the exportation.
Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute

He does not single out the british as being lazy.

He says the more you give the poor, the more you oppress them. He didn't say this holds only to England.

You need a minor in squirming.

 

[Listening]

Tax give aways?

ROFLMNAO!

The reader should recognize there, that what she's claiming is that Government is entitled to the product of the labor of its citizens. To which, in truth, it is not entitled, because it did not EARN IT, by PRODUCING IT. What's more, that product was created DESPITE GOVERNMENT'S FORCING THE COST OF PRODUCT UP.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Well, James Madison the Father of the US Constitution said: "Let's Eat from this bounty provided by the hands of Bocephus and Randall".

Now some might feel that because he said so, that Madison was a proponent of cannibalism. But of course, he was not suggesting that they eat the hands of Bo' and Randy... .

In this reasonable people can see the importance of context, when quoting from history. And through that, we can understand that Franklin, in his letter to Robert Morris, was speaking to the necessity of taxation for paying for legitimate government expenses. At that time, the US Federal Government was still operating under the Articles of Federation and was flat broke.

Franklin was stating his advocacy for the justification for taxation with no notion that some jackass on a Message Board would project his position as being representative of something akin to that which the United States had just fought to rid itself; the notion that all property belongs to the government in a time when Government has no means to discipline it's appetite for spending.

But how cool is it that to the Left, the Founding Father's were Marxists?

LOL! you can NOT hide the idiots.

Madison? The guy who wanted a FEDERAL veto power over the states? lol

You are a deluded wingnutter who STILL can't accept reality. I'm NOT shocked by you klowns anymore, lol


Rid itself? Oh you mean they wanted representation AND didn't want to pay back England for the cost of previous wars to protect US?

Proof the far left does not understand what the Constitution is or what it is about..

Oh I know what it was for, to get rid of that thing that was truly libertarian, the Articles of Confederation. To bad conservatives don't understand it, or the history before it

Thanks for NOT even trying to refute a damn posit though, lol

There was nothing libertarian about the Articles of Confederation.

You are one stupid twit.

 

[Listening]

Your forgetting all the jobs bills passed by the House that are sitting in the Senate that needs to be passed now that they have the majority.

Tax giveaways to corporations is not a jobs bill, no matter what you call it.

Tax give aways?

ROFLMNAO!

The reader should recognize there, that what she's claiming is that Government is entitled to the product of the labor of its citizens. To which, in truth, it is not entitled, because it did not EARN IT, by PRODUCING IT. What's more, that product was created DESPITE GOVERNMENT'S FORCING THE COST OF PRODUCT UP.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Well, James Madison the Father of the US Constitution said: "Let's Eat from this bounty provided by the hands of Bocephus and Randall".

Now some might feel that because he said so, that Madison was a proponent of cannibalism. But of course, he was not suggesting that they eat the hands of Bo' and Randy... .

In this reasonable people can see the importance of context, when quoting from history. And through that, we can understand that Franklin, in his letter to Robert Morris, was speaking to the necessity of taxation for paying for legitimate government expenses. At that time, the US Federal Government was still operating under the Articles of Federation and was flat broke.

Franklin was stating his advocacy for the justification for taxation with no notion that some jackass on a Message Board would project his position as being representative of something akin to that which the United States had just fought to rid itself; the notion that all property belongs to the government in a time when Government has no means to discipline it's appetite for spending.

But how cool is it that to the Left, the Founding Father's were Marxists?

LOL! you can NOT hide the idiots.

Madison? The guy who wanted a FEDERAL veto power over the states? lol

You are a deluded wingnutter who STILL can't accept reality. I'm NOT shocked by you klowns anymore, lol


Rid itself? Oh you mean they wanted representation AND didn't want to pay back England for the cost of previous wars to protect US?

The same Madison who penned the 10th and this from the 45th Federalist Paper ?

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

 

[Dad2three]

Extending the quote? Read the entire fucking newspaper post, I linked it, it's pretty self explanatory, DOESN'T refute Ben's original quote I posted, lol


Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Oh, I read it, shit for brains....Franklin, in context, was quite clear on his positions.

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.

Yes, he was talking about the gawddamn lazy British, lol

You'll NEVER be honest Bubba

I don't recall him specifically calling out the british as being particularly lazy in the article. It is you, who once again trys to hide behind this kind of implied bullshit.

I guess my minor in history comes in handy once in awhile

" I affirm that there is no country (HE WAS SPEAKING OF ENGLAND) in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety"


On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1766

I am one of that class of people that feeds you all, and at present is abus’d by you all; in short I am a Farmer.

By your News-papers we are told, that God had sent a very short harvest to some other countries of Europe. I thought this might be in favour to Old England; and that now we should get a good price for our grain, which would bring in millions among us, and make us flow in money, that to be sure is scarce enough.

But the wisdom of Government forbad the exportation.
Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute

He does not single out the british as being lazy.

He says the more you give the poor, the more you oppress them. He didn't say this holds only to England.

You need a minor in squirming.

He's talking about a SYSTEM the British set up, dummy liar

 

[Dad2three]

Tax giveaways to corporations is not a jobs bill, no matter what you call it.

Tax give aways?

ROFLMNAO!

The reader should recognize there, that what she's claiming is that Government is entitled to the product of the labor of its citizens. To which, in truth, it is not entitled, because it did not EARN IT, by PRODUCING IT. What's more, that product was created DESPITE GOVERNMENT'S FORCING THE COST OF PRODUCT UP.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Well, James Madison the Father of the US Constitution said: "Let's Eat from this bounty provided by the hands of Bocephus and Randall".

Now some might feel that because he said so, that Madison was a proponent of cannibalism. But of course, he was not suggesting that they eat the hands of Bo' and Randy... .

In this reasonable people can see the importance of context, when quoting from history. And through that, we can understand that Franklin, in his letter to Robert Morris, was speaking to the necessity of taxation for paying for legitimate government expenses. At that time, the US Federal Government was still operating under the Articles of Federation and was flat broke.

Franklin was stating his advocacy for the justification for taxation with no notion that some jackass on a Message Board would project his position as being representative of something akin to that which the United States had just fought to rid itself; the notion that all property belongs to the government in a time when Government has no means to discipline it's appetite for spending.

But how cool is it that to the Left, the Founding Father's were Marxists?

LOL! you can NOT hide the idiots.

Madison? The guy who wanted a FEDERAL veto power over the states? lol

You are a deluded wingnutter who STILL can't accept reality. I'm NOT shocked by you klowns anymore, lol


Rid itself? Oh you mean they wanted representation AND didn't want to pay back England for the cost of previous wars to protect US?

The same Madison who penned the 10th and this from the 45th Federalist Paper ?

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

Yeah, THAT guy wanted a federal veto over ALL states laws, lol

 

[Dad2three]

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Well, James Madison the Father of the US Constitution said: "Let's Eat from this bounty provided by the hands of Bocephus and Randall".

Now some might feel that because he said so, that Madison was a proponent of cannibalism. But of course, he was not suggesting that they eat the hands of Bo' and Randy... .

In this reasonable people can see the importance of context, when quoting from history. And through that, we can understand that Franklin, in his letter to Robert Morris, was speaking to the necessity of taxation for paying for legitimate government expenses. At that time, the US Federal Government was still operating under the Articles of Federation and was flat broke.

Franklin was stating his advocacy for the justification for taxation with no notion that some jackass on a Message Board would project his position as being representative of something akin to that which the United States had just fought to rid itself; the notion that all property belongs to the government in a time when Government has no means to discipline it's appetite for spending.

But how cool is it that to the Left, the Founding Father's were Marxists?

LOL! you can NOT hide the idiots.

Madison? The guy who wanted a FEDERAL veto power over the states? lol

You are a deluded wingnutter who STILL can't accept reality. I'm NOT shocked by you klowns anymore, lol


Rid itself? Oh you mean they wanted representation AND didn't want to pay back England for the cost of previous wars to protect US?

Proof the far left does not understand what the Constitution is or what it is about..

Oh I know what it was for, to get rid of that thing that was truly libertarian, the Articles of Confederation. To bad conservatives don't understand it, or the history before it

Thanks for NOT even trying to refute a damn posit though, lol

There was nothing libertarian about the Articles of Confederation.

You are one stupid twit.

Sure, which one is MORE like liberation philosophy?



If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be… and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.


The Founders Were No Libertarians

 

[Dad2three]

Tax giveaways to corporations is not a jobs bill, no matter what you call it.

Tax give aways?

ROFLMNAO!

The reader should recognize there, that what she's claiming is that Government is entitled to the product of the labor of its citizens. To which, in truth, it is not entitled, because it did not EARN IT, by PRODUCING IT. What's more, that product was created DESPITE GOVERNMENT'S FORCING THE COST OF PRODUCT UP.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Well, James Madison the Father of the US Constitution said: "Let's Eat from this bounty provided by the hands of Bocephus and Randall".

Now some might feel that because he said so, that Madison was a proponent of cannibalism. But of course, he was not suggesting that they eat the hands of Bo' and Randy... .

In this reasonable people can see the importance of context, when quoting from history. And through that, we can understand that Franklin, in his letter to Robert Morris, was speaking to the necessity of taxation for paying for legitimate government expenses. At that time, the US Federal Government was still operating under the Articles of Federation and was flat broke.

Franklin was stating his advocacy for the justification for taxation with no notion that some jackass on a Message Board would project his position as being representative of something akin to that which the United States had just fought to rid itself; the notion that all property belongs to the government in a time when Government has no means to discipline it's appetite for spending.

But how cool is it that to the Left, the Founding Father's were Marxists?

LOL! you can NOT hide the idiots.

Madison? The guy who wanted a FEDERAL veto power over the states? lol

You are a deluded wingnutter who STILL can't accept reality. I'm NOT shocked by you klowns anymore, lol


Rid itself? Oh you mean they wanted representation AND didn't want to pay back England for the cost of previous wars to protect US?

The same Madison who penned the 10th and this from the 45th Federalist Paper ?

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

Sorry missed that, you mean the propaganda they used to sell the Constipation to the NYers?

 

[Listening]

Tax give aways?

ROFLMNAO!

The reader should recognize there, that what she's claiming is that Government is entitled to the product of the labor of its citizens. To which, in truth, it is not entitled, because it did not EARN IT, by PRODUCING IT. What's more, that product was created DESPITE GOVERNMENT'S FORCING THE COST OF PRODUCT UP.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Well, James Madison the Father of the US Constitution said: "Let's Eat from this bounty provided by the hands of Bocephus and Randall".

Now some might feel that because he said so, that Madison was a proponent of cannibalism. But of course, he was not suggesting that they eat the hands of Bo' and Randy... .

In this reasonable people can see the importance of context, when quoting from history. And through that, we can understand that Franklin, in his letter to Robert Morris, was speaking to the necessity of taxation for paying for legitimate government expenses. At that time, the US Federal Government was still operating under the Articles of Federation and was flat broke.

Franklin was stating his advocacy for the justification for taxation with no notion that some jackass on a Message Board would project his position as being representative of something akin to that which the United States had just fought to rid itself; the notion that all property belongs to the government in a time when Government has no means to discipline it's appetite for spending.

But how cool is it that to the Left, the Founding Father's were Marxists?

LOL! you can NOT hide the idiots.

Madison? The guy who wanted a FEDERAL veto power over the states? lol

You are a deluded wingnutter who STILL can't accept reality. I'm NOT shocked by you klowns anymore, lol


Rid itself? Oh you mean they wanted representation AND didn't want to pay back England for the cost of previous wars to protect US?

The same Madison who penned the 10th and this from the 45th Federalist Paper ?

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

Yeah, THAT guy wanted a federal veto over ALL states laws, lol

Yeah, look at how he stated that in Federalist 45......laaol

 

[Listening]

Tax give aways?

ROFLMNAO!

The reader should recognize there, that what she's claiming is that Government is entitled to the product of the labor of its citizens. To which, in truth, it is not entitled, because it did not EARN IT, by PRODUCING IT. What's more, that product was created DESPITE GOVERNMENT'S FORCING THE COST OF PRODUCT UP.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Well, James Madison the Father of the US Constitution said: "Let's Eat from this bounty provided by the hands of Bocephus and Randall".

Now some might feel that because he said so, that Madison was a proponent of cannibalism. But of course, he was not suggesting that they eat the hands of Bo' and Randy... .

In this reasonable people can see the importance of context, when quoting from history. And through that, we can understand that Franklin, in his letter to Robert Morris, was speaking to the necessity of taxation for paying for legitimate government expenses. At that time, the US Federal Government was still operating under the Articles of Federation and was flat broke.

Franklin was stating his advocacy for the justification for taxation with no notion that some jackass on a Message Board would project his position as being representative of something akin to that which the United States had just fought to rid itself; the notion that all property belongs to the government in a time when Government has no means to discipline it's appetite for spending.

But how cool is it that to the Left, the Founding Father's were Marxists?

LOL! you can NOT hide the idiots.

Madison? The guy who wanted a FEDERAL veto power over the states? lol

You are a deluded wingnutter who STILL can't accept reality. I'm NOT shocked by you klowns anymore, lol


Rid itself? Oh you mean they wanted representation AND didn't want to pay back England for the cost of previous wars to protect US?

The same Madison who penned the 10th and this from the 45th Federalist Paper ?

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

Sorry missed that, you mean the propaganda they used to sell the Constipation to the NYers?

You miss a great deal.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yeah, look at how he stated that in Federalist 45......laaol

They're helpless.

 

[Dad2three]

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Well, James Madison the Father of the US Constitution said: "Let's Eat from this bounty provided by the hands of Bocephus and Randall".

Now some might feel that because he said so, that Madison was a proponent of cannibalism. But of course, he was not suggesting that they eat the hands of Bo' and Randy... .

In this reasonable people can see the importance of context, when quoting from history. And through that, we can understand that Franklin, in his letter to Robert Morris, was speaking to the necessity of taxation for paying for legitimate government expenses. At that time, the US Federal Government was still operating under the Articles of Federation and was flat broke.

Franklin was stating his advocacy for the justification for taxation with no notion that some jackass on a Message Board would project his position as being representative of something akin to that which the United States had just fought to rid itself; the notion that all property belongs to the government in a time when Government has no means to discipline it's appetite for spending.

But how cool is it that to the Left, the Founding Father's were Marxists?

LOL! you can NOT hide the idiots.

Madison? The guy who wanted a FEDERAL veto power over the states? lol

You are a deluded wingnutter who STILL can't accept reality. I'm NOT shocked by you klowns anymore, lol


Rid itself? Oh you mean they wanted representation AND didn't want to pay back England for the cost of previous wars to protect US?

The same Madison who penned the 10th and this from the 45th Federalist Paper ?

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

Yeah, THAT guy wanted a federal veto over ALL states laws, lol

Yeah, look at how he stated that in Federalist 45......laaol

Yeah, weird right, almost like he was trying to sell something???

James Madison “Godfather of the Constitution”



On the contrary, Madison was thwarted on a wide range of minor and not-so-minor points, including two issues — a federal “negative” (veto) over the states and proportional representation in both houses of Congress — that he considered crucial to his dream of a government that would safeguard private rights and still promote the public good.

James Madison Godfather of the Constitution - Archiving Early America


I CAN FIND DOZENS OF LINKS FROM DOZEN'S OF HISTORY EXPERTS IF YOU'D LIKE? LOL

The Virginia Plan

● Proportional representation in both the Senate and the House of Representatives

As Madison saw it, the most populous states, Virginia and Massachusetts, should have more influence than Delaware or Rhode Island. These small states should not have as much power to sway the course of government as the large states.

● A central government that could create uniform laws where needed

The central government should have “compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity.” (James Madison to George Washington, April 16, 1787). This included regulating trade, fixing terms of naturalization, and areas of oversight that should remain consistent from one state to another. Madison described this as a “positive” power.

● Federal veto of state laws


If creating uniform national laws was the positive power of a federal government, vetoing state laws was a negative power. Madison thought the federal government should have authority to veto state laws in order to prevent the states from evading federal laws, violating treaties, and harassing other states. Madison described the role of the federal government as that of an “umpire” to mediate disputes and quell factions in his letter to Washington. The federal judiciary branch should have the same supremacy over state courts, and there should be some degree of central control over the militias.

Virginia Plan Montpelier

 

[Listening]

Well, James Madison the Father of the US Constitution said: "Let's Eat from this bounty provided by the hands of Bocephus and Randall".

Now some might feel that because he said so, that Madison was a proponent of cannibalism. But of course, he was not suggesting that they eat the hands of Bo' and Randy... .

In this reasonable people can see the importance of context, when quoting from history. And through that, we can understand that Franklin, in his letter to Robert Morris, was speaking to the necessity of taxation for paying for legitimate government expenses. At that time, the US Federal Government was still operating under the Articles of Federation and was flat broke.

Franklin was stating his advocacy for the justification for taxation with no notion that some jackass on a Message Board would project his position as being representative of something akin to that which the United States had just fought to rid itself; the notion that all property belongs to the government in a time when Government has no means to discipline it's appetite for spending.

But how cool is it that to the Left, the Founding Father's were Marxists?

LOL! you can NOT hide the idiots.

Madison? The guy who wanted a FEDERAL veto power over the states? lol

You are a deluded wingnutter who STILL can't accept reality. I'm NOT shocked by you klowns anymore, lol


Rid itself? Oh you mean they wanted representation AND didn't want to pay back England for the cost of previous wars to protect US?

The same Madison who penned the 10th and this from the 45th Federalist Paper ?

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

Yeah, THAT guy wanted a federal veto over ALL states laws, lol

Yeah, look at how he stated that in Federalist 45......laaol

Yeah, weird right, almost like he was trying to sell something???

James Madison “Godfather of the Constitution”



On the contrary, Madison was thwarted on a wide range of minor and not-so-minor points, including two issues — a federal “negative” (veto) over the states and proportional representation in both houses of Congress — that he considered crucial to his dream of a government that would safeguard private rights and still promote the public good.

James Madison Godfather of the Constitution - Archiving Early America


I CAN FIND DOZENS OF LINKS FROM DOZEN'S OF HISTORY EXPERTS IF YOU'D LIKE? LOL

The Virginia Plan

● Proportional representation in both the Senate and the House of Representatives

As Madison saw it, the most populous states, Virginia and Massachusetts, should have more influence than Delaware or Rhode Island. These small states should not have as much power to sway the course of government as the large states.

● A central government that could create uniform laws where needed

The central government should have “compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity.” (James Madison to George Washington, April 16, 1787). This included regulating trade, fixing terms of naturalization, and areas of oversight that should remain consistent from one state to another. Madison described this as a “positive” power.

● Federal veto of state laws


If creating uniform national laws was the positive power of a federal government, vetoing state laws was a negative power. Madison thought the federal government should have authority to veto state laws in order to prevent the states from evading federal laws, violating treaties, and harassing other states. Madison described the role of the federal government as that of an “umpire” to mediate disputes and quell factions in his letter to Washington. The federal judiciary branch should have the same supremacy over state courts, and there should be some degree of central control over the militias.

Virginia Plan Montpelier

Yes, nothing inconsistent there.

Madison was still articulating his feeling that the fed should have power in specific areas.

Next.

 

[rdean]

Why are Republicans screaming about jobs they aren't qualified for anyway? That's what happens when you think education is for snobs.

Education?

LMAO!

Are you an educated woman?

Please enlighten us with your credentials.

(FYI: The reader should know I have already called, double Ph.D, with several Masters from Ivy League Universities and all before the age of 14... )

You said: FYI: The reader should know I have already called, double Ph.D, with several Masters from Ivy League Universities and all before the age of 14...

Did you write that? Because the sentence is very strangely structured. Not sure what it means.

Yes, that was me berating you, for projecting ignorance upon your opposition, querying you for clarification of your education bona fides, then I projected that you're response would attempt to establish your otherwise ignorant ass, as genius intellect and highly educated.

All of which was done to demonstrate that you're a dumbass.

So... "Mission Accomplished".

Anything else?

You said: projecting ignorance upon your opposition

OK, I won't disagree. You were projecting ignorance.

But still:

You said: FYI: The reader should know I have already called, double Ph.D, with several Masters from Ivy League Universities and all before the age of 14...

And I said: Did you write that? Because the sentence is very strangely structured. Not sure what it means.

And it's still strange.