If you could go back in time and stop one historical event, what would it be?

[Billo_Really]

You notice the USMB 'liberals' mostly don't address the question asked in the OP but rather continue to dredge up and report the 'sins' of Republicans and conservatives. Why?

Because "Republicans and conservatives" sin an awful lot!

Because to them nothing is good other than vague 'feel good' platitudes but their whole philosophy and M.O. is focused on blaming or accusing somebody else.

And your whole philosphy, is not taking responsibility for the things you did. You never blame yourself, even on shit you caused. Why would you expect us to blame someone else, for the things you did?

Which of course is the legacy of the flower children--the establishment is evil and their fuzzy notions of light and justice and peace, achieved sometimes by violence of course, and a more virtuous world that would result by dumping all the trappings of the past and looking forward to a world of rainbows and unicorns.

So you don't think the establishment is evil? Is that your point here? The establishment is not evil?

So what you're saying is, "Republicans and conservatives" of today, are not to be compared to the "flower children" of 50 years ago, who were protesting their disagreement with establishment (at that time)?

mmmmm................and what was your position on Obama?
He is, after all, representing today's establishment.

And yes, some of our more conservative friends do that too, but at least most will state what they do believe and want to happen in more concrete terms..

Like...

"...fuzzy notions of light and justice and peace..."

...oh yeah, that's pretty succinct!

And what they want is to allow society to better itself rather than some fuzzy notion of government engineered 'equality' or 'fairness' or control of the social order.

At this point, I need to warn you, there is a (2) "fuzzy notion" limit per thread and you are at your maximum allowed usage of that term. The next one will cost you!

But again, if what we now refer to as liberalism or progressivism or leftism was not allowedf to gain a foothold around the turn of the century, those flower children would never have had so much success in dismantling a lot of American culture and installing something that has been mostly detrimental in its place.

"...dismantling a lot of American culture..."

Ummm, earth to Foxfyre, "dissent" IS American culture! It's one of the principles this country was founded upon. If you are against dissent, you are against America.

The OP asks a provocative and interesting question. Most who have made a serious effort to address it have been quickly attacked with some version of a somebody done somebody wrong song.

What was the question?

"How do you say no to butt stuff?"​

 

[Foxfyre]

You're a liberal and don't know what a conservative hates? Conservatives hated the big government snub of King George of England, and they hated the tax on tea in Boston and decided to start the Tea Party that angered Georgie Porgie puddin' and pie even more. It takes a conservative to notice the national deficit, and the truth was, the taxes charged on tea didn't add up to the failure of George to listen to the people on this continent with sympathy or anything else his subjects the Colonists had to say, when we were bringing him far more wealth than some of his friends who were well-represented in his court. King George pissed off the conservative colonists so badly over failure to hear them in his courts so badly, they collaborated to dismiss his bloodsucking tax situation permanently.

Americans really were more about a government that would help them survive on this continent than they were about constant subservience required to satisfy George's entitlements for his insider friends he was able to perpetuate by snubbing taxpayers in the New World of which he hadn't the vaguest idea.

Bfgn is correct that the men who forged the Constitution were the liberals, i.e. anti big government, of their day. He does not, however, seem to understand that their beliefs were the antithesis of what he describes as his own, because over the more than 200 years since, the definitions have changed. The modern American conservatives of today--the Tea Partiers, the 9/12ers, the tax reformers, etc.--share the basic principles and convictions of the Founders. Knowing this, that is why most historians now use the term 'classical liberal' or 'libertarian' (little "L") to designate them. Modern American liberals share almost nothing of the beliefs of the Founders.

The American people forged a great nation under the classical liberal principles of the Founders, and every American president and Congress respected those principles written into the Constitution.

Until Teddy Roosevelt. He stood the Constitution on its head and started the snowball rolling to dismantle a government by people and reinstante authoritarian government. The very thing the Constitution was intended to free us from.

That snowball has been gaining mass and speed ever since until now it steamrollers over everything. It has overwhelmed our liberties, swallowed our economy, and controls almost every aspect of our lives.

And THAT is why that would be the one thing I would change from history if I had the chance. Teddy Roosevelt would not have been allowed to change the intent of the Constitution.

The antithesis of the founding fathers, the Federalists, were the ANTI-federalists.

The modern American conservatives of today--the Tea Partiers, the 9/12ers, the tax reformers, etc.--share the basic principles and convictions of the ANTI-federalists, the antithesis of our founders.

Yes, some of the Founders, fearing anarchy and feudal loyalties, did favor a strong central government - federalists. And some of the Founders feared a strong central government that would inevitably morph into just another monarchy - anti- federalist. It was precisely because they did not all agree but all had the common goals of self governance that it took them four long years of debates and negotiations, argument and compromise, from the end of Revolutionary War to the signing of the Constitution. Longer to complete the ratification process

The Federalists got a federal government strong enough to weld the various states into one nation; the anti-federalists got the protections they wanted written into the Constitution plus the Bill of Rights.

And ALL were in agreement that the federal government should be only as large and powerful as necessary to secure the rights of the people, and then the government would leave the people alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have. The federal government received its power from the people and could do only what the people had assigned to it to do via the Constitution.

What Teddy Roosevelt did was to flip that and declare that the federal government could do anything that the Constitution did not expressly prohibit. And because of his immense personal popularity, and because there was enough distance from King George and the oppression of the monarchy, not enough people realized the inevitable danger and consequences of that and he was allowed to get away with it. . And Roosevelt and all subsequent Presidents and Congresses found the new heady addiction of power too much to resist.

We are now experiencing the danger and consequences of that.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes, some of the Founders, fearing anarchy and feudal loyalties, did favor a strong central government - federalists. And some of the Founders feared a strong central government that would inevitably morph into just another monarchy - anti- federalist. It was precisely because they did not all agree but all had the common goals of self governance that it took them four long years of debates and negotiations, argument and compromise, from the end of Revolutionary War to the signing of the Constitution. Longer to complete the ratification process

The Federalists got a federal government strong enough to weld the various states into one nation; the anti-federalists got the protections they wanted written into the Constitution plus the Bill of Rights.

And ALL were in agreement that the federal government should be only as large and powerful as necessary to secure the rights of the people, and then the government would leave the people alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have. The federal government received its power from the people and could do only what the people had assigned to it to do via the Constitution.

What Teddy Roosevelt did was to flip that and declare that the federal government could do anything that the Constitution did not expressly prohibit. And because of his immense personal popularity, and because there was enough distance from King George and the oppression of the monarchy, not enough people realized the inevitable danger and consequences of that and he was allowed to get away with it. . And Roosevelt and all subsequent Presidents and Congresses found the new heady addiction of power too much to resist.

We are now experiencing the danger and consequences of that.

Congress can make any law that will provide for the "general welfare" of the country.

That is their job. Deal with it!

 

[numan]

Congress can make any law that will provide for the "general welfare" of the country.

That is their job.

Too bad they never do their job.

Or rather, too bad they are constantly doing the opposite of their job.

.

 

[S.J.]

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

"Promote", not "Provide". I'm sure the founding fathers would appreciate you not butchering the preamble.

 

[Zona]

I wish I could go back in time and arm Trevon. I would tell him to wait for Zimmerman to pull his gun and to shoot Zimmerman in his brain.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

"Promote", not "Provide". I'm sure the founding fathers would appreciate you not butchering the preamble.

The preamble specifies goals but has no power. The "Provide" clause is found in the Constitution itself;

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

 

[numan]

I wish I could go back in time and arm Trevon. I would tell him to wait for Zimmerman to pull his gun and to shoot Zimmerman in his brain.

Do you think it would be wise to advise him to try to hit such a small target? · ·

.

 

[Mr Natural]

I'd stop the crucifixion of JC so there might on less religion to muck things up.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'd stop the crucifixion of JC so there might on less religion to muck things up.

But it you went back another 2100 years you could prevent 3 religions from starting.

 

[Mr Natural]

I'd stop the crucifixion of JC so there might on less religion to muck things up.

But it you went back another 2100 years you could prevent 3 religions from starting.

Even better!

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgn is correct that the men who forged the Constitution were the liberals, i.e. anti big government, of their day. He does not, however, seem to understand that their beliefs were the antithesis of what he describes as his own, because over the more than 200 years since, the definitions have changed. The modern American conservatives of today--the Tea Partiers, the 9/12ers, the tax reformers, etc.--share the basic principles and convictions of the Founders. Knowing this, that is why most historians now use the term 'classical liberal' or 'libertarian' (little "L") to designate them. Modern American liberals share almost nothing of the beliefs of the Founders.

The American people forged a great nation under the classical liberal principles of the Founders, and every American president and Congress respected those principles written into the Constitution.

Until Teddy Roosevelt. He stood the Constitution on its head and started the snowball rolling to dismantle a government by people and reinstante authoritarian government. The very thing the Constitution was intended to free us from.

That snowball has been gaining mass and speed ever since until now it steamrollers over everything. It has overwhelmed our liberties, swallowed our economy, and controls almost every aspect of our lives.

And THAT is why that would be the one thing I would change from history if I had the chance. Teddy Roosevelt would not have been allowed to change the intent of the Constitution.

The antithesis of the founding fathers, the Federalists, were the ANTI-federalists.

The modern American conservatives of today--the Tea Partiers, the 9/12ers, the tax reformers, etc.--share the basic principles and convictions of the ANTI-federalists, the antithesis of our founders.

Yes, some of the Founders, fearing anarchy and feudal loyalties, did favor a strong central government - federalists. And some of the Founders feared a strong central government that would inevitably morph into just another monarchy - anti- federalist. It was precisely because they did not all agree but all had the common goals of self governance that it took them four long years of debates and negotiations, argument and compromise, from the end of Revolutionary War to the signing of the Constitution. Longer to complete the ratification process

The Federalists got a federal government strong enough to weld the various states into one nation; the anti-federalists got the protections they wanted written into the Constitution plus the Bill of Rights.

And ALL were in agreement that the federal government should be only as large and powerful as necessary to secure the rights of the people, and then the government would leave the people alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have. The federal government received its power from the people and could do only what the people had assigned to it to do via the Constitution.

What Teddy Roosevelt did was to flip that and declare that the federal government could do anything that the Constitution did not expressly prohibit. And because of his immense personal popularity, and because there was enough distance from King George and the oppression of the monarchy, not enough people realized the inevitable danger and consequences of that and he was allowed to get away with it. . And Roosevelt and all subsequent Presidents and Congresses found the new heady addiction of power too much to resist.

We are now experiencing the danger and consequences of that.

You keep forgetting something. That very same government, Constitution and Bill of Rights our founding fathers crafted would prevent a Teddy Roosevelt from government by fiat. What Roosevelt did WAS receive the power from the people and he did only what the people had assigned the government to do via the Constitution.

The progressive movement was based on the very philosophy that our government should serve We, the People, not cater to monied interests and narrow special interests.

The progressive movement was BI-partisan. It was in direct response to what America had morphed into, a plutocracy.

Your problem is conservatives, who have ZERO liberal genes in their bodies, are always trying to create some form of a hierarchy or aristocracy. A plutocracy is VERY DESIRABLE to the conservative world view because it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

 

[Billo_Really]

Too bad they never do their job.

Or rather, too bad they are constantly doing the opposite of their job.

.

They're doing the job they're paid to do.

Unfortunately, it's not the US taxpayer who's signing that check.

 

[Billo_Really]

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

"Promote", not "Provide". I'm sure the founding fathers would appreciate you not butchering the preamble.

I'm sorry, but it's "provide"!

Section. 8.

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

 

[numan]

Conservatives hated the big government snub of King George of England, and they hated the tax on tea in Boston and decided to start the Tea Party that angered Georgie Porgie puddin' and pie even more.

Good Grief!! That is something up with which I will not put!!
You are a total nincompoop where history is concerned!!

The Boston Tea Party was organized by the biggest Mafia boss of New England, richest man in America, John Hancock, who made most of his ill-gotten gains smuggling liquor and Dutch tea!

The tea sold by the East India Company was cheaper than Hancock's smuggled Dutch tea, and that is why he organized the so-called "Boston Tea Party" to dump the East India Company tea into the harbor!! It was all about not being under-sold by legal tea!!

Of course, dirty, rotten Hancock was ably abetted by his slimy confederate and go-fer, the rabble-rousing terrorist Sam Adams!!

.

 

[tinydancer]

MMMMMMMMM....I already put up Katrina and the Waves....

I would prevent Boy George from recording Chameleon.

See? I already made the world a better place.

 

[S.J.]

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

"Promote", not "Provide". I'm sure the founding fathers would appreciate you not butchering the preamble.

I'm sorry, but it's "provide"!

Section. 8.

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

And by "welfare", they weren't talking about public assistance.

 

[Foxfyre]

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

"Promote", not "Provide". I'm sure the founding fathers would appreciate you not butchering the preamble.

I'm sorry, but it's "provide"!

Section. 8.

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

And by "welfare", they weren't talking about public assistance.

Exactly. Even the most cursory examination of the Founding documents makes it clear that the Founders opposed the federal government providing ANY form of charity or benevolence to anybody. To a man, they knew how corrupting that would quickly become. The GENERAL welfare was that which benefitted all the states and all the people without regard to politics, religion, demographics, or socioeconomic status. Restoring allegiance to that single fundamental concept would do wonders to replace career politicans and bureaucrats with honest public servants again; it would do wonders to stabilize the economy and restore the American dream.

And that is why my choice of an event to change in American history is to negate the corruption of the Constitution done in the T Roosevelt administration. That simple change of history would almost certainly have avoided us at least most of the mess we are currently in.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm sorry, but it's "provide"!

And by "welfare", they weren't talking about public assistance.

Exactly. Even the most cursory examination of the Founding documents makes it clear that the Founders opposed the federal government providing ANY form of charity or benevolence to anybody. To a man, they knew how corrupting that would quickly become. The GENERAL welfare was that which benefitted all the states and all the people without regard to politics, religion, demographics, or socioeconomic status. Restoring allegiance to that single fundamental concept would do wonders to replace career politicans and bureaucrats with honest public servants again; it would do wonders to stabilize the economy and restore the American dream.

And that is why my choice of an event to change in American history is to negate the corruption of the Constitution done in the T Roosevelt administration. That simple change of history would almost certainly have avoided us at least most of the mess we are currently in.

With all due respect, Foxy, the world of the Founding Fathers predated the industrial revolution. The world was a very different place when TR took office. The FF's understood that the world would change and they did not create a rigid document with which to dictate how America must be run. Instead they were deliberate in choosing terms like the "general welfare" knowing full well that what was defined as "general welfare" in 1795 would be different to what it would be in 1895 and different yet again by 1995. Society evolves because we are transforming our world like no species since the Carboniferrous period. To ignore that change or to want to roll the clock 225 years is unrealistic in my opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

And by "welfare", they weren't talking about public assistance.

Exactly. Even the most cursory examination of the Founding documents makes it clear that the Founders opposed the federal government providing ANY form of charity or benevolence to anybody. To a man, they knew how corrupting that would quickly become. The GENERAL welfare was that which benefitted all the states and all the people without regard to politics, religion, demographics, or socioeconomic status. Restoring allegiance to that single fundamental concept would do wonders to replace career politicans and bureaucrats with honest public servants again; it would do wonders to stabilize the economy and restore the American dream.

And that is why my choice of an event to change in American history is to negate the corruption of the Constitution done in the T Roosevelt administration. That simple change of history would almost certainly have avoided us at least most of the mess we are currently in.

With all due respect, Foxy, the world of the Founding Fathers predated the industrial revolution. The world was a very different place when TR took office. The FF's understood that the world would change and they did not create a rigid document with which to dictate how America must be run. Instead they were deliberate in choosing terms like the "general welfare" knowing full well that what was defined as "general welfare" in 1795 would be different to what it would be in 1895 and different yet again by 1995. Society evolves because we are transforming our world like no species since the Carboniferrous period. To ignore that change or to want to roll the clock 225 years is unrealistic in my opinion.

They knew the general welfare, as they defined it, would change over time yes. But the principle that the general welfare referred to all of society, without regard to politics or demographics or socioeconomic standing, was not expected to change. If the government's ability to curry favor with one group at the expense of another group, to rob Peter to pay Paul, was corrupting and detrimental to all our freedoms and concept of self governance then, it is equally if not more true today. The industrial revolution changed the dynamics of what the general welfare might include; i.e. some pollution issues that did not exist in colonial times. It did not change the principle itself.