I've heard it on here so much enough is enough

[NYcarbineer]

Well, that's an interesting spin. You see, the government does not equate to the nation.

When I was in uniform, I served the nation -- NOT the government.

Do progressives simply not grasp the difference?

lol, a guy who makes a career out of working for the government insisting he never worked for the government.

In an abstract way you've actually proven how Kennedy was not a conservative.

Kennedy believed that government was a part of the solution to our problems. Quite a large part, in fact.

Conservatives, especially the modern day variety that squawk the loudest, have simply decided that government is the problem, period.

Nothing could be farther from the beliefs of JFK than that.

Thanks for proving my point that progressives can't comprehend the difference between government and nation.

When I served in uniform, I served the nation as a whole. I didn't just serve government bureaucrats. Taxpayers paid my wages; the government just wrote the check -- but the entire nation benefited -- in some small way -- from my service.

You will again utterly fail to understand this.

So when JFK was trying to get Medicare passed, was he acting for the nation or just to create what you call more government bureaucrats?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Eighteenth century liberals would see you far leftist "21st century" liberals as the lunatic fringe. If they saw who was president, they would no doubt compare him to the King of England. A tyrant is a tyrant, no matter what century you come from.

What would they make of the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security? What would they make of the Patriot Act? What would they make of the suspension of habaes corpus for detainees, including US citizens? What would they make of waterboarding? What would they make of Medicare D? What would they make of the War in Iraq? What would they make of warrantless wiretaps? What would they make of domestic spying on tens of millions of Americans? What would they make of National Security Letters and the thousands of abuses of those NSLs?

What would they make of the President who was on watch when all this went down? What would they make of the flag pin wearing yahoos cheering him on as he did all this?

Obama may be tyrant, but he was handed the baton. It amuses me all the yahoos didn't discover the Constitution or our Founders until January 20, 2009.

They might think that King George III wasn't such a bad deal after all.

 

[Kosh]

You can't support any of those statements

Can very easily proven as those are in the constitution and the paper written by the men.

Where are career politicians, lobbyists, limited government, a statement that people must do things for themselves, a standing Army or property ownership mentioned in the Constitution?

More proof that the far left does not understand the Constitution.

Many such things were clearly spelled out in the Constitution as well as the papers written by the framers.

However being that you are far left explaining these things to you would be an excise in futility.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Founders wanted the American people of the 21st century to have the government the American people of the 21st century want.

Which means that if the Founders were around today, the last thing they'd be doing would be slavishly worshipping their own centuries-old ghosts.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

The Founders wanted the American people of the 21st century to have the government the American people of the 21st century want.

Which means that if the Founders were around today, the last thing they'd be doing would be slavishly worshipping their own centuries-old ghosts.

They'd probably be wondering why they bothered to overthrow British rule.

 

[Kosh]

The founders were not close to liberalism.

They opposed government controlling every aspect of your daily life.
They opposed career politicians.
They opposed lobbyists.
They believed in states rights.
They believed in limited government.
They believed in people doing for themselves.
They believed in the US having a military
They believed in property ownership

Please see Post 249.

And it still not does not dispute the facts posted.

 

[rightwinger]

Can very easily proven as those are in the constitution and the paper written by the men.

Where are career politicians, lobbyists, limited government, a statement that people must do things for themselves, a standing Army or property ownership mentioned in the Constitution?

More proof that the far left does not understand the Constitution.

Many such things were clearly spelled out in the Constitution as well as the papers written by the framers.

However being that you are far left explaining these things to you would be an excise in futility.

The Constitution along with hundreds of years of legal precedent establishes that baseline. The personal papers and opinions of framers do not carry legal standing

 

[g5000]

The founders were not close to liberalism.

They opposed government controlling every aspect of your daily life.
They opposed career politicians.
They opposed lobbyists.
They believed in states rights.
They believed in limited government.
They believed in people doing for themselves.
They believed in the US having a military
They believed in property ownership

Please see Post 249.

And it still not does not dispute the facts posted.

It debunks the claim you made that the "founders were not close to liberalism".

Progressive taxation, welfare, Social Security, and estate taxes. All liberal policies propounded by Founders.

The OP asked for names and for policies, and I provided them.

/thread

 

[Kosh]

Please see Post 249.

And it still not does not dispute the facts posted.

It debunks the claim you made that the "founders were not close to liberalism".

Progressive taxation, welfare, Social Security, and estate taxes. All liberal policies propounded by Founders.

The OP asked for names and for policies, and I provided them.

/thread

Incorrect, but I am sure the far left interprets things that way.

 

[Kosh]

Where are career politicians, lobbyists, limited government, a statement that people must do things for themselves, a standing Army or property ownership mentioned in the Constitution?

More proof that the far left does not understand the Constitution.

Many such things were clearly spelled out in the Constitution as well as the papers written by the framers.

However being that you are far left explaining these things to you would be an excise in futility.

The Constitution along with hundreds of years of legal precedent establishes that baseline. The personal papers and opinions of framers do not carry legal standing

Interesting since the SCOTUS often uses those papers (unless they are far left) to make judgments on what is and what is not Constitutional.

 

[rightwinger]

More proof that the far left does not understand the Constitution.

Many such things were clearly spelled out in the Constitution as well as the papers written by the framers.

However being that you are far left explaining these things to you would be an excise in futility.

The Constitution along with hundreds of years of legal precedent establishes that baseline. The personal papers and opinions of framers do not carry legal standing

Interesting since the SCOTUS often uses those papers (unless they are far left) to make judgments on what is and what is not Constitutional.

SCOTUS can use any source it wishes in making its decision. But it is the court decision that has legal bearing, not supporting documentation

 

[g5000]

And it still not does not dispute the facts posted.

It debunks the claim you made that the "founders were not close to liberalism".

Progressive taxation, welfare, Social Security, and estate taxes. All liberal policies propounded by Founders.

The OP asked for names and for policies, and I provided them.

/thread

Incorrect, but I am sure the far left interprets things that way.

I provided the evidence, fool. It is unequivocal.

Need to see it again?

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Agrarian Justice

Its funny the number of people who preach about what the Founders wanted who are completely unfamiliar with their writings. All they have are out of context bullets from hack sites.

 

[rightwinger]

The Founders wanted the American people of the 21st century to have the government the American people of the 21st century want.

Which means that if the Founders were around today, the last thing they'd be doing would be slavishly worshipping their own centuries-old ghosts.

They'd probably be wondering why they bothered to overthrow British rule.

They wouldn't recognize the current British government either

Imagine that? Times change
Who'da thunk it?

 

[Redfish]

The Founders wanted the American people of the 21st century to have the government the American people of the 21st century want.

Which means that if the Founders were around today, the last thing they'd be doing would be slavishly worshipping their own centuries-old ghosts.

They'd probably be wondering why they bothered to overthrow British rule.

They wouldn't recognize the current British government either

Imagine that? Times change
Who'da thunk it?

the constitution and the laws of the land are not flexible documents, their words have meaning and are not to be "interpreted" by either the liberals or the conservatives.

If either side does not like something in the constitution all they need is a referendum passed by 38 states to change it. Failing that, the constitution stands.

 

[rightwinger]

They'd probably be wondering why they bothered to overthrow British rule.

They wouldn't recognize the current British government either

Imagine that? Times change
Who'da thunk it?

the constitution and the laws of the land are not flexible documents, their words have meaning and are not to be "interpreted" by either the liberals or the conservatives.

If either side does not like something in the constitution all they need is a referendum passed by 38 states to change it. Failing that, the constitution stands.

Our courts have the role of interpretting the Constitution. It is not "black and white" and has always been subject to interpretation.

 

[peach174]

It debunks the claim you made that the "founders were not close to liberalism".

Progressive taxation, welfare, Social Security, and estate taxes. All liberal policies propounded by Founders.

The OP asked for names and for policies, and I provided them.

/thread

Incorrect, but I am sure the far left interprets things that way.

I provided the evidence, fool. It is unequivocal.

Need to see it again?

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Agrarian Justice

Its funny the number of people who preach about what the Founders wanted who are completely unfamiliar with their writings. All they have are out of context bullets from hack sites.

If you will notice, the letter of Jefferson was not about just giving her money, he proposed a means for the poor to take care of themselves, giving them land which makes them wealthier, by them working and producing and gives taxes back to the government.

Not like the liberals of today who just hand out welfare checks, without the poor being able to be productive. They pay no taxes and they just take from the labor of others.

Jefferson is expounding what the Conservatives are saying today. Give them a hand up to help them out of poverty. Not keep them in poverty by just giving them money. All that does is guarantee the vote to the party that gives.
It does not help the poor people nor does it help the government or the people who do work. This type of policy only takes.
Jefferson would have never been for that type of policy.

 

[rightwinger]

Incorrect, but I am sure the far left interprets things that way.

I provided the evidence, fool. It is unequivocal.

Need to see it again?

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Agrarian Justice

Its funny the number of people who preach about what the Founders wanted who are completely unfamiliar with their writings. All they have are out of context bullets from hack sites.

If you will notice, the letter of Jefferson was not about just giving her money, he proposed a means for the poor to take care of themselves, giving them land which makes them wealthier, by them working and producing and gives taxes back to the government.

Not like the liberals of today who just hand out welfare checks, without the poor being able to be productive. They pay no taxes and they just take from the labor of others.

Jefferson is expounding what the Conservatives are saying today. Give them a hand up to help them out of poverty. Not keep them in poverty by just giving them money. All that does is guarantee the vote to the party that gives.
It does not help the poor people nor does it help the government or the people who do work. This type of policy only takes.
Jefferson would have never been for that type of policy.

Interesting....would today's conservatives support giving the poor free land?

They bitch about a freak'n cell phone

 

[peach174]

I provided the evidence, fool. It is unequivocal.

Need to see it again?

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Agrarian Justice

Its funny the number of people who preach about what the Founders wanted who are completely unfamiliar with their writings. All they have are out of context bullets from hack sites.

If you will notice, the letter of Jefferson was not about just giving her money, he proposed a means for the poor to take care of themselves, giving them land which makes them wealthier, by them working and producing and gives taxes back to the government.

Not like the liberals of today who just hand out welfare checks, without the poor being able to be productive. They pay no taxes and they just take from the labor of others.

Jefferson is expounding what the Conservatives are saying today. Give them a hand up to help them out of poverty. Not keep them in poverty by just giving them money. All that does is guarantee the vote to the party that gives.
It does not help the poor people nor does it help the government or the people who do work. This type of policy only takes.
Jefferson would have never been for that type of policy.

Interesting....would today's conservatives support giving the poor free land?

They bitch about a freak'n cell phone

Yeah, free phones so that they can talk on it all day long and never use it to try and get a job, some may but it is a small amount who would.
We don't have that large open space of land like in their times.

The conservators are proposing free education.
Vouchers which were working very well in the D.C. area and which President Obama got rid of. Then had to reinstate it because of all the complaints by single low income mothers.

 

[Redfish]

They wouldn't recognize the current British government either

Imagine that? Times change
Who'da thunk it?

the constitution and the laws of the land are not flexible documents, their words have meaning and are not to be "interpreted" by either the liberals or the conservatives.

If either side does not like something in the constitution all they need is a referendum passed by 38 states to change it. Failing that, the constitution stands.

Our courts have the role of interpretting the Constitution. It is not "black and white" and has always been subject to interpretation.

I guess our disagreement is on the meaning of the word "interpret". Deciding if a law or ruling of a lower court is constitutional does not require 'interpreting' the constitution. Either the law or ruling is in accordance with the constitution or its not.

Trying to decide what the drafters of the constitution would have done today is not the role of the SCOTUS. To do that is the equivalent of making law from the bench.

 

[Redfish]

I provided the evidence, fool. It is unequivocal.

Need to see it again?

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Agrarian Justice

Its funny the number of people who preach about what the Founders wanted who are completely unfamiliar with their writings. All they have are out of context bullets from hack sites.

If you will notice, the letter of Jefferson was not about just giving her money, he proposed a means for the poor to take care of themselves, giving them land which makes them wealthier, by them working and producing and gives taxes back to the government.

Not like the liberals of today who just hand out welfare checks, without the poor being able to be productive. They pay no taxes and they just take from the labor of others.

Jefferson is expounding what the Conservatives are saying today. Give them a hand up to help them out of poverty. Not keep them in poverty by just giving them money. All that does is guarantee the vote to the party that gives.
It does not help the poor people nor does it help the government or the people who do work. This type of policy only takes.
Jefferson would have never been for that type of policy.

Interesting....would today's conservatives support giving the poor free land?

They bitch about a freak'n cell phone

would today's liberals give the poor free land? of course not. don't be foolish they would let them work the land for the "common good" and then decide what they could keep to feed themselves------sounds like feudal europe.