Which GOP Candidate Would The Founders Support?...

[bigrebnc1775]

In retrospect, he made up for it.

You, T, are morally insane, just like CrusaderFrank.

bigreb, on the other hand, not only knows the difference but is trying to become a better person.

You should be thankful he even talks to you.

stop your bullshit you racist fuck.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He lived it down and made up for it.

You can, as well.

You have not acted out on it in some time, and that is good, but admitting your darker self and fighting it openly would be good for you.

jake you are a racist . you project what you are hoping that your evil will leave you into someone else.

Not even a poor try, reb. But all God's people need to work on bettering themselves daily.

That's why I am working with you today to get better yourself.

 

[Dr Grump]

I love how everybody here is speaking for your founding fathers.....lol...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He lived it down and made up for it.

You can, as well.

You have not acted out on it in some time, and that is good, but admitting your darker self and fighting it openly would be good for you.

jake you are a racist . you project what you are hoping that your evil will leave you into someone else.

Not even a poor try, reb. But all God's people need to work on bettering themselves daily.

That's why I am working with you today to get better yourself.

you are a racist you like to live in the world of racism. free yourself or it will eat you up . brake those chains and set yourself free.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I love how everybody here is speaking for your founding fathers.....lol...

America's founders left in word how they believe this country should be lead. Some fail to understand those words.

 

[The Rabbi]

Interesting take from Brion McClanahan.


I am often asked in interviews if the founding generation would recognize the modern government in Washington, D.C. I always answer yes, they would. They would recognize tyranny, the usurpation of power by the executive branch, the trampling of civil liberties and the endless wars of a government bent on empire. The several states seceded from a government like that in 1776 and they would probably advocate the same course today. Barack Obama has more power than George III ever had. That said, the next question is usually, “Well, what do we do about it and who among the current crop of presidential candidates would best adhere to the founding principles?"

The answer to the first part of that question is more complex than the answer to the second part. If Americans truly believed in limited government, then we would be following the prescription that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made in 1798 by ignoring unconstitutional federal laws, participating in local and state government and using the powers of the states as a hedge against the general government. This is a long war that requires education and what Jefferson called “manly firmness.” Most important, the Constitution would not have been ratified had the founding generation believed that the states would become mere provinces of the general government or that what Patrick Henry called the “sweeping clauses” would be abused. The political class has to be held responsible.

As for the second part of that question, the answer is simple: Ron Paul. No one man can save the federal republic, but if the Founders, with perhaps an exception or two, had their choice, it would be the man who has the best understanding of the original construction of the executive branch, and among the four remaining Republicans, the best understanding of the Constitution and the original intent in general. Mitt Romney has conceded he knows little about the principles of federalism (with the exception of correctly insisting that Romneycare in Massachusetts is a state issue) and defers to Paul on the Constitution; Newt Gingrich believes that federal judges should be dragged before Congress to “answer” for their decisions (News flash, Newt! Federal judges can be impeached); Rick Santorum thinks that the phrase “pursuit of happiness” is in the Constitution, or perhaps the Declaration of Independence is a governing document, I couldn’t tell by his incoherent statements to Glenn Beck. All believe that the general government should be charged with finding “solutions” to societal ills. All believe that the president is a prime minister charged with initiating legislation and have a “progressive” view of executive powers, particularly in regard to foreign policy, the antithesis of the original intent. All, that is, except Ron Paul.


Read more: Ron Paul | Which GOP candidate would the Founders support? | The Daily Caller

The Founders tolerated slavery. And Ron Paul is into enslaving American citizens with drugs. So maybe they would support Paul.

 

[The T]

Interesting take from Brion McClanahan.


I am often asked in interviews if the founding generation would recognize the modern government in Washington, D.C. I always answer yes, they would. They would recognize tyranny, the usurpation of power by the executive branch, the trampling of civil liberties and the endless wars of a government bent on empire. The several states seceded from a government like that in 1776 and they would probably advocate the same course today. Barack Obama has more power than George III ever had. That said, the next question is usually, “Well, what do we do about it and who among the current crop of presidential candidates would best adhere to the founding principles?"

The answer to the first part of that question is more complex than the answer to the second part. If Americans truly believed in limited government, then we would be following the prescription that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made in 1798 by ignoring unconstitutional federal laws, participating in local and state government and using the powers of the states as a hedge against the general government. This is a long war that requires education and what Jefferson called “manly firmness.” Most important, the Constitution would not have been ratified had the founding generation believed that the states would become mere provinces of the general government or that what Patrick Henry called the “sweeping clauses” would be abused. The political class has to be held responsible.

As for the second part of that question, the answer is simple: Ron Paul. No one man can save the federal republic, but if the Founders, with perhaps an exception or two, had their choice, it would be the man who has the best understanding of the original construction of the executive branch, and among the four remaining Republicans, the best understanding of the Constitution and the original intent in general. Mitt Romney has conceded he knows little about the principles of federalism (with the exception of correctly insisting that Romneycare in Massachusetts is a state issue) and defers to Paul on the Constitution; Newt Gingrich believes that federal judges should be dragged before Congress to “answer” for their decisions (News flash, Newt! Federal judges can be impeached); Rick Santorum thinks that the phrase “pursuit of happiness” is in the Constitution, or perhaps the Declaration of Independence is a governing document, I couldn’t tell by his incoherent statements to Glenn Beck. All believe that the general government should be charged with finding “solutions” to societal ills. All believe that the president is a prime minister charged with initiating legislation and have a “progressive” view of executive powers, particularly in regard to foreign policy, the antithesis of the original intent. All, that is, except Ron Paul.


Read more: Ron Paul | Which GOP candidate would the Founders support? | The Daily Caller

The Founders tolerated slavery. And Ron Paul is into enslaving American citizens with drugs. So maybe they would support Paul.

To a point they did...a good portion wanted to abolish it. For the sake of the Union, and ratifying the Constitution? The 3/5ths compromise was crafted to appease the South in full knowledge by the Founders that it wasn't over by a long shot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

jake you are a racist . you project what you are hoping that your evil will leave you into someone else.

Not even a poor try, reb. But all God's people need to work on bettering themselves daily.

That's why I am working with you today to get better yourself.

you are a racist you like to live in the world of racism. free yourself or it will eat you up . brake those chains and set yourself free.

That would be a good start for you, bigreb.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not even a poor try, reb. But all God's people need to work on bettering themselves daily.

That's why I am working with you today to get better yourself.

you are a racist you like to live in the world of racism. free yourself or it will eat you up . brake those chains and set yourself free.

That would be a good start for you, bigreb.

Maybe you should take my suggestion. it might help you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Interesting take from Brion McClanahan.


I am often asked in interviews if the founding generation would recognize the modern government in Washington, D.C. I always answer yes, they would. They would recognize tyranny, the usurpation of power by the executive branch, the trampling of civil liberties and the endless wars of a government bent on empire. The several states seceded from a government like that in 1776 and they would probably advocate the same course today. Barack Obama has more power than George III ever had. That said, the next question is usually, “Well, what do we do about it and who among the current crop of presidential candidates would best adhere to the founding principles?"

The answer to the first part of that question is more complex than the answer to the second part. If Americans truly believed in limited government, then we would be following the prescription that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made in 1798 by ignoring unconstitutional federal laws, participating in local and state government and using the powers of the states as a hedge against the general government. This is a long war that requires education and what Jefferson called “manly firmness.” Most important, the Constitution would not have been ratified had the founding generation believed that the states would become mere provinces of the general government or that what Patrick Henry called the “sweeping clauses” would be abused. The political class has to be held responsible.

As for the second part of that question, the answer is simple: Ron Paul. No one man can save the federal republic, but if the Founders, with perhaps an exception or two, had their choice, it would be the man who has the best understanding of the original construction of the executive branch, and among the four remaining Republicans, the best understanding of the Constitution and the original intent in general. Mitt Romney has conceded he knows little about the principles of federalism (with the exception of correctly insisting that Romneycare in Massachusetts is a state issue) and defers to Paul on the Constitution; Newt Gingrich believes that federal judges should be dragged before Congress to “answer” for their decisions (News flash, Newt! Federal judges can be impeached); Rick Santorum thinks that the phrase “pursuit of happiness” is in the Constitution, or perhaps the Declaration of Independence is a governing document, I couldn’t tell by his incoherent statements to Glenn Beck. All believe that the general government should be charged with finding “solutions” to societal ills. All believe that the president is a prime minister charged with initiating legislation and have a “progressive” view of executive powers, particularly in regard to foreign policy, the antithesis of the original intent. All, that is, except Ron Paul.


Read more: Ron Paul | Which GOP candidate would the Founders support? | The Daily Caller

The Founders tolerated slavery. And Ron Paul is into enslaving American citizens with drugs. So maybe they would support Paul.

Does this sound like he wants to enslave anyone?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGA049-pi-M&feature=g-vrec&context=G2834c1fRVAAAAAAAAAw]The Quote That Changed My Views on Politics Forever - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The T]

In retrospect, he made up for it.

You, T, are morally insane, just like CrusaderFrank.

bigreb, on the other hand, not only knows the difference but is trying to become a better person.

You should be thankful he even talks to you.

Jake? YOU don't hold a candle.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The Founders tolerated slavery. And Ron Paul is into enslaving American citizens with drugs. So maybe they would support Paul.

Hey Rabbi, if drugs were legal would you run out and buy you some? Do you think everybody else would? Your premise is absurd!

 

[jillian]

I love how everybody here is speaking for your founding fathers.....lol...

they speak for G-d.
they speak for jesus.

is speaking for the founders that big a leap?

 

[The Rabbi]

The Founders tolerated slavery. And Ron Paul is into enslaving American citizens with drugs. So maybe they would support Paul.

Hey Rabbi, if drugs were legal would you run out and buy you some? Do you think everybody else would? Your premise is absurd!

Yes. And so would bunches of people.
What was your point again?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Interesting take from Brion McClanahan.


I am often asked in interviews if the founding generation would recognize the modern government in Washington, D.C. I always answer yes, they would. They would recognize tyranny, the usurpation of power by the executive branch, the trampling of civil liberties and the endless wars of a government bent on empire. The several states seceded from a government like that in 1776 and they would probably advocate the same course today. Barack Obama has more power than George III ever had. That said, the next question is usually, “Well, what do we do about it and who among the current crop of presidential candidates would best adhere to the founding principles?"

The answer to the first part of that question is more complex than the answer to the second part. If Americans truly believed in limited government, then we would be following the prescription that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made in 1798 by ignoring unconstitutional federal laws, participating in local and state government and using the powers of the states as a hedge against the general government. This is a long war that requires education and what Jefferson called “manly firmness.” Most important, the Constitution would not have been ratified had the founding generation believed that the states would become mere provinces of the general government or that what Patrick Henry called the “sweeping clauses” would be abused. The political class has to be held responsible.

As for the second part of that question, the answer is simple: Ron Paul. No one man can save the federal republic, but if the Founders, with perhaps an exception or two, had their choice, it would be the man who has the best understanding of the original construction of the executive branch, and among the four remaining Republicans, the best understanding of the Constitution and the original intent in general. Mitt Romney has conceded he knows little about the principles of federalism (with the exception of correctly insisting that Romneycare in Massachusetts is a state issue) and defers to Paul on the Constitution; Newt Gingrich believes that federal judges should be dragged before Congress to “answer” for their decisions (News flash, Newt! Federal judges can be impeached); Rick Santorum thinks that the phrase “pursuit of happiness” is in the Constitution, or perhaps the Declaration of Independence is a governing document, I couldn’t tell by his incoherent statements to Glenn Beck. All believe that the general government should be charged with finding “solutions” to societal ills. All believe that the president is a prime minister charged with initiating legislation and have a “progressive” view of executive powers, particularly in regard to foreign policy, the antithesis of the original intent. All, that is, except Ron Paul.


Read more: Ron Paul | Which GOP candidate would the Founders support? | The Daily Caller

The Founders tolerated slavery. And Ron Paul is into enslaving American citizens with drugs. So maybe they would support Paul.

Does this sound like he wants to enslave anyone?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGA049-pi-M&feature=g-vrec&context=G2834c1fRVAAAAAAAAAw]The Quote That Changed My Views on Politics Forever - YouTube[/ame]

Rabbi you made a claim that Ron Paul want to enslave people does this sound like Ron Paul wants to enslave anyone?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Which GOP Candidate Would The Founders Support?

None Of 'Em!!!!​

January 28, 2012​

"The Tea Party’s revisionist history of the nation’s founding document may play well with the ill-informed, but the truth is the framers of the Constitution were fed up with state “sovereignty” and decided on a strong central government, a judgment that has served the United States well."

True Foresight; No Room For Lynch-Mobs​

.

.

.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which GOP Candidate Would The Founders Support?

None Of 'Em!!!!​

January 28, 2012​

"The Tea Party’s revisionist history of ]

You can bet your last dollar they would never support what the democrats have.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The Founders tolerated slavery. And Ron Paul is into enslaving American citizens with drugs. So maybe they would support Paul.

Hey Rabbi, if drugs were legal would you run out and buy you some? Do you think everybody else would? Your premise is absurd!

Yes. And so would bunches of people.
What was your point again?

Why would you do that if you think they're bad? That makes little sense. As for 'bunches of people', I doubt it. Everywhere drugs have been legalized or decriminalized there has been a short spurt of increased usage followed by a continual downward trend. You've got to face facts, the 'War on Drugs' is an abject failure of epic proportions. We've spent billions of dollars over the last 50 years and today the drugs are cheaper, more plentiful and more potent than ever. If you want to find out where to get some, ask any high school kid.

 

[The T]

Which GOP Candidate Would The Founders Support?

None Of 'Em!!!!​

January 28, 2012​

"The Tea Party’s revisionist history of ]

You can bet your last dollar they would never support what the democrats have.

My Eyes! A Shaman Quote!

 

[Cuyo]

It was a protection of slavery to give southern states more legislative power than they deserved

What is the difference between the slavery imposed by the Southern states and the one being impose by Washington, DC?

.

None.

Well, there kinda is a difference. You see, the slavery imposed by the Southern states was slavery.