Why do conservatives want to go back to the 18th century?

[rdean]

Why do conservatives want to go back to the 18th century?

They could legally kill people back then, They miss the good old days.

 

[bendog]

Oh, and women couldn't vote! Another positive (-:

 

[Leweman]

Dems love slavery, they are the one's keeping people down.

 

[eagle7_31]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

As usual

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

Where do you get these pea brained delusions?

 

[Wyatt earp]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

So Matthew do you think libs are any different? I said it a million times on here libs want us to go back to the 1950s when we had a super high tax rate and the world was in ruins so we didn't have any competition in manufacturing.


.

 

[idb]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

So Matthew do you think libs are any different? I said it a million times on here libs want us to go back to the 1950s when we had a super high tax rate and the world was in ruins so we didn't have any competition in manufacturing.


.

Aren't the 1950s the Promised Land for conservatives?

 

[Andylusion]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

So Matthew do you think libs are any different? I said it a million times on here libs want us to go back to the 1950s when we had a super high tax rate and the world was in ruins so we didn't have any competition in manufacturing.


.

Aren't the 1950s the Promised Land for conservatives?

No. Morally Christians would like to go back to that society. But I don't think I've ever heard conservatives in general say they want that again.

Besides, the only way that would work, is if Europe exploded into world war 3, and wiped itself out again. Then they would come to us for manufacturing needs.

Since that isn't likely to happen, no amount of local policy change is going to made a difference.

The comment though, was that both sides, look back on various aspects of history, and claim they want to bring them back. The left would love to elect another LBJ to ruin the country with another "Great Society" scheme. The right would love to find another Reagan to cut taxes, lower spending, and cut government, and hopefully accomplish even more than Reagan did.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

Stay away from fire NASA, you are the king of all strawmen.

Straw man 1- our founding fathers rejected a central bank-
Why the Founders Rejected a Central Bank | Tenth Amendment Center

"This is why our founding fathers considered, but decidedly rejected the creation of a national central bank. They understood that governments, even the best of governments, cannot control spending. Even the current administration, which promised strict fiscal responsibility, has had to increase the national debt limit by 65 percent to keep up with its spending sprees."

Strawman 2 - The majority of conservatives here are not calling for absolutely no government overSIGHT. Our issues are with the overREACH.

if any European countries surpass us in becoming a democracy, then too bad for their citizens. We are a Republic, which means limiting the power of the majority (pure democracy) to preserve the rights of the individual.

I will agree that there is a lot of grey that should be considered, few things are black and white.

I have no idea what the last paragraph means in your post, so I will not comment.

 

[initforme]

Well then we can go back to low wages and bad working conditions. We are in reverse right now...slowly but surely we will regress back to that time. We ain't as great as we like to think. Never was.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It seems to me that you think our society hasn't done anything of value since 1791 and you honestly believe that anything that is modern is bad. I have a few questions.

1. A majority of our founders approved of a central Bank and a federal government that had 3 equal branches. What gives you the idea that the federal government shouldn't have any power over the states? If you believe they shouldn't, why replace the articles that came before the current constitution?
2. Our society is vastly better as far as I can see through a lot of these regulations, rights and mandates put into place over the past 200 years. Of course, some of them aint good and do cause problems one could argue, but I believe some of what has been put into place since Washington's time has been good.
-I believe that the clean air and water acts are truly great for the people of this country. How could anyone argue against a reasonable level of regulations of our quality of life and the sources that it depends on?
-I believe the federal government should maintain our highways, freeways and invest for the greater society as these things cross state borders and boundaries. We're a stronger nation for doing so. Humanity has always been stronger for taking part in such from the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and for all societies that do so. How is this such a bad thing?


It would seem to me that limiting our belief system to 1791 is to limit ones self from growing as our founders grew from the knowledge of civilizations that came before us. It is clear as day to me that some western europe states have in fact surpassed us in what makes a democracy in many ways and you can't honestly compare them to pure socialist states. One could also argue all the dark and cold realities of pure capitalism as they judge what makes the better nation state. I don't think we should be thinking black and white, but more of a shade of grey to find reality.

As a man that lives in the 21st century there's no question in my mind that our founders were only starting to understand the downsides of what would make a stable and great state that doesn't have a king. Of course, there were few examples to go by. To argue that everything done for the betterment of the American people since that time is bad is to argue for no growth or ability to acknowledge that we're better off for considering the issue some more.

Can you provide a link to the article by the leading conservative that says he wants to roll the nation back to the 18th century?

thanks.

 

[Andylusion]

Well then we can go back to low wages and bad working conditions. We are in reverse right now...slowly but surely we will regress back to that time. We ain't as great as we like to think. Never was.

That's a bit ridiculous. One reason wages have gone down, is because government taxes, regulations, and programs have gone up. No company can pay you, money that was given to the government under that 35% tax rate. Nor can it pay you money that it gave to social security and medicare, or Obamacare for that matter.

But to claim that we'll go back to the working conditions of the 1930s is beyond stupid.

The biggest improvements for working conditions was the development of safety equipment on machines.

These are stamping machines. You put your hands under the stamp while it's running, and you have mash potatoes instead of hands.

See the yellow bars? Those are infra-red sensors. You put your hand in, and the machine shuts off.

So in "your world", you think that somehow companies are going to spend money to remove safety features on machines, so that people can get injured, and the company can lose money on lost productivity?

You really think we are going to 'regress' back to the 1930s to 1950s? Really? Seriously, that's your view?

Special.... short bus special.