Why do so many people on this board wish to return to the 18th century?

[P@triot]

Or even to the 1400s with their idiot AGW cult who wants us all to run around half naked and hunt buffalo to prevent climate change.

That would be the Native North Americans. But they only had Stone Age weapons. That was a mo fo against European steel and gunpowerder (from China).

Doh! Good point yiostheoy! We completely forgot how they want to take us back to the 1300's with their policies on weapons bear513!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Humanity would still be in africa and throwing rocks at each other if it was up to you parasitic conservatives....The innovators, thinkers and explorers are the ones that gave you this internet, easy life and food a plenty.

Conservatives the world over are bad. ISIS, Taliban and tribal groups are the conservatives in other parts of the world and cultures...

You are a moron.

You don't understand the difference between being conservative (valuing liberty) and being left wing (which is what you are and what the Taliban is.

Please shut up while you still have a chance of being viewed as human.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Please shut up while you still have a chance of being viewed as human.

too late

 

[Dragonlady]

Because starting in the late 19th century - power hungry slime balls started shredding the U.S Constitution.

All you talk about is government "investment" - which is nothing more than your slang for "government throw some money at me". But unlike your greedy ass - real Americans prefer liberty over servitude in exchange for government table scraps.

The federal government isn't empowered to invest. You don't like it? Amend the constitution. Can't? Tough shit. Deal with it. It's the law.

Asking government to build roads, bridges, and transportation and communications systems isn't asking them to throw money at you. It's asking governments to provide the infrastructure for corporations and individuals to work and thrive in a modern civilized society.

It's asking government to provide the tool kit for a first world economy: transportation, communication, an educated workforce, and a stable society where individual property and rights are respected.

That is the meaning of your Constitution.

 

[Boss]

Asking government to build roads, bridges, and transportation and communications systems isn't asking them to throw money at you. It's asking governments to provide the infrastructure for corporations and individuals to work and thrive in a modern civilized society.

It's asking government to provide the tool kit for a first world economy: transportation, communication, an educated workforce, and a stable society where individual property and rights are respected.

That is the meaning of your Constitution.

No it's not. These are things free people provide for their own interests. There is not one thing in the Constitution authorizing this such of thing. Maintaining post roads is the only infrastructure item covered.

 

[Skull Pilot]

But now you are abandoning your argument and changing to another one you like better. I can't let you do that in the middle of a debate. You argued they ducked the issue, now you're admitting they didn't duck the issue but what they did was superficial and didn't matter much. Again, they did what they were able to do at that time. They could not ban slavery! That wasn't going to happen. Had they attempted to do this with the Constitution, it would have never been ratified.

And let me clarify something so you don't go getting the wrong idea. I hate when people twist something I say into something they want to hear and disregard my point. I am not saying that the founders banning slave trade was some glorious achievement they should be commended and praised for. I merely stated that, at that time, it was significantly bold to do that. They didn't HAVE to... there wasn't any real pressure from anyone. It was simply a matter of consciousness. Slavery is an affront to Liberty.

My argument has been that they didn't "duck the issue" as you claimed. They addressed it the best way they could at the time. They couldn't resolve it but they left the tools and language to resolve it for future generations.

OK....lets go back to the original issue then

They not only ducked the issue....they sold out
With key founders owning slaves, what do you expect?
No they didn't address it. They had other priorities and "all men are created equal" was not one of them

By selling out, they set us up for a war four score and seven years later.

Again, that is a purely revisionist idea of what went down. People who grew cotton, tobacco and sugar cane owned slaves because that was how it was harvested. There was no other option. It's not selling out when there isn't another option.

And AGAIN... they DID address it, as I pointed out, which you acknowledged but are now ignoring and pretending it wasn't a point I made. They addressed slavery as best they could at the time. They outlawed slave trade and put the language in the Constitution to enable freedom of slaves when the time came. Even Frederick Douglass recognized their brilliance in that. Why are YOU having a problem?

The War wasn't the fault of the founders, it was the result of the courts and congress FAILING to do the right thing when the time came. They failed and we had war. Furthermore, the war didn't end slavery! It took a Constitutional Amendment to do that. Why couldn't that have been done BEFORE the war? No reason... it just wasn't.

Yes it is selling out
If you can't make a profit without resorting to slave labor you do not belong in business
Banning the importation of africans did nothing to end slavery
The slave population increased after the ban

still whining about centuries past

Read the title of the thread you are on

which is a ridiculous as most of the shit the OP posts

listen to you still whining about slavery

every country in the world has practiced slavery at some point in their history

 

[Claudette]

Why do so many people on this board wish to return to the 18th century? That was a time when we as a nation committed very little towards investment within our borders, very little laws or rules to protect the workers, life was far harder then today and I honestly believe the world of the time was so alien to the concepts of modern 20th and 21st century that America would be transformed into a very poor, backwards and violent society if we attempted it. It would be a outright suicide of the most advance nation on earth in many measures and a true lost to all of humanity.

Government expanded because it had too, just like every other modern state due to civilized people wanting infrastructure, wanting education for their children, clean air, water and food and a ever better standard of living. For one to argue that the 18th century was superior is the height of insanity within my mind, but that is exactly what extreme conservatism is bitching for. So you'd rather put your trust in the same corporations that pollute the environment in india then to have the government fine the bastards and give them a good reason to stop??? So you'd rather businesses have the power to refuse payment to work or set up sweat shops while you smile and say get a job. WTF is wrong with you? I say this because it could be you or your children that has little choice for employment! Why make life worse for yourself?


I could keep going on down the list on why the concepts of the 18th century would be a nightmare to the American people but I'll stop here. Lets just say that it isn't preferable and I really wish some people would see the benefits in living within a society that gives a shit about things.

Why do so many people on this board want to return to the 7th century??

So many people on this board buy the Islam religion of peace bullshit. Look at Europe. Pretty soon al of Europe will be Muslim. One has to wonder why looney tunes want the same for America.

You can't cure stupid.

4% of the EU is taking over? Actually, they're learning modernity very quickly. 100 years ago they were 7th century, now they drink alcohol like us. Unfortunately they have fundies like christians do, and Boooosh wrecked their homelands...

Give em time. They are working on it.

Oh I see you're another believer in the religion of peace.

Doubt the dead in Paris, Nice, San Bernardino and all over the world would agree with your clueless conclusion.

You can't cure stupid and you fit that stupid tag to a tee.

 

[Claudette]

Asking government to build roads, bridges, and transportation and communications systems isn't asking them to throw money at you. It's asking governments to provide the infrastructure for corporations and individuals to work and thrive in a modern civilized society.

It's asking government to provide the tool kit for a first world economy: transportation, communication, an educated workforce, and a stable society where individual property and rights are respected.

That is the meaning of your Constitution.

No it's not. These are things free people provide for their own interests. There is not one thing in the Constitution authorizing this such of thing. Maintaining post roads is the only infrastructure item covered.

I agree. That's all the constitution means and the word charity ain't in that piece of paper.

Nowhere does the constitution say that one group of people should support another.

 

[gipper]

Because starting in the late 19th century - power hungry slime balls started shredding the U.S Constitution.

All you talk about is government "investment" - which is nothing more than your slang for "government throw some money at me". But unlike your greedy ass - real Americans prefer liberty over servitude in exchange for government table scraps.

The federal government isn't empowered to invest. You don't like it? Amend the constitution. Can't? Tough shit. Deal with it. It's the law.

Asking government to build roads, bridges, and transportation and communications systems isn't asking them to throw money at you. It's asking governments to provide the infrastructure for corporations and individuals to work and thrive in a modern civilized society.

It's asking government to provide the tool kit for a first world economy: transportation, communication, an educated workforce, and a stable society where individual property and rights are respected.

That is the meaning of your Constitution.

You merely proved with that post, that you have no understanding of the Constitution. Did you get that understanding from CNN?

 

[rightwinger]

Where did Obama ever said anything that remotely inferred he was a God? He tends to be quite humble

Bwahahahahaha! You are the biggest Obama tool ever...

How about when he gave the Queen of England an iPod with his speeches on them? Not of Winston Churchill. Not of Margaret Thatcher. Not of Nelson Mandela. Nope! Of himself.

How about when he said that "Republican's can come along and sit in the back, but they aren't getting the keys" during his analogy on the economy? Astounding arrogance.

“I’m the African American son of a single mother, and I live here, in this house,” Obama told Netanyahu. “I live in the White House. I managed to get elected president of the United States. You think I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do.”

That admission came during a sit-down Obama did with HBO's Bill Simmons for a spread in GQ magazine, which named the two its men of the year. Obama acknowledged to Simmons that in the first few years of his presidency, "a certain arrogance crept in..."

And lets not even get into his concern over his own "legacy".

He is unquestionably the most arrogant president in U.S. history and he was a complete embarrassment to office of the presidency. The fact you even attempt to make a case for him being "humble" is why you are the joke of USMB.

Obama was known for his self effusing humor. He could laugh at himself

Trump is offended if anyone dares to make a joke at his expense. Trump is always...The best, the smartest, the richest

 

[gipper]

Where did Obama ever said anything that remotely inferred he was a God? He tends to be quite humble

Bwahahahahaha! You are the biggest Obama tool ever...

How about when he gave the Queen of England an iPod with his speeches on them? Not of Winston Churchill. Not of Margaret Thatcher. Not of Nelson Mandela. Nope! Of himself.

How about when he said that "Republican's can come along and sit in the back, but they aren't getting the keys" during his analogy on the economy? Astounding arrogance.

“I’m the African American son of a single mother, and I live here, in this house,” Obama told Netanyahu. “I live in the White House. I managed to get elected president of the United States. You think I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do.”

That admission came during a sit-down Obama did with HBO's Bill Simmons for a spread in GQ magazine, which named the two its men of the year. Obama acknowledged to Simmons that in the first few years of his presidency, "a certain arrogance crept in..."

And lets not even get into his concern over his own "legacy".

He is unquestionably the most arrogant president in U.S. history and he was a complete embarrassment to office of the presidency. The fact you even attempt to make a case for him being "humble" is why you are the joke of USMB.

Obama was known for his self effusing humor. He could laugh at himself

Trump is offended if anyone dares to make a joke at his expense. Trump is always...The best, the smartest, the richest

Obama was the most egotistical person ever to be POTUS.

 

[Dragonlady]

Because starting in the late 19th century - power hungry slime balls started shredding the U.S Constitution.

All you talk about is government "investment" - which is nothing more than your slang for "government throw some money at me". But unlike your greedy ass - real Americans prefer liberty over servitude in exchange for government table scraps.

The federal government isn't empowered to invest. You don't like it? Amend the constitution. Can't? Tough shit. Deal with it. It's the law.

Asking government to build roads, bridges, and transportation and communications systems isn't asking them to throw money at you. It's asking governments to provide the infrastructure for corporations and individuals to work and thrive in a modern civilized society.

It's asking government to provide the tool kit for a first world economy: transportation, communication, an educated workforce, and a stable society where individual property and rights are respected.

That is the meaning of your Constitution.

You merely proved with that post, that you have no understanding of the Constitution. Did you get that understanding from CNN?

I'm not an American, I don't live in the US, and I don't think any Conservative has the vaguest clue about your Constitution. It does not say what you think it says.

 

[rightwinger]

Because starting in the late 19th century - power hungry slime balls started shredding the U.S Constitution.

All you talk about is government "investment" - which is nothing more than your slang for "government throw some money at me". But unlike your greedy ass - real Americans prefer liberty over servitude in exchange for government table scraps.

The federal government isn't empowered to invest. You don't like it? Amend the constitution. Can't? Tough shit. Deal with it. It's the law.

Asking government to build roads, bridges, and transportation and communications systems isn't asking them to throw money at you. It's asking governments to provide the infrastructure for corporations and individuals to work and thrive in a modern civilized society.

It's asking government to provide the tool kit for a first world economy: transportation, communication, an educated workforce, and a stable society where individual property and rights are respected.

That is the meaning of your Constitution.

You merely proved with that post, that you have no understanding of the Constitution. Did you get that understanding from CNN?

I'm not an American, I don't live in the US, and I don't think any Conservative has the vaguest clue about your Constitution. It does not say what you think it says.

Conservatives know nothing about the Constitution outside the second amendment

Even that one they only read half of it

 

[Boss]

I'm not an American, I don't live in the US, and I don't think any Conservative has the vaguest clue about your Constitution. It does not say what you think it says.

I don't think YOU have the vaguest clue. Idiot.

 

[Muhammed]

Why do so many people on this board wish to return to the 18th century?

I've never seen anyone on this board say they wish to return to the 18th century. Can you name these people or are you attacking strawmen?

 

[gipper]

Because starting in the late 19th century - power hungry slime balls started shredding the U.S Constitution.

All you talk about is government "investment" - which is nothing more than your slang for "government throw some money at me". But unlike your greedy ass - real Americans prefer liberty over servitude in exchange for government table scraps.

The federal government isn't empowered to invest. You don't like it? Amend the constitution. Can't? Tough shit. Deal with it. It's the law.

Asking government to build roads, bridges, and transportation and communications systems isn't asking them to throw money at you. It's asking governments to provide the infrastructure for corporations and individuals to work and thrive in a modern civilized society.

It's asking government to provide the tool kit for a first world economy: transportation, communication, an educated workforce, and a stable society where individual property and rights are respected.

That is the meaning of your Constitution.

You merely proved with that post, that you have no understanding of the Constitution. Did you get that understanding from CNN?

I'm not an American, I don't live in the US, and I don't think any Conservative has the vaguest clue about your Constitution. It does not say what you think it says.

Show me where the US Constitution says what you claim. Otherwise STFU.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why do so many people on this board wish to return to the 18th century? That was a time when we as a nation committed very little towards investment within our borders, very little laws or rules to protect the workers, life was far harder then today and I honestly believe the world of the time was so alien to the concepts of modern 20th and 21st century that America would be transformed into a very poor, backwards and violent society if we attempted it. It would be a outright suicide of the most advance nation on earth in many measures and a true lost to all of humanity.

Government expanded because it had too, just like every other modern state due to civilized people wanting infrastructure, wanting education for their children, clean air, water and food and a ever better standard of living. For one to argue that the 18th century was superior is the height of insanity within my mind, but that is exactly what extreme conservatism is bitching for. So you'd rather put your trust in the same corporations that pollute the environment in india then to have the government fine the bastards and give them a good reason to stop??? So you'd rather businesses have the power to refuse payment to work or set up sweat shops while you smile and say get a job. WTF is wrong with you? I say this because it could be you or your children that has little choice for employment! Why make life worse for yourself?


I could keep going on down the list on why the concepts of the 18th century would be a nightmare to the American people but I'll stop here. Lets just say that it isn't preferable and I really wish some people would see the benefits in living within a society that gives a shit about things.

Regressives like you want to return to the 13th century of Kings and serfs.. Where a very few tell every one else what they must do, how they must live, and how they will die.

Progressivism is nothing more than pure unadulterated Stalin-ism.. A DIGRESSIVE move backwards to totalitarian state and the times of Kings and Serfs.. FUCK OFF!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Asking government to build roads, bridges, and transportation and communications systems isn't asking them to throw money at you. It's asking governments to provide the infrastructure for corporations and individuals to work and thrive in a modern civilized society.

It's asking government to provide the tool kit for a first world economy: transportation, communication, an educated workforce, and a stable society where individual property and rights are respected.

That is the meaning of your Constitution.

No it's not. These are things free people provide for their own interests. There is not one thing in the Constitution authorizing this such of thing. Maintaining post roads is the only infrastructure item covered.

I agree. That's all the constitution means and the word charity ain't in that piece of paper.

Nowhere does the constitution say that one group of people should support another.

Charity and taking care ones family were GIVENS that FAMILY was responsible for and the Church they attended did for their members.. The left wing fools have killed the church and the family so they could put in place their Big Government controls.. Time to turn back to God and family and screw the government.

 

[rightwinger]

Why do so many people on this board wish to return to the 18th century?

I've never seen anyone on this board say they wish to return to the 18th century. Can you name these people or are you attacking strawmen?

 

[Flash]

Government expanded because it had too,.

Wrong!

Government expanded because there are idiots who like the power of telling other people what to do and there are greedy little welfare queens that benefit from big government.

We Americans suffered tremendously when our liberties are taken away from us. Too bad there are substantial number of idiots in this country that somehow think they are better off having their lives dictated by some stupid bureaucrat whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by greedy special interest groups.

Government is a necessary evil but should be kept as small and as non intrusive as possible. Our Founding Fathers had the right idea.