Will any Progressive answer this question?

[Obamanation]

NICE WALK-BACK!!!

Commie bitch is trying to cover her tracks big time!!!

 

[LoneLaugher]

NICE WALK-BACK!!!

Commie bitch is trying to cover her tracks big time!!!

You might have some developmental issues. Have you been checked out?

 

[Obamanation]

NICE WALK-BACK!!!

Commie bitch is trying to cover her tracks big time!!!

You might be have some developmental issues. Have you been checked out?

...typical weakness, lol...

Really, she is blaming conservative republican mothers for her commie rant --- and we are to take that in stride?

You fools....

 

[TemplarKormac]

Relisten. You added words and left some out. Are you not interested in accuracy?

Rethink, find the original version of the transcript, and then accuse 2nd of being inaccurate.

In an on air promo on MSNBC, Melissa Harris-Perry was heard saying these words:

"We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children–”Your kid is YOURS! And totally your responsibility.”

We haven’t had a very collective notion of “these are our children,” so, part of it is that we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.

Once its everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s then we start making better investments."

Those are her exact words. Here is a video. If you continue denying it, you can just screw off; since you are not interested in wholesome debate but trolling.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg_tFFbuF8Q]MSNBC Promo Claiming Your Kids Belong to the 'Whole Community' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TemplarKormac]

NICE WALK-BACK!!!

Commie bitch is trying to cover her tracks big time!!!

You might have some developmental issues. Have you been checked out?

What kind of an answer is that?

 

[JQPublic1]

And your response is just a knee jerk reaction coming from an oaf who doesn't know how to deal with the truth when he sees it. Is that all you got?

I'm not the one denying the existence of the ad and transcript.

'
NO ONE HERE is denying anything of the sort. That's just your over active imagination deceiving you again. What you did attempt was a diversion from your your irrational insistence that MS Harris-Perry erred by saying her students were children after I schooled your dumb ass. (See the age 21 clause above)[warning: reading it may be harmful to your nefarious agenda]

 

[The2ndAmendment]

NO ONE HERE is denying anything of the sort. That's just your over active imagination deceiving you again. What you did attempt was a diversion from your your irrational insistence that MS Harris-Perry erred by saying her students were children after I schooled your dumb ass. (See the age 21 clause above)[warning: reading it may be harmful to your nefarious agenda]

Since you have yet to actually counter my answers in Post #2

Or, to provide your own answers about the transcript, based on the transcript itself

All I can say is:

THANKS FOR THE FREE BUMP!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PIpiXRKD-c]Human Victory - Warcraft 2 Tides Of Darkness - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Bfgrn]

2A.......

Has any person denied the existence of the ad?

None of you seem to cite the AD ITSELF when discussing your reaction to the ad. That is was this thread was STARTED FOR.

This thread is intended as a RIGOROUS response to a DOCUMENT. You must use the DOCUMENT in order to answers questions ABOUT THE DOCUMENT.


-----------------

Anyway, I enjoy have a monopoly on the interpretation of the ad itself:

1. We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we have always had a private notion of our children.

2. [Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

3. We never had a collective notion that these are OUR children.

4. So part of it is that we have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents, or that kids belong to their families.

5. We must recognize that kids belong to the WHOLE COMMUNITY;

6. Once it is everyone's responsibility, and not just the household's [responsibility], we will start making better investments.

And you have the start of Communist disaster.

1: Which problem does she identify? That we aren't investing enough/properly into education - This is derived from Line 1.

2: What does she claim to be the cause of the problem? That parents are sovereign over their children - From Line 1, Line 2

3: What is her solution to the problem? To make government sovereign over your children - From lines 3 and 5

4: What are the means by which to implement her solution? To break (force) the idea of parental sovereignty over their children - From line 4

5: What will be the end result? That our investments in public education will succeed once we implement the solution to the cause of the problem - This is derived from Line 6.

--------------------------

In depth answers:

1: This promotion ad starts with the premise that we are not investing enough into education; however, statistics show (that are well agreed by both liberals and conservatives) that we spend more than any nation on earth per student, and get the worst return on that money as well.

But, if we look at the end of line 6, she says "we'll make better investments," so we'll give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume that her problem is that we don't invest CORRECTLY into education, instead of not investing enough.

2: She immediately identifies what she believes is the Cause of the problem. She says in Line 1:
"beCause we have always had a private notion of our children."

Thus, she claims the Cause of the problem is that Americans believe in parental sovereignty over their children, unless someone can else can dispute what "private notion" means.

Then, in Line 2, she mocks and derides the idea of parental sovereignty:
[Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

Thus she believes that any person who believes that their kid is theirs, that they have sovereignty over their children, who believes that they are ultimately responsible for their child, is a person who should be derided.

3: Her solution to the problem is that we must declare that the government is sovereign over our children, not the parents, that parents may only have their children as a PRIVILEGE that is graciously extended to us by government, a privilege that can be revoked for any or no reason (such as teaching them something against the government's values).

We get this from Line 3 and Line 5:
"We haven't had a very collective notion of these are OUR children."

So, since we've translated "private notion" to "parental sovereignty," then we must translate "collective notion" to "government sovereignty." Although it is easy to see how "notion" is being used as euphemism for "sovereignty," how are we translating "collective" to "government?"

Well, she talks about "public education," with public education being the entire premise of her very short speech. Unless you know some form of public education that is NOT run by government, I cannot see how the word "collective" (which itself is often associated with Marxist ideology) can be construed to any other meaning.

Now let's investigate Line 5,
"and recognize that kids belong to WHOLE COMMUNITIES; "

First, we must draw our attention to the word "Community." So far, she has talked about Public Education, and thus, Government; she has also invoked the idea of "government sovereignty." People often confuse society and government, and will use the word "community" to mean either when they cannot decide which term [society or government] to use, or to conceal which one they actually mean.

In the words of Thomas Paine (Common Sense):

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one;

However, we're not here to engage in discourse on Common Sense, I quoted this to show the difference between society and government.

So let's return to the word "Community," in Line 5.

If she is saying that children belong to the "Community," as in society, then it contradicts her own premise that government should have sovereignty, because society and government are separate entities.

Therefore, in order for her own thesis to make sense, the word Community must imply government, which solidifies the logical foundation of her argument. To say that she actually meant "society" would only serve to turn her speech into an incoherent mess, as the speech would be plagued with an illogical union of phrases.

Thus, we finally conclude that her "solution" is to transfer the sovereignty and absolute responsibility over children from the parents and families to the government. This doesn't mean that the Government is going to rush in and take your kids, it simply means that legally, the government is the final authority over your children.

Today, the government can only claim sovereignty over your children if you do something that warrants the removal of your sovereignty (custody), such as abusing your children. Only then may the government become involved, and via due process, the government must prove its case against you.

Her solution is to make government sovereign right from the start, and thus allow them to remove custody of your children for any and no reason, because the custody was already theirs to begin with.

Now, how does she plan to implement this solution? We need only look at Line 4:
"So part of it is that we have to BREAK through our kind-of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families;"

This implies the following:
1) They must convince parents that the government knows better, because the government has "experts" in raising, teaching and nuturing your children. If they can convince us of this idea, then we will Consent to transfer sovereignty of our children over to government, without any resistance.

2) For parents who will not agree to this, then the sovereign relationship between mother and child must be BROKEN, by convincing the child to Consent to the transfer of Sovereignty from the parents to the Public Education (Government) system. This would be accomplished by teaching them these ideas while they are young and then fooling them into signing some sort of devious contract that would complete the transfer of sovereignty.


Finally, she says that once her solution is implemented, our failed investments will magically better themselves, because the government will now have sovereignty over your children, instead of the parents. The problem isn't the Government, it's You!
----------------------------
If you don't agree with my interpretation, ask yourselves the following:
Did she say that we weren't investing correctly into education? The obvious answer here is yes, however, I'll let you privately answer the rest of the questions.

Ok, since she says we're not investing correctly into Public Education, who does she blame the problem on, the government, or the people?

Furthermore, she never even said why our investments have failed. Has she mentioned that there are children whose schools are decrepit and dilapidated? Has she mentioned that there are children without desks? Without textbooks? With paper? Without computers? Without pens and pencils?

No, she says that the "people" are the problem, not government, and that government can fix the problem.

No, she never mentions that children are missing proper supplies, or that their educational facilities are either too small or not maintained correctly (or both), she says that YOU having the final authority over your children is the problem.

----------------------------

Overall, this is a very well designed and intentionally deceptive script. It conveys MILLIONS of words by only using hundred; it presents a dangerous and repulsive ideology, whilst masquerading a caring and loving philosophy.

----------------------------

However, if Progressives would like to give me their alternate explanation of the TRANSCRIPT, by using the TRANSCRIPT in their explanation, please, do so, I don't' want to think that this is what MSNBC (Progressive Headquarters) was trying to preach.

Soon I'll start another thread, with this interpretation right from the start

'parental sovereignty' is not ownership. Children are not possessions, they are.......wait for this.......INDIVIDUALS.

Parenting is a responsibility and an obligation to your family and to your community. You cannot give your 10 year old the keys to your car to drive down community streets. You cannot give your 10 year old your bottle of liquor. You cannot give your 10 year old a loaded gun to wander the neighborhood. You cannot abuse your children. If you fail at any of those responsibilities and obligations, your 'parental sovereignty' will be swiftly revoked. And if harm is caused to others or the community, you will be held liable.

Ironic, you right wing morons are apoplectic that Harris says that kids belong to whole communities, but have NO problem dictating a woman's uterus belongs to the fucking state.

Maybe when you grow up and have children, all of this will become clear.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

'parental sovereignty' is not ownership. Children are not possessions, they are.......wait for this.......INDIVIDUALS.

Parenting is a responsibility and an obligation to your family and to your community. You cannot give your 10 year old the keys to your car to drive down community streets. You cannot give your 10 year old your bottle of liquor. You cannot give your 10 year old a loaded gun to wander the neighborhood. You cannot abuse your children. If you fail at any of those responsibilities and obligations, your 'parental sovereignty' will be swiftly revoked. And if harm is caused to others or the community, you will be held liable.

Ironic, you right wing morons are apoplectic that Harris says that kids belong to whole communities, but have NO problem dictating a woman's uterus belongs to the fucking state.

Maybe when you grow up and have children, all of this will become clear.

Parental Sovereignty implies that the parent has custody, and is the ultimate authority over their children, that's why schools need "Parental Permission Forms" for many of their activities.

No one is contesting that text in blue. Yes, if you abuse your children, and the government, via due process, can prove that you have abused them, your sovereignty will be revoked.

I am not right-wing. I agree with the red text too. The government should have NO say over a woman's body. It's her choice, and her choice alone.

With the exception of the Second Amendment, you and I have more in common, that I have in common with the right-wing on this board. Did you see me slam them yesterday for attacking the people's right to peaceful assembly in New York? They love the Second Amendment, but don't give a shit about the First Amendment. The First Amendment is should serve as justification against imposing their religious views on us.

 

[Agit8r]

'parental sovereignty' is not ownership. Children are not possessions, they are.......wait for this.......INDIVIDUALS.

Parenting is a responsibility and an obligation to your family and to your community. You cannot give your 10 year old the keys to your car to drive down community streets. You cannot give your 10 year old your bottle of liquor. You cannot give your 10 year old a loaded gun to wander the neighborhood. You cannot abuse your children. If you fail at any of those responsibilities and obligations, your 'parental sovereignty' will be swiftly revoked. And if harm is caused to others or the community, you will be held liable.

Ironic, you right wing morons are apoplectic that Harris says that kids belong to whole communities, but have NO problem dictating a woman's uterus belongs to the fucking state.

Maybe when you grow up and have children, all of this will become clear.

Parental Sovereignty implies that the parent has custody, and is the ultimate authority over their children, that's why schools need "Parental Permission Forms" for many of their activities.

No one is contesting that text in blue. Yes, if you abuse your children, and the government, via due process, can prove that you have abused them, your sovereignty will be revoked.

I am not right-wing. I agree with the red text too. The government should have NO say over a woman's body. It's her choice, and her choice alone.

With the exception of the Second Amendment, you and I have more in common, that I have in common with the right-wing on this board. Did you see me slam them yesterday for attacking the people's right to peaceful assembly in New York? They love the Second Amendment, but don't give a shit about the First Amendment. The First Amendment is should serve as justification against imposing their religious views on us.

In a country of laws, all authority, and power of one over another is limited.

 

[Bfgrn]

With the exception of the Second Amendment, you and I have more in common, that I have in common with the right-wing on this board. Did you see me slam them yesterday for attacking the people's right to peaceful assembly in New York? They love the Second Amendment, but don't give a shit about the First Amendment. The First Amendment is should serve as justification against imposing their religious views on us.

No, you and I have almost nothing in common. I am an intelligent liberal, you are a right wing moron. You are a liar and an ignorant grunt who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. You claim an understanding of the Federalist Papers, when you are not even cognizant of the fact the Federalist Papers were an argument FOR not against federal government. Or an understanding of the editorial tools used by Hamilton to argue FOR, not against a standing army.

You claim Obama declared Occupy Wall Street organizers Terrorists. That is a LIE. And then you have the nerve to cite sick people like Hannity, Beck and Malkin who absolutely DESPISE and LOATHE the OWS participants.

Obama is not coming after your guns. But, if the President asked me, I'd tell him a moron like you shouldn't be allowed to own a slingshot.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7080946-post115.html

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You claim Obama declared Occupy Wall Street organizers Terrorists. That is a LIE.

The FBI has declared OWS a terrorist group. Also, I know from personal experience. Obama can overturn the FBI's decision at any time, but he won't, even though Obama was originally supporting OWS.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/26/us/fbi-occupy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/05/fbi-occupy-wall-street_n_2410783.html

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/08/federal-reserve-fbi-spied-on-occupy-wall-street-movement/

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012...pression-of-terrorist-occupy-wall-street.html

Any google search will give you thousands of different details.

You want me to make a video of myself going through an airport?

It was from this particular incident that my loyalties withe the Democratic party were shattered, but not yet entirely broken. Then they went after the Second Amendment and I fucking had it.

Notice that the first two links are from liberal websites. They don't criticize too hard because they didn't want to offend King Obama --- and yes, CNN is liberal.


So, who are you going to side with? Obama (and the entire two party scam) or OWS? Blue Pill or Red Pill?

Perhaps if you were truly dedicated to OWS, like I was, you would have known this. In 2008, when I was 18, I volunteered for the Democratic Party to help them campaign. Do you know how distressing that is?


Gay rights? Yes (even though I prefer that government wasn't involved in defining marriage at all).

Women's rights? Yes

Pro-Choice? Yes (although I prefer that government wasn't involved at all in this matter)

Non Communism Public Education? Yes (this promotion ad has NOTHING to do with fixing public education)

Single Payer Healthcare? Yes (This should be amended right into the Constitution in manner that prevents the slippery slope towards Communism)

Gun Control? No

Welfare State? No

Then there are issues in which I oppose both parties:

Federal Reserve? No

etc

 

[Bfgrn]

You claim Obama declared Occupy Wall Street organizers Terrorists. That is a LIE.

The FBI has declared OWS a terrorist group. Also, I know from personal experience. Obama can overturn the FBI's decision at any time, but he won't, even though Obama was originally supporting OWS.

FBI considered Occupy movement potential threat, documents say - CNN.com

FBI Surveillance Of Occupy Wall Street Detailed

Federal Reserve, FBI spied on Occupy Wall Street movement | The Daily Caller

Banks Deeply Involved in FBI-Coordinated Suppression of ?Terrorist? Occupy Wall Street « naked capitalism

Any google search will give you thousands of different details.

You want me to make a video of myself going through an airport?

It was from this particular incident that my loyalties withe the Democratic party were shattered, but not yet entirely broken. Then they went after the Second Amendment and I fucking had it.

Notice that the first two links are from liberal websites. They don't criticize too hard because they didn't want to offend King Obama --- and yes, CNN is liberal.


So, who are you going to side with? Obama (and the entire two party scam) or OWS? Blue Pill or Red Pill?

You really are a fucking moron. WHO the fuck is fighting this kind of government abuse? Right wing organizations like the ACLU? Or as mentioned in the CNN article The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund??

Who is behind the FBI investigation?

If there was a unified mission behind the Occupy surveillance, it appears the purpose was to pass information about activists' plans to the finance industry. In one memo from August 2011, the FBI discusses informing officials at the New York Stock Exchange about "the planned Anarchist protest titled 'occupy Wall Street', scheduled for September 17, 2011.[sic] Numerous incidents have occurred in the past which show attempts by Anarchist groups to disrupt, influence, and or shut down normal business operations of financial districts."

The documents reveal that the FBI met with officials from four banks and one credit union, and spoke over the phone with a representative from a fifth bank. The FBI also talked with officials from the Richmond Federal Reserve, a branch of the central bank that covers much of the American South. If the FBI communicated with any of the trillion-dollar banks that were the primary subject of Occupy Wall Street's economic critique, however, those discussions have been redacted from the documents.

You claim Obama declared Occupy Wall Street organizers Terrorists...PROVE IT.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If you wish to remain blind, so be it.

When Obama finally declares you a terrorist, perhaps we'll talk.

There's nothing stopping you from doing your own research on this topic. I gave you a headstart, with CONTROLLED media sources. Dig beyond the controlled media, into the uncensored realm, and you'll puke.

Also, start trying to organize an OWS movement, try to revive it, get some pepper spray in your face, then try to board an airplane. Bring a camera to share your experience.



Obama was silent after this incident. This behavior warranted attention from the President himself. He caved to the corporations and the Big Banks.

There was a TREMENDOUS clandestine operation around the globe to put OWS down. Anyone that continued to resist and organize in the face of that oppression was labeled a terrorist. TA-DA!

 

[Bfgrn]

If you wish to remain blind, so be it.

When Obama finally declares you a terrorist, perhaps we'll talk.

There's nothing stopping you from doing your own research on this topic. I gave you a headstart, with CONTROLLED media sources. Dig beyond the controlled media, into the uncensored realm, and you'll puke.

Also, start trying to organize an OWS movement, try to revive it, get some pepper spray in your face, then try to board an airplane. Bring a camera to share your experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIccco4PRRk

Obama was silent after this incident. This behavior warranted attention from the President himself. He caved to the corporations and the Big Banks.

There was a TREMENDOUS clandestine operation around the globe to put OWS down. Anyone that continued to resist and organize in the face of that oppression was labeled a terrorist. TA-DA!

You are very naive. Presidents come and go. The Military/industrial complex, FBI, CIA, Pentagon and the monied interests don't come and go. And they don't answer to the President. We found out in November 1963 what happens when a President crosses those entities.

You don't know who the enemy is. Progressives do not support any of those entities, they fight them. Libertarians? They will sell you to the biggest corporation. They are not for liberty, they are for a plutocracy.

But to demonize someone as benign and enlightened as Melissa Harris-Perry is SICK.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

But to demonize someone as benign and enlightened as Melissa Harris-Perry is SICK.

Melissa Harris Perry works for MNSBC, which is owned by enemy.

Don't worry, I was blind until the government attacked me, eventually it will happen to you to.

 

[TemplarKormac]

With the exception of the Second Amendment, you and I have more in common, that I have in common with the right-wing on this board. Did you see me slam them yesterday for attacking the people's right to peaceful assembly in New York? They love the Second Amendment, but don't give a shit about the First Amendment. The First Amendment is should serve as justification against imposing their religious views on us.

No, you and I have almost nothing in common. I am an intelligent liberal, you are a right wing moron. You are a liar and an ignorant grunt who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. You claim an understanding of the Federalist Papers, when you are not even cognizant of the fact the Federalist Papers were an argument FOR not against federal government. Or an understanding of the editorial tools used by Hamilton to argue FOR, not against a standing army.

You claim Obama declared Occupy Wall Street organizers Terrorists. That is a LIE. And then you have the nerve to cite sick people like Hannity, Beck and Malkin who absolutely DESPISE and LOATHE the OWS participants.

Obama is not coming after your guns. But, if the President asked me, I'd tell him a moron like you shouldn't be allowed to own a slingshot.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7080946-post115.html

My bold.

I'm sorry, such a claim to unfettered intelligence does not hold any weight amidst such arrogance. You are a liberal who wouldn't know reality if it gave you a lapdance. You obviously never read Federalist No. 45 have you?

Here, James Madison clarifies that these papers, nor the Constitution enlarge the Government, but make it more efficient in it's duties.

Madison wrote that the new Constitution does not in principle enlarge the powers of the Federal government, but merely renders that government more effective in carrying out its existing duties:

"If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them."

Such a statement made clear that there were restrictions placed on the growth of government as to not infringe on the rights of the people. Intelligence is a heavily bandied about word with your kind, I suggest you practice it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Madison wrote that the new Constitution does not in principle enlarge the powers of the Federal government, but merely renders that government more effective in carrying out its existing duties:

"If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them."

Such a statement made clear that there were restrictions placed on the growth of government as to not infringe on the rights of the people. Intelligence is a heavily bandied about word with your kind, I suggest you practice it.

Don't tell Brgrn about Federalist 37 either!

IN REVIEWING the defects of the existing Confederation, and showing that they cannot be supplied by a government of less energy than that before the public, several of the most important principles of the latter fell of course under consideration. But as the ultimate object of these papers is to determine clearly and fully the merits of this Constitution.

I can't find a single part of the Federalist Papers that talks about an Ever-so-powerful unrestricted Federal Government. The main point of the Federalist Papers were to convince skeptics that the new Constitution didn't impose UNRESTRAINED BIG GOVERNMENT, WHILE BEING ABLE TO REPAIR THE DEFECTS OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.

 

[Pogo]

You mean if posters don't say what you want to hear, they shouldn't come here?

Besides, you said there was a question and you wrote like six of them.

The rules of the thread are stated in the OP, if you don't like them, no one is compelling you to answer. You can just leave the thread.

However, I'm not going to argue when you libtards anymore, and it's obvious you won't answer the question either.

IGNORED​

Count of Progressives Not Answering the Question of this thread:
6​

The "rules" huh?

"Le thread, c'est moi!"

"Mo-om! They won't follow the script!"

 

[TemplarKormac]

Madison wrote that the new Constitution does not in principle enlarge the powers of the Federal government, but merely renders that government more effective in carrying out its existing duties:

"If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them."

Such a statement made clear that there were restrictions placed on the growth of government as to not infringe on the rights of the people. Intelligence is a heavily bandied about word with your kind, I suggest you practice it.

Don't tell Brgrn about Federalist 37 either!

IN REVIEWING the defects of the existing Confederation, and showing that they cannot be supplied by a government of less energy than that before the public, several of the most important principles of the latter fell of course under consideration. But as the ultimate object of these papers is to determine clearly and fully the merits of this Constitution.

I can't find a single part of the Federalist Papers that talks about an Ever-so-powerful unrestricted Federal Government. The main point of the Federalist Papers were to convince skeptics that the new Constitution didn't impose UNRESTRAINED BIG GOVERNMENT, WHILE BEING ABLE TO REPAIR THE DEFECTS OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.

Nailed it.