Destino Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by NavyDave Take away the issues from the Democrats by implementing them in a better fashion using a combination of government and private sector. Yeah, about that, thanks for making that prescription drug thing a GOP boondoggle. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by NavyDave Liberals are the ones that are mindnumbed robots especially my people who foolishly vote one way no matter what. Evidenty you've never seen a mirror. This is the definition of hipocracy ND. Mindnumbed robots who vote party lines. . . I guess a homophobic person would actually consider what the other side had to offer. DC has been voting democrat and liberal issues forever and the place still sucks. High crime, taxes, HIV, pitiful education, loss of a moral base, illigetimate births still high. A classic test case of why liberalism is not the answer. Maybe because it's a district and not a state. Give them statehood and see how things change. Texas has been Republican for ever as well and it's one rotten state to live in. KKK, Communism were cosidered far left and today liberals use the codeword Neo Con to point out the rights alignment with Israel and Jews. BS. KKK is a right orginization, not a left one. Neocon is a certain type of republican which distorts old republican values. They believe in a Regan era type style of government, one which doesn't work. They believe in supply side economics, an outright false theory proven false by history. The believe in taxing the poor and cutting taxes on the rich, which degenerates and widens the social class structure. I Neo-con is a conservative only in name, their policies and actions are anything but conservative. We also have ELF and other disinformation groups that try to indoctrinate the children in elementary which I decided to stop by talking directly to the children and telling them that their teachers are wrong and they were lying about the GOP hatng blacks and that you dont blindly vote one way. Blacks would be voting if not for the GOP and algore's dad was against the bill coming into law and lets not forget one of the most powerful "liberal democrats" Sen Byrd wore a sheet while Teddy and RFK tried to find dirt ie Adultery to bring down MLK. Liberal programs like planned parenthood was found all over the hood so they could keep the black population in check because "we want YOU People to to have children when you can take care of them." out of the branch managers mouth at minnesota avenue DC in 82. Give me a break ND, this post has nothing to do with leberalism and all to do with racial predjudices rampant in all your posts. Your ignorance an all matters concerning liberalism and conservatism comes out when you poat crap like this. The Agenda of todays Liberals would bring down America, socially spiritually/morally and economically. Funny, but that's what the majority of Americans thing about the Neo-cons, of which you so firmly ally with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Thew, as usual, you are clouding the issue with blatant innaccuracies. Originally posted by thew Bunk!..The founding father came from many different points on the political spectrum. They reached agreement through majority on what they could and they agreed to disagree on some of the most contentious issues of the day. They compromised and they fought like cats and dogs. What political spectrum are you talking about? There was no such thing as a modern liberal back, then. Nor a modern conservative really. They were issue driven, not ideology-driven. The issues of the day were: Should the United States be a Confederacy or a federal system? How much power should the government have, and how much power should each branch have? Should the federal head be able to compel the states to enact certain laws/tariffs/regulations? Most of this debate was held within a certain area of what we would consider the modern political spectrum-- the area of limited government. Only Hamilton and his allies (Madison was one until 1790) advocated a paternalistic role for government. But even in their wildest dreams, they never considered the sort of albatross that exists today. Took them almost a decade to agree on a constitution after the bill of rights was signed. No, it didn't. The Constitution was signed before the Bill of Rights was even introduced formally. This is why the BoRs were the first ten amendments to the Constitution. There was a tacit compromise that the Bill of Rights would be added soon thereafter, but you are factually incorrect. At least two of them Arron Bur and Alexander Hamleton later in life advocated outright counter revolution so they could get their way on issues which they disagreed with. George Washington our first president was an military and diplomatic isolationist who didn't have any problem with taxes, passing new laws, hardly a libertarian. John Adams our second president was an anti slavery, pro civil rights liberal who once defended British troops who fired on American protesters during the Boston Massacre. Heck all these civil rights which Bush is carving up or ignoring would have set off Patrick Henry..."Give me liberty of give me death.."... 2 years in jail for American citizens without trial, charges or lawyers? Now that's a violation of liberty. Are these anecdotes supposed to bolster your argument? There were conservatives too such as Hamilton who wanted a strong federal government and central bank. How the hell would Hamilton be considered a conservative??? If this is your idea of a conservative, no wonder you're having an identity crisis. Hamilton was a pro-British Mercantilist who secretly desired an imperial America. I would say he is actually quite an abberation in the founding generation, and would not come close to what we would today consider a conservative. No the founding fathers were not monolithically from any political philosophy rather they represented many differing viewpoints on just about every topic. No, they believed in individual liberty, and limited government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 I believe in the principles of Reagan which if followed work as we see with the economy thanks to taxcuts. I was born in DC and raised a Democrat and vote according to the issues. Homophobic am I? I dont care what the perverted do in their house but I do hate the in your face stuff they do. Gays go to communion every Sunday but then all of a sudden they decide to wear a rainbow sash to make a political statement. And its not the same as being black. Its not like I have to wear something telling the public I'm black or shout it thru a bullhorn. What part of those comments are false? Al Gore Sr record is there for the public to see. Newschannel 8 and I talked about teachers using their political agenda to shape the opinions of children and the neighborhood kids here told me what their teachers did. There is no secret that planned parenthood started out as a racist organization to keep our population down. Today while its liberal its also a major cash cow and actually it wont hurt blacks or other minorities but I do hate genocide no matter the race. OK what liberal policies benefit the nation as a whole? ELF is a well known eco terrorist left wing group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 You do realize Hate seems to only come out of the mouth of "really, really, really, really, really far leaning leftist types". Hardly. Have you seen the number of books recently that have come out, discussing the "evilness" of Liberalism? Heck, look at such "modern" Conservatives such as Ann Coulter, who have outright accused all Democrats and Liberals and being "evil," "stupid" and "traitors." Heck, how many times have I seen threads and posts on this board which immediately play the "blame the Liberals" card for every conceivable ill in the world? Heck, Liberals are even blamed for Bushs's mistakes! Blame the Liberals, blame the Liberals - that's all I seem to hear on every conceivable subject. I do not nearly hear this level of level of rhetoric from the Left. And the writer, while a good bit on the inflammatory side, *is* correct - it's amazing how many folks on the right appear to be ignorant of the Liberal roots of this nation, and what Liberalism really means. And while neo-Liberalism is different in this day and age, there is still an effort to smear one of the greatest philosophies that have ever been developed: the idea of individual rights, private ownership, and the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Also, the mention of "God" does not necessarily mean "Christianity." As someone mentioned, like many Enlightment period thinkers of their day, many of the Founding Fathers were Deist - they believed in a "God," but not the activist, guiding "God" of Christianity. Since many were raised Christian, they did not want to reject God outright, but they also believe in rationalism, science, and Free Will, so Deism allowed them to find a happy balance between the two beliefs. (And I truly believe that the United States wouldn't have developed, in a secular manner, as well if this didn't influence the creation of the nation.) You also have to keep in mind that many of the Founding Fathers were Masons - the back of the one dollar bill even says, in Latin, a "Secular World Order," which was the intent of the original Masons. This is not to slight or downplay Christianity's influence on this nation, but I believe this issue needs to be clarified: Christians do not have ownership on "God." Incidentally, many Libertarians consider themselves to be the "true" Liberals, and they are right in many ways - they do extol the virtues of early Liberalism. Even classical Conservatives are closer to true Liberals, compared to some of today's modern Liberals, which are at times actually closer to Neo-Conservatives in some regards. Yeah, it gets messy. Note: This is just my .02. :-) ~B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 There is no secret that planned parenthood started out as a racist organization to keep our population down There are friends of mine, knowing I can have "Liberal" tendencies, who are surprised when I reveal my anti-Planned Parenthood stance. PP has evolved into being this "champion" or Women's rights, but if folks only new the Eugenicist history of Plannted Parenthood, with the aim of preventing the poor and racially inferior population from reproducing. And, you know, they are being successful. After all, who tends to use Planned Parenthood? Yep. The founder, or one of the founders, of PP - Margaret Sanger - was a Darwinist and a Eugenicist at heart. Eugenics is not a pro-Women philosophy. ~B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butz65 Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Am I missing something? The USA as a liberal nation? Which party controls the White House? Both houses of Congress? The majority of State Houses? I must be missing something.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Did he lie under oath, and purger himself? No, he didn't. See, that's one of those funny things the GOP seems to think they can make true, if the 'liberal' media will just repeat it often enough. I stand corrected we still haven't figured out the definition of - IS -yet.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 The Nazi's used socialism to gain power, but once in power, turned government into a facist totolitarianism form of government. Hitler despized socilists, although a lot of his platform had grass roots there ie. enviornmental conservation. I thought they used gun's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Reference to GOD is of christianity, not of other religons and it is not the same thing as santa clause!!! The seperation of church and state had to do with promoting religon and when you use the word god, you are in fact promoting christianity. A big hypocracy in our Constitution we often fail to look at Incorrect, the seperation of church and state, was that the state would not interfear with the church, so long as that church is not demead to be harmful to the people, [ see thomas jefferson ] as we can see today the lib's have twisted this one in every direction but what it was intended for. and when you use the word god, you are in fact promoting christianity So I guess what you are saying here, is that all other religion's are Godless. Now we are finally agreeing on something.:point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by Cskin Classic Liberal slant here. Scientific evidence indicates A JEFFERSON MALE was the father of Sally Hemming's children. At the time the children were conceived, there were 10-13 Jefferson males living at Monticello or visiting from the surrounding area. I was recently at Monticello and the guide stated TJ's responsibility in conceiving Sally's children. I spoke up in front of a crowd of 50 and cited the above, for which the guide turned red and stammered and stuttered. I said until you can prove definitively that it was indeed TJ and not another Jefferson male, stating that claim is both misleading and irresponsible. I was pulled from the group and asked not to interrupt the tour. I told them I was a Jefferson decedent, my grandmother a Jefferson, and that I could not stand by and watch representatives of the Monticello foundation falsely represent the life of Thomas Jefferson via inuendo and inaccurate indefinitive science. Do I have a problem with TJ fathering Sally's kids, absolutely not. I have a problem with people or organizations misrepresenting history to further push a political agenda. Jefferson was no Liberal.... he wanted a small relatively powerless Federal govt. unable to intefere in people's lives. He believed states should have the power to govern it's people. Cskin, I believe what took place with that situation was this, when Jefferson's wife died she made him promise to her on her death bed, that he would never marry again, he fell in love with hemming's, [ who I belive was half white ] but for his oath, and his wife's sake, he never married her, at least that's what I have been able to pick up on this in the past, did you hear anything like that on your tour, before they pulled you aside?:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Uh oh this is getting ugly. I will throw this in though. From my observations, and reading of the contemporary Post WW2 America, it appears to me that some of the worst times our nation has gone through was when liberal democrats were in power. By the time a conservative (Regan) came into power in 1980, the economy was a wreck, our prestige sucked abroad (Iran Hostage Crisis), and the scourge of Communism still dominated half the world. Regan changed a lot. He was a conservative and you can clearly see the difference in this nation from in the last 24 years compared to the previous 20 years of Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and ugh Carter. Not even close, and that is thanks to President's and eventually Congress' that believed in the market and believed in the ability of the American people to succeed. I still do not think liberals believe American people can succeed on their own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 the lib's have twisted this one in every direction but what it was intended for. I feel this is untrue. Most Liberals, I would bet, would not care if, for example, Christian students used a school for prayer-meetings, or some such. After all, if a Lesbian group can hold their meeting in a school, why the heck shouldn't a Christian group be allowed the same right? And Christians do receive a hard knocks these days, but I believe it is greatly due to the "Christian Right" and the fear of what may happen if those folks ever gained further power. After all, keep in mind that many Christians *are* Liberals - there seems to be this notion that being on the Left, or being Liberal, is equated with being non-Christian or "godless." And, even if someone was a "godless," that is their right. (Of course, ask some folks, and if you are Liberal or on the Left, you are immediately a godless commie. Folks who wants tolerance should first start preaching it: "Those without sin...") This is my belief - if the practice does not do any harm, then it should be allowed. This includes, besides Christianity, faiths such as Wiccan, Paganism, etc., which, BTW, are beliefs that some on the Right have condemned as being satanic or evil. It goes both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by Baculus I feel this is untrue. Most Liberals, I would bet, would not care if, for example, Christian students used a school for prayer-meetings, or some such. After all, if a Lesbian group can hold their meeting in a school, why the heck shouldn't a Christian group be allowed the same right? And Christians do receive a hard knocks these days, but I believe it is greatly due to the "Christian Right" and the fear of what may happen if those folks ever gained further power. After all, keep in mind that many Christians *are* Liberals - there seems to be this notion that being on the Left, or being Liberal, is equated with being non-Christian or "godless." And, even if someone was a "godless," that is their right. (Of course, ask some folks, and if you are Liberal or on the Left, you are immediately a godless commie. Folks who wants tolerance should first start preaching it: "Those without sin...") This is my belief - if the practice does not do any harm, then it should be allowed. This includes, besides Christianity, faiths such as Wiccan, Paganism, etc., which, BTW, are beliefs that some on the Right have condemned as being satanic or evil. It goes both ways. Obviously I can't speak for all lib's.,and there may be some out there who could care less about prayer in school and what not, but you have to admit it's the lib's who have pushed for this, so they have to take the hit. I don't know how you can equate liberlism with christianity? now there's an oxymoron if I ever heard one, much like equating homosexulality with christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 here's a little something for all those who feel our founding father's were lib's and not God fearing people. http://www.errantskeptics.org/Quotes_by_Presidents.htm liberlism sure has changed hasen't it?:thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Jesus was a liberal... "The unemployed rabble-rouser from Nazareth was obviously pushing for a welfare state. Jesus mollycoddled the poor and went out of his way to condem the rich. His warning that it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy man to get into heaven was typical socialist blather. The affluent have had to devote themselves to breeding smaller camels and building bigger needles ever since. And in answer to that age old question, "what would Jesus drive?" Well he did not ride an elephant into Jerusalem but a donkey, clearly an endoesement of the Democratic Party and the Liberl socioeconomic agenda, not the Republican. Perhaps it is time the furious Parisees quit barking up the wrong tree." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 chiefhogskin48 What political spectrum are you talking about? There was no such thing as a modern liberal back, then. Nor a modern conservative really. They were issue driven, not ideology-driven. Yes, Yes and No. Yes there were no such things as a modern liberal or a modern conservative. This is mostly because all of the pressing issues of the day were different. Yet there were liberal polititians and there were self identified conservative polititions even in the revolutionary government. Conservative polititians who wanted to elect a king to replace King George. Conservative polititians who wanted to retain the rights which the crown had granted them. Conservative polotitians who wanted a strong central government which had the power to countermand states rights. And there were liberals. Liberals who wanted to change the way things worked, ban slavery for instance. Liberals who wanted to align us with France against Britain in the coming great Nepolionic wars. Yes politics was largely issue driven, even as they are today, but it is totally inaccurate to suggest that ideology played no part in the diverse cultures and philosophy's and where they stood on the issues of the day. This is not to say that a modern conservative would automatically subscribe to a conservatives ideas of the revolutionary days. What it is meant to suggest that America today is not the product of any specific political belief or philosophy so much as we are the product of many of them which compromised and worked against each other to find the moderate position. Conservatives down through time are the folks who want to avoid change and want to stick with the old, tried and true methods for doing things. Down through time they don't trust the smart new guy who thinks he has the better way of doing things. Liberals on the other hand tend to be the guys who think they have a better way of doing things and are willing to give the new way a try, sometimes with disasterous results and sometimes for the better. America history and world history has been a balance between the two positions. Both being dominant at times both being submissive at times and large swaths of time working against each other in an equalibrium. thew Took them almost a decade to agree on a constitution after the bill of rights was signed. chiefhogskin48 No, it didn't. The Constitution was signed before the Bill of Rights was even introduced formally. You are correct. I mispoke. What I meant to say was it took more than a decade between when the proposal for unity for the coloneys was initially submitted at the Second Continental Congress on July 12, 1776 and when the Constitution was finally ratified and became legal on June 21, 1788. Twelve years between when they initially declaired the intent to unify and when they actually figured out an acceptable agreement to do so. chiefhogskin48 Hamilton was a pro-British Mercantilist who secretly desired an imperial America. I would say he is actually quite an abberation in the founding generation, and would not come close to what we would today consider a conservative. Hamilton wasn't pro British at all. He was one of Washington's lietenants during the revolution and became part of Washington's cabinent after the revolution in the first administration. Hamilton fought against the british and almost died on several occassions. He was a decorated hero of the revolution. Hamilton was considered a conservative because he argued against change of the institutions which worked so well for Britain. This should not be confused with being pro-british. Hamilton like all conservatives wanted to stick with what he knew worked rather than reach for something better which he was unsure off. Don't get me wrong, conservatives don't have a problem with something better, they just don't believe in the promise of something better over experience. Hamilton desired strong government and central banking just like Britain and America under Britain because he knew it would work. That's what makes him a conservative, not that a modern conservative looking back with 20/20 hind site would agree with him.... The fact that modern conservatives woudln't agree with their distant relatives shows yo that neither side has a monopoly on the correct solution. It's only through coming at the issue from different angles and through trial and error does history find the solutiong which is least offensive to everyone... chiefhogskin48 No, they believed in individual liberty, and limited government. Perhaps but it's hard to govern on such broad items of agreement. They differed on the details... What is a citizen? What form of government should we adopt What structure of government? What powers for the branches of government? Slavery? Taxes? Commerse taxes? States rights vs Federal rights? Should the federal government assume the states revolutionary war dept? Do we treaty up with France or Britain? Who can become a Senator? President? How do large states and small states co-exist? These issues devided the founding fathers on practical grounds true enough but also along ideological lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Hate to break it to you but the days of conservatives wanting a weak federal goverment are over. If anything the conservative right has been fighting to vastly INCREASE the power of the fed. Now we agree there Destino, the conservative right has been spending like a drunken sailor and 9-11 induced a level of situations that have added to the bloated federal govt. payrolls and relative privacy concerns. As for states, I'm all for states deciding the things you suggest. If one state wants to legalize pot and tax the hell out of it to raise revenue to pay for their highway system and other public works, I'm all for it. People would then have to CHOOSE whether they wanted to remain a resident of that state. It's about choice.... freedom.... the federal govt. discontinuing it's game of pocket pool in my pants that I'm most concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 The key issue of contention amongst the founding fathers was states' rights (Jefferson) versus federal rights (Adams, Hamilton). In particular, were there federal powers implicit in the constitution, or should the government strictly observe the letter of the law stated in the Constitution that powers not expressly given to the federal government should be the domain of states. What people read about Hamilton wanting a king is revisionism propagated by Jefferson and his followers as a way to discredit him, much the same way Adams tried to discredit Jefferson as being "godless." The great irony of course is that Jefferson had to violate his own principles to make the Louisiana Purchase, and was only able to do so by issuing bonds which would never have been possible had it not been for Hamilton insisting over Jefferson's objections during the Washington administration that the new government should repay its war bonds at full face value in order to establish its credibility as a debtor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by chomerics Reference to GOD is of christianity, not of other religons and it is not the same thing as santa clause!!! The seperation of church and state had to do with promoting religon and when you use the word god, you are in fact promoting christianity. A big hypocracy in our Constitution we often fail to look at. God is only referded to the lord in christianity. In all other religons, there is another name for their god, so it doesn't work as you say santa clause does. If you want it to work that way, use a different word, otherwise why don't we replace the word god with allah? After all, we're we're not promoting one religon over another. Chomerics, What is Santa Clauses name in other countries: different right. What is God's Name in other Countries: different right. So it is the same thing until you can prove otherwise... Those who believe fight in the cause of God. -- Holy Qu'ran, Sura iv, 76 2:256. There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient. 7:26. O children of Adam, we have provided you with garments to cover your bodies, as well as for luxury. But the best garment is the garment of righteousness. These are some of GOD's signs, that they may take heed. In case you were just speed reading, please Note the Capital G.....O.......D..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by Destino You mean like letting states decide for themselves what drugs will be legal, and whether or not to allow patients to end their own lives? Hate to break it to you but the days of conservatives wanting a weak federal goverment are over. If anything the conservative right has been fighting to vastly INCREASE the power of the fed. Not conservatives per se, but Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by NavyDave I believe in the principles of Reagan which if followed work as we see with the economy thanks to taxcuts. Absolute BS. You're sprouting party lines. Tell me ND, do you even know what supply side economics is? Let me tell you is short. . . It's the belief that if you cut taxes no matter what the increase in government revenue will be so large because of the economic boom created by the cuts, it will wipe out any deficit created by the cuts to begin with. Now, since you know a little mor, can you please tell me how this worked? During Regan, we cut taxes AND increased government spending. the corresponding GDP rise was on average the same percentage as in the past 40 years. For Bush, our GDP has shown a smaller % growth, in fact the smallest since Hoover. So tell me how is this working? We cut taxes $1.4 trillion and increased spending by $600 billion. . . Thats 2 trillion dollars!!!! And we still have small growth, how the hell is this economy working? You buy into the absolute BS fed to you by the neo-cons, and your reply that the economy is growing is evidence Reganomics works shows your lack of insight concerning the matter. Again, it's a shift of the tax burden from the upper class ot the lower class. Why do you think guys like Art and Cskin are so gung ho about supply side economics? Because they both pay a lot less in taxes than the average American. I was born in DC and raised a Democrat and vote according to the issues. Yet you srpout your opinion like Rush Limbaugh is to the left of you. Homophobic am I? I dont care what the perverted do in their house but I do hate the in your face stuff they do. Gays go to communion every Sunday but then all of a sudden they decide to wear a rainbow sash to make a political statement. And its not the same as being black. Its not like I have to wear something telling the public I'm black or shout it thru a bullhorn. It's called tolerance and it IS the same thing about being black. People can't change their sexuality just as people can't change their skin color. Homosexuality isn't a disease or a mental disorder, it's a person's true being. While you may not like the fact that people are gay, you can't change the fact that they are. It's the same thing as discriminating against any other race, religon or creed. Personally, I don't care for people making out in the street either, but it's their right. I will just choose to look the other way, instead of shouting "go home fags" or something along those lines. You don't have to agree with every person in America, but you do have to allow them to live their life without being harrassed. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what each and every American citizen deserves and when you start to take away those rights, you start to become a less tolerant country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Rigotoni The key issue of contention amongst the founding fathers was states' rights (Jefferson) versus federal rights (Adams, Hamilton). In particular, were there federal powers implicit in the constitution, or should the government strictly observe the letter of the law stated in the Constitution that powers not expressly given to the federal government should be the domain of states. What people read about Hamilton wanting a king is revisionism propagated by Jefferson and his followers as a way to discredit him, much the same way Adams tried to discredit Jefferson as being "godless." The great irony of course is that Jefferson had to violate his own principles to make the Louisiana Purchase, and was only able to do so by issuing bonds which would never have been possible had it not been for Hamilton insisting over Jefferson's objections during the Washington administration that the new government should repay its war bonds at full face value in order to establish its credibility as a debtor. No it's not revisionist at all. People get that Hamilton was a conservative because he continously argued for the governmental institutions known to him under English rule. The Conservative theme of the day, stick with what is known rather than what is new and different. Folks get that Hamilton wanted a King because he stated as such in his letters. Under John Adam's administration Hamilton the revolutionary war hero, advocated a second war with Britain, actually tried to get himself placed at the head of the army which he confessed in his letters he would use to overthrow the government and install himself as king. Hamilton was a great American and many of our institutions owe alot to his debate and intelectual arguments. But he also was a bit screwed up. who knows what would have happenned if Aron Burr hadn't killed him in that Duel. Hamiltion very likely might have become an early President. much the same way Adams tried to discredit Jefferson as being "godless I think Adams actually was the victum time and time again of Jefferson's famous poison pen. Adams got it often while in office of the President and could not respond due to the decorum he felt his high office deserved.. These two Giants were continously at each others throats for much of their careers. It was only in late in life that they found the friendship which they had as young men in France representing the Nation. On Adam's death bed July 4th he said... Jefferson lives. Unknown to Adams Jefferson had died earlier that very same day. Compeditive right down to the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 chomerics It's called tolerance and it IS the same thing about being black. People can't change their sexuality just as people can't change their skin color. Homosexuality isn't a disease or a mental disorder, it's a person's true being. While you may not like the fact that people are gay, you can't change the fact that they are. It's the same thing as discriminating against any other race, religon or creed. I sure as hell can... So any satanish or Nambla religion can do whatever they want.. You have to take out Creed for you arguement to even stand a chance at a trouncing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Chomerics Now, since you know a little mor, can you please tell me how this worked? During Regan, we cut taxes AND increased government spending. the corresponding GDP rise was on average the same percentage as in the past 40 years. Let me just step in here and defend my boy Ronnie. Everything you say about him is true. He did cut taxes and he also increased spending on the military dramatically. I would argue though that Ronald Reagan won the cold war without fireing a shot by doing so. I would argue that Ronnie drove our economy hard but it made the Russians do likewise. The red lined Russian economy gave out first. Thus Russia was faced with either going to war to save themselves though conquest against an American juggernaught military. Or seeking compromise, which they did. Also while Ronnie's economy might not have outpaced the economy of the last four decades I would argue that that is a bogus comparison. The late 40's, 50's and 60's the economy was really on a high post WWII. Ronie inheirited a basket case from Jimmy Carter. 10% unemployment! 11% inflation. and America getting worked internationally by backwater Iran. Ronnie came in and scared the hell out of everybody and did a pretty good job of chaning the way the nation saw itself and the world. He made America proud again. Ronnie was a stud.. I would further argue that Ronnie was big tent Republican who wanted to be the American President. That Bush is a small minded xenophobic idiot who only wants to be the republican president. Ronnie was the great communicator. George says things that even makes dan Quayle wince. We got something for Ronnies spending, Victory over the Evil Empire! and The first verifiable arms agreements with Russia!. America isn't getting anything from George's spending... Ronnie wanted to build the American military into the strongest in the world.. George wants to use the strongest military in the world to create a PAX Americana.. Not the same at all... George is No Ronnie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.