Why are conservatives always quoting the founding fathers?

All of the sudden conservatives are all historians. They are all quoting the founding fathers and screaming we are losing our freedom. Where was all this freedom loving crap when Reagan was pushing his fascist war on drugs, red states banning gay marriage and all the other moralistic BS the right has pushed over the years? No they are not for freedom at all. As for the founding fathers they where not moral at all. Many where heavy drinkers, slave owners who has sex with the female slaves, went to orgies and many where not that religious. They believed that only white, male landowners should vote and we had to change many of their backward laws over the years. So I ask you right wingers again. Why the history lesson all the sudden?

two words

Mark Levin

They were smart guys, can't see why you'd have an issue with it. But, everyone wants something to bitch about.

Omg, another conservatives/drugs whinefest.

James D Hill said:

All of the sudden conservatives are all historians.

Click to expand...

Is it really all of a sudden? I became interested after I graduated from college in the mid-1970s. I believe the turning point for me came when I started listening to Rush Limbaugh. Since then I began accumulating the collected works of many of the founders. They were smart men. I read the Federalist Papers. Later I also read the anti-Federalist papers.

Today I would blame the Internet. It is possible to find lots of materials written at the time of our founding. It is interesting. And if you also happen to be a fan of liberty and freedom reading about the fights and compromises is a great place to start.

James D Hill said:

All of the sudden conservatives are all historians. They are all quoting the founding fathers and screaming we are losing our freedom. Where was all this freedom loving crap when Reagan was pushing his fascist war on drugs, red states banning gay marriage and all the other moralistic BS the right has pushed over the years? No they are not for freedom at all. As for the founding fathers they where not moral at all. 'm Many where heavy drinkers, slave owners who has sex with the female slaves, went to orgies and many where not that religious. They believed that only white, male landowners should vote and we had to change many of their backward laws over the years. So I ask you right wingers again. Why the history lesson all the sudden?

Click to expand...

I think your post is such a good illustration of an ideology that's become common today that I'm adding it to my collection of the all-time best in class.

James D Hill said:

All of the sudden conservatives are all historians. They are all quoting the founding fathers and screaming we are losing our freedom. Where was all this freedom loving crap when Reagan was pushing his fascist war on drugs, red states banning gay marriage and all the other moralistic BS the right has pushed over the years? No they are not for freedom at all. As for the founding fathers they where not moral at all. Many where heavy drinkers, slave owners who has sex with the female slaves, went to orgies and many where not that religious. They believed that only white, male landowners should vote and we had to change many of their backward laws over the years. So I ask you right wingers again. Why the history lesson all the sudden?

Click to expand...

Take the history lesson, you've proven here you need it. :lamo

James D Hill said:

All of the sudden conservatives are all historians. They are all quoting the founding fathers and screaming we are losing our freedom. Where was all this freedom loving crap when Reagan was pushing his fascist war on drugs, red states banning gay marriage and all the other moralistic BS the right has pushed over the years? No they are not for freedom at all. As for the founding fathers they where not moral at all. Many where heavy drinkers, slave owners who has sex with the female slaves, went to orgies and many where not that religious. They believed that only white, male landowners should vote and we had to change many of their backward laws over the years. So I ask you right wingers again. Why the history lesson all the sudden?

Click to expand...

I've actually always wondered why your posts are all 4 or 5 lines in length - one solid, block paragraph.

James D Hill said:

All of the sudden conservatives are all historians. They are all quoting the founding fathers and screaming we are losing our freedom. Where was all this freedom loving crap when Reagan was pushing his fascist war on drugs, red states banning gay marriage and all the other moralistic BS the right has pushed over the years? No they are not for freedom at all. As for the founding fathers they where not moral at all. Many where heavy drinkers, slave owners who has sex with the female slaves, went to orgies and many where not that religious. They believed that only white, male landowners should vote and we had to change many of their backward laws over the years. So I ask you right wingers again. Why the history lesson all the sudden?

Click to expand...

The founding is being discussed, because the leftist public school monopoly "forgot" to teach people why America is what it is. Where America's greatness comes from. Instead they teach a list of indictments you profess as your own. A list merely parroted back, like your times-tables. But, have you thought it through?

You haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be so glib. Not one country on the planet was (or to the best of my knowledge, is) based on intrinsic-liberty. Rights belonging to the individual, on loan to the government only through consent. And when that consent is removed, the government shudders in fear. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." A founder said that (Jefferson). So, study up. School is back in session and this time you have the opportunity to learn the truth...

Regarding your list of particulars (the indictment):

A) Addiction is the opposite of freedom. One can't argue for freedom, then addict themselves out of freedom. Therefore, addiction is illegal. Simple logic.

B) Gay behavior, like polygamy, prostitution, bigamy and beastiality, is nothing more than a sexual corruption. It should be illegal, like all the other corruptions.

C) Every single founder was Judeo-Christian. Every signer of the Declaration, Every member of the First Continental Congress, Every member of the Second Continental Congress and every signer of the Constitution. All Christian. Luckily, Christianity believes in redemption and forgiveness, thus the founder's were in good stead with God. Each and every one of them, undoubtedly exalted in heaven.

D) Drinking was and is, legal.

E) While the founder's were born into a world with slavery, they instituted and founded a country that stamped it out. Slavery was over that hot summer day, when they signed the Declaration of Independence. It took four-score and seven to prove it to the world, but make no mistake, slavery was ended on 4 July 1776.

F) True conservatives despise crony-capitalists, although not all big-businesses are crony-capitalists.

The genius of the Constitution is its amendability. Not in its ease, but in its ability. The simple fact that this was codified in the document meant that the document itself is a living document...not ossified in time.

Most of the time, when a partisan right-winger tries to invoke the Founders to make a point, it's something that the Founders would have vehemently disagreed with.

DifferentDrummr said:

Most of the time, when a partisan right-winger tries to invoke the Founders to make a point, it's something that the Founders would have vehemently disagreed with.

Click to expand...

Do you have any examples we could digest and discuss? It might be a great vehicle for understanding one another.

1750Texan said:

The genius of the Constitution is its amendability. Not in its ease, but in its ability. The simple fact that this was codified in the document meant that the document itself is a living document...not ossified in time.

Click to expand...

And yet, when those on the far-wrong don't agree with the Constitution—when they want to pursue policies that the Constitution, as it presently stands, outright forbids—they rarely seek to amend the Constitution through the legitimate process established for that purpose; rather, they engage in all manner of blatant dishonesty to try to deny what the Constitution says. If wrong-wingers were honest, they would recognize that most of their policies cannot legitimately be implemented without amending the Constitution to allow them, and would seek to do so in that manner. Of course, the idea of wrong-wingers being honest makes about as much sense as pigs flying.

Liberals want to take your property to use to help them achieve their definition of morality, equalizing outcomes, and conservatives want take some of your liberty to achieve their definition of morality.

Libertarians (those who were libertarians before there was a socialist sect) just want to leave everyone alone and be left alone until or unless someone wants to break their leg or pick their pocket.

Stoney said:

Liberals want to take your property to use to help them achieve their definition of morality, equalizing outcomes, and conservatives want take some of your liberty to achieve their definition of morality.

Libertarians (those who were libertarians before there was a socialist sect) just want to leave everyone alone and be left alone until or unless someone wants to break their leg or pick their pocket.

Click to expand...

I would have worded it somewhat differently.

Liberals want the government to have enough power to take from some people to give things to other people. Liberals want some people who are "too" successful punished by confiscating their property.

Conservatives want governments to be tightly constrained by written constitutions or charters. Conservatives want governments to do nothing more than what they have been allowed, in writing, to do. This conservative wants the people in each locality to choose the rules under which they will live. This conservative wants an equal balance of power between the people, the states and the federal government.

Libertarians want liberty, just as the conservatives do, but without anyone knowing they are, in fact, Constitutional Conservatives.

Misterveritis said:

This conservative wants the people in each locality to choose the rules under which they will live.

Click to expand...

This conservative wants government limited to protecting the maximum possible individual liberty. Liberty limited only by the equal liberty of others. Government should have no other function than to protect that liberty, to protect us from force and fraud, referee fair trading, maintain trade routes (roads, waterways, etc.), eliminate monopolies (as frauds against individuals) and enforce liberty. Adhere to strict limits of enumerated powers and not stray into do-good projects for any reason.

People are free to choose the rules they live under - only within the strict limits of enumerated powers. People are not free to impose their will on others in areas outside those limits.

Misterveritis said:

I would have worded it somewhat differently.

Liberals want the government to have enough power to take from some people to give things to other people. Liberals want some people who are "too" successful punished by confiscating their property.

Conservatives want governments to be tightly constrained by written constitutions or charters. Conservatives want governments to do nothing more than what they have been allowed, in writing, to do. This conservative wants the people in each locality to choose the rules under which they will live. This conservative wants an equal balance of power between the people, the states and the federal government.

Libertarians want liberty, just as the conservatives do, but without anyone knowing they are, in fact, Constitutional Conservatives.

Click to expand...

I often say that our constitutional republics, as originally intended is basically a libertarian government. Of course I refer to Jefferson's simplistic description of what liberty government should restrict by saying that everything else should be allowed.

I think there are many different sects in each of the three camps we describe. I'm old enough to remember some Democrats that we're liberal by today's standard's and maybe the difference was the latter part of your definition. They didn't begrudge, at least outwardly, fiscal success.

This conservative wants the people in each locality to choose the rules under which they will live. This conservative wants an equal balance of power between the people, the states and the federal government.

Click to expand...

With the exception that I would leave the federal government with probably less power than you I think we're essentially aligned.

I also often say "This libertarian..." as we all have a little different perspective.

Than you for your thoughtful response.

Respecthelect said:

This conservative wants government limited to protecting the maximum possible individual liberty. Liberty limited only by the equal liberty of others. Government should have no other function than to protect that liberty, to protect us from force and fraud, referee fair trading, maintain trade routes (roads, waterways, etc.), eliminate monopolies (as frauds against individuals) and enforce liberty. Adhere to strict limits of enumerated powers and not stray into do-good projects for any reason.

People are free to choose the rules they live under - only within the strict limits of enumerated powers. People are not free to impose their will on others in areas outside those limits.

Click to expand...

I find your posts closer to my definition of libertarian than most conservatives I've known. And I have great regard for the libertarian's picture by your name if I recognize him correctly as a judge.

I've found that our Founding Fathers were far smarter than the politicians of this day who are trying to revise our Constitution.

Stoney said:

I find your posts closer to my definition of libertarian than most conservatives I've known. And I have great regard for the libertarian's picture by your name if I recognize him correctly as a judge.

Click to expand...

If Libertarian's adhere to their own philosophy, they are conservatives. For example, freedom must be protected, but it also must be enforced. The fact that you're free means that you are required to be free. Most Libertarian's wrongly support addictive drug use a "right to be free," but freedom is also a requirement. One is "required" to be free and since addiction is enslavement, addiction is counter-Libertarian and outlawed. This is a natural outcome of Libertarianism and logically proven long ago by J.S. Mill and others, yet Libertarian leaders, such as Ron Paul get this point wrong. He doesn't even know his own philosophy.

Likewise, isolationism. Libertarian's believe the government has a proper function to defend the right of free people to trade. To enforce free trading. Yet, Paul and other Libertarian's willingly give up their right and the right of foreigners to trade freely. Government should have the right to defend free-trade routes, if they have the military might to do so. This is a right and proper use of military power and is far from isolationism. Again, Ron Paul and most Libertarian's have their own philosophy incorrect in their minds.

Libertarianism, properly derived and applied, is conservatism.

Misterveritis said:

I would have worded it somewhat differently.

Liberals want the government to have enough power to take from some people to give things to other people. Liberals want some people who are "too" successful punished by confiscating their property.

Conservatives want governments to be tightly constrained by written constitutions or charters. Conservatives want governments to do nothing more than what they have been allowed, in writing, to do. This conservative wants the people in each locality to choose the rules under which they will live. This conservative wants an equal balance of power between the people, the states and the federal government.

Libertarians want liberty, just as the conservatives do, but without anyone knowing they are, in fact, Constitutional Conservatives.

Click to expand...

Constitutional conservative is a made up term with absolutely no meaning. The Constitution in neither conservative nor liberal.

Stoney said:

I often say that our constitutional republics, as originally intended is basically a libertarian government. Of course I refer to Jefferson's simplistic description of what liberty government should restrict by saying that everything else should be allowed.

I think there are many different sects in each of the three camps we describe. I'm old enough to remember some Democrats that we're liberal by today's standard's and maybe the difference was the latter part of your definition. They didn't begrudge, at least outwardly, fiscal success.

With the exception that I would leave the federal government with probably less power than you I think we're essentially aligned.

I also often say "This libertarian..." as we all have a little different perspective.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Click to expand...

You are welcome. It is my intention to recognize the inherent worth of each individual. No matter our backgrounds we come to this forum with life's rewards, and occasionally its punishments. I want to spend my time understanding each unique perspective. Many of us are not that far apart but we are separated from each other by our common words but our different meanings.

I shall enjoy those things we truly hold in common and half-close my eyes to the rest.

1750Texan said:

Constitutional conservative is a made up term with absolutely no meaning. The Constitution in neither conservative nor liberal.

Click to expand...

Really? Okay.

I shall continue to be a Constitutional Conservative. And you can continue to be whatever you claim to be.

Like most terms it is a useful shortening of a host of concepts. For me a Constitutional Conservative is someone who believes the founders intention was to create a robust, powerful federal government to do some very specific things. At the same time they wanted the states to play a major role in the federal government through the election of senators by each state's legislature. They wanted power divided up and balanced so no one could become an imperial president or an oligarchy of 435 men and women.

Words mean things. But which makes more sense to do on a forum? is it far better for me to say that I am a Constitutional Conservative or to say that I believe that governments must protect the liberty of its citizens at all costs and expect you to read that time and again?

lizzie said:

Omg, another conservatives/drugs whinefest.

Click to expand...

You know that when a thread starts with trolling, it's gonna get stupid real fast. Threads like this always make me want to writing really bad poetry to show my opinion of the thread.

Once while wandering, my mind fell
The fall was short, the stop was sudden
Where it ended, no man can tell.

Meister said:

I've found that our Founding Fathers were far smarter than the politicians of this day who are trying to revise our Constitution.

Click to expand...

In my opinion they have succeeded. It is up to us to apply a remedy called the Article V Convention of States.