• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Constitution make liberalism illegal?

Somerville said:
One might also mention that you appear to be running away from your earlier comment in regards to the Articles of Confederation.
Click to expand...

what comment????
 
James972 said:
of course if true the liberal would not be so afraid to present your best example for whole world to see. What does your fear teach you?
Click to expand...

That was in the part of the post you responded to which you deliberately omitted.
 
James972 said:
of course if true the liberal would not be so afraid to present your best example for whole world to see. What does your fear teach you?
Click to expand...

My "fear"? jimmie, it is your ongoing refusal to acknowledge your massive ignorance which causes 'libruls' to laugh at you. Time and time again you have been shown to be in error, and time and time again you attempt to deflect from those little truth arrows which continue to puncture your ballooons. My post #391 was just one of those sharp, pointy objects.

'Libruls' have presented multiple examples illustrating just how wrong you are AND what do we see - yet another post like the one quoted here in which you demand another "best example". Why don't you try to refute the claims made by your debate opponents. The words are there, the events are described, the actions are noted but for some reason you demand even more while failing in your attempts - ooops, sorry I don't even see any attempts on your part to debate the points made.
 
James972 said:
Actually Jefferson was the only one who said it; accordingly, it was not in any way in the Constitution, and he said it on assumption the succeeding generations would want to opportunity seek even more freedom from govt, not the communist govt that modern liberals seek.
Click to expand...

Please supply some links to the writings of persons living in the first 20 years of the 19th Century, who opposed Jefferson's comment about revising the Constitution.

What is the origin of your obsession with this delusion that "modern liberals" want a "communist govt"? What liberal has voiced such a desire?
 
Somerville said:
What is the origin of your obsession with this delusion that "modern liberals" want a "communist govt"?
Click to expand...

they spied for Stalin in secret now Obama and Sanders are in the open modern liberal communists
who run the Party. 1+1=2

Norman Thomas ( socialist presidential candidate)
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
 
Somerville said:
Please supply some links to the writings of persons living in the first 20 years of the 19th Century, who opposed Jefferson's comment about revising the Constitution.
Click to expand...

obviously it was opposed since it was not in Constitution.
 
James972 said:
of course if true you would not be so afraid to present the evidence.
Click to expand...
For what? That you do not know anyone on an anonymous internet board? Yea, ask more retarded questions, just to prove the level of intellect you bring to the discussion.

Notice, I have to teach
Click to expand...
You couldn't teach a dead dog to lay down.
 
Last edited:
prometeus said:
For what? That you do not know anyone on an anonymous internet board? Yea, ask more retarded questions, just to prove the level of intellect you bring to the discussion.

You couldn't teach a dead dog to lay down.
Click to expand...

reported personal; attack no substance
 
James972 said:
Madison ,Federalist #40
"The truth is, that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the Articles of Confederation" The Constitution was supposed to simply be an extension of the Virginia Compact and the Annapolis Convention which were primarily designed to promote free trade among the states.

:
Articles worked well which is why most supported it. It won the Revolution and secured a
peace treaty with land all the way to Mississipi, state govts were established, voting franchise greatly extended, freguent elections, separation of church and state, beginning of abilition of slavery in northern states, expansion of education and literacy, establishment of State Bills of Rights, patterns of expansion with NW Ordinances established, ( all westen land to Fed was to be divideded and sold for $1 per acre, self rule, and admission to union when population was 60,000, freedom of worship, trial by jury, no slavery, trade opened with Europe and Asia, loans secured to US from foreign powers.

Additionally, many did not even attend Constitutional convention like Jefferson Adams Henry, and only 33 of 59 who did attend signed it.
Click to expand...

In post #391, I responded with the following words, along with a lot of other words, that jimmie has ignored as they showed just how in error his earlier post was.
The Articles of Confederation were a near complete failure in regards to forming a new and effective nation. Ever hear of Shays' Rebellion?
His response was as follows.
James972 said:
who cares??? to liberals the Constitution is a complete failure too. That's why they treasonously want it to be a living communist Constitution.
Click to expand...

Somerville said:
jimmie - you are beginning to lose track of the discussion, apparently, because I and others have demonstrated your near total ignorance of history. Please do some reading.

When you attack liberals for wanting a "living communist Constitution", you tell us that you know nothing about the original intentions of the Founding Fathers. Jefferson for one, though not one of those who composed the Constitution, understood that societies change as time marches on and as a consequence governing documents such as the Constitution should be revised every 20 - 25 years.

One might also mention that you appear to be running away from your earlier comment in regards to the Articles of Confederation.
Click to expand...

James972 said:
Somerville said:
jimmie - you are beginning to lose track of the discussion, apparently, because I and others have demonstrated your near total ignorance of history. Please do some reading.
Click to expand...
of course if true the liberal would not be so afraid to present your best example for whole world to see. What does your fear teach you?
Click to expand...

James972 said:
Somerville said:
When you attack liberals for wanting a "living communist Constitution", you tell us that you know nothing about the original intentions of the Founding Fathers. Jefferson for one, though not one of those who composed the Constitution, understood that societies change as time marches on and as a consequence governing documents such as the Constitution should be revised every 20 - 25 years.
Click to expand...
Actually Jefferson was the only one who said it; accordingly, it was not in any way in the Constitution, and he said it on assumption the succeeding generations would want to opportunity seek even more freedom from govt, not the communist govt that modern liberals seek.
Click to expand...

James972 said:
Somerville said:
One might also mention that you appear to be running away from your earlier comment in regards to the Articles of Confederation.
Click to expand...
what comment????
Click to expand...

James972 said:
Somerville said:
Post #384
Click to expand...
what comment? others are not going on a liberals wild goose chase
Click to expand...

James972 said:
Originally Posted by Somerville

What is the origin of your obsession with this delusion that "modern liberals" want a "communist govt"?
Click to expand...
they spied for Stalin in secret now Obama and Sanders are in the open modern liberal communists
who run the Party. 1+1=2

Norman Thomas ( socialist presidential candidate)
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
Click to expand...

I and others on the left are not the ones shaking in fear.

The Norman Thomas 'quote', by the way, is a fake, he never said it, though lots of 'conservatives' have used it in their attacks on liberals and the un-educated.
 
James972 said:
obviously in a strict legal sense it is Constitutional, but in an intellectual sense it is very unconstitutional which is what Madison explained when he said charity is no part of the Constitution. Makes sense now?
Click to expand...

You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of human nature, history and the constitution. You apparently believe that whatever Madison said at any time in his life is paramount. Wrong. He was one man, nothing more or less and once they ratified the document, it fell upon the courts to make sense of it. Madison was an incredible person but he was not the only voice, his alter ego Hamilton was just as important. We want a good life, none of us want to live like anyone in 1790, do you? If so, get your ass on a plane, ditch the phones, ditch the ATM card and move to the Third World. Hell, even the Third World has better living standards than we did in 1790.
 
Vadinho said:
You seem to understand the constitution yet then you claim that the welfare state is unconstitutional? Is that what you are saying? If so, you are wrong. We can legally vote in single payer health care if we wanted. As long as the Supreme Court says its constitutional, it is constitutional. You want them to vote your way? Steal a pick or pack the court, that is the American way of making sure whatever you want is likely to become legal sooner or later. Sure precedent matters but as we saw in Heller, nothing will stop a partisan court from making stuff up out of whole cloth. Personally, none of us would want to swap our lives for those of anyone in 1790 so lets move on, its 220 years later.
Click to expand...

The point I was making was connected to the original intent of the Constitution. Original intent, like modern intent, is geared toward the voter demographics. The original voter demographics were male freeholders. The needs of these original freeholders was different based on the nature of the beast. Modern times has more people who can vote who may or may not have any iron in the fire. The freeholder was self sufficient and looking to make that easier in the long term. The with no iron in the fire; some modern voter demographics, are looking for the quick fix, since they are not thinking long term. The Constitution was not originally geared that way. The original Constitution assumed grown men, not dependent children.

When you judges appointed based on politics, instead of wisdom and freeholder self sufficiency, things will get perverted. If you were a freeholder, your home is your castle and you are king. You don't want an over bearing government trying to micromanage you with a bloated bureaucracy. This is not original since this would make no sense to those voters. If you have people who can vote, who want to be dependents and not work so hard, you might prefer large big brother government. This was not the original that was tailored to the needs of the self sufficient.

America was/is an experiment in 1776. The rest of the world was under various forms of monarchy rule, with top heavy government. This was true for most of human history. This arrangement discouraged human potential, out of fear that human potential would challenge monarchy rule and alter the blood line criteria. The freeholders in America were kings of their own castles. This was very unique to history and they were shaping the Constitution to protect this experiment and not revert back to the old way.

The modern left would prefer the old way. They love third world dictators, who can make things happen by fear. The Democrats have their self important royalty roots in the hay day of slavery, where one could act as king over others; slaves. The slav owner had the divine right of kings; life or death. Ending slavery sent the royalty mentality back decades.

It is not coincidence that the John Kennedy years was dubbed Camelot, which is connected to royalty. When Obama was president, many wanted to change the Consitiution so he could not be replaced; King Obama. One way back to the monarchies of the past, was to change voter criteria to leverage change against the goals of the freeholders; regression backwards. This can be done with shady judges. It can also be done by turning intelligence agencies against its own people.

The modern freeholders are the middle class, upwards. The middle class was on decline and the rich got richer and more people returned to the peasant class, just like in monarchies. The right believes in originals intent, which is freeholders; American dream.
 
wellwisher said:
The point I was making was connected to the original intent of the Constitution. Original intent, like modern intent, is geared toward the voter demographics. The original voter demographics were male freeholders. The needs of these original freeholders was different based on the nature of the beast. Modern times has more people who can vote who may or may not have any iron in the fire. The freeholder was self sufficient and looking to make that easier in the long term. The with no iron in the fire; some modern voter demographics, are looking for the quick fix, since they are not thinking long term. The Constitution was not originally geared that way. The original Constitution assumed grown men, not dependent children.

When you judges appointed based on politics, instead of wisdom and freeholder self sufficiency, things will get perverted. If you were a freeholder, your home is your castle and you are king. You don't want an over bearing government trying to micromanage you with a bloated bureaucracy. This is not original since this would make no sense to those voters. If you have people who can vote, who want to be dependents and not work so hard, you might prefer large big brother government. This was not the original that was tailored to the needs of the self sufficient.

America was/is an experiment in 1776. The rest of the world was under various forms of monarchy rule, with top heavy government. This was true for most of human history. This arrangement discouraged human potential, out of fear that human potential would challenge monarchy rule and alter the blood line criteria. The freeholders in America were kings of their own castles. This was very unique to history and they were shaping the Constitution to protect this experiment and not revert back to the old way.

The modern left would prefer the old way. They love third world dictators, who can make things happen by fear. The Democrats have their self important royalty roots in the hay day of slavery, where one could act as king over others; slaves. The slav owner had the divine right of kings; life or death. Ending slavery sent the royalty mentality back decades.

It is not coincidence that the John Kennedy years was dubbed Camelot, which is connected to royalty. When Obama was president, many wanted to change the Consitiution so he could not be replaced; King Obama. One way back to the monarchies of the past, was to change voter criteria to leverage change against the goals of the freeholders; regression backwards. This can be done with shady judges. It can also be done by turning intelligence agencies against its own people.

The modern freeholders are the middle class, upwards. The middle class was on decline and the rich got richer and more people returned to the peasant class, just like in monarchies. The right believes in originals intent, which is freeholders; American dream.
Click to expand...

That was a lot of words covering a core statement of pure malarkey. Sorry bud, America has supported dictators whenever it suited our purposes. To claim that the left wants a monarchy is hilarious. Camelot? Dude, you must be young or a conspiracy nut.
 
wellwisher said:
The point I was making was connected to the original intent of the Constitution. Original intent, like modern intent, is geared toward the voter demographics. The original voter demographics were male freeholders. The needs of these original freeholders was different based on the nature of the beast. Modern times has more people who can vote who may or may not have any iron in the fire. The freeholder was self sufficient and looking to make that easier in the long term. The with no iron in the fire; some modern voter demographics, are looking for the quick fix, since they are not thinking long term. The Constitution was not originally geared that way. The original Constitution assumed grown men, not dependent children.

When you judges appointed based on politics, instead of wisdom and freeholder self sufficiency, things will get perverted. If you were a freeholder, your home is your castle and you are king. You don't want an over bearing government trying to micromanage you with a bloated bureaucracy. This is not original since this would make no sense to those voters. If you have people who can vote, who want to be dependents and not work so hard, you might prefer large big brother government. This was not the original that was tailored to the needs of the self sufficient.

America was/is an experiment in 1776. The rest of the world was under various forms of monarchy rule, with top heavy government. This was true for most of human history. This arrangement discouraged human potential, out of fear that human potential would challenge monarchy rule and alter the blood line criteria. The freeholders in America were kings of their own castles. This was very unique to history and they were shaping the Constitution to protect this experiment and not revert back to the old way.

The modern left would prefer the old way. They love third world dictators, who can make things happen by fear. The Democrats have their self important royalty roots in the hay day of slavery, where one could act as king over others; slaves. The slav owner had the divine right of kings; life or death. Ending slavery sent the royalty mentality back decades.

It is not coincidence that the John Kennedy years was dubbed Camelot, which is connected to royalty. When Obama was president, many wanted to change the Consitiution so he could not be replaced; King Obama. One way back to the monarchies of the past, was to change voter criteria to leverage change against the goals of the freeholders; regression backwards. This can be done with shady judges. It can also be done by turning intelligence agencies against its own people.

The modern freeholders are the middle class, upwards. The middle class was on decline and the rich got richer and more people returned to the peasant class, just like in monarchies. The right believes in originals intent, which is freeholders; American dream.
Click to expand...
What a load of crap.
 
Vadinho said:
That was a lot of words covering a core statement of pure malarkey. Sorry bud, America has supported dictators whenever it suited our purposes. To claim that the left wants a monarchy is hilarious. Camelot? Dude, you must be young or a conspiracy nut.
Click to expand...

wellwisher wrote the following: "The modern freeholders are the middle class, upwards. The middle class was on decline and the rich got richer and more people returned to the peasant class, just like in monarchies. The right believes in originals intent, which is freeholders; American dream."

Other than the fact that it is nearly incomprensible owing to the incorrect use of verb tense and grammatical structure, it is also historically, and presently, wrong. More correctly, up to the Reagan years, the middle class in America was on the increase. The rich did get richer but at a rate similar to the increase in the middle class. More people left the "peasant class", also known as the poverty-stricken.

Since those 'golden years' of Reaganism, America's middle class has declined, the rich have gotten much much richer and more Americans live in poverty.

There is still an American dream but the present administration and many in Congress are doing everything they can to reduce the possibility of a person rising out of poverty. The first step being the destruction of public education by reducing funding.
 
James972 said:
they spied for Stalin in secret now Obama and Sanders are in the open modern liberal communists
who run the Party. 1+1=2

Norman Thomas ( socialist presidential candidate)
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
Click to expand...

Which is it, liberals or communists? They are far different philosophies. Then you speak of Socialists. Again, Socialists are not Communists.
Who spied for Stalin? You keep saying that but I have never heard of a Liberal spying for Stalin. There were Communists such as the Rosenbergs and Fuchs who spied for Stalin, but no Liberals to my knowledge.
 
Quote from Wellwisher:
The modern freeholders are the middle class, upwards. The middle class was on decline and the rich got richer and more people returned to the peasant class, just like in monarchies. The right believes in originals intent, which is freeholders; American dream.[/QUOTE]

What is wrong with Monarchies. The head of State in my country is the Queen of Canada. We are a Monarchy and I have at least as much freedom and as many rights as any American. While I am a Conservative, there is nothing in our Constitution that prohibits me from being a Liberal, a Socialist or even a Communist.
 
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Click to expand...

It seems pretty simple, to Any federalist--what Congress is supposed to be doing with our tax monies.
 
SMTA said:
What a painfully stupid post.
Click to expand...

but can the typical liberal say why it is stupid or is it just a feeling? See why we say liberalism is based on pure ignorance?
 
queenmandy85 said:
Which is it, liberals or communists? They are far different philosophies. Then you speak of Socialists. Again, Socialists are not Communists.
Click to expand...

lib commie socialist monarchist are all the same because they are all big central govt. This is why our Founders made them a all illegal . Now certainly you understand the basic principle of America.?
 
danielpalos said:
It seems pretty simple, to Any federalist--what Congress is supposed to be doing with our tax monies.
Click to expand...

yes, it is very simple indeed when you at the complete sentence, they are supposed to be using tax monies in support of the only the enumerated powers.
 
queenmandy85 said:
What is wrong with Monarchies. The head of State in my country is the Queen of Canada.
Click to expand...

you have symbolic impotent monarchy so nothing wrong. Do you understand?
 
queenmandy85 said:
Who spied for Stalin? You keep saying that but I have never heard of a Liberal spying for Stalin. There were Communists such as the Rosenbergs and Fuchs who spied for Stalin, but no Liberals to my knowledge.
Click to expand...

there were 1000's many of who took the 5th when asked. The darling of the left liberals was probably Alger Hiss. There is a book called "useful idiots" wherein you can see a very complete list
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom