Users who Dugg This
adam jones
11736 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
Mik Wilker
1448 Followers
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
Carly Wilson
3024 Followers
timedalkatDec 18, 2010
Spin that bitches.
kaelyiestaDec 18, 2010
You mean unspin it, which takes very little effort. Here is an obvious contradictory quote:
"“the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period.”
This thought is the same type of thought that we have today as Americans, We want the next generation to have a better standard of living than we had."
This normative claim does not even imply the conclusions championed by modern day liberals(IE theft, coercion and such via the state for the purpose of helping the poor). In fact, there are MANY steps of reasoning required to go from not permitting people to be worse off than had they been in some state of nature before social organization to enforcing positive standard of living growth each generation. For example, he could have favored the non aggression principle like other classical liberals, which would genuinely satisfy the condition quoted above.
But the most glaring error is even more obvious. The quote by Paine compares ones life in a society to that time before 'a state of civilization commences'. The author incorrectly equates this to an OBLIGATION to a better standard of living than the prior generation. They are not the same thoughts at all. Positive obligation to a standard of living no worse than before some civilization organized is not the same type of thought as positive obligation to a better standard of living than ones parents. The former can be thought of as 'no one should be worse of because of society itself than had they been left alone'. The later can be thought of as 'we should require that everyone have a better life than their parents'. The difference between this positive and negative obligation is as different as night and day. Anyone familiar with the classical liberals should understand this.
Bear in mind, it really doesn't matter what some people in the past advocated. Arguments stand on their own merit, and not on the people who speak them. The only reason I care to correct this article is because too few people understand this and then use what they think some dead guys meant to champion invalid arguments. So if I can't help correct peoples understanding of appeals to authority, tradition and other logical fallacies, at least I can disprove some more obvious historical inaccuracies.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njatc99Dec 18, 2010
"The property owners owe rent to those who do not own property for the privilege of cultivating the land, and taking away the natural ownership that all people have."
5urr3al5amDec 20, 2010
so it was the liberals who killed all of the Indians?
pragmaticstatDec 20, 2010
The Native Americans, who lived here first, would say it was ALL the white European illegal immigrants (liberals and conservatives) are who killed all of the Native Americans. Native Americans couldn't stop our taking of America and We can't stop others from doing the same to us. By not having large families we turned the nation over to immigrants.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
markglDec 20, 2010
Hey the liberals paint history as an evil one. So they're evil!
njatc99Dec 18, 2010
"To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by th...e introduction of the system of landed property:"
EVERY PERSON shall be paid when they reach 21 years old
sacrabosDec 19, 2010
Yeah, even really rich people...
sanmanDec 19, 2010
the founding fathers certainly weren't welfare statists
they certainly didn't create a federal reserve when they envisioned constitutional governanceComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pragmaticstatDec 19, 2010
You are incorrect about the founding fathers not establishing a central bank. See the First Bank of the United States 1791 and the Second Bank of the United States 1816.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_the_United_States#1781.E2.80.931836:_The_Bank_of_North_America.3B_the_First.2C_and_Second.2C_Bank_of_the_United_States
herojonDec 20, 2010
The founding fathers were in great dispute over this. Thomas Jefferson HATED the idea of a central bank. Alexander Hamilton was the champion of it. To say that all the founding fathers were liberal or conservative as this article tries to is laughable. They had as much disagreement as we do today. The only thing they had universal agreement on was their hatred for being controlled by the British government.
crymtyphonDec 20, 2010
Sensibly said.
mbsiderDec 20, 2010
there's a huge difference between a central bank and a federal reserve.
YOU are incorrect in your attempt to make a relevant comment.
pragmaticstatDec 20, 2010
Well, according to The Fed's own publication, "The Federal Reserve System Purposes & Function" page 1, "The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. Over the years, its role in banking and the economy has expanded."
sadresDec 19, 2010
You're pretty much incorrect about everything you know. Might want to change the channel every now and then.
thecoolestguyDec 20, 2010
Government under the founding fathers spent about 3% of GDP. Today it spends 25% of GDP. They were NOT welfare statists.
They specifically opposed using government as a way to provide charity:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170 (1794-01-10) [4]. The Annals summarize speeches in the third person, with the actual text of Madison's quote as follows: "Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." The expense in question was for French refugees from the Haitian Revolution.
Note, James Madison was known as the 'father of the Constitution'.
vitriolandangstDec 19, 2010
Wow, you found one lame ass quote that didn't directly show that Conservatives were anathema to the "Founding Fathers" they like to misquote.
Notice how you didn't dispute those 11,000 other comments that show that they were against the Foot Fondlers of the Crown that today's Conservatives are. I guess you found that one glaring "neutral quote" in a sea of fire-breathing Liberalism.
paranor01Dec 19, 2010
Your comment shows your complete inability to understand the article. You say modern liberals are thieves yet don't apply the same label to Paine. When you realize stewardship is not a privilege and there are responsibilities in that stewardship, then the term theft becomes as empty as your spirit.
thecoolestguyDec 20, 2010
Paine was in no way a thief. He only viewed LAND, which is not created by any one, and which gets all of its value from its original natural, uncreated form, as being part of the common domain. He did not think WEALTH in general should be redistributed by a social democratic government.
paranor01Dec 20, 2010
And all the wealth in the world is created from the land. Again, your argument falls apart with that simple fact.
thecoolestguyDec 20, 2010
You're missing my point. Paine's argument was that the wealth produced JUST from the land, not from the improvements made on the land, belongs to all citizens.
He even spoke in depth about WHY we have property ownership in the first place, explaining that it's because the IMPROVEMENTS made on the land (which are courtesy of the person who made the effort to improve it) were so much more valuable than the land they were built on, that for simplification purposes they just assumed that the person who built improvements on the land owned both the land and the improvements.
He distinguished between the value contributed by man-made improvements and the value from the land itself.
Seriously read his piece instead of automatically taking the pro-welfare/government position:
Agrarian Justice:
http://geolib.pair.com/essays/paine.tom/agjst.html
paranor01Dec 20, 2010
And again you missed my point. We came from the land, and all that keeps us alive, comes from the land. All of our tools, buildings, coin, clothing & food... all comes from the land.
All wealth, comes from the land. Improving a plot of land, does not remove the stewardship nor the connection.
And if you think I have a pro "welfare"/government, then you really don't understand my words. Pity.
thecoolestguyDec 20, 2010
---And again you missed my point. We came from the land, and all that keeps us alive, comes from the land. All of our tools, buildings, coin, clothing & food... all comes from the land.---
You're ONCE AGAIN, missing my point.
Paine recognized that we all come from the land, but he also believed that the value we ADD to the raw material of land was far greater than the original raw material.
He did not believe that the value added to raw materials should be equally distributed by government.
---All wealth, comes from the land. Improving a plot of land, does not remove the stewardship nor the connection.----
That wasn't Paine's position, for sensible reasons. If someone take some sand, and crafts it into a silicon ship, he should not be forced to put that chip into common stewardship. The sand is practically worthless. His efforts are what gave that material value.
---And if you think I have a pro "welfare"/government, then you really don't understand my words. Pity.---
You're a welfarist if you think that every thing belongs to the collective just because the original starting raw materials were part of the collective.
Civilization has made common sense property ownership rights to recognize the unequal contribution of effort made to improve land into things that people need and value.
paranor01Dec 20, 2010
First of all, I didn't miss you point. I rejected it. Didn't want to outright say it cause I know you tend to go off half-c**ked when people do that to you.
Now, to the point with what I was attempting to show you...
Anything we do or take is irrelevant. We are irrelevant. We cannot own anything for we are part of the same land we work with. All has the same value, and we have no ownership over what has ownership of us.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
spin what? Something from politicususa? Sorry, but you won't have conservatives (or 99% of liberals for that matter) spinning anything politcususa says. Becuause no one gives a flying f**k about anything politicususa has ever said.
(Which is why they have to pay for diggs.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerDec 19, 2010
Nobody gives a flying f**k? Somehow the conservatives are always commenting on their articles. So much for your "no one gives a flying f**k about anything politicususa has ever said" theory. Try something else.
JewstinDec 19, 2010
at the end of the day political UA is about as reliable as fox news
superkendallDec 19, 2010
Why, you're already spinning fast enough for everyone.
drummerdudextDec 19, 2010
Didnt the Founding Fathers also want only men who owned land vote?
tao52nycDec 19, 2010
The Founders had no great store in "democracy" for its own sake. Any "voting" done, therefore, would be confined to local and state issues, largely, and limited to landowning male heads of households. You had to have some skin in the game, in their view, before you were allowed to make an informed vote. This would limit the potential for social damage.
drummerdudextDec 19, 2010
Thanks for your input tao52nyc
bobburn1Dec 20, 2010
And now we've got 50% of the population that pays no taxes and couldn't give a s**t less about politics but still vote every once in a while when their misinformed asses get motivated. Honestly, now that illiteracy is not a problem, there should be a short 5 question test:
1. Name at least 2 candidates. 2. What is person A's fiscal ideology? 3. What is person B's fiscal ideology? 4. What is person A's social ideology? 5 .What is person B's social ideology?
If you can't answer those, then you don't need to vote and aren't taking your responsibility as a citizen seriously.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyDec 20, 2010
I wouldn't mind a basic test ahead of time that actually reveals you know what your doing when you vote. How about just asking 'who is the VP on the ticket'?
abram730Dec 21, 2010
everybody pays taxes
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
Our founding fathers were space aliens and neither liberal nor conservative! We can even pronounce what they were in our language. Prove Im wrong. You cant! So Im right!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyDec 20, 2010
I knew aliens were here. When did you arrive?
rchargelDec 19, 2010
Sure, those slave owners were all liberals. Please, they were true conservatives. Freedom for the landowners (or did you forget that at first, only landowners could vote), subjugation for the poor, and slavery for the Africans.
The problem is the cognitive dissonance between what they said and what they actually did. Thomas Jefferson, touted as one of the most liberal thinkers of his day, enjoyed raping his slaves.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
phphreakDec 20, 2010
ok jessie, we will.
alanocuDec 18, 2010
Really? Our Founding Fathers wanted to take away our freedom, our money, and the foods we like to eat? They disliked Christians and found the word “God” offensive?
The title of this article would make for a good episode of 'Fringe' though....send this to Hollywood.....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njatc99Dec 18, 2010
Alan what freedom is being taken away? Prove liberals don't "like" Christians? Did you even BOTHER to read the article or do you purposfully stay ignorant by not reading at all
smotpokerDec 18, 2010
"what freedom is being taken away?"
I can only assume he is referring to the freedom to infringe upon the freedom and safety of others.
dptbear3893Dec 19, 2010
sharing your faith is not infringing on another's freedom and absolutely not their safety
yibbutkeenDec 19, 2010
How about the nonsense in San Francisco - can't sell a toy in a kids happy meal unless it meets some approved nutritional content. The self-righteous rules and regulations to try and save people from themselves, ie the proverbial nanny state we are descending into.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerDec 19, 2010
Yeah it all started with those damn child labor laws. I say bring back lead paint, asbestos, and f**k those child safety laws.
I say we don't need those child proof medicine caps. Dumb ass children should know the difference between an aspirin and candy.
hipmanDec 19, 2010
Nice strawman.Of course he is right about it being nonsense.
jdenzerDec 19, 2010
That's not strawman, that's sarcasm. But then hey, look who I'm talking to, the hipster doofus. I wouldn't expect you to know the difference.
jareddennisDec 19, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
khsheehanDec 20, 2010
Yep, that's pretty much a strawman.
enssssDec 19, 2010
I think we should let San Francisco do what San Francisco wants. Then we can see how it works out for them. I would have a problem if it were added to the U.S. law.
jdenzerDec 19, 2010
I think he is thinking of tea baggers having the freedom to stomp on anti-right supporters.
Or pro-life supporters to kill abortion doctors
Or homophobes to beat young gay men to death.
Or big oil companies to 'rape' the environment.
Or companies to sell tainted products and not be liable.
vitriolandangstDec 19, 2010
For one thing, Liberals spoiled all the fun of Lynching, of factories using child labor, and of those damn prohibitionists.
Every time I hear a Conservative brag about what makes America better than some Muslim country they want us to invade -- they mention ONLY the things that they fought Liberals on only 60 years ago.
madtechnologistDec 19, 2010
You are right.....Muslims know how to treat their women for sure. I would love smack my bitches in place every time they get out of line. I think they're on to something with that....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nullcodesDec 23, 2010
Ah, women's rights .. whose idea was it to stop preventing women from voting? Liberals or conservatives?
It's amazing that "conservatives" are suddenly concerned about women's rights in muslim countries .. when they aren't busy asking for those same countries to get nuked. (and guess they don't mind women being nuked?
If you care about the rights of women in muslim countries why do you also advocate nuking them?
phillaholicDec 23, 2010
Neither. It was a movement across the entire world that frightened both parties because of it's close association with prohibition. It wasn't until after President Wilson (a Democrat) endorsed it that it passed congress, it having failed before. Once it looked like it would be favorable the parties reached out to try to get the women's vote.
hediggmeDec 18, 2010
That's not what liberal means.
novenatorDec 18, 2010
Cut him some slack. He doesn't read any of the articles he bashes, and just uses the Cliff's Notes version for his narrow view of the world too.
dirtyfriesDec 19, 2010
He doesn't have time to read them, he's too busy moving on to the next article and tweeting the current one.
aristotle0dudeDec 19, 2010
You are right. Now try telling what it is supposed to mean to the so called "liberal" talking heads and politicians in your country.
madtechnologistDec 19, 2010
Liberal is a term that has morphed in to "lazy, incompetent, don't want to work, let other's pay for my way in life". Ironic isn't it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
SweetAnnieRichDec 19, 2010
It's not ironic, it's the work of the incredible conservative spin machine; where everything is backwards.
danconiaDec 20, 2010
Liberal has meant a lot of things over the centuries. How anyone can label themselves as something that is constantly changing and try to pretend they have any integrity is beyond me.
And no I'm not a Republican or Conservative. Both sides of the spectrum are a joke IMHO.
phillaholicDec 23, 2010
It was never anything concrete. It's a general term that can mean different things in different regions. If you say you are a Liberal in the United States, you probably mean you agree with the Democratic Party. If you are more liberal then that you probably specify that you are a Member of the Green Party (for example), and don't leave it so open ended that it could be misunderstood.
grammerpantsDec 19, 2010
Ah a believer, ironic that most people of faith think you're a monster, because of your life style.
madtechnologistDec 19, 2010
Another false premise...who the f**k are you to tell me what my faith says of you?? Why do non-believers try to paint believers in to a corner of what the non-believer says the faith should be or how THEY interpret it?? I'm a believer and I don't give a s**t about what you do. Most believers don't for that matter, so quit trying to tell me what my belief is.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
SweetAnnieRichDec 19, 2010
When you "believers" quit knocking on my door on Sunday morning to try and convince me that there are superheroes living in the clouds, then I'll believe you don't give a s**t about what I do.
madtechnologistDec 19, 2010
I never knocked on your door and whatever moron did doesn't represent anything I believe in. You just sound like a hater to me.
SweetAnnieRichDec 19, 2010
Yes, I hate being woke up on Sunday morning by people who don't give a s**t about what I do.
nullcodesDec 19, 2010
It's funny when Muslims say the same thing about terrorism (how the actions of a percentage don't represent them) you don't believe them.
nullcodesDec 19, 2010
Haha, I just checked your comment history and you made a comment 25 days ago that proves that I'm correct about you:
"madtechnologist25 days ago
Note to CAIR: Tell your freaky colleagues in the mid-east to quit f**king with us and we wouldn't have this problem! Idiots!"
I guess you're a hater too then.
chrisvazquez1Dec 20, 2010
@SweetAnnieRich Those missionaries don't represent the rest of us. You should stop generalizing. Believing in religion does not make us ignorant.
SweetAnnieRichDec 20, 2010
I don't know if I'd use the term ignorant for a person who believes in something without a shred of evidence. I would use a more appropriate word like insane.
SweetAnnieRichDec 20, 2010
And they're not missionaries. Just Church goers from down the street who just finished being brain washed and feel like infecting others with their insanity.
phillaholicDec 23, 2010
@SweetAnnieRich There are plenty of religious people that don't do anything like that. There are plenty that mind their own business and don't force their beliefs on anyone else. If you are arguing with them over their religion, you're just being a dick.
SweetAnnieRichDec 25, 2010
So Christians have a right to argue their beliefs, but I as an Atheist can't for fear of being a dick? Do you see the hypocrisy?
chrisvazquez1Dec 26, 2010
No, you can argue your beliefs, but imposing them onto me still makes you a dick. The one being a hypocrite is you. You complain about it but you do it regardless.
Dick.
sunuvDec 19, 2010
Mmmm, I came looking through the comments just so I could lick your sweet, sweet conservative tears.
jdenzerDec 19, 2010
And what specific laws took away our money, and don't say the ones that raised our taxes? B/c your beloved Reagan raised them 11 times.
What specific law took away our right to eat Pizza, b/c the last time I check Americans like pizza and I had some the other day?
Can you point to the law that says the word 'God' is offensive?
And finally which party wants to take away the freedom?
For woman to have an abortion
For gays to marry
For gays to serve the military
For Muslims to build a Mosque anywhere
phillaholicDec 19, 2010
"And finally which party wants to take away the freedom?
For woman to have an abortion
For gays to marry
For gays to serve the military
For Muslims to build a Mosque anywhere"
It's not a party thing. It's just the collective members of the Christian faith that want to force their faith on everyone else, who primarily happen to be Republicans.
aristotle0dudeDec 19, 2010
Laws cost money to enact. Abortions cost money. Buy a damn condom and use it for crying out loud. It is cheaper and more responsible. Take personal responsibility for your own actions and stop expecting the tax payers to bail you out.
Muslims are killing people right now for either leaving Islam or refusing to convert to Islam.
You have the freedom to be an assh**e because a bunch of these christians that you hate so much thought it important for everyone to have freedom of religion and freedom of speech.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youaretooDec 19, 2010
Yea, because every time an abortion is done, its because the woman forgot to use a condom. No mention at all about the possibility of the woman being raped, the condom breaking, the child having some type of disease, or about a hundred other reasons a woman would get an abortion.
arschgaudiDec 19, 2010
No, but I'd wager the majority of abortions are because it's inconvenient.
cosmicsurferDec 19, 2010
Hey arsch, your complete misogynist ignorance is showing,. Show the stats...come on...prove that abortion is only for 'convenience"
Unless, of course, you are defining death, rape, disability, deformation, disease, poverty, starvation as "inconvenience"...but the inconvenience tends to be more an issue of your inconvenience of looking at reality
dukediggemDec 19, 2010
Stats for convenience:
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
"Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control."
Show the stats proving otherwise.
aristotle0dudeDec 19, 2010
The stats don't lie. Most abortions are done for birth control. Speaking of misogynist, any guy who fully supports abortion at the drop of a hat is a true misogynist. It is the man's responsibility to use a condom and abortions can be traumatizing for a woman. If you actually care about the woman you are sleeping with at all and you don't want to start a family, be responsible and use a condom. Also suggest that she use a diaphragm and spermicide.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicDec 20, 2010
It is not the man's responsibility to wear a condom and more than it is the woman's responsibility to take the pill. It's both their responsibilities to make conscious informed decisions about birth control methods.
cosmicsurferDec 19, 2010
hey..If you are male you don't get a vote on what a woman does with her body or if she chooses to allow a parasitic growth to feed on her until it pops out.
The fight AGAINST abortion is predominately a male domination game over women and the women who support that male domination don't know any better...willful ignorance "for the power and the glory " of a deity made in man's image.
aristotle0dudeDec 19, 2010
Wow. A parasitic growth? If some woman thinks that way about a foetus then maybe she should get her tubes cut because obviously she has no interest in having children.
Abortions should only be funded by the tax payer in the case of rape or incest. Full stop. BIrth control? Condoms are cheaper and so are diaphragm and spermicide. Abortions for "birth control" should not be covered by the tax payer. If two people are too stupid to use protection then they should pay for their screw up.
It should not be up to the tax payer in any country to pay for the stupidity of others who cannot be bothered to use protection.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
SweetAnnieRichDec 19, 2010
I'm pro-choice. That said:
Parasitic is definitely the wrong word.
"If you are male you don't get a vote on what a woman does with her body" - It takes two people (a male and a female) to create a baby. I have every right to vote on abortion matters.
miklkitDec 19, 2010
The only form of birth control you are for is abstinence. Tell me how that worked out for the Palin family?
salvysahagunDec 20, 2010
Ya but I'll agree with all of that except abortion.
Thats Murder
imdickieDec 20, 2010
"It's not a party thing. It's just the collective members of the Christian faith that want to force their faith on everyone else, who primarily happen to be Republicans."
That is a completely inaccurate statement. Prior to Kennedy Christians tended to be Democratic which aligned better with the humanitarian aspect of Christianity. In fact, it was Christian Democrats that got Kennedy the nomination in the first place. It wasn't until after Kennedy that Republican scumbag strategists starting courting the Christian community.
Please do not confuse the words Christian, Republican, Religion, and Faith. They are not interchangeable. Saying people with a Christian faith want to force their faith on everyone else and are Republican is akin to saying collective members of the Democratic party want to give away all money and force everyone to be Communists, who happen to be Atheists.
phillaholicDec 23, 2010
I wasn't speaking of fifty years ago. I wasn't alive then. It's also not an inaccurate statement at all. I'm not confusing the words Christian, Republican, Religion or Faith. I said that there's nothing about the Republican party that's against things like abortion, gay rights or the right to build a religious institution on private property. I linked those things to CERTAIN Christians that feel it is against their faith and want to force that notion on the rest of the country. Those Christians are almost all coming from the Republican party. I do not recall a single one from the Democratic party. I don't know how that was confusing.
Closed AccountDec 20, 2010
It's not even a faith thing, it's just a bigot thing.
The Bible says nothing about doing God's job and forcing his will on others.
ajajadudeDec 19, 2010
You do realize that, by definition, the Founding Fathers could not have been conservative? If they were, they wouldn't have pushed their "radical" agenda that the world had never seen before. Something new and conservatism simply does work well together.
bdog2g2Dec 19, 2010
shhhhh....keep saying s**t like this and it will be as if a million wingnut voices cried out and were suddenly silenced
hyperrealDec 19, 2010
The thing is, and what others have already mentioned, is that what was considered "liberal" in those days, would actually be more "conservative" today. Yes in those days, freedom, the right to vote, and the Constitution were pretty radical ideas.Today the founding fathers' views would be more along the lines of Libertarian.
hyperrealDec 20, 2010
@ajajadude I think i misread your comment. But oh well digg seems to have deleted my comment anyway. Seems like something fishy happens on digg everytime libertarianism comes up...
phillaholicDec 23, 2010
You cannot define the founding father's in today's terminology of Liberal or Conservative. They were much more libertarian. They also for the most part were Christian, or at least nothing like what most of Christian American likes to think they were. It's fairly reasonable to assume that the majority of the founders wouldn't agree with either party.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
What bulls**t. If our founding fathers had been conservative, not only would they have not rejected the establishment, they would've worshiped and adored it. Maybe you need to invest in a f**king dictionary if you think liberal = pro-establishment, anti-freedom.
sepelesterDec 20, 2010
Liberals want to take away freedom, money and food? Omg, I need to stop calling myself liberal, that's awful!
Hey guys! Alan says liberals are against freedom money and food! They also think "God" is an offensive word! Glenn Beck is my uncle, I eat poo!
JustSayNoPartyDec 20, 2010
Alan, I think you'll find that you are getting dugg down for good reasons. When you make logical rational statements, I digg you up. When you go over the edge, I digg you down. Generally, Digg users are moderates who support strong logical points. Then, we have the Patriots and their opposition that often just go 'too far'.
FirstMackerelDec 18, 2010
While his Wikipedia article calls Thomas Paine a "founding father," I think that's a stretch. He did not participate directly in the Constitutional Convention, which produced a very conservative document.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njatc99Dec 18, 2010
Well, why don't you talk to Glen Beck and OTHER CONSERVATIVES in the Tea Party that have referenced him as a founding father
FirstMackerelDec 19, 2010
Well, most of them think Jesus Christ was a founding father, so...
cawpinDec 20, 2010
@ntatc99 and all others who share this asinine point of view: Glen Beck and the like are as far from Conservative as the liberals they claim to hate. They have twisted the meaning of conservative to mean "only things I like and agree with" instead of the original "leave everybody alone" which is what true conservatism is. *I* am a true conservative and I can't stand them. I also can't stand such idiotic claims as this article makes.
chrisvazquez1Dec 19, 2010
What makes it a "conservative document?" The 3/4'ths compromise? You do realize that was the only conservative part of the document? And that that part was added to get the South to join the federation?
jefftsDec 19, 2010
I think you mean the 3/5ths Compromise. And you do understand that the other choice was to count all slaves (who couldn't vote) or not at all.
By doing the former, it would have granted the South, the primary slave holders, an even greater majority of votes in Congress and would, therefore, prevent, or make very difficult, the passage of legislation to end slavery.
By doing the latter, it may have prevented the North from joining the Union who generally only wanted to count the free inhabitants of each state because of the power it would grant the South by doing otherwise.
Therefore, the Northern and Southern states compromised on counting only 3/5ths of the slaves for enumeration purposes in order to help satisfy the wishes of those who opposed slavery and those who didn't. By following that path, it gave the delegates who opposed slavery hope that down the line, legislation could be passed that would end the practice of slavery.
chrisvazquez1Dec 19, 2010
I apologize. I thought something was wrong in my statement before I posted it and Digg's mediocre edit times wouldn't let me change it to fifths.
And yes I did know that. I took basic U.S. history. XP
jefftsDec 19, 2010
"And yes I did know that. I took basic U.S. history. XP"
Most on Digg do not. And most on Digg have not.
FirstMackerelDec 19, 2010
What makes it a conservative document it the paranoia that anyone might be able to do anything. It structured the government in a way that made it extremely unlikely that any drastic changes could be made in the law, thus assuring the status quo. That's the definition of "conservative," more or less.
phillaholicDec 19, 2010
His works essentially influenced the entire Revolution. I think we can give him at least Honorary Founding Father status.
novenatorDec 18, 2010
Not just liberals, but *radical* liberals who stood up to an authoritarian police state that was in league with corporate exploitation (see: Tea Party and East India Company). Revolutionaries are rarely right wing.
cosmicsurferDec 18, 2010
radical extremist revolutionaries demanding accountability and overthrowing the government..
falstaffDec 19, 2010
It's exactly my disdain for a corporatist state that makes me believe that what we need is less government and less control. If our government masters can force us to buy private health insurance, then we are entirely beholden to whatever corporations make the largest campaign donations, and that product becomes the next mandate.
No, the current crop of Republicans are certainly not the answer, but anybody who tells you that the current crop of Democrats ARE, is a blind partisan hack.
Bottom line, government masters are no better than corporate masters, because they eventually become the same thing. That's not the Republican platform, but it certainly isn't "liberal," either.
phillaholicDec 19, 2010
What do you think will happen if those corporatists get to do whatever they want? I'm not seeing how your getting to that conclusion.
hipmanDec 19, 2010
You are one great spinmaster nov.Too bad it's so transparent.
skywiseDec 19, 2010
Like Mao Tse Tung? Pol Pot? Chavez? Castro?
xay90Dec 19, 2010
This is funny considering we cannot look all the way back. You cannot look at it as liberal or conservative
crymtyphonDec 19, 2010
You are probably right. There are too many subjective
judgements to make.
But that does not mean it is not useful to try.
Tea-party fools in three-cornered hats, must not be
allowed to seize the credit for the acts and virtues of
our common political ancestry.
xay90Dec 19, 2010
I can agree with you on that. I don't believe the founding fathers were a particular niche of American.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
Liberals, progressives, or whatever phrase is coined to provide cover for thieves, is about stealing from one citizen to buy the votes of another. That's not what the founding fathers had in mind. It's a bit laughable that Libs would invoke the founding fathers to prove anything given their hatred of successful white men, or anyone who provides value..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crymtyphonDec 19, 2010
The ability to believe any evil of those you oppose,
- is not a sign of belief; but a failure of belief.
If you really believed in conservativism,
- you wouldn't need to babble slanders about liberals.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
cryn
"If you really believed in conservativism,
- you wouldn't need to babble slanders about liberals."
What !?
There was no slander, it was a statement of fact. The seminal belief of every Lib is that they, in their wisdom, have the right to steal other people's property to enrich themselves. The dependent class and the unions don't vote for Libs out of altruism, they vote for them because they are getting paid.
The ultimate hypocrisy is that they don't care that the bribes they receive for their votes are drawn out of hardship imposed on others.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
patrickbrownDec 19, 2010
You don't know the difference between fact and opinion.
Saying something doesn't make it factual.
ferretmanDec 19, 2010
Ah...such as stating the Founders were liberal?
Gotcha....saying something does INDEED not make it factual.
crymtyphonDec 19, 2010
Interpreting the 'foundng fathers' in the
terminology of today, is subjective; but useful.
But you are right; saying something does not
make it a fact.
For example, your famous reply to the
observation that the last 10 years were the hottest recorded despite record-breaking freezes?
"only armchair scientists believe in global warming".
When one has no fact in reply,
- one settes for shuffling the labels.
SpeakOfTheDevilDec 19, 2010
@crytyphoon
Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. In a sense, both parties are thieves. So who is more morally justified?
-The thief that steals from the rich and share the loot with the community
or
-The thief that is rich and steal from the poor to enrich themselves?
In politics and in elections, it is but to choose the better of the two devils.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
SpeakOfTheDevilDec 19, 2010
Correction: statement should be aimed at Tazikirue.
crymtyphonDec 19, 2010
Too late!
Your stone hit my house!
No prob. It's plexiglass; it just bounced off.
hipmanDec 19, 2010
Cool.Hey let's steal some of your money.There are homeless and starving people who need it, you know.
youareretardedDec 19, 2010
If you steal from him he will be poor, steal from the rich and they will still be rich.
particleman420Dec 19, 2010
i've told you this before, taxes arent theft.
but dont let silly things like definitions and acurate words get in the way of your master's will.
bdog2g2Dec 19, 2010
tax: "A contribution made by people to fund the services provided by the government, such as transport, education or health services. The most common tax is income tax, which is a contribution made from income. The amount is usually a percentage of income that is determined by the amount of income earned."
crymtyphonDec 19, 2010
People don't actualy live in glass houses.
If they did, they would not have the habit of throwing stones.
Just so, the fake summation of any two sides in
an issue, as being equal villains?
- is a sloppy, lazy excuse not to choose a side.
Conservative economics is not theft; but it
does not benefit the majority of a nation.
Liberal economics is not theft; - and we have
more than a century of practical history to
show it benefits the majority.
Throw all the stones you want, @speakofthedevil;
- the walls aren't glass.
particleman420Dec 19, 2010
not only do you not know what you're talking about, you dont even know what "fact" means.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
One of the consequences of the abundance created by capitalism is the useless and unproductive thrive. They are fed via the confiscation of other people's wealth. The Democrat party exists solely to facilitate this theft, enrich themselves, and pander to an ever increasing, and ever demanding, mob of panderers and low lifes.
Stop feeding them and they'll stop multiplying. The country will be better off.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crymtyphonDec 19, 2010
There is no single nation that says,
'let the poor starve', - that is anything but
a hell-hole.
Every 21st century industrial democracy?
- strives to keep its citizens from the pit of poverty.
You mistake cruelty for economic efficiency.
We do not.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
Crym
Climb down off your soap box and open your eyes.
Nobodies suggesting the truly needy should go without. What I'm suggesting is we stop the institutionalized theft and bribery practiced by Democrats to stay in power. If we stop these bandits from siphoning off the hard earned cash of others to enrich themselves and their supporters, we could afford to give everyone a house !!
Immediately put every woman on public assistance on birth control. To get your check, you have to take your pill. We'll stop the growth of the dependent class in it's tracks in one generation just by refusing to encourage these people's irresponsibility.
We need a zero tolerance policy towards illegal aliens. Remove the the rwards for braking our law and they will leave. We'll save hundreds of billiions, perhaps trillions.
Gut the unions, in particular the public sector unions. They're the fattest pigs at the trough. Immediately create laws that prohibit the paying of pension or any other like benefits, medical to name one, to these people if they can't be paid for. No more borrowing or printing money to bribe these fat cats to vote for Libs.
Se can turn the country around so it represents the vision of individual freedom the founders foresaw. We just have to have the stomach for honest solutions.
crymtyphonDec 20, 2010
Little tiny questions:
1) has any nation every done what you suggest?
DId it work?
2) Why is it that the nations who are most successful,
are the ones who do what you condemn?
Why is it that countries that
work to help their poor, have less poverty?
I suggest you get Up on your soap box.
Preach to America your utopian dream.
Until then, we will consider what has worked,
as Plan A.
crymtyphonDec 19, 2010
From tazikirue:
"The seminal belief of every Lib is that they, in their wisdom, have the right to steal other people's property to enrich themselves"
Good example!
If you believed in conservative government,
you would tell us how it is more efficient than the
strong-government liberal policies that the U.S.
and European nations have followed the last 70 years.
But you don't.
You sum up 'liberalism' as theft.
Which demonstrates my point.
You don't believe in conservativism.
You just like to spit at liberals.
njatc99Dec 19, 2010
so I guess when Paine made the call that all property owners OWE $$$ to the non property owners, that makes him a thief?
crymtyphonDec 19, 2010
No; It made him a believer in the 'social contract' of Reuseu.
Rusow. Ruesoue. I refuse to google the spelling.
Ruesue. Ruso. Rousseau. Reuseuo.
Choose one.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
jesus, at least the man portrayed in the bible, was a liberal
there is no mistaking that
what say you religious right?
PyriteGenieDec 19, 2010
This: http://bit.ly/et38lM
grammerpantsDec 19, 2010
BORING!
aristotle0dudeDec 19, 2010
Illiterate.
particleman420Dec 19, 2010
links arent answers, they are an excuse for the ignorant to not have to defend their stupid views.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
ah yes!
the ol' "find an opinion ridden article and present as fact" trick
with a twist though. you took the time to make sure to be able to monitor how many people look at it.
you may claim its to make the link shorter, but we all know that you are obsessing like crazy over who looks at your links.
for all those who want to see what this delusional person linked to without giving him the orgasmic satisfaction of seeing his click numbers go up, here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2258938/posts
wow man. you sure saved us from looking at a huge link.
laborerDec 19, 2010
Wow, realy. Freerepublic?
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
hey, bitch to PyriteGenie, not me
particleman420Dec 19, 2010
bahahaha! thats why i dont go to random links.
thank you banned!
SamPenningtonDec 19, 2010
Pyrite/R.J. Carter is a member of the Digg Patriots, he even admits to it -- and worse, take a look at this article and especially the accompanying video, and make up your own minds on this guy:
http://digg.com/news/world_news/Cyber_TerrorismRing_Revealed_Study_In_Depths_Of_Depravity
darkwater37Dec 19, 2010
Without reading thought it, the title smells and sounds like liberal BS. It is my impression that the founding fathers were neither liberal or conservative, both political viewpoints have restrictions on the freedom and liberty of the people and I don't believe for a moment that they were in either camp.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Dec 19, 2010
"Without reading thought it, the title smells and sounds like liberal BS."
i think you mean "through" but that says a lot about you. "i dont need to read it to know that i'll disagree, and disagreeing with something makes me right and it irrelevant"
sorry, that's not how it works and is also why the country is in such a f**ked up state.
hipmanDec 19, 2010
Considering the tittle is %100 wrong and inaccurate, yeah, that pretty much shows how that it is s**t and propaganda.Stop trying to mold and re-define the founders into your ideology.It's a pathetic argument.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Dec 19, 2010
who are you to decide it's wrong?
you are nothing but a troll, you dont get to dictate what is true (anything anti-liberal) and what is false (anything that isnt pro-****servative)
you and your fuxnews masters can try to rewrite history all you want, but it doesnt change the actual facts (not that you're familiar with that term or anything)
hipmanDec 19, 2010
1)There are no facts in this article 2).You are a moron.That is all.
particleman420Dec 19, 2010
you have decreed it so, so it is true.
at least you're half right, there are indeed facts in the article.
yibbutkeenDec 19, 2010
At the time, sure they were liberal by that era's definition, not believing in the "divine right of kings" and such. But the values they held in most other respects are certainly considered conservative by today's standards. Can you imagine a discussion about gay rights for example?
hipmanDec 19, 2010
I don't know...did they actually ever comment on that?.
yibbutkeenDec 19, 2010
No, it was basically trying to use Paine's writings to justify wealth redistribution
phillaholicDec 19, 2010
They were Liberal, though today you'd be thinking about Libertarianism. The current Liberal party in the United States is not the same Liberalism that was seen during the American Revolution.
hipmanDec 19, 2010
Well yeah, the meaning of the word is significantly different than back then.
veggiecircleDec 19, 2010
interesting
kalvinbDec 19, 2010
The liberals of today are not living up to the definition of "liberal."
youareretardedDec 19, 2010
Neither are the conservatives.
adaguyDec 19, 2010
exactly! Everyone wants to call themselves a conservatives, but there are damned few of them out there.
laborerDec 19, 2010
You are right. And neither are conservatives. We must both come together to defeat the corporate interest in government and create a transparent and truly democratic government. Do not stand divided brother. We will lose that way.
hipmanDec 19, 2010
politicususa has hit a new low in hyperbole and ridiculousness.And that was no easy feat.
tyhoDec 19, 2010
This is the only site you even see their crap on. If it weren't for the buddy system, you wouldn't even see it here.
They are bottom-feeders farming for clicks.
mrkmrkDec 19, 2010
From what I can tell, the founding fathers were pro-freedom. This simple statement precluded their being either conservative or liberal, because neither of those groups truly believes in freedom.
"The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hipmanDec 19, 2010
Yeah 'cause it's the right that supports centralized control.What ignoramus said this?.
jugglingjonDec 19, 2010
I'm thinking they would have been disappointed that we file ourselves into two pre-packaged sets of political stances.
wossnamexDec 19, 2010
What does it matter what the founding fathers were? Shouldn't we base decisions on sound arguments, not what position the person who made the argument holds? Argument by Founding Father is just another one for the logical fallacy list.
That said, this Thomas Paine dude seems to make a lot of sense to me.
youareretardedDec 19, 2010
What do you do when it seems like rational arguments cannot be had? Looking towards the past to find our future may be the only option.
jman491Dec 19, 2010
Obvious title is obvious. Liberal and conservatives are two relative terms only given meaning by circumstance. Yes, in the time that they existed the men who founded this country were liberal, because they were opposed to the status quo of the time, e.g. monarchy, high taxes, religious persecution. Using today's definition of the word(s), it's my opinion they would actually describe themselves as Libertarian. My guess is that if they had thought it was the government's place to get knee deep into social issues on any side of the aisle, there probably couldn't have been a union in the first place, given the practice of slavery in the South.
tyhoDec 19, 2010
Slavery gets s**t done...
http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/slavery-gets-s**t-done/?xid=b040fe89-2500-b864-e5bc-3ca8b41a3b87
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
gool old politicususa...the joke of the internet
knawxDec 19, 2010
Yesterday's Liberal, is today's Conservative. That's how it will always be.
synchroDec 19, 2010
Love it when people try and take modern labels, like liberal and place them on historical situations.
s**t by this definition, the Nazi's were liberal in some ways. Heck so were the Bolsheviks.
So what does this prove? Nothing.
hipmanDec 19, 2010
communism is a left ideology, so.....
aristotle0dudeDec 19, 2010
So was the Nazi Party which stood for "Nation Socialist Worker Party" in german. They were essentially a labour party with a nationalist bent.
crymtyphonDec 19, 2010
The facists wiped out the socialists and communists.
They were considered a far-right political party.
The terms 'left' and 'right' were used then,
and meant what we mean by them now.
Hitler was supported by conservatives in europe and
america, as a bullwark against russian communism.
The first fighters against fascism, were leftists and
liberals in the Spanish Civil war
Some of them were american liberal volunteers.
If you told an american or englishman in the 1940s that
hitler was a 'socialist', - they would have thought you
were ignorant; or a nut.
aristotle0dudeDec 19, 2010
Modern Americans have screwed up definitions of "Conservative" and "Liberal".
The Democrats are no more "Liberal" than the modern Republicans are "Conservative".
In the past, liberal was synonymous with "lazier faire" economics. It had nothing to do with "reformers" fighting for more socialism or laws for loud special interest groups or calls for more regulation.
tyhoDec 19, 2010
Libs Conservatives and the founders used to believed in limited government that would get out of our way and let Americans live their lives.
Instead, today, we have government telling us that we can't sell cupcakes at school and banning happy meals and s**t. Gov. has gotten so overbearing it's ridonkulous.
I'd like to take people that think we need bigger and more expansive government and ship them off to N. Korea, Cuba or Venezuela where they can get their wishes fulfilled.
nullcodesDec 19, 2010
I do believe in laissez faire economics for everything except healthcare. No person should be unable to afford and get healthcare. Better to charge for usage of streets and sidewalks than have no way for poor people to get health care. It's as important as having fire, military, and police and justice services for non taxpayers.
aristotle0dudeDec 19, 2010
Most Canadians, including conservatives believe in approximately the same thing. However, the free market still does require a minimum level of prudent regulation to keep it healthy. All regulations are not created equal.
Much of the trouble in the US economy was not caused by a lack of regulation in general but rather too much regulation in some areas and not enough in others.
The Canadian economy was saved from the immediate effects of the meltdown because banks here are not allowed to "invent" money by selling off their debt on the financial markets in the same way that banks in the US can. Banks are only allowed to borrow from the Bank of Canada and depositors accounts.
ferretmanDec 19, 2010
Heh....er, NO, but it's an interesting take I've not seen Diggerals try before. Certainly an unusual article, though based on my readings of various articles and papers from the Founders the author is clearly cherry-picking his "proof".
Jefferson was probably the "most liberal" of the various Founders (and technically he wasn't a Founding Father though he's often thought of as one), but by today's standards he'd be more Libertarian than anything else. Washington was flat conservative; Hamilton was a Big Government guy but his writing reveal that he'd be appalled at the Pelosi/Reid/Obama mess.
Buried for inaccuracy.
Ferret
superkendallDec 19, 2010
The article misses a basic fact. Consider this:
"In fact, Paine directly challenges the justification for pure private property with no community responsibilities:"
Conservatives are all about COMMUNITY responsibilities. NOT sending money far away to someone well outside the community. Paine was obviously arguing for something like power for local communities, for states rights. Not federal power.
In the end he is the ultimate Tea Party member because he wishes the community to have the power and money.
aristotle0dudeDec 19, 2010
Conservatives are also all about giving to charity in their local communities. This is especially true in countries like Canada.
Your typical conservative is not heartless, they just do not believe in the state's ability to help the less fortunate efficiently or effectively and believe in giving everyone the opportunity to better themselves.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
Finally, an interesting political discussion on digg.
sacrabosDec 19, 2010
Will Rogers said it best: "I remember with Liberal use to mean with your own money". And with that statement, Will clearly identified the problem with Liberals today.
roy5000x2Dec 19, 2010
Back then, wasn't being liberal completely different than it is today?
tyhoDec 19, 2010
Even just 50 years ago Liberal was completely different in meaning. Jack Kennedy was a Liberal after all. He was a Liberal that believed in and stood up for American exceptionalism. He took on the USSR. Liberals didn't spend all their day explaining how America was so flawed it had to be completely reworked to resemble European socialists democracy.
fannyealexanderDec 19, 2010
it's right
pinkfish411Dec 19, 2010
The Founding Fathers were a fairly diverse group. Trying to pass off Thomas Paine as representative of them all is downright deceptive. Of course, both sides of the political coin are guilty of that crap, so I guess it doesn't surprise me.
laborerDec 19, 2010
The founding fathers were neither liberal nor conservative. They were supporters of the most effective system for humanity at that time. It is a new time. The people are more ready to rule themselves. Democracy through an educated people, using the internet. A new system can be created. One that will create a future for America. An America where there will be jobs for growing crowds of 20 somethings. The first matter of importance is mass federal spending for infrastructure projects, to create jobs. Massive mag levs systems to get people from Seattle to New York in less then 7 hours. A national health system, a national internet high school equivalency and vocational school, increase in science spending. Increased science and engineering job create new tech industry,. Its possible. Take hold of the future.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njschultzDec 19, 2010
This post demonstrates the ignorance of the average left-winger both in their lack of knowledge of English and of American history/political science. Our founding fathers (capitalization optional) were not Liberal they were liberal. The distinction between changing the case from lower to upper-case might seem small but the meaning is huge! I am not going to go into a long explanation of what these huge differences are...because it is obvious that an comprehensive understanding of American history and changing ideological trends in the U.S. is YOUR job. Damn this pisses me off...when the self-righteous spew THEIR hate...and ermmm...coincidentally continue to walk in lock-step as moronic lemmings over the cliff. If you want to start an argument get your facts correct. Okay?
crymtyphonDec 19, 2010
That was wonderful.
You give a long explanation of why you decline to longishly explain;
telling us you will not explain because comprehension is OUR job;
- then slip into a scream about the self-righteaous spewing hate;
and end with a pius command for lock-step lemmings to get their facts straight.
I give you an A+ and a smiley face!
Unless you were serious.
Closed AccountDec 20, 2010
Can you spot the English mistakes that you made?
"ignorance of the average left-winger both in their lack of knowledge"
"Our founding fathers (capitalization optional) were not Liberal they were liberal."
"lower to upper-case might seem small but the meaning is huge!"
"because it is obvious that an comprehensive understanding of American history"
"If you want to start an argument get your facts correct."
----
"Damn this pisses me off...when the self-righteous spew THEIR hate."
I know what you mean.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crymtyphonDec 20, 2010
'Cochonnerie' means to be pig-like.
Pigs are actualy quite smart; but I never thought of them as
sarcastic before.
dustbunny52Dec 19, 2010
Thomas Paine was probably the most liberal of the founding fathers. Others were more cautious. Adams wanted a strong federal government. He did not trust the people completely. Jefferson said that he worried that democracy would fall as soon as people found out that they could vote themselves money. Isn't this kind of what is happening now? The rich have figured out that they can vote themselves large sums of money which is completely unsustainable. It was known from the beginning that the Bush tax cuts were unsustainable. To keep the numbers from betraying this fact they had to limit them to 10 years. The tax cuts were unsustainable before we threw on 2 unpaid wars and one very large unpaid for medicare drug bill.
bobcat7407Dec 19, 2010
The rich aren't the only ones voting themselves large sums of money.
thecoolestguyDec 20, 2010
Voting for tax cuts is not voting yourself large sums of money, it's voting to not have your money confiscated. Given there was 0% income tax during the founders' day, I'm sure they wouldn't have minded if people called for tax cuts with today's income tax rates.
The giving yourself money is in asking for welfare benefits and free medical care from the government.
thecoolestguyDec 20, 2010
And of course the hundreds of billions to bailout the banks (which the Republican leadership and the majority of Democrats supports, while the majority of Republicans in the House opposed).
tyhoDec 19, 2010
LOL what do you expect from the partisan politicususa.com.
The truth is there has always been opposition parties in the US since its founding. That's why our system was designed with the checks and balances that keep any party from running roughshod over the other.
I have never seen an intelligent post on that website. Truly a waste of bandwidth.
njatc99Dec 19, 2010
So a national pension system isn't liberal? What planet do you honestly live on?
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
Libertarian? Yes.
Liberal? HA!
angrycat70Dec 19, 2010
This thread is so f**king FAILED.
At the time of the founding fathers, the difference between a liberal and a conservative was whether or not you beat you slaves.
If you want to call that liberal, then be my guest. It doesn't make it true. It just makes you a f**k-tard.
njatc99Dec 19, 2010
Social security isn't liberal? That is what Paine called for...but you wouldnt know that because it was at the bottom of the article...and your brain hemmoraged after the fist paragraph
seijinumaruDec 19, 2010
Funny how the U.S. is rather selective about what ideas we took from the Founding Fathers...
dudecoolnameDec 19, 2010
They were libertarian.
brumbarDec 19, 2010
It is almost laughable, you ignorantly pathetic s**t heels.
First, the founders of the United States could have given a rats ass less about the political appellation Liberal, as it did not come into use until the latter 19th Century in England.
Second, you forget that the population on the American Colonies were roughly divided into 3rd's. 1/3rd wanted to be free from England's rule. 1/3rd were actively loyalists to the monarchy. Finally 1/3 just wanted to be left alone and not get involved in either side.
You attribute 20th century political philosophy onto 18th century values and say 'hey a win for our side. 'They was like us!' Not even close to the mark.
mikelistDec 19, 2010
the fact that they weren't called liberals in those days says nothing about the values they espoused. liberal and libertarian have the same root, which means free, as in freedom, not free as in free beer. what system treats the rich better than the american system? only those who still espouse an aristocracy, which is not at all the same as wealth.
brumbarDec 19, 2010
That pretty concisely nails it. The quote 'Liberal' of the late Eighteenth, early Nineteenth Century, would probably take one look at the 'Statist Socialists' of today, pop a gasket, grab the musket or the Shillelagh and set about changing philosophies the direct way.
JustSayNoPartyDec 20, 2010
Since I don't watch FOX, is Statist Socialist the new term? It comes up as the go to phrase lately.
crymtyphonDec 20, 2010
What happened to 'libtard'?
I kinda liked that one.
It sounds like a lizzard in a leotard; which
is cooler than Static Socialist cling, or whatever.
brumbarDec 21, 2010
Statist is a specific descriptor of an individual or group of people who advocate for a domineering centralized government, preferably with themselves in positions of class or status as betters than the masses.
A Socialist is a polite word for those who advocate Communism or in other words, a form of a supreme central government. A National Socialist advocate a different form of a supreme central government.
Differing political philosophies, headed down parallel tracks and essentially accomplishing the same goal. For example, the last sentence is why war between the allies, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in the late 1930's, was virtually inevitable.
They are all however, Statists.
JustSayNoPartyDec 21, 2010
Nice description. Thank you. In that case, I don't think 'liberals' want that. However, they certainly fit that definition better than conservatives.
roboaaronDec 24, 2010
Both left and right are statist, anyone who wants to use the power of the state to fix everything is a statist.
Statism is a form of slavery. In fact anyone you isn't a libertarian believes in at least partial slavery.
bigtony2toneDec 19, 2010
Compared to Puritanical England at the time, yes they were liberal.
nullcodesDec 19, 2010
Like Obama wants health care, the founding fathers wanted to force 18-40 year olds to buy weapons. What was that act .. the something Militia act.
tao52nycDec 19, 2010
It was USC 10 (1791), which declared that every able-bodied male between the ages of 17-45 (up to 61 with prior military experience), was to be considered part of "the Militia", organized on a State by State basis. If called upon to serve, in a national emergency (like foreign invasion), all were required to muster at a pre-determined place, and BRING THEIR OWN GUN WITH THEM. Everyone owned a gun or two back then, it was a necessary instrument of day-to-day survival.
As there was never intended to be a standing, permanent, professional Army, this was the default position - citizen soldiers, protecting their lands from attack. This is where people also misread the 2nd Amendment - by "well regulated militia", they meant well equipped, not well controlled, which is the popular meaning of "regulation" today.
That law is still on the books, BTW...are you keeping your AR-15 in good working order in case you're called to duty?
nullcodesDec 19, 2010
They created the Postal service (something that teabaggers would protest if someone came up with today) .. they built a canal system etc. highways .. all of that with tax money .. hell they even passed a law that sailors must have health insurance and established the Marine Hospital Service.
patrickhenryiiDec 19, 2010
Actually, they did it with excise taxes and custom duties. There was NO income tax, payroll tax, sales tax or any of the other taxes.
nullcodesDec 19, 2010
Uh, an excise tax is a sales tax in a way if you think about it. Last I checked teabaggers wont support increased taxation on fuel or cigarettes. But I digress. The point is that government actually provided services other than defense. Which is the only government services teabaggers support (well they support offense and torture without fair trials, not defense).
The federal govt. can make it impossible to do anything via hundreds of massive excise taxes, so be careful what you wish for -- if your beef is the method of taxation that's silly .. the govt. will get its revenue some way.
And btw I don't think there are federal sales taxes today (which some of you teabaggers support).
patrickhenryiiDec 20, 2010
My point was that the government, because it was much much smaller functioned on much much less income. My point was not about our tax system.
(never mind that sale tax and excise tax are NOT the same thing)
tao52nycDec 19, 2010
Plus, in order for the USPS to have a monopoly, Congress had to first pass a law banning previously existing private postal services. 19th Century Constitutional scholar and writer Lysander Spooner operated such a service in New England in the 1830's. He was profiting at 5 cents a stamp when the USPS was charging 10 cents. He had to be put out of business by an act of Congress in order to prop up USPS inefficiency. Even back then! LOL
calgaryjayDec 19, 2010
Ya sure they were. Dumb libtards.
JustSayNoPartyDec 20, 2010
Thanks for participating. And what a fine and intelligent comment.
linuxpersonDec 19, 2010
Many of the founding fathers were classic liberals which is essentially equivalent to a right-libertarian minarchist.
See: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchist
Note that classic liberals share very few common beliefs with contemporary liberals. For example, classic liberals believe in free markets void of coercive regulations. In contrast, most contemporary liberals believe in controlled markets where government uses coercion to regulate private enterprise.
viol999Dec 19, 2010
How does the author get founding father"s" by the writings of one man? The founding fathers were mostly all dedicated wealthy capitalists, landowners and slave owners.
jsffiveDec 19, 2010
They were liberal... not "neo-" liberal. There's a HUGE difference.
Please find ANYWHERE in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, where he advocates Social Security, or Medicare, or ANY of the platform planks of the modern liberal movement. I'm willing to bet that you can't find it.
And yes, Thomas Paine DID advocate property taxes... that's not the problem. Property taxes are provided for in the Constitution. The thing that the founders wanted to make nearly impossible to collect was DIRECT taxes. That's why the Congress passed the Sixteenth Amendment, which basically says they can tax anyone any damn way they want.
THAT... had nothing to do with "liberalism"... it had EVERYTHING to do with SOCIALISM.
mikelistDec 19, 2010
"Please find ANYWHERE in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, where he advocates Social Security, or Medicare, or ANY of the platform planks of the modern liberal movement. I'm willing to bet that you can't find it."
there were many eventualities that aren't specifically described in the constitution or bill of rights, but there are no proscriptions against them either. you might also have noticed a phrase "for the common good" that describes the intent of good government they envisioned.
in those days, the rich not only paid taxes, large property owners and very wealthy were expected to field or support a militia, which is a much bigger onus than any tax bill any individual has gotten in a very long time, if ever. that is the origin of the status of commissioned officer.
citizenship is a highly disregarded trait these days.
bobcat7407Dec 19, 2010
Actually the tenth amendment prohibited lots of the stuff the feds do now. The "common good" phrase is in the preamble, which means that the rest of the Constitution is how you accomplish it. It's not a stand-alone thing.
thecoolestguyDec 20, 2010
---in those days, the rich not only paid taxes, ---
Back then there was 0% income tax, 0% estate tax, and federal spending made up 3% of GDP, versus 25% today. It was a limited government.
mikelistDec 20, 2010
i hope you aren't using that 0% federal taxes thing to suggest that we return to those thrilling days of yesteryear.
yes, there were taxes collected.taxes on the (arbitrarily assessed) value of your property, rather than income, was the standard of the day, and you would have been taxed yearly for the same piece of property as well as purchases of any imported goods, and even for the mere privilege of living in that colony.
taxes were levied and collected by the individual colonies, there was no federal government to speak of. defense of the populus was mostly non-existent or self-defense, british press gangs operated freely along the coast, colonies disallowed persons of certain religious beliefs, if natives burned your farm, tough. you are correct in saying it (federal government) was a minimal government, in fact largely not capable of policing the territories it held jurisdiction over. it was barely equal to the task of amassing an army to defeat the british, and press gangs continued to raid the coast, even after the revolution. yeah, i wanna go back to that government ideal.
and the commission of a militia is a tradition that goes back to european aristocracy. traditional aristocrats were expected to field a military force of a size based on the title they held.
bluenoseboyDec 19, 2010
The concept of Left versus Right didn't even exist until the French Revolution (look it up).
What CAN truthfully be said, is that the Founding Fathers were mostly "children of the Enlightenment", and most Enlightenment values are what we now describe as "liberal".
crymtyphonDec 20, 2010
well said
linuxpersonDec 20, 2010
"and most Enlightenment values are what we now describe as "liberal"."
They are now what we describe as classical liberal.