Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If The Founders of this Nation could come to the future and see what their dream had become what would they say?

i am not just talking about the mundane but serious important issues like: Foreign policies, federal/state Laws, Corporations, Lobbyist..

such things as abortion, Gay Marriage/adoption... civil rights or laws that inhibit your constitutional rights, Patriot Act.... school reforms, privatizing government jobs...etc etc..

you can pick a controversial topic and give us your opinion of what a founding father would say based on their views and history..

Founding fathers like:

Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Hancock so on and so on...

here, i'll start with one: what would the they think about us going to war with iraq/ afghanistan knowing the facts that are out there..

what would they have said about the korean war and interfering due to the supposed communistic threat to the world ?

They'd probably be like,

"Why is that ****** wearing a suit?!"

why the **** do americans care so much what those dead aholes from centuries ago would think? It's bizarre.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
They'd probably be like,

"Why is that ****** wearing a suit?!"

Hahahaa. Good one.

Originally posted by 753
why the **** do americans care so much what those dead aholes from centuries ago would think? It's bizarre.

Read more history.

"A slave is president? Ridiculous!"

"They found a more impressive way to copy their text!"

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=524299&highlight=Founding+fathers+forumid%3A11

Damn you, Mairuzu!! Damn you all to hell!!jr_shakefist

I feel like a major debbie downer

I enjoyed the original one is all stoned

Best answer from previous thread:

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
Benjamin Franklin:

"How can you men and women allied yourselves with the Tyrant King George?!"


George Washington:

"I'm not crossing the Delaware again..."


John Adams:

"What is this, someone build a baseball stadium in Boston?"


Thomas Jefferson:

"Goodness! These BangBros websites have lots of beautiful negro women!"

John Jay:

"YOU LET THE CATHOLICS DO WHAT?!"

James Madison:

"I don't care if you people love the British! I want them DEAD! ALL OF THEM!"

Alexander Hamilton:

"How did the French came to hate you guys?! They loved us for kickin the British and Germans in the ass!"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Read more history. why? what would I learn?

Originally posted by 753
why? what would I learn?

If you knew more about the founding fathers then you would understand why people care so much about what they thought.

Originally posted by King Kandy
"A slave is president? Ridiculous!"

Fun fact: Washington had a clause in his will that freed every slave of his upon his death, but Jefferson didn't. So TJ would definitely wonder what the hell went wrong with America in his absence.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Fun fact: Washington had a clause in his will that freed every slave of his upon his death, but Jefferson didn't. So TJ would definitely wonder what the hell went wrong with America in his absence.
Washington would as well. There's a difference between "freeing them after you're dead" and "thinking they're equal to you". The fact that he didn't free them while he was alive should attest to that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you knew more about the founding fathers then you would understand why people care so much about what they thought.

Hmm, it seems to me that they were normal biased human being affected by their era and culture as much as by their high-minded goals.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hmm, it seems to me that they were normal biased human being affected by their era and culture as much as by their high-minded goals.

They also had a price on their head for what they did. It took balls.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They also had a price on their head for what they did. It took balls.
They had the same price on their head anyone who starts a revolution (read: most every country there is) had.

Originally posted by King Kandy
They had the same price on their head anyone who starts a revolution (read: most every country there is) had.

And what does that have to do with what I said?

They would wonder just what they're 200 years in the future.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And what does that have to do with what I said?
If you think that the reason Americans respect the founding fathers is because of the risks they went through in the revolution, I would have to wonder why you wouldn't heap the same respect on Fidel Castro. Perhaps there are other reasons for why they are respected, and rather than actually articulate them, you instead made patronizing responses like "read more history".

Originally posted by King Kandy
If you think that the reason Americans respect the founding fathers is because of the risks they went through in the revolution, I would have to wonder why you wouldn't heap the same respect on Fidel Castro. Perhaps there are other reasons for why they are respected, and rather than actually articulate them, you instead made patronizing responses like "read more history".

What is it any of your business anyway?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is it any of your business anyway?

lol. I can smell the salty aroma of your tears from here.

I don't know what theyd all be thinking about the military and shit but when it comes to food...,

"Chalupa's are awesome!!"


-Ben Franklin.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
lol. I can smell the salty aroma of your tears from here.

salty aroma of your tears? That's kind of gross.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is it any of your business anyway?
Because this is a discussion thread, where a guy asked a question and you gave a completely unhelpful answer. I'm trying to correct that.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Because this is a discussion thread, where a guy asked a question and you gave a completely unhelpful answer. I'm trying to correct that.

It had nothing to do with you. Are you a mod?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It had nothing to do with you. Are you a mod?
I'm a guy in a public forum. Nothing you say is "private", and just the fact that you're trying to play that card is pathetic in itself.

LOL I was going to start this topic.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm a guy in a public forum. Nothing you say is "private", and just the fact that you're trying to play that card is pathetic in itself.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but please do NOT enlighten me.

I think they would be very disapointed on how the world is today and how very little freedom we have left.thanks to the goverment.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It had nothing to do with you. Are you a mod?

Nor are you.

If you make a post in a public forum, expect people to comment or reply to it. If you don't like that idea, then converse in PMs.

Originally posted by Peach
Nor are you.

If you make a post in a public forum, expect people to comment or reply to it. If you don't like that idea, then converse in PMs.

Sorry, but I was just defending myself. I will simply put King Kandy on my ignore list. That may not stop his constant harassment, but then I will not have to see it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They also had a price on their head for what they did. It took balls.

Having balls doesn't doesn't eliminate their flaws nor does it lend weight to their political views. You seem to be applying the same logic that leads to people valuing the advice of celebrities over doctors.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Having balls doesn't doesn't eliminate their flaws nor does it lend weight to their political views. You seem to be applying the same logic that leads to people valuing the advice of celebrities over doctors.

You seem to be saying that celebrities have more balls then doctors.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you knew more about the founding fathers then you would understand why people care so much about what they thought.

I do know some about them and more importantly, I know a good deal about the ideological frame of the american revolution and its politcal implementation.

Like KK pointed out, almost every country on earth was forged by some some sort of revolution, civil war or independence war. And in most such countries, including the USA, indoctrination within the school system maintains some level of cult of the personality of these past leaders. What puzzles me is how strong it is today for a western nation's standards and the particular kind of worship that goes on in the USA is. The "what would they say about this or that?" questions seems to be frequently employed within political discourse as transparent appeal to tradition fallacy.

Why should anybody give a **** what they would think when their values and their views of "freedom and democracy" were so different from contemporary ones. I just find it ridiculous that people who stablished censitary vote and maintained slave labour should be seriously taken as models for contemporary political views on any subject.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You seem to be saying that celebrities have more balls then doctors.

You seem to be ignoring the words I wrote. But if you're actually having trouble understanding I'll try to explain in small words.

Alice has an idea. Alice has balls. Bob agrees with Alice on the basis that she has balls. Bob is an idiot.
Carol has an idea. Carol does not have balls. Carol has good supporting arguments. Bob rejects Carol on the basis that Alice has more balls than her. Bob is even more of an idiot.


Now here's the clever bit. We can change "has balls" to pretty much anything:

Alice has an idea. Alice . Bob agrees with Alice on the basis that she . Bob is an idiot.
Carol has an idea. Carol . Carol has good supporting arguments. Bob rejects Carol on the basis that Alice than her. Bob is even more of an idiot.

Alice has an idea. Alice . Bob agrees with Alice on the basis that she . Bob is an idiot.
Carol has an idea. Carol . Carol has good supporting arguments. Bob rejects Carol on the basis that Alice than her. Bob is even more of an idiot.


See how that works. It doesn't matter that the founding fathers had balls. In fact it's a complete non sequitur. Respect for the founding fathers should be based on the quality of their arguments, not on the fact that "they're the founding fathers" or "they had balls".

It usually is, too, many of the founding fathers were wise men, however people should probably start to realize that they lived 200 years ago, and thinks do change over time.

Originally posted by 753
I do know some about them and more importantly, I know a good deal about the ideological frame of the american revolution and its politcal implementation.

Like KK pointed out, almost every country on earth was forged by some some sort of revolution, civil war or independence war. And in most such countries, including the USA, indoctrination within the school system maintains some level of cult of the personality of these past leaders. What puzzles me is how strong it is today for a western nation's standards and the particular kind of worship that goes on in the USA is. The "what would they say about this or that?" questions seems to be frequently employed within political discourse as transparent appeal to tradition fallacy.

Why should anybody give a **** what they would think when their values and their views of "freedom and democracy" were so different from contemporary ones. I just find it ridiculous that people who stablished censitary vote and maintained slave labour should be seriously taken as models for contemporary political views on any subject.

I disagree. If you assume their ideas are irrelevant in today's world, then you fall into the trap of repeating history. Now that does not answer your question, but I think you already know the answer (political fodder).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You seem to be ignoring the words I wrote. But if you're actually having trouble understanding I'll try to explain in small words.

Alice has an idea. Alice has balls. Bob agrees with Alice on the basis that she has balls. Bob is an idiot.
Carol has an idea. Carol does not have balls. Carol has good supporting arguments. Bob rejects Carol on the basis that Alice has more balls than her. Bob is even more of an idiot.


Now here's the clever bit. We can change "has balls" to pretty much anything:

Alice has an idea. Alice . Bob agrees with Alice on the basis that she . Bob is an idiot.
Carol has an idea. Carol . Carol has good supporting arguments. Bob rejects Carol on the basis that Alice than her. Bob is even more of an idiot.

Alice has an idea. Alice . Bob agrees with Alice on the basis that she . Bob is an idiot.
Carol has an idea. Carol . Carol has good supporting arguments. Bob rejects Carol on the basis that Alice than her. Bob is even more of an idiot.


See how that works. It doesn't matter that the founding fathers had balls. In fact it's a complete non sequitur. Respect for the founding fathers should be based on the quality of their arguments, not on the fact that "they're the founding fathers" or "they had balls".

You are the one who is assuming. I was just doing it back to you.

I think they might become a little disappointed in the way people have religified a document they wrote with the intention of having it change over time to meet the needs of the people.

tree of liberty and blood of tyrants, if you understand metaphor at least, lol

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree. If you assume their ideas are irrelevant in today's world, then you fall into the trap of repeating history. Now that does not answer your question, but I think you already know the answer (political fodder).

just to clarify:

in your mind, (1) the ideas of the founding fathers should be taken as relevant today, (2) and given as much credibility as the people who do modern political theory?

So, just as an example: If person A were a modern economist, who had generated a theory about how best to run the economy, referring to the fact that Benjamin Franklin might not have like it is, to you, a proper refutation of person A's argument?

Originally posted by inimalist
just to clarify:

in your mind, (1) the ideas of the founding fathers should be taken as relevant today, (2) and given as much credibility as the people who do modern political theory?

So, just as an example: If person A were a modern economist, who had generated a theory about how best to run the economy, referring to the fact that Benjamin Franklin might not have like it is, to you, a proper refutation of person A's argument?

Is that what I think? I'm so glad you informed me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is that what I think? I'm so glad you informed me.

this:

Originally posted by inimalist
just to clarify:


indicates that, in fact, I am asking if that is what you thought. That is the impression I got from reading your posts, and wanted to know if I had assumed correctly or if there was some nuance you wanted to point out.

Originally posted by inimalist
this:



indicates that, in fact, I am asking if that is what you thought. That is the impression I got from reading your posts, and wanted to know if I had assumed correctly or if there was some nuance you wanted to point out.

I don't want to point out anything. Your assumption was completely wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't want to point out anything. Your assumption was completely wrong.

so then you don't believe the ideas of the founding fathers are relevant today, or should be given as much consideration as modern political theory?

Originally posted by inimalist
so then you don't believe the ideas of the founding fathers are relevant today, or should be given as much consideration as modern political theory?

Dude, shades of grey. You ask him two polar opposites.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dude, shades of grey. You ask him two polar opposites.

I was told my assumptions were completely wrong...

I assume that means opposite?

EDIT: at least the idea that the founding fathers are relevant today is really not a question that leaves a ton of room for nuance. One could say "parts", but, imho, its like asking if the Bible is relevant. it really either is or isn't. "parts" would, to me, mean that it really isn't.

Originally posted by inimalist
so then you don't believe the ideas of the founding fathers are relevant today, or should be given as much consideration as modern political theory?

I do believe that the ideas of the founding fathers are relevant today. They are humans faced with a time in human history that has a profound effect on today's world.

You cannot get an opinion about modern political theory from me, because I do not have one. I have nothing but contempt for politics. I thought you already knew that.

Originally posted by inimalist
I was told my assumptions were completely wrong...

I assume that means opposite?

EDIT: at least the idea that the founding fathers are relevant today is really not a question that leaves a ton of room for nuance. One could say "parts", but, imho, its like asking if the Bible is relevant. it really either is or isn't. "parts" would, to me, mean that it really isn't. I suppose you could argue that they are only relevant as far as they are in accordance with modern political theories, which I suppose would not make them relevant at all. Which I guess I'd actually agree with.

Though one could argue that their ideas developed a lot of what we believe today.


Of course they are very relevant to modern American politics. But that's a different matter I guess.

the ideas of the founding fathers are still relevant today as in this country is based on it and many Constitutional laws that are in place today were made by them and are unusually difficult to amended due to it being vital to an individual person and or how the government suppose to be run.

there are clear violations by the current government that violate the spirit of the founding fathers intent.

the reason i ask the question is to see how some of you feel the founding fathers opinion would be on certain legislation or political brohah..

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do believe that the ideas of the founding fathers are relevant today. They are humans faced with a time in human history that has a profound effect on today's world.

fair enough. Do you think they had answers for today's world?

I guess I can't deny how much they are still relevant in the modern political landscape

Originally posted by Bardock42
I suppose you could argue that they are only relevant as far as they are in accordance with modern political theories, which I suppose would not make them relevant at all. Which I guess I'd actually agree with.

Though one could argue that their ideas developed a lot of what we believe today.

the former, at least, are my feelings. That they informed later opinion is interesting, but I don't feel that makes them any more relevant themselves.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course they are very relevant to modern American politics. But that's a different matter I guess.

ya, maybe "relevant" is a bad word.

Originally posted by King Castle
the reason i ask the question is to see how some of you feel the founding fathers opinion would be on certain legislation or political brohah..

I don't think their opinions would matter though

why look backwards?

and the concept of freedom goes back way further than the founding fathers.

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough. Do you think they had answers for today's world?...

I think they would been completely befuddled by today's world, and run back to burn the declaration of independence. So, no, not taken out of time.

why would we be looking backwards and not forward? which by the way, they were doing, looking forward..

freedom goes back far b4 them in various cultures but their goal once gaining freedom is maintaining it and keeping governments and ruling class from taking it or limiting it. hence, they wrote down how the government is suppose to be run and writing down laws and rights to protect individual ppl.

we live in a society maybe not you where our rights and freedoms are constantly ignored or restricted while they hide behind things such as the patriot act..

things like this that our founding fathers were aware of might happen and even stated that no amount of security is worth a person's freedom and constitutional rights.. its a valid view then as it is now b/c they lived it and knew 1st hand how laws can be twisted to serve the elite.

we look to the past so as not to repeat the same mistakes in the future.. at least that is what i was taught in "American" history class and i was taught to never surrender my rights and fight for them even to death to defend them for not just me but the american ppl, something again taught to me in the "American" military.

usaflag whimper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVxSMsLTj2M
God Bless the world and the Once Noble Idea of Freedom and Justice for All..

Originally posted by King Castle
things like this that our founding fathers were aware of might happen and even stated that no amount of security is worth a person's freedom and constitutional rights.. its a valid view then as it is now b/c they lived it and knew 1st hand how laws can be twisted to serve the elite.

Oh? Is that why the Alien and Sedition Acts got passed? I mean that thing makes the PATRIOT Act look positively libertarian.

Originally posted by King Castle
God Bless the world and the Once Noble Idea of Freedom and Justice for All..

Which wasn't held by the founding fathers... but whatever.

While Jefferson denounced the Sedition Act as invalid and a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, which protected the right of free speech, his main argument on its unconstitutionality was that it violated the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Jefferson more strongly argued the Federal Government had overstepped its limits in the Alien and Sedition Acts by attempting to exercise unjust powers.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which wasn't held by the founding fathers... but whatever. that is my personal blessing to all people..

"God" also does not share that view but, its still mine and i will still say it in the spirit of good will.

Originally posted by King Castle
why would we be looking backwards and not forward? which by the way, they were doing, looking forward..

ok, think of it in terms of the quote "The tree of liberty must be occasionally watered by the blood of tyrants"

now, this has the obvious "revolutionary" meaning, but it goes deeper. What it is saying is that all power becomes, over time, self serving. While a government may start "for the people", it will eventually, even naturally, become corrupt.

Such is true with the idea of an entrenched constitution. While what they wrote might have been revolutionary for the time, the past 200 years have seen the constitution manipulated to serve the good of the powerful.

Today, appealing back to the constitution simply furthers the goals of those who already have the power through the constitution. The "Tyranny" of that document needs to bleed, such that the "tree of liberty" can grow. Basically, we have to cast off the constitution in order to further what might have been its initial goals.

Originally posted by King Castle
we live in a society maybe not you where our rights and freedoms are constantly ignored or restricted while they hide behind things such as the patriot act..

the fact that people see the PATRIOT act as akin to fascism is a testament to how free western society truly is

I hate the point I am about to make, but I tend to think this is the only time such a comparison is warranted: if you truly think your rights are restricted constantly, move even to a nation like China. Forget the obvious examples. Go open a business in Russia. Go see what, in real terms, Western freedom means.

and to be frank, you are much more free as a citizen today than you would have been after the American revolution. In fact, if you compare, the average citizen lost freedoms during the revolution. The common man was much freer under the distant British rule than they were under the new revolutionary government.

Originally posted by King Castle
While Jefferson denounced the Sedition Act as invalid and a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, which protected the right of free speech, his main argument on its unconstitutionality was that it violated the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Jefferson more strongly argued the Federal Government had overstepped its limits in the Alien and Sedition Acts by attempting to exercise unjust powers.

John Adams was a founding father, too, and he approved the act.

You'll also notice that no one ever formally challenged the Acts. Of course that was because the Constitution didn't include the necessary provisions (which seems like another failure on the part of the founding fathers).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think they would been completely befuddled by today's world, and run back to burn the declaration of independence. So, no, not taken out of time.

Burn it, eh?

lol, the modern world would turn them into Imperialists, ya?

@ inimalist

your point is lost to me and irrelevant to a person who knows 1st hand what it is like to freely give up certain freedoms and rights for the greater good of my country.. i know what is to be in a fascist government when i have bn in 3rd world countries where ppl are afraid to speak up or leave there homes.. i dont need to go to russian or china when i can go to a ghetto and see ppl having the same fears.

trying to make a comparison between two different forms of governments does not alter the fact that one country is doing things it is not suppose to do.... i could care less what russia or china do, what i do care is what my country does to its citizens and the laws and rights it violates under unconstitutional laws out of supposed necessity.

i also realize that ppl have abused the constitution in order to garner political, social power... i also believe that sometimes we the ppl need to cast off the shackles of corrupt government and it is our duty as american ppl to do so... i am not one you need to convince about changing things in government i am not a blind patriotic follower... that doesnt mean i dont respect and understand the spirit and intent of the constitution and back it up when it needs to. i understand the things in it need to be amended for modern times.. but, to say we need to cast it off is where i have a problem the minute that happens we are no longer living in the united states founded by our forefathers... maybe its a good thing maybe not, all i know is that it can and would cause many problems and political/social upheaval to do so.

i am not sure what you mean by ppl being more freer under British rule? if you mean that they were across the other side of the ocean as free, i guess you are right. but, that isnt enough to have an uncaring government who taxes your colonies and does nothing to help build your society...

Originally posted by inimalist
Burn it, eh?

lol, the modern world would turn them into Imperialists, ya?

I think, the thought of giving rights to homosexuals, women, and blacks would push them over the edge.

Or one of the founding fathers would have his coming out.

None of our early presidents could be elected today, specially old Jefferson.

Originally posted by King Castle
your point is lost to me and irrelevant to a person who knows 1st hand what it is like to freely give up certain freedoms and rights for the greater good of my country.. i know what is to be in a fascist government when i have bn in 3rd world countries where ppl are afraid to speak up or leave there homes.. i dont need to go to russian or china when i can go to a ghetto and see ppl having the same fears.

trying to make a comparison between two different forms of governments does not alter the fact that one country is doing things it is not suppose to do.... i could care less what russia or china do, what i do care is what my country does to its citizens and the laws and rights it violates under unconstitutional laws out of supposed necessity.

that is actually why I dislike the point, and I wont press it too hard, but you said you were constantly having your rights abused by the government, which I think is untrue.

For all its abuses, the Patriot act has done very little to the life of the average American, as a result of government policy. More abuses are going to come from street cops, not as a result of the government or of your rights being infringed by law.

It is very different than actual government agencies that police speech or extort business. The American government, going by policy, doesn't do very much that abuses the average person.

Originally posted by King Castle
i also realize that ppl have abused the constitution in order to garner political, social power... i also believe that sometimes we the ppl need to cast off the shackles of corrupt government and it is our duty as american ppl to do so... i am not one you need to convince about changing things in government i am not a blind patriotic follower... that doesnt mean i dont respect and understand the spirit and intent of the constitution and back it up when it needs to.

But the constitution was written in a time of slavery, and includes things from that perspective.

We don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water, there are good ideas, but they are good because we, today, can see they are good and work, not because someone thought they were a good idea some other time.

Seriously, **** the spirit of anything, we don't live in a spiritual world with spiritual problems.

Originally posted by King Castle
i understand the things in it need to be amended for modern times.. but, to say we need to cast it off is where i have a problem the minute that happens we are no longer living in the united states founded by our forefathers... maybe its a good thing maybe not, all i know is that it can and would cause many problems and political/social upheaval to do so.

what i think is strange is that, above, you mention the terrible cases of the American ghettos, which, according to the the idea of small government (which the constitution apparently represents), would be totally left to their own devices. afaik, the american constitution doesn't ensure health or education or jobs or any of the things that the state needs to provide to get people out of poverty.

Originally posted by King Castle
i am not sure what you mean by ppl being more freer under British rule? if you mean that they were across the other side of the ocean as free, i guess you are right. but, that isnt enough to have an uncaring government who taxes your colonies and does nothing to help build your society...

the American government went straight to taxing their citizens while doing very little to build society right after the British did, but instead of laying back and getting rich off its colony, the American government invested in local tax collectors and police, who were much more oppressive to the average citizen than were things under british rule.

Such was the nature of british colonial policy. They only used "white man's burden" as a tool of economic growth and political justification. Not like the French.

Originally posted by inimalist
what i think is strange is that, above, you mention the terrible cases of the American ghettos, which, according to the the idea of small government (which the constitution apparently represents), would be totally left to their own devices. afaik, the american constitution doesn't ensure health or education or jobs or any of the things that the state needs to provide to get people out of poverty.

The general welfare clause seems to be most reasonably interpreted that way but debates about if it should have existed since the document was written. You're right that they're not specifically mentioned.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The general welfare clause seems to be most reasonably interpreted that way but debates about if it should have existed since the document was written. You're right that they're not specifically mentioned.

then why do most people who say "we need to go back to the constitution" also oppose state run health care (at least this is the impression I get, is this just the vocal lunatic fringe?)

Originally posted by inimalist
then why do most people who say "we need to go back to the constitution" also oppose state run health care (at least this is the impression I get, is this just the vocal lunatic fringe?)
Most people who say "we need to go back to the constitution", imo, have little idea of what it's actual content is.

Originally posted by inimalist
then why do most people who say "we need to go back to the constitution" also oppose state run health care (at least this is the impression I get, is this just the vocal lunatic fringe?)

Traditionalists usually point out that those sorts of welfare are not specifically mentioned as being allowed, the claim being that it limits the government's powers to using tax money for welfare that the constitution separately enumerates.

Originally posted by inimalist
then why do most people who say "we need to go back to the constitution" also oppose state run health care (at least this is the impression I get, is this just the vocal lunatic fringe?)
They also point to the Tenth Amendment as taking precedent in things like health care and welfare.

If you don't know, the Tenth Amendment states that any powers not vested in the Federal government through the Constitution are left to the states to decide.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Traditionalists usually point out that those sorts of welfare are not specifically mentioned as being allowed, the claim being that it limits the government's powers to using tax money for welfare that the constitution separately enumerates.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
They also point to the Tenth Amendment as taking precedent in things like health care and welfare.

interesting. agree or not, do you guys think, then, that there is a legitimate argument from a constitutional perspective that means the federal government of America shouldn't be providing what are considered traditional social services? (like, health, education, etc)

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
If you don't know, the Tenth Amendment states that any powers not vested in the Federal government through the Constitution are left to the states to decide.

lol, I did not know, thanks!

Originally posted by King Kandy
Most people who say "we need to go back to the constitution", imo, have little idea of what it's actual content is.

do you think the constitution advocates for the federal government to provide social services?

Originally posted by inimalist
interesting. agree or not, do you guys think, then, that there is a legitimate argument from a constitutional perspective that means the federal government of America shouldn't be providing what are considered traditional social services? (like, health, education, etc)

If you accept that the government is only allowed to do the things the Constitution specifically enumerates, then probably not.

On the other hand the government is clearly supposed to provide for things like personal liberty and general welfare, I don't buy arguments that everyone can be assumed to have either unless certain services are guaranteed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you accept that the government is only allowed to do the things the Constitution specifically enumerates, then probably not.

On the other hand the government is clearly supposed to provide for things like personal liberty and general welfare, I don't buy arguments that everyone can be assumed to have either unless certain services are guaranteed.

I agree, under current contexts, with your last point

there is no other body in the position to ensure basic living standards to citizens other than the state in the current political regieme, and personal freedom is inherently dependant on a certain level of personal security

Originally posted by inimalist
do you think the constitution advocates for the federal government to provide social services?
To be honest, i'm not really sure. That's the kind of thing left to the supreme court to decide. In promoting the general welfare, I imagine the framers probably imagined it could be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Now, I would definitely say it SHOULD be advocating that, otherwise it wouldn't really be up to international ideas of a government's purpose.

Originally posted by King Kandy
To be honest, i'm not really sure. That's the kind of thing left to the supreme court to decide. In promoting the general welfare, I imagine the framers probably imagined it could be handled on a case-by-case basis.

cool, I'm really only asking because I am totally unfamiliar with the American constitution

Originally posted by King Kandy
Now, I would definitely say it SHOULD be advocating that, otherwise it wouldn't really be up to international ideas of a government's purpose.

oh, agreed for sure, so long as we add the provision that the state acts to eventually give individuals this power over their own lives

The founding fathers who were religious would think that America is a cesspool of immorality but they'd probably think the same about the rest of the world as well.

The one's that weren't religious would feel as though their mission was accomplished.

The mission was to create a country free from laws that include the hypocrisy and double standards that humans with religions are well known for. They wanted the new country to be a beacon of freedom from oppression and it is.

They would be most ashamed though at the unpatriotic behavior of the richest republicans. These people are the ones that want tax cuts despite the fact that they've put a freeze on hiring americans and put illegals to work cause it's cheaper plain and simple. They thrive on war and could care less about Americans, be they republicans or democrats.
When billionaires stop hiring it isn't because they don't have any work available it's because they don't want to. When banks don't help the taxpayers that bailed them out but they do shell out huge bonuses and throw extravagant parties....

it's just unpatriotic and the founding fathers would be disgusted.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
"They found a more impressive way to copy their text!"

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=524299&highlight=Founding+fathers+forumid%3A11
epic sig.

Originally posted by inimalist
interesting. agree or not, do you guys think, then, that there is a legitimate argument from a constitutional perspective that means the federal government of America shouldn't be providing what are considered traditional social services? (like, health, education, etc)

Not really, as the constitution clearly states, in Article 1, which the conservatives bringing up the tenth amendment conveniently forget or even outright deny that



Which is not to say that you can't be against health care and other social services, but not logically on the basis of the tenth amendment or the constitution.


That's my interpretation anyways.

Originally posted by King Castle
If The Founders of this Nation could come to the future and see what their dream had become what would they say?

Founding fathers like:

Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Hancock so on and so on...



"what? no slaves? a black united states president?! billionaires whom are black?! my god, the world's gone mad! i say!"

Originally posted by Bardock42
Which is not to say that you can't be against health care and other social services, but not logically on the basis of the tenth amendment or the constitution.


That's my interpretation anyways.

even though the general welfare refers to "The United States", and not to citizens directly?

Originally posted by inimalist
even though the general welfare refers to "The United States", and not to citizens directly? Doesn't 'the united states' refer to the nation instead of the union?

Originally posted by inimalist
even though the general welfare refers to "The United States", and not to citizens directly?

I'd say those are completely linked. I'm not sure, how'd that argument go?

Originally posted by The MISTER
The founding fathers who were religious would think that America is a cesspool of immorality but they'd probably think the same about the rest of the world as well.

The one's that weren't religious would feel as though their mission was accomplished.

The mission was to create a country free from laws that include the hypocrisy and double standards that humans with religions are well known for. They wanted the new country to be a beacon of freedom from oppression and it is.

They would be most ashamed though at the unpatriotic behavior of the richest republicans. These people are the ones that want tax cuts despite the fact that they've put a freeze on hiring americans and put illegals to work cause it's cheaper plain and simple. They thrive on war and could care less about Americans, be they republicans or democrats.
When billionaires stop hiring it isn't because they don't have any work available it's because they don't want to. When banks don't help the taxpayers that bailed them out but they do shell out huge bonuses and throw extravagant parties....

it's just unpatriotic and the founding fathers would be disgusted.
Sounds like you're just projecting everything YOU believe onto them. Like most "return to the framers' intentions" crowd.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd say those are completely linked. I'm not sure, how'd that argument go?

I'd say they are too...

I don't know how it'd go, but the end result says the State owes no protection to individuals, but only to the nation, as well.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
"what? no slaves? a black united states president?! billionaires whom are black?! my god, the world's gone mad! i say!" You're like a week late with that.

Just sayin. ily

i am? oh.

it's just i don't come on here as often. i just get in and get out without checking if what i'm about to write was already written.

life's been taking up the rest of my time.

Washington would be pissed. He didn't give that farewell speech for nothing.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The founding fathers who were religious would think that America is a cesspool of immorality but they'd probably think the same about the rest of the world as well.

The one's that weren't religious would feel as though their mission was accomplished.

The mission was to create a country free from laws that include the hypocrisy and double standards that humans with religions are well known for. They wanted the new country to be a beacon of freedom from oppression and it is.

Fact: most of the fouding fathers weren't particularly religious, in fact most of them were Deists, which is like somewhere between Christian and Agnostic.


Fact: A good number of the Founding Father owned slaves and likely wouldn't bat an eye to the hiring of illegals.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Sounds like you're just projecting everything YOU believe onto them. Like most "return to the framers' intentions" crowd.

Perhaps you are right but I would hope that they were more patriotic than I am, and I wouldn't have my countrymen suffering if there was anything I could do about it.... I live from check to check and if someone asks me for some change I'll help em out just because it could be me in that predicament one day....

Some rich people would rather die than walk in the shoes of a poor man and when the stock market crashed their suicides proved it....I don't think any of the founding fathers would do anything to stunt the growth of their countrymen. Rich republicans (not middle class republicans) could care less about anything other than their own circle and would let this country go to ruin as long as they can fly to some mansion in some other part of the world. I'm sure there are some rare exceptions but very few and far between.

The founding fathers would be against the way we went into Iraq for no reason other than profit...I'm sure that you're aware by now that our republican leaders purposefully misled us into fearing a WMD ( terrorism defined) so that Haliburton could get richer and oil prices had an excuse to skyrocket.

I'm not projecting my beliefs when I say that the founding fathers would not be for people who value profit over countrymen...

Who cares what the founding fathers think.....They set up everything to protect those who have money.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Perhaps you are right but I would hope that they were more patriotic than I am, and I wouldn't have my countrymen suffering if there was anything I could do about it.... I live from check to check and if someone asks me for some change I'll help em out just because it could be me in that predicament one day....

Some rich people would rather die than walk in the shoes of a poor man and when the stock market crashed their suicides proved it....I don't think any of the founding fathers would do anything to stunt the growth of their countrymen. Rich republicans (not middle class republicans) could care less about anything other than their own circle and would let this country go to ruin as long as they can fly to some mansion in some other part of the world. I'm sure there are some rare exceptions but very few and far between.

The founding fathers would be against the way we went into Iraq for no reason other than profit...I'm sure that you're aware by now that our republican leaders purposefully misled us into fearing a WMD ( terrorism defined) so that Haliburton could get richer and oil prices had an excuse to skyrocket.

I'm not projecting my beliefs when I say that the founding fathers would not be for people who value profit over countrymen... I've read somewhere that the rate of suicides during the Depression has been greatly over exaggerated, especially amongst the buisness elite and the old cliche of them leaping out windows.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Perhaps you are right but I would hope that they were more patriotic than I am, and I wouldn't have my countrymen suffering if there was anything I could do about it.... I live from check to check and if someone asks me for some change I'll help em out just because it could be me in that predicament one day....
The founding fathers practiced a system of slavery, which lead to suffering far beyond "living from check to check". You can be sure that they did things we'd find completely appalling now.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Some rich people would rather die than walk in the shoes of a poor man and when the stock market crashed their suicides proved it....I don't think any of the founding fathers would do anything to stunt the growth of their countrymen. Rich republicans (not middle class republicans) could care less about anything other than their own circle and would let this country go to ruin as long as they can fly to some mansion in some other part of the world. I'm sure there are some rare exceptions but very few and far between.
Hate to break it to you, but they weren't exactly paupers themselves. Many owned extremely large plantations, had many, many slaves (and to think you complained about hiring illegal immigrants, that's kid stuff compared to this), and were very much the upper crust of society.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The founding fathers would be against the way we went into Iraq for no reason other than profit...I'm sure that you're aware by now that our republican leaders purposefully misled us into fearing a WMD ( terrorism defined) so that Haliburton could get richer and oil prices had an excuse to skyrocket.
Sort of like how the "Boston Massacre" got completely exaggerated and lied about so that revolution could be provoked faster? Plenty of our most revered national figures took part in that little charade.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm not projecting my beliefs when I say that the founding fathers would not be for people who value profit over countrymen...
Maybe they were, maybe they weren't... but you hold far to much of a rose-colored view of them. I doubt they would be concerned about the rich wanting tax cuts.

They lived over two centuries ago. Morals, values, and beliefs change from decade to decade. Two hundred years is going to see a large shift. It's like asking if the current British Monarchy held better/worse beliefs and opinions than William the Conqueror.

I don't think our founding fathers would know what to think. I imagine, however, they would be pleased to see how the country they gave birth to has endured and has even become one of the worlds most influential powers. I think they would bewildered as to how politics function today. I don't think they would be disgusted at our countries state of affairs like most people seem to believe. Even though it may be a problem...,individuals have a voice today that actually has power to influence. This is something that was not known to our founding fathers. I think they might be surprised to learn how much the media and money influence politics but again, they might be even be happy with that. The only thing i can see our founding fathers being truly disgusted with is the ignorance and disdain this countries citizens has towards their government and free republic system.

All the above posts make good points and shed some light on the true character of the founding fathers. I suppose they were well aware of what they were doing to the indians so there was always a sense of superiority amongst the new americans...

I just wish that we'd hurry up and learn that humans thrive when we come to the aid of the less fortunate people. I know that the founding fathers were not familiar with racial equality but I find it almost impossible to believe that they had little interest in the goings on of their fellow countrymen....they'd even exterminate the natives to promote the growth of their fellow citizens.

I'm sure that a few of them were puffed up and pompous as many leaders become, but I'm of the belief that there were MORE leaders then that took their job of governing as serious as any pastor that's sincere.

I still think that more of them would be dissapointed in the fact that the american government is almost completly untrusted by its citizens.

George Washington would have a boner.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
They lived over two centuries ago. Morals, values, and beliefs change from decade to decade. Two hundred years is going to see a large shift. It's like asking if the current British Monarchy held better/worse beliefs and opinions than William the Conqueror. Well, there were political thinkers and leaders who abhorred slavery and defended universal sufragy back then too.

sufragy...,that's a big word, i've never heard of it

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
sufragy...,that's a big word, i've never heard of it

Perhaps that's cause he spelled it wrong. It's "suffrage".