Welcome to PatsFans.com

The Founding Fathers Versus the Tea Party

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Sep 24, 2010.

  1. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,134
    Likes Received:
    302
    Ratings:
    +611 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey

    Opinion piece people ... let's get that out of the way first. ;)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinion/24chernow.html?_r=1

    I liked the conclusion the best:
    The diversity of this forum should be encouraged ... just wanted to throw that in.
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2010
  2. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    This was a good piece. I think one of the most problematic things is that if people keep hearing about what "the founding fathers meant" without really understanding that a lot of the claims are ludicrous then the damage is already done. Shame. Democracy needs at least a populace that tries to get it.
  3. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,134
    Likes Received:
    302
    Ratings:
    +611 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey


    Democracy has become who has the most money and who gets the most hits on the internet. Democracy has become a call to action ... someone wants something and they get the message to the minions to spread the message.

    Democracy was supposed to discussions and debate ... I like the romantic notion of a bunch of smelly people in a room arguing until the oil in the lanterns ran out ... we've gone backwards. The writer hits it spot on when he talks about :

    "The truth is that the disputatious founders — who were revolutionaries, not choir boys — seldom agreed about anything. Never has the country produced a more brilliantly argumentative, individualistic or opinionated group of politicians. Far from being a soft-spoken epoch of genteel sages, the founding period was noisy and clamorous, rife with vitriolic polemics and partisan backbiting. Instead of bequeathing to posterity a set of universally shared opinions, engraved in marble, the founders shaped a series of fiercely fought debates that reverberate down to the present day."

    Now when they don't agree they get labeled and get bad press. Republicans and democrats are not always supposed to agree ... that's the point. To exclude the extremes and find the common ground that benefits the many. We're more worried now about keeping the donations coming ... bottom line do not alienate the base.
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2010
  4. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Sadly this is true. Though the most money is more important than the most hits.

    That's not bad, so far as romantic notions go. Though I'd go a little further and say that we haven't just gone backwards, we've gone all the way back to square one. But that's not really important in this conversation.


    I find this point particularly salient with respect to the idea of strict contructionism. If the founding father meant for the constitution to be strictly constructed, they would not have been so at odds.
  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,659
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13

    The basic premise remains that the Constitution was a document designed to limit the powers of the government in keeping with the premises set forth in the Declaration. That was the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

    It is interesting that the political parties are having so much problem understanding and coming to grips with the Tea Parties. The TImes is publishing this opinion piece has come a long way from the dismissive tone taken towards the Tea Parties initially.

    This is not a bad piece as it relates to the fact that the Founders were not a monolithic bloc.
  6. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Or probably more precisely, considering where they were coming from (George III), to limit the powers of a malevolent government. I have a hard time buying into the idea of the founding father trying to limit the powers of a benevolent one. E.g., they were not battling monopolies or oligopolies in their time, so in the case where such institutions are among the more destructive institutions, the founding fathers would have little to no problem allowing the people recourse through said government seeing as how it would actually increase personal freedom.
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,659
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13

    They understand than ANY government run by men can and will become malevolent. THis is why government must be constrained as much as possible or else it will lead to tyranny.

    In most governments The state gives rights to citizens. The genius of the Founders has been that the people gave government LIMITED POWERS.


    The Declaration of Independence set the Tone by Stating that we have natural rights endowed by our Creator, this the State has no right to take away. That is fundamentally different than any other government I am aware of.
  8. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    So you are an anarchist?

    Slippery slope.

    Limited powers to grant rights? Sounds counter-intuitive to me.


    So how is it that the party that waxes most philosophical about the founding fathers is the same party that is most loathe to grant rights? Doesn't add up (though of course I already know the answer).

    Further, the less shield (in the form of government) between individuals and powerful institutions, the fewer realized rights there are. Without a truly democratic government, who do you propose to stand between these entities?
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,659
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13



    Not really Conservative Libertarian is how I would view myself.






    Perhaps. The government has no right to give you anything. You already have the rights given to you by your creator.

    How can someone "give" you that which you already have? Read the Declaration of Independence.




    Rights aren't granted you have them already. Nothing to be granted, usually government takes rights away. IF government 'gives' you rights you are indebted to government, that isn't the premise that the country was founded on, it is the premise of marxist states, that the state comes before the individual, in America it is the opposite.



    What 'powerful institutions' ?
  10. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Given that man invented God then that means that man grants man rights. Sounds right to me.

    History shows us that rights are not static, and that they trend towards liberalism over time.
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,659
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13



    How did the universe come into existence?

    How were the universal constants formulated?

    Is the universe totally random? Or Intelligent?


    People create religions people don't create creators.

    This is why atheistic (ie communist) societies where the states grants rights are tyrannical.

    This may explain why the left wants to drive mention of deities out of the public square.
  12. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    We abandoned teleology a long, long time ago. At least most people did.
  13. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    am i alone in thinking the Glenn Beck flavor of Tea Party zealots (and you see them everywhere) are the same kinds of people who insisted Ron Paul was a "loon" during the Bush years?

    :rolleyes:

    they're not F'n "libertarians"
  14. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,037
    Likes Received:
    112
    Ratings:
    +195 / 7 / -23

    No you are not, you are at best a right wing extremist.. once again the platform of the Libertarians is shown... this is just another buzzword that is used without investigation or study..

    At best you are a selective Libertarian, or someone who does not understand the whole package.. bet you there are more on the left who will more closely align themselves with their platform than you.. Libertarian is not a convenient buzzword that shows up on Red State or is bantered about in a rally, it is a serious movement. People claim to be part of something, but in reality they have not done their homework.. instead they just say this sounds nice and follow along(lemmings).

    Platform | Libertarian Party

    Last edited: Sep 25, 2010
  15. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,939
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +208 / 3 / -10

    Every party has used and laid claim to "the founding fathers"

    Kinda sexist, isn't it?

    Maybe Apple Strudel would say, "the founding b1tches"...based upon his thread announceming his return.
  16. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,461
    Likes Received:
    259
    Ratings:
    +370 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    The truth is not sexist. The fact is, the Founding Fathers were the Founding Fathers. Why would you call them women or even b!tches when they were, quite obviously, men?

    It's more sexist, isn't it, to stress an untruth in an attempt to mock someone or something?
  17. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,185
    Likes Received:
    228
    Ratings:
    +346 / 6 / -8

    This place is rightist enough since 13 began practicing "mod nullification" that it's a rather moot point. That said, I can't very well take seriously the proclamations of the guy who identifies himself on every thread with Mel Gibson, all exculpatory polemics aside, on subjects such as sexism and anti-semitism. I mean, come on.
  18. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,558
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +33 / 12 / -2

    The most recent Globe polls has Charlie Baker only 1 point behind Deval Patrick.

    If it is like this on election day, Charlie Baker will win.
    If it is close, even if the democrat is leading in the polls on election day, the republican will win.

    Silber lead Weld..... Weld won.....

    Shannon O'Brien lead Romney.... Romney won....

    The republicans voters turn out more than the democratic voters.
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  19. chicowalker

    chicowalker On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,864
    Likes Received:
    100
    Ratings:
    +157 / 2 / -2

    What does the "Conservative" modifier in this term mean (to you, of course)?
  20. chicowalker

    chicowalker On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,864
    Likes Received:
    100
    Ratings:
    +157 / 2 / -2

    Both are questions we'll never be able to answer. Despite religionists' wishes, though, they don't mean there is a "god."


    What does this mean?


    People certainly create the notion of a creator.

    If there is a "creator," that is independent of any thoughts we may have on the subject.


    I don't think "i.e." means what you think it means.

    Or maybe it does, and atheism and communism aren't what you think they are.


    Religious societies where the states grant rights can be tyrannical, too, and often have been.

    When has "the left" tried to prevent "mention of deities"?

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>