Reader comments
Readers' forum: Founders not extremists
66 comments | Read story
Well said, Charles | 12:56 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
I appreciate your well-reasoned letter. We sure don't want a loud minority
of extremists to take us to the brink of disaster again.
Robert Oh | 5:19 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
"dismayed and frightened by writers who appropriate the Founding Fathers to
bolster their own political agenda"
Then he goes on to describe how how they would or wouldn't be today. Sounds like you are using them to "bolster" your own political agenda.
Then he goes on to describe how how they would or wouldn't be today. Sounds like you are using them to "bolster" your own political agenda.
Gee | 5:36 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Dont make it sound like the Civil War and teh Revolutionary war were bad things?
As for them being moderates?
Nah, they started a war with England! And WON!
Nah, they started a war with England! And WON!
Comments continue below
Scott R. | 5:50 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
They also were not cowards. They signed the Declaration knowing that it could
put a noose around their heads. Instead of hiding, they stayed in the open
knowing they were wanted men.
Extremists today are cowards. Whether they hide like Osama in the mountains or hide behind a pseudonym on the blogs.
Extremists today are cowards. Whether they hide like Osama in the mountains or hide behind a pseudonym on the blogs.
Anonymous | 7:22 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
"Extreme" is a relative term determined by whatever the political and
social norm of the day happens to be. It is clear that most of the founding
fathers had firm love for freedom, individual responsibility and self direction.
No, I don't think they would be swayed by these redundant movements toward
socialism and communism that have already been proven to fail by history ad the
writer seems to suggest.
Anonymous | 7:53 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
So the Founding Fathers were not conservatives. I agree. Today's
conservatives would have been British loyalists back in 1776. They are good for
nothing. They fear change and progress. Yuck to conservatives.
@anon7:53 | 8:04 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
They certainly wouldn't have had anything to do with this current crop of
politicos. Why? Because they were all about freedom, self reliance, and
personal responsibility. They were also driven by sure moral compass that
couldn't be dissuaded.
Jefferson | 9:20 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
wrote his manifesto on the misuse of the "general welfare" clause. He
said it would be interpreted to mean anything that those wishing to expand
government wanted it to mean. Guess he could see the future.
Anonymous | 9:40 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
You need to stopping making sense. When, you are so politically corrupted that
you have nothing constructive to argue you trying to pervert the words of great
people.
I find it funny. The same people that never studied American history, took a government course think they are constitutional law experts. These same people forgot the Earl Warren was a republican.
If you understand our constitution then why can't you see a huge hole in the right wing's arguments? If you feel a law is unconstitutional we had courts to address your concerns. You never hear these isues conservatives bring up in court.
You only avoid taking things that you know you won't win to court. Those feeding you lies, aren't willing to put their money were their mouths are.
I find it funny. The same people that never studied American history, took a government course think they are constitutional law experts. These same people forgot the Earl Warren was a republican.
If you understand our constitution then why can't you see a huge hole in the right wing's arguments? If you feel a law is unconstitutional we had courts to address your concerns. You never hear these isues conservatives bring up in court.
You only avoid taking things that you know you won't win to court. Those feeding you lies, aren't willing to put their money were their mouths are.
Ultra Bob | 10:04 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
I believe that the “founding fathers” were just run-of-the-mill
politicians and wealthy businessmen mainly inspired by their desire for personal
profits.
And like all politicians they knew that in order to get what they wanted, they would have to sell their idea and plan to a lot of people. Especially those people who would stand up and die for the cause.
So they wrote the Declaration, Constitution and even the Bill-of-rights in ways to appeal to the people and the state governments who mainly controlled the people in their states.
If revolution against England and the English corporations had been a more universal feeling among the Americans, it is likely that the documents would have been worded less appealing to the people. But as it was not, they had a huge selling job.
And like all politicians they knew that in order to get what they wanted, they would have to sell their idea and plan to a lot of people. Especially those people who would stand up and die for the cause.
So they wrote the Declaration, Constitution and even the Bill-of-rights in ways to appeal to the people and the state governments who mainly controlled the people in their states.
If revolution against England and the English corporations had been a more universal feeling among the Americans, it is likely that the documents would have been worded less appealing to the people. But as it was not, they had a huge selling job.
"Extremist" | 10:30 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
They may not have been extremists in their day but they would be regarded as
extremists today.
For example when Thomas Jefferson said that we need a good revolution every so often to water the soil of freedom with the blood of patriots what would you call that? Liberalism?
Call it for what it is: Outspoken unashamed love of liberty and the willingness to fight to keep it alive.
For example when Thomas Jefferson said that we need a good revolution every so often to water the soil of freedom with the blood of patriots what would you call that? Liberalism?
Call it for what it is: Outspoken unashamed love of liberty and the willingness to fight to keep it alive.
@Uncle Bob | 10:34 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
You really look throught the glass darkly.
2 bits | 11:41 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
I don't know if they were "Extremists" but they were definatly
"Revolutionary".
You do realise that they DID revolt against their government and overthrow it... right? Remember that thing called the Revolutionary War back in 1776? They fundimentally transformed their government (and I thank God for them).
I'm pretty sure many considered them "Extremists" back than, and today they would obviously be considered "Radical", "Right-wing-nutcakes", etc.
They obviously wanted a small and controlable Federal Government controled by the people and the States. We obviously don't have that today.
TODAY... the Federal Government controls the States and the people. And we are transforming more and more into THAT form of government all the time.
Anyone who objects to that fundimental transformation is considered by the left and the media to be an "Extremist", "NutCake", "NeoCon", etc. I think MANY of the founding fathers would today fall into that category of "Extremists".
You do realise that they DID revolt against their government and overthrow it... right? Remember that thing called the Revolutionary War back in 1776? They fundimentally transformed their government (and I thank God for them).
I'm pretty sure many considered them "Extremists" back than, and today they would obviously be considered "Radical", "Right-wing-nutcakes", etc.
They obviously wanted a small and controlable Federal Government controled by the people and the States. We obviously don't have that today.
TODAY... the Federal Government controls the States and the people. And we are transforming more and more into THAT form of government all the time.
Anyone who objects to that fundimental transformation is considered by the left and the media to be an "Extremist", "NutCake", "NeoCon", etc. I think MANY of the founding fathers would today fall into that category of "Extremists".
Anonymous | 12:12 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Actually, it seems the Religious Right that is so hung up on historical
revisionism i.e. portraying ALL the Founding Fathers as a mainstream Christian.
While they believed in Judeo-Christian ethics and values, its inaccurate to lump them all together.
While they believed in Judeo-Christian ethics and values, its inaccurate to lump them all together.
Re@7:53 | 12:39 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Typical jaded reaction to a comment that was aimed as much at liberals like
yourself as at conservatives.
An extremist is a person who focuses with great intensity on certain aspects of an issue while ignoring other aspects of the issue. That is exactly what you do when you see a comment that condemns all extremism and then talk like it was only referring to conservatives.
The founding fathers may have been extremists, in some respects, as individuals; but as a group, they were far from it. There is a place for extremists. Their arguments and opinions help society to zero in on the truth. They become useless when they start distorting facts, but even that is okay as long as you also listen to opposing extremists. The place I do not want to see extremists is in our government. Usually the majority an keep them out.
An extremist is a person who focuses with great intensity on certain aspects of an issue while ignoring other aspects of the issue. That is exactly what you do when you see a comment that condemns all extremism and then talk like it was only referring to conservatives.
The founding fathers may have been extremists, in some respects, as individuals; but as a group, they were far from it. There is a place for extremists. Their arguments and opinions help society to zero in on the truth. They become useless when they start distorting facts, but even that is okay as long as you also listen to opposing extremists. The place I do not want to see extremists is in our government. Usually the majority an keep them out.
to:2 bits | 11:41 a.m. | 12:43 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Thanks for believing the Founding Fathers were extremeists, and then lay claim
they were the Conservative, Neo-Con, right-wing-nut-cakes of their day.
You proved the letter writer correct in his assumption that each side was at play in the founding of the Country.
The Fact is, they were Progressive, Against the Status Quo, Anti-Establishment, Non-elitist, Liberals in every sense of the term.
Another commentor posted @7:53 that the Conservatives of 1776 would have been the Royal loyalists. I agree.
Think about the protestors of Tiannenem Square.
Conservatives or Liberals?
Turn off your radios and think for youselves.
You proved the letter writer correct in his assumption that each side was at play in the founding of the Country.
The Fact is, they were Progressive, Against the Status Quo, Anti-Establishment, Non-elitist, Liberals in every sense of the term.
Another commentor posted @7:53 that the Conservatives of 1776 would have been the Royal loyalists. I agree.
Think about the protestors of Tiannenem Square.
Conservatives or Liberals?
Turn off your radios and think for youselves.
Oh Please | 12:44 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Yeah, to listen to some of these posts you'd think the Founding Fathers
would be TV evangelists today. "Harumph." (That was Washington in his
grave.)
To "Anonymous | 12:12 p.m." | 12:57 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Anonymous | 12:12 p.m.
Who said anything about their religion? I think that's YOUR hang up.
I don't know or CARE what religion they were, but it is OBVIOUS that part of the reason they came to America and a big concern when establishing the government that would take over after overthrowing the Imperial rule of the King/Queen of England in the colonies... was Religious Freedom. NOT ESTABLISHING a state religion, but TOTAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
If you disagree with that I'd like to see the evidence you base your assumptions on.
Of course they didn't want to establish any certain type of religion (even any certain brand of Christianity) as the Government Mandated religion. Nobody's saying they did that. But that sort of sounds like the straw-man you are setting up and then knocking down in YOUR posting.
Many of the founding fathers may have been Christians. That doesn't matter. They Obviously wanted COMPLETE Religious freedom and NO STATE Religion (including A-THIESM).
Currently we are free. Lets keep it that way.
Who said anything about their religion? I think that's YOUR hang up.
I don't know or CARE what religion they were, but it is OBVIOUS that part of the reason they came to America and a big concern when establishing the government that would take over after overthrowing the Imperial rule of the King/Queen of England in the colonies... was Religious Freedom. NOT ESTABLISHING a state religion, but TOTAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
If you disagree with that I'd like to see the evidence you base your assumptions on.
Of course they didn't want to establish any certain type of religion (even any certain brand of Christianity) as the Government Mandated religion. Nobody's saying they did that. But that sort of sounds like the straw-man you are setting up and then knocking down in YOUR posting.
Many of the founding fathers may have been Christians. That doesn't matter. They Obviously wanted COMPLETE Religious freedom and NO STATE Religion (including A-THIESM).
Currently we are free. Lets keep it that way.
Father Johnny | 1:34 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Our founding fathers could have easily mandated a national religion. They
didn't. Instead, they mandated freedom of religion for all. End-o-story.
@12:57 | 2:01 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
The first amendment did not prohibit states from maintaining state relegions.
It only prevented the federal government from establishing a national relegion
or overriding the states choice. It wasn't till 1868 the fourteenth
amendment that prevented the states from using a state relegion from limiting
citizens of the nation from such things as holding state office. The following
list is the state, state relegion and when they were dropped from their state
constitutions.
Connecticut Congregational 1818
Georgia Church of England 1789
Maryland Church of England 1776
Massachusetts Congregational 1780
New Hampshire Congregational 1790
North Carolina Church of England 1776
South Carolina Church of England 1790
Florida Church of England 1783
Virginia Church of England 1786
Connecticut Congregational 1818
Georgia Church of England 1789
Maryland Church of England 1776
Massachusetts Congregational 1780
New Hampshire Congregational 1790
North Carolina Church of England 1776
South Carolina Church of England 1790
Florida Church of England 1783
Virginia Church of England 1786
re: to:2 bits | 11:41 a.m. | 12 | 2:11 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
"The Fact is, they were Progressive, Against the Status Quo,
Anti-Establishment, Non-elitist, Liberals in every sense of the term."
Except of course that those who are anti-establishment, non-elitist people of
today are generally political conservative because they dare to question the
hypocrisy of popular dogma
"Think about the protestors of Tiannenem Square.
Conservatives or Liberals?" Considering they were for freedom and opposed government intervention in their lives - they must be political conservatives.
"Turn off your radios and think for youselves" paraphrase; I am tolernat any anyone who disagrees is a close minded bigot - such arrogance explains why revolution from politically correct hate(including non compliant radio) is necessary
"Think about the protestors of Tiannenem Square.
Conservatives or Liberals?" Considering they were for freedom and opposed government intervention in their lives - they must be political conservatives.
"Turn off your radios and think for youselves" paraphrase; I am tolernat any anyone who disagrees is a close minded bigot - such arrogance explains why revolution from politically correct hate(including non compliant radio) is necessary
FOUNDERS vs Obama | 2:30 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Well, some of this post was correct but most of it was simply WRONG. Our
founders would be appalled with what Obama is trying to do today. Our founders
were all believers in SMALL GOVERNMENT (see John Adams and Jefferson) and all
were believers in capitalism - not socialism. Our founders were fierce defenders
of individual freedom and low taxation two things that are under attack by
Obama. Our founders did not establish a state religion but they were all out
spoken Christians and defenders of Christianity (Unlike Obama). Finally, our
founders would roll over in their graves with the radical liberalism being
forced down our throats all across America from congress to our courts. All in
all, our founders would NOT be happy with America today and direction we are
going. Interestingly enough, national polls also show an increasing number not
happy with the direction of the nation (57%).
A liberal revolution can happen | 2:38 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Scott R.
"They also were not cowards. They signed the Declaration knowing that it could put a noose around their heads. Instead of hiding, they stayed in the open knowing they were wanted men."
You seem to be confusing the liberals of the time with all of the founding fathers. Such men as Patrick Henry who said "give me liberty or give me death" and who went on to propose a form of social security. To this day liberals are ready to die fighting conservatives.
"Extremists today are cowards."
Those who help draft the Constitution and tried to persuade the American people that they should ratify it were a bunch of cowards who wrote the Federalist Papers under pseudonyms and let's not forget that the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were not the same men. The war was a liberal revolution while the Constitution was a conservative's reactionary document but they were finally forced to ratify a liberal Bill of Rights or face death at the hands of those who were primary movers of the American Revolution and who were still willing to give them a dose of the same medicine
"They also were not cowards. They signed the Declaration knowing that it could put a noose around their heads. Instead of hiding, they stayed in the open knowing they were wanted men."
You seem to be confusing the liberals of the time with all of the founding fathers. Such men as Patrick Henry who said "give me liberty or give me death" and who went on to propose a form of social security. To this day liberals are ready to die fighting conservatives.
"Extremists today are cowards."
Those who help draft the Constitution and tried to persuade the American people that they should ratify it were a bunch of cowards who wrote the Federalist Papers under pseudonyms and let's not forget that the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were not the same men. The war was a liberal revolution while the Constitution was a conservative's reactionary document but they were finally forced to ratify a liberal Bill of Rights or face death at the hands of those who were primary movers of the American Revolution and who were still willing to give them a dose of the same medicine
Charles the third | 2:40 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
"The 20 percent of extremists on the slavery issue brought about the Civil
War.
Do we need or want to go down that same road again?"
Well, I guess that depends on whether you are a slave or a freeman.
Do we need or want to go down that same road again?"
Well, I guess that depends on whether you are a slave or a freeman.
Liberals gave us the Revolution | 2:47 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
RE:2 bits
"You do realise that they DID revolt against their government and overthrow it... right? Remember that thing called the Revolutionary War back in 1776? They fundimentally transformed their government (and I thank God for them)."
It was the liberals who revolted and who forced the hands of conservatives who were forced to choose if they supported the British Republic or the American cause. If they chose to be loyalists then they were tarred and feathered and their houses were burnt to the ground.
"They obviously wanted a small and controlable Federal Government controled by the people and the States. We obviously don't have that today."
Then why did those who wrote the Constitution argue that the Articles of Confederation didn't give the federal government enough power?
Those were and are the conservatives who decided to write the Constitution because they thought liberals were getting out of hand.
"I think MANY of the founding fathers would today fall into that category of "Extremists".
You are confusing the liberal founding fathers with the conservatives. Those who gave us the Revolution, Articles of Confederation and Bill of Rights (liberals) versus those who gave us the Constitution (conservatives).
"You do realise that they DID revolt against their government and overthrow it... right? Remember that thing called the Revolutionary War back in 1776? They fundimentally transformed their government (and I thank God for them)."
It was the liberals who revolted and who forced the hands of conservatives who were forced to choose if they supported the British Republic or the American cause. If they chose to be loyalists then they were tarred and feathered and their houses were burnt to the ground.
"They obviously wanted a small and controlable Federal Government controled by the people and the States. We obviously don't have that today."
Then why did those who wrote the Constitution argue that the Articles of Confederation didn't give the federal government enough power?
Those were and are the conservatives who decided to write the Constitution because they thought liberals were getting out of hand.
"I think MANY of the founding fathers would today fall into that category of "Extremists".
You are confusing the liberal founding fathers with the conservatives. Those who gave us the Revolution, Articles of Confederation and Bill of Rights (liberals) versus those who gave us the Constitution (conservatives).
To "Ultra Bob | 10:04 a.m." | 2:59 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Ultra Bob | 10:04 a.m.
Figures YOU would have that outlook on the Founding Fathers... (just run-of-the-mill politicians and wealthy businessmen mainly inspired by their desire for personal profits).
You actually see the founding fathers as, "just run-of-the-mill politicians and wealthy businessmen mainly inspired by their desire for personal profits"?
WOW! How patriotic!
Figures YOU would have that outlook on the Founding Fathers... (just run-of-the-mill politicians and wealthy businessmen mainly inspired by their desire for personal profits).
You actually see the founding fathers as, "just run-of-the-mill politicians and wealthy businessmen mainly inspired by their desire for personal profits"?
WOW! How patriotic!
You confuse fascists & liberals | 3:00 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
RE:FOUNDERS vs Obama
"Our founders would be appalled with what Obama is trying to do today. Our founders were all believers in SMALL GOVERNMENT (see John Adams and Jefferson) and all were believers in capitalism - not socialism."
Men like Patrick Henry (wanted social security) and Thomas Jefferson (wanted universal education) and who became the founder of the Democratic Party were not in favor of small government in the sense that you are using it but did oppose the Constitution at first because it was an attempt by conservatives to create a stronger federal government without first protecting the rights of individuals. On the other hand conservatives like Alexander Hamilton (founder of the party that became today's Republican Party) favored monarchy
"Our founders were fierce defenders of individual freedom and low taxation two things that are under attack by Obama."
Tell it to those who believed that the Articles of Confederation weren't strong enough and who proposed a monarchy to replace it but when they realized that the liberals would have none of it gave us the U.S. Constitution and finally conceded to give us the Bill of Rights or face execution by angry liberals.
"Our founders would be appalled with what Obama is trying to do today. Our founders were all believers in SMALL GOVERNMENT (see John Adams and Jefferson) and all were believers in capitalism - not socialism."
Men like Patrick Henry (wanted social security) and Thomas Jefferson (wanted universal education) and who became the founder of the Democratic Party were not in favor of small government in the sense that you are using it but did oppose the Constitution at first because it was an attempt by conservatives to create a stronger federal government without first protecting the rights of individuals. On the other hand conservatives like Alexander Hamilton (founder of the party that became today's Republican Party) favored monarchy
"Our founders were fierce defenders of individual freedom and low taxation two things that are under attack by Obama."
Tell it to those who believed that the Articles of Confederation weren't strong enough and who proposed a monarchy to replace it but when they realized that the liberals would have none of it gave us the U.S. Constitution and finally conceded to give us the Bill of Rights or face execution by angry liberals.
To "12:43 p.m." | 3:14 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
12:43 p.m.
I didn't say the founding fathers were of either party.
What I DID say was... they were revolutionaries, and they would have been called names (much like you call the people you see as "tea-party Extreemists" today).
I'm sure they were called lots of names by the people of THEIR day as well.
I don't KNOW what party they were, or what philosophy they were, but yes, I did say they were revolutionaries and called for the overthrow of their government (you could call it a "fundimental transformation" of their government).
I don't claim the founding fathers for EITHER party. But I do claim they were extremists for their time.
BTW... There are extremists on BOTH sides of the political spectrum you know. Not just the radical right-wing-fringe-nuts or whatever you're calling them today.
You can play "2:47"s partisan game and pontificate which side gets credit for the founding fathers.
I don't care what label you give them. All I know is they were RIGHT. I don't care if they were "Liberals" they wanted FREEDOM, and that's what matters.
I didn't say the founding fathers were of either party.
What I DID say was... they were revolutionaries, and they would have been called names (much like you call the people you see as "tea-party Extreemists" today).
I'm sure they were called lots of names by the people of THEIR day as well.
I don't KNOW what party they were, or what philosophy they were, but yes, I did say they were revolutionaries and called for the overthrow of their government (you could call it a "fundimental transformation" of their government).
I don't claim the founding fathers for EITHER party. But I do claim they were extremists for their time.
BTW... There are extremists on BOTH sides of the political spectrum you know. Not just the radical right-wing-fringe-nuts or whatever you're calling them today.
You can play "2:47"s partisan game and pontificate which side gets credit for the founding fathers.
I don't care what label you give them. All I know is they were RIGHT. I don't care if they were "Liberals" they wanted FREEDOM, and that's what matters.
liberal CONFUSION !!! | 3:16 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Holy cow people, I have never read so much liberal nonsense in my life. Trying
to associate the anti-war, cut n run liberals of today with the colonial
patriots is complete nonsense. Do you honestly think that the likes of Nancy
Pelosi , Harry Reid and Barney Frank would vote to go to war for ANY REASON???
That's completely laughable. Do you honestly think that Obama would
confront the likes of Adolt Hitler ? That too is laughable. All I can say is we
all should be VERY grateful that we didn't have the gutless, European-style
LIBERALS of today running the show in 1939 otherwise there would be a flying
Nazi flag flying above the US Capital today!!!
@Liberal confusion | 3:27 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
You have silly oppions, and no facts.
What do you base your comments on?
Turn off your radio and adjust the tin foil fear hat.
Nothing can be worse for our country than what the previous administration did to us.
NOTHING!!!
What do you base your comments on?
Turn off your radio and adjust the tin foil fear hat.
Nothing can be worse for our country than what the previous administration did to us.
NOTHING!!!
Moroni would spit in your face | 3:29 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
liberal CONFUSION !!! | 3:16 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
"Holy cow people, I have never read so much liberal nonsense in my life. Trying to associate the anti-war, cut n run liberals of today with the colonial patriots is complete nonsense."
Opposing immoral wars of aggression does not mean that liberals want to cut and run from those that attack us. This is why Democrats and liberals have supported the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan from the start but have opposed the war in Iraq and want to withdraw our troops and bring them home or send them to Afghanistan and Pakistan to continue that war.
"Do you honestly think that the likes of Nancy Pelosi , Harry Reid and Barney Frank would vote to go to war for ANY REASON??? That's completely laughable. Do you honestly think that Obama would confront the likes of Adolt Hitler? That too is laughable."
What is laughable is that you think because someone does not believe in attacking people who have not attacked us that they would cut and run even though liberals were the ones calling on Bush to make al-Qaeda a priority instead of the oil he wanted.
"Holy cow people, I have never read so much liberal nonsense in my life. Trying to associate the anti-war, cut n run liberals of today with the colonial patriots is complete nonsense."
Opposing immoral wars of aggression does not mean that liberals want to cut and run from those that attack us. This is why Democrats and liberals have supported the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan from the start but have opposed the war in Iraq and want to withdraw our troops and bring them home or send them to Afghanistan and Pakistan to continue that war.
"Do you honestly think that the likes of Nancy Pelosi , Harry Reid and Barney Frank would vote to go to war for ANY REASON??? That's completely laughable. Do you honestly think that Obama would confront the likes of Adolt Hitler? That too is laughable."
What is laughable is that you think because someone does not believe in attacking people who have not attacked us that they would cut and run even though liberals were the ones calling on Bush to make al-Qaeda a priority instead of the oil he wanted.
Locke | 3:32 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
The Founders, in today's political terms, were without doubt Conservatives,
demanding and establishing a small, strictly limited, non-intrusive federal
government and more liberty to the states and the people. Even James Madison,
who wanted more Federal power than Thomas Jefferson, did not go anywhere as far
as today's Liberals.
The point is not even seriously debatable.
The point is not even seriously debatable.
Anonymous | 3:54 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
To "Ultra Bob | 10:04 a.m."
"WOW! How patriotic!"
Patriotism doesn't equate to blindness.
There is little doubt that Alexander Hamilton who supported establishing a monarchy in America was a man who was inspired by greed and personal ambition and not the good of the country and he wasn't saying anything that those who opposed the attempt to foist monarchy on us were making in 1787-1789.
You are so ignorant you probably never heard of the Annapolis Convention where a handful of men came up with the idea to hold a Constitutional Convention to deal with the problem of limited trade and commerce between the states.
7 of the 11 attendees of the Annapolis Convention went on to attend the Constitutional Convention, 6 of them stayed to sign it while the 4 others were instrumental in getting a Constitutional Convention called.
Many others who went to the Convention left because they saw the plan for what it was.
A conservative attempt to foist monarchy on America. Even to this day these so-called conservatives are monarchists, elitists, aristocrats and scumbags at heart.
"WOW! How patriotic!"
Patriotism doesn't equate to blindness.
There is little doubt that Alexander Hamilton who supported establishing a monarchy in America was a man who was inspired by greed and personal ambition and not the good of the country and he wasn't saying anything that those who opposed the attempt to foist monarchy on us were making in 1787-1789.
You are so ignorant you probably never heard of the Annapolis Convention where a handful of men came up with the idea to hold a Constitutional Convention to deal with the problem of limited trade and commerce between the states.
7 of the 11 attendees of the Annapolis Convention went on to attend the Constitutional Convention, 6 of them stayed to sign it while the 4 others were instrumental in getting a Constitutional Convention called.
Many others who went to the Convention left because they saw the plan for what it was.
A conservative attempt to foist monarchy on America. Even to this day these so-called conservatives are monarchists, elitists, aristocrats and scumbags at heart.
Amazing | 4:02 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
You guys on the fringe-far-right sound nutty and nutty all the time.
Honestly, did any of you attend wither college or serve your country?
If you did, you know that history recognizes that the Founding Fathers were "LIBERALS".
Look it up.
Next you'll be saying, that is what is being taught because Colleges, Universities, and Historians are all liberally biased.
Honestly, did any of you attend wither college or serve your country?
If you did, you know that history recognizes that the Founding Fathers were "LIBERALS".
Look it up.
Next you'll be saying, that is what is being taught because Colleges, Universities, and Historians are all liberally biased.
@2;11 p.m. | 4:12 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
"Think about the protestors of Tianamen Square.
Were they Conservatives or Liberals?"
and you replied;
Considering they were for freedom and opposed government intervention in their lives - they must be political conservatives.
======================
Look,
If you are "Conservative"
that would mean they wanted to "conserve" the status quo.
[In other words, don't change anything.]
That seems to be the underlying and recurring issue here.
You Conservatives;
1) Don't know the meaning of the word "Liberal"
2) Don't know the meaning of the word "Conservative"
A "Liberal" comes from the latin root word "liber" which means - free.
It is also from which we derive the word, "Liberty".
It's no wonder you appear to be so ignorant in just about every discussion.
Study, Learn.
Were they Conservatives or Liberals?"
and you replied;
Considering they were for freedom and opposed government intervention in their lives - they must be political conservatives.
======================
Look,
If you are "Conservative"
that would mean they wanted to "conserve" the status quo.
[In other words, don't change anything.]
That seems to be the underlying and recurring issue here.
You Conservatives;
1) Don't know the meaning of the word "Liberal"
2) Don't know the meaning of the word "Conservative"
A "Liberal" comes from the latin root word "liber" which means - free.
It is also from which we derive the word, "Liberty".
It's no wonder you appear to be so ignorant in just about every discussion.
Study, Learn.
re:re:Liberal Confusion | 4:19 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Silly opinions? No proof? Say what???? Why don't you answer the questions I
posed instead of playing DODGE BALL (Liberals favorite game). Again, since this
post was a comparison of modern liberal leaders with colonial patriots I REPEAT
the questions...
Q1:Do you honestly think that the likes of Nancy Pelosi , Harry Reid and Barney Frank would vote to go to war for ANY REASON???
Q2: Do you honestly think that Obama would confront the likes of Adolt Hitler ?
Just answer the question instead of making dumb accusations and playing dodge ball. The OBVIOUS answer to both of these questions for ANY AMERICAN is the liberals I mentioned are laughable, unprincipled jokes who have proven over and over again their pale colors. Also I liked your slick "Blame Bush" transition attempt after avoiding the questions I posed (another "old" liberal trick that has no relevance to what we are talking about). The bottom line here is that liberal leaders of today (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) have no comparisons with patriots of the past and even most liberals agree with that.
Q1:Do you honestly think that the likes of Nancy Pelosi , Harry Reid and Barney Frank would vote to go to war for ANY REASON???
Q2: Do you honestly think that Obama would confront the likes of Adolt Hitler ?
Just answer the question instead of making dumb accusations and playing dodge ball. The OBVIOUS answer to both of these questions for ANY AMERICAN is the liberals I mentioned are laughable, unprincipled jokes who have proven over and over again their pale colors. Also I liked your slick "Blame Bush" transition attempt after avoiding the questions I posed (another "old" liberal trick that has no relevance to what we are talking about). The bottom line here is that liberal leaders of today (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) have no comparisons with patriots of the past and even most liberals agree with that.
re:Liberal Confusion | 4:31 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
great questions! Yes, what would Barack, Nancy and Harry do? Aren't these
the big 3 liberals of the day?
Terry | 4:37 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Get real, then was then and now is now. We need to deal with the world as it is
today, not yesterday. We need leadership of the future not the past. Don't
be lazy draging behind, get out in front. Be a man; or woman, but not a
nostolgic wimp.
Abe Lincoln | 4:40 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
to: Anonymous | 7:53 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009
they were conservative. it was thier conservative values that led the to fight the war. the ones wanting change were the liberal loyalists. they did everything they could to convonce the king toreturn to thier conservative principles. it was not till a year after the war that they understood that the king was so liberal, they had to declare independence from them. if you are living under the assumption that the Founding Fathers would be democrats and that they were liberal, you are just wrong. in fact, you could probably count on one hand what principles the democrats and liberals share with the founding fathers. call them what you may, hypocrits, slave owners, racist, but they were not liberal. it is the liberals views to just roll with the times, and if that is how the founders were, then ther would never had been a war.
they were conservative. it was thier conservative values that led the to fight the war. the ones wanting change were the liberal loyalists. they did everything they could to convonce the king toreturn to thier conservative principles. it was not till a year after the war that they understood that the king was so liberal, they had to declare independence from them. if you are living under the assumption that the Founding Fathers would be democrats and that they were liberal, you are just wrong. in fact, you could probably count on one hand what principles the democrats and liberals share with the founding fathers. call them what you may, hypocrits, slave owners, racist, but they were not liberal. it is the liberals views to just roll with the times, and if that is how the founders were, then ther would never had been a war.
Ultra Bob | 5:05 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
To Anonymous | 3:54 p.m.
I plead absolute ignorance about the “Annapolis Convention” along with a few million other conventions that have gone on in America. So What!
The way I hear it, there were dozens if not hundreds of ideas about how people ought to be governed back then. But since I wasn’t there I cant vouch for any of them. And mostly I don’t believe most of what I read about then or now.
I’m not sure just where you are coming from but if you say conservatives are scumbags, then you are OK in my book.
I plead absolute ignorance about the “Annapolis Convention” along with a few million other conventions that have gone on in America. So What!
The way I hear it, there were dozens if not hundreds of ideas about how people ought to be governed back then. But since I wasn’t there I cant vouch for any of them. And mostly I don’t believe most of what I read about then or now.
I’m not sure just where you are coming from but if you say conservatives are scumbags, then you are OK in my book.
Roland Kayser | 5:05 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
To re:re: Liberal Confusion: The man who confronted Hitler was the most liberal
president this country has ever had: FDR.
To "4:12 p.m." | 5:13 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
4:12 p.m.
It's always bad form to tell others what THEY know or don't know.
1. You aren't inside their heads, so you can't know for sure what they know or don't know.
2. All people are not alike. Just because you give them a label, like "Conservative", doesn't mean they all think alike, just as all "Liberals" are not alike. They don't think the same, they don't all know the same things, etc. So it's VERY difficult to paint anything accurately with such a wide brush and just blanket state things like "Conservatives don't know ___________" fill in the blank, it doesn't matter what it is. You can't in fact make that broad a statement without looking like a total biggot
(biggot being a person who thinks they know everything about a person from their label).
It's always bad form to tell others what THEY know or don't know.
1. You aren't inside their heads, so you can't know for sure what they know or don't know.
2. All people are not alike. Just because you give them a label, like "Conservative", doesn't mean they all think alike, just as all "Liberals" are not alike. They don't think the same, they don't all know the same things, etc. So it's VERY difficult to paint anything accurately with such a wide brush and just blanket state things like "Conservatives don't know ___________" fill in the blank, it doesn't matter what it is. You can't in fact make that broad a statement without looking like a total biggot
(biggot being a person who thinks they know everything about a person from their label).
Anonymous | 5:45 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
I can say this about Glenn Beck's newest book.
"Arguing with Idiots",
it certainly takes one to know one.
For the life of me, I can not understand how PaleoCons can be so ignorant of the facts.
Read some History,
from a text book [maybe start on about a 4th grade level].
I have stated nothing about the Founding Fathers being either Republicans nor Democrats.
It goes back to the original letter writer premis.
"Abe Lincoln" is showing how uneducated, brainwashed, and ignorant he really is but not even understand the terms he uses, sad.
America is based on "Liberalism".
Please, Do not reply until you have at least looked up the meaning of the word.
"Arguing with Idiots",
it certainly takes one to know one.
For the life of me, I can not understand how PaleoCons can be so ignorant of the facts.
Read some History,
from a text book [maybe start on about a 4th grade level].
I have stated nothing about the Founding Fathers being either Republicans nor Democrats.
It goes back to the original letter writer premis.
"Abe Lincoln" is showing how uneducated, brainwashed, and ignorant he really is but not even understand the terms he uses, sad.
America is based on "Liberalism".
Please, Do not reply until you have at least looked up the meaning of the word.
G | 5:53 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
The founding fathers were all Mormons.
See, I, too, can make baseless, unfounded, laughable comments that serve only my ego.
If reason is allowed on this string of posts, I believe the founding fathers lived in a world so different from our own, that any attempt to equate them to modern liberals is a joke. Does ‘the right to bear arms’ remotely match today’s Liberal dogma that anyone with a gun is a nutcase? No. Does their fight against taxes match the modern Liberal lust for high taxes. No.
Yes, the founding fathers were willing to fight for change and the very term ‘change’ seems to work against the concept of conservatism. But they didn’t want the kind of change that Liberals today are seeking. They wanted the kind of change that would get them a government that conservatives are striving to preserve. What required change to attain now requires conservatism to preserve.
See, I, too, can make baseless, unfounded, laughable comments that serve only my ego.
If reason is allowed on this string of posts, I believe the founding fathers lived in a world so different from our own, that any attempt to equate them to modern liberals is a joke. Does ‘the right to bear arms’ remotely match today’s Liberal dogma that anyone with a gun is a nutcase? No. Does their fight against taxes match the modern Liberal lust for high taxes. No.
Yes, the founding fathers were willing to fight for change and the very term ‘change’ seems to work against the concept of conservatism. But they didn’t want the kind of change that Liberals today are seeking. They wanted the kind of change that would get them a government that conservatives are striving to preserve. What required change to attain now requires conservatism to preserve.
the truth | 5:59 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
It's funny watching liberals twiat themselves into knots trying say the
founding father were liberals.
The DEFINTIONS of liberal and conservative were FAR different over two hundred years ago,
todays conservativism and liberalism have complelely different meanings.
180 degress different
The founding fathers are NOT liberals by todays definitions.
That is a fact.
The may have been classic liberals in the CLASSIC definition of liberalism,
the are NOT liberal by todays's NEO LIBERALISM,
they would be considered conservative, by todays definition of conservatism.
Todays LIBERALS are NOT the classic liberals.
The DEFINTIONS of liberal and conservative were FAR different over two hundred years ago,
todays conservativism and liberalism have complelely different meanings.
180 degress different
The founding fathers are NOT liberals by todays definitions.
That is a fact.
The may have been classic liberals in the CLASSIC definition of liberalism,
the are NOT liberal by todays's NEO LIBERALISM,
they would be considered conservative, by todays definition of conservatism.
Todays LIBERALS are NOT the classic liberals.
Founder of GOP was a monarchist | 6:07 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Abe Lincoln
That must be why those who were at the Annapolis Convention included the likes of Alexander Hamilton who openly supported a monarchy in America and Tench Cox who was a loyalist and fought on the side of the British before he was captured and realized that he would be better off siding with the Americans. He later served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury when Hamilton was the Secretary. Coincidence? NOT!!!
If you saw the level of pomp and ceremony at the Court of "His Mightiness" George Washington you would know why people understand that the loyalists who stayed and didn't flee were the ones who supported creating a government modeled after the British Republic. It was those which were led by Thomas Jefferson who took a stand and created what is the modern Democratic Party. Had he not become President we could have had what elective monarchies in Europe had at the time.
You may try to twist the facts as those like you did when they claimed to have been in favor of democracy but were in reality closet monarchists who started the current monarchist party known as the Republican Party but you can't
That must be why those who were at the Annapolis Convention included the likes of Alexander Hamilton who openly supported a monarchy in America and Tench Cox who was a loyalist and fought on the side of the British before he was captured and realized that he would be better off siding with the Americans. He later served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury when Hamilton was the Secretary. Coincidence? NOT!!!
If you saw the level of pomp and ceremony at the Court of "His Mightiness" George Washington you would know why people understand that the loyalists who stayed and didn't flee were the ones who supported creating a government modeled after the British Republic. It was those which were led by Thomas Jefferson who took a stand and created what is the modern Democratic Party. Had he not become President we could have had what elective monarchies in Europe had at the time.
You may try to twist the facts as those like you did when they claimed to have been in favor of democracy but were in reality closet monarchists who started the current monarchist party known as the Republican Party but you can't
Reality Check | 6:17 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Let's go back to the original Presidential Election model. whoever receives
the most votes is President..runner up is veep. Stay with me on this;
wouldn't Obama McCain make a more balanced presidency? Bush and Gore? The
beauty of the American system is balance...we should encourage more of it and
stop redefining history, syntax and idealogues. Let's live from this point
on.
tothe truth | 5:59 p.m. | 6:18 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
The founding fathers are NOT CONSERVATIVES by todays definitions either.
That is a fact.
Todays conservative is --
PALEO-CONSERVATIVE.
[Don't beleive me, look it up].
That is a fact.
Todays conservative is --
PALEO-CONSERVATIVE.
[Don't beleive me, look it up].
Pop Quiz | 6:20 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
Search :
"World's Smallest Political Quiz"
on any web browser.
Take the quiz, see what it says.
"World's Smallest Political Quiz"
on any web browser.
Take the quiz, see what it says.
Funny?... | 6:25 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009
I don't remember ever seeing George Washington ever wearing a
Tin-Foil-Hat.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- TCU still has a chance 2:04 a.m.
- Unranked Orange move to 4-0 1:52 a.m.
- 3A: Juan Diego 12, Hurricane 10 1:51 a.m.
- Cougars cruise to victory in Hawaii 1:38 a.m.
- 5A: Bingham vs Davis 1:32 a.m.
- 5A: Bingham 35, Davis 24 1:30 a.m.
- 5A: Darts impress in title loss 1:13 a.m.
- 5A: Miners' Cantwell makes name 1:11 a.m.
- Can BYU throw vs. Air Force? 1:10 a.m.
- 4A: Timpview defense stepped up 1:09 a.m.
- Mailman's nomination delivered
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio
- U. professor dies after fall from bus
- 'New Moon' rising: Vamps vs. 'wolves
- 4A: Timpview wins 4th in 4 years
- Archuleta still calls Utah home
- Horrifying scenario described
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case
- Unga's status 'a game-time decision'
- 'New Moon' doesn't rise to occasion
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
182 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah167
- BYU, Utah struck gold in coaches123
- Lies shatter Utah family122
- Palin's book shows she's unqualified105
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case96
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio95
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.94
- Utes knock off rival Aggies92
- Huntsman pleased with Obama84
I don't pretend to be an expert on global warming. I've met with...
Latest comments
Ask just women of childbearing age do they want to decide their reproductive...
On behalf of the millions of people worldwide who worship the devine and...
That happened approximately 9 years ago.
For being a terrible program, Bronco still has one more win than Kyle...go...
wow, that was a game. #56 for Hurricane seemed to be in on almost every...
That was the most amazing drive and play I have ever seen in high school...
for stepping up and doing the right thing in challenging portions of the...
A majority of us are apposed to abortion, but we are in even greater...
"Speed kills. Speed beats size everytime. " haha, everytime eh? If that...
Air Force 35 BYU 21
Advertisements