Those cuckoo founding fathers

[Venkman]

Wow, they were insane.

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpr...-federal-govt/

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Wow, they were insane.

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpr...-federal-govt/

don't they know about the needle of the eye? God will definitely cast them out for their thoughts.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Wow, they were insane.

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpr...-federal-govt/

You mean, when Thomas Jefferson wasn't raping his slave, he came up with this?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You mean, when Thomas Jefferson wasn't raping his slave, he came up with this?

you are getting mroe and more persuasive as time goes by.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You mean, when Thomas Jefferson wasn't raping his slave, he came up with this?

LOL.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You mean, when Thomas Jefferson wasn't raping his slave, he came up with this?

Ouch. Give the man some respect. He deserves it.

Venkman is pulling a classic blunder here (assuming that Jefferson's views are representative with those of the founding fathers in general, whatever the term "founding fathers" means).

Jefferson wasn't present for the constitutional convention. He was in France. He was obviously very important in the formation of our nation, but far less significant in the drafting of the Constitution.

Jefferson and Madison represented the Republican viewpoint, which was largely colored by the issue of slavery. The federalist viewpoint, represented more by Hamilton, Adams and even Washington, would have rejected much of the quotes on the page Venkman referenced (though I don't know if Venkman even realizes that many of the quotes on that page say nothing about whether "wealth redistribution" is desirable, and that many of the quotes wouldn't be applicable today with subsequent amendments to the Constitution).

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Ouch. Give the man some respect. He deserves it.

Venkman is pulling a classic blunder here (assuming that Jefferson's views are representative with those of the founding fathers in general, whatever the term "founding fathers" means).

Jefferson wasn't present for the constitutional convention. He was in France. He was obviously very important in the formation of our nation, but far less significant in the drafting of the Constitution.

Jefferson and Madison represented the Republican viewpoint, which was largely colored by the issue of slavery. The federalist viewpoint, represented more by Hamilton, Adams and even Washington, would have rejected much of the quotes on the page Venkman referenced (though I don't know if Venkman even realizes that many of the quotes on that page say nothing about whether "wealth redistribution" is desirable, and that many of the quotes wouldn't be applicable today with subsequent amendments to the Constitution).

Well no kidding they're not applicable today with subsequent amendments to the Constitution. I reference these quotes as evidence that my political philosophy isn't crazy, but was the mainstream government philosophy for the first 120+ years of our republic. Let's assume Hamilton's view that the general welfare clause was more in line with the modern view - if it was so widely held at the time, then why did it take till 1936 for the Supreme Court to agree with him? That view has won the battle - it doesn't mean it's the correct view.

http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare

I have no problem if you disagree, but I do have a problem when you (not you specifically) call into question my character or my sanity.

[MikeWaters]

It was ok to rape your slave, everyone did it in the late 1700s, so let's give him a pass.

Seriously, if the man has that level of judgment, am I to think that everything he said was God's word?

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Adam

I honestly think it is insane (not rational) to believe that the exact principles and policies which worked in a rural agricultural place like America in 1770s are automatically and always the best principles and policies in modern America in 2008.

Citing what Jefferson thought would work in 1770-80s America holds about as much weight with me as what Shaka Zulu thought would work in South Africa before colonialism.

That they were great men who did a great work does not mean the decisions they made in that context should be applied to the present context. And for heaven's sake, as has been pointed out, they disagreed violently with each other about the very core principles you attribute to the "Founding Fathers".

And you don't really believe your own hyperbole. Do you really believe that in all contexts people should rise up in armed rebellion against a government the disagree with as Jefferson so eloquently wrote in the Declaration? Lincoln wouldn't say it was a principle that applied in his day, regardless if it was believed by the founders. Joseph Smith taught the Mormons rebellion against the government was wrong in the context of the Mormon persecutions--and Boggs extermination order didn't justify rebellion, I don't know what would. If you think this principle still holds true, you would be agreeing with Timothy McVeigh in the context of retaliating against the ATF for the Waco raid against the Branch Davidians.

My point is that "original intent" constitutional nuts, who are most often the same right-wing wackos who justify their crazy positions by citing a Founding Father like you have, are most often intellectually dishonest, picking and choosing which founding principle they like for each argument, while discarding others, and pretending to be the heir of the whole.

You read what you want and totally miss the point.

I have not asked anyone to take the founding fathers' words as gospel truth. I have not advocated that every policy of this country return to 1789. Neither did the framers. However, I believe that the principles of good government they believed in are applicable in a modern setting.

I'm not bagging all changes that have been made since our founding, either. I'm talking specifically of welfare type programs and whether these should be a government run or a private run enterprise. I respect your opinion, but believe you're wrong. You do like to throw around the "nut" and "insane" label freely, I'm sure it makes it easier to dismiss my philosophy. As such, there's no point in discussing this with you. Have a good one.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Adam

You link to a page of quotes from the Founding Fathers and sarcastically say they were insane and then complain when I use the same term back at you? Odd indeed.

Mike had called him "cuckoo" in an another thread on the same subject. He pulled a link that showed the founding fathers' support for his position on this subject. Thus telling Mike, if he was "cuckoo", so were the founding fathers.