Skip to main content

The Politics forum, like the Religion forum, and in most conversations online or off, can and does get very personally contentious at times.  People can become very involved and personally vested in politics, like religion.  That said it becomes a bit like drinking far too much alcohol in that it changes a person, if but not for a temporary bit of time. 

What I mean by that is I believe, while there are many very passionate people on here, I believe that everyone, or most everyone, on here to be caring and friendly type people who apart from the topic of discussion which brings out people's passions, would easily get along and be great friends and have civil dialogs.   Often though our passions and emotions get enflamed and involved and there is a Jeckyll/Hyde type transformation and the conversations/discussions get anything but civil.   

For some reason this seems more to be the case when Donald Trump is involved than with anyone before.   Reagan certainly divided a lot of people and so did Bush and Obama but none of them seems to elicit the kind of fervor that Donald Trump brings out in people and so many do so without even knowing who the man is.  In many cases it seems that so much of what's out there in reactions is based more in conjecture than fact.  People are going on he said/she said type information far more than ever before and there is a very large number of people who are so polarized that there is no coming down or back from their positions.   I say this as much of the people I see on Television rather than speaking specifically about certain people on this forum but the zeal and level of emotions, on the forum, can mirror those that are reflected through the national media.  

While there are things about Trump to fear or not like I think that goes for most all politicians and frankly I hope that people will just give him a chance.  I believe that there is a difference between the candidate Donald Trump and the President Donald Trump.  I believe him to be an intelligent, talented, and experienced (business savvy) person and while a political rooky I believe he has potential to affect Washington in a way no other leader has done, if given a fair chance by both parties.  AS it is right now it appears that NO Democrats will give the man any chance and there will be, and is going to stay, total opposition to Trump from the democratic politicians.

Worse though, and this is the first time that I have ever seen this, at least in my lifetime and I fully believe is far more dangerous and wreck less, in fact a challenge to our National being, is the tactic and measure being taken by Trump Opponents in using the Courts and Judges to legislate from the bench and to oppose anything and everything that Trump attempts to do.  At this point in time it appears that there is no limit to what a liberal judge will, or can, do with regards to something Trump wants to do

That said you have to give credit to the liberals for making the most of the hand they are dealt and being able to use a minority position to affect what they should not be able to affect.   The danger though comes from the use of the Judicial branch of Government in ways that the founders never envisioned or planned for.  Judges are legislating from the bench more and more and worse setting themselves up in a position to be able to block the Executive or Legislative branch.   This is working out for the liberals on a temporary basis and for now but they should remember that it goes both ways and once a precedent is set it can be applied and used by the other side as well. 

I'm just wondering how much of what is going on is emotional and reactions verses actual concern and legal moves.  We are fast reaching a point where the law is made of little effect anymore and becomes null as a basis of ruling but rather emotions and reactions are the basis of judgements and, in my opinion, that undermines our whole judicial system.  Maybe it's time to start impeachment proceedings against some judges in order to protect our democracy.  I fear a tipping point where the law or the Constitution is no longer a basis of consideration but rather, as mentioned before, everything is a reaction or based upon emotion out of an agenda being political rather than rational.  It is as if the checks and balances of the three branches of Government have been set aside and various judges are setting themselves up as dictators and players in a silent coup attempt all based upon speculation and anything but facts. 

The 9th Circuit Court, in their political activism and rulings based upon emotion rather than law is in (my opinion) a position to undermine our whole judicial system and render it suspect. 

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Impeachment takes a lot and must have extremely valid and lawful reasons.  The judicial branch of the Government doesn't exist to appease a group of voters (liberal or conservative) nor do they exist to appease any other branch of the Federal Government.   They exist as a check and balance to the Executive & Legislative branch.   


While you may feel that a court has used emotion, I find that hard to believe.   Courts must act within the law and our system is based on past law or interpretations of the law.   Judges are required to write extensive opinions with facts and cases that back up their decision, not just "I felt it was right."   Our system may not be perfect, but the checks and balances exist for a reason and it more often than not serves it purpose.  Removing judges that certain persons don't agree with to replace with people whom may be more agreeable to a certain narrative creates a dangerous precedent and I certainly hope it won't happen.

As far as Trump, I will refrain from too many comments but I think it is safe to say you and I disagree.  I feel there is overwhelming evidence to support the way I feel about Trump, more often than not coming from his own mouth.   

But that being said, I have no problems with you or anyone on this board and differentiate political differences from personal differences.  Some people can't though, and I get that.   

 

Both sides have people who act like spoiled brats                                                         Both sides have people who post false news on social media                                     Both sides have people who shoot from the hip without a target                               Both sides have people who need to be sent to bed without supper and have their TV privileges suspended

Judge Watson in Hawaii stated he considered Trump's statements during his campaign when he ruled against the EO. One of the tenets of law is that only the four corners of a document should be considered, not extraneous verbal statements.  I suspect that SCOTUS will rule against Watson, if not the 4th circuit court.  Obama still holds the record for most EO ruled against by SCOTUS in 9-0 decisions.

jtdavis posted:

Both sides have people who act like spoiled brats                                                         Both sides have people who post false news on social media                                     Both sides have people who shoot from the hip without a target                               Both sides have people who need to be sent to bed without supper and have their TV privileges suspended

Good Lord Jt! The Dems are worse than your silly analogy. They are dangerous, subversive, anti-American and bent on the destruction of the country. They need to be sent somewhere all right, permanently, and it's not to bed!

funny how conservatives want to say 'you should give him a chance.'... yep, just like you people gave obama a chance. conservatives fought tooth and nail to stop obama from doing ANYTHING. now, they want cooperation from the democrats to move forward. just wow. that shoulda been a priority for the last 8 years. conservatives had 8 years of trying to repeal the ACA and still don't have a viable replacement for it. unprepared, uninformed, unable to see the consequences of their action for the last 8 years. republicans, the party of stupid and hypocrisy, are living up to their title.

Again, there's a few great reasons the feds never wanted to
take on insurance of any kind. It's too complicated, too large
and should be ran on a state by state level. ACA never had
health in mind in the first place, it was always redistribution
for restitution and other illegal socialist scams. 
 
It would be beneficial for everyone if liberals knew the real
world present day results of a Clinton win. You could start
with a failed healthcare scam where soon one is covered,
followed by a list doom.
  
Kraven posted:
Again, there's a few great reasons the feds never wanted to
take on insurance of any kind. It's too complicated, too large
and should be ran on a state by state level. ACA never had
health in mind in the first place, it was always redistribution
for restitution and other illegal socialist scams. 
 
It would be beneficial for everyone if liberals knew the real
world present day results of a Clinton win. You could start
with a failed healthcare scam where soon one is covered,
followed by a list doom.
  

Obamadidn'tcare is doing what it was designed to do---fail! It was also designed to be impossible to unwind and placed back in the free market without major problems; it was designed to be replaced with a single payer system by a Democratick Socialist administration. Well, the last election didn't quite go the Dems way, but the unwinding of centrally planned health care might be chaotic and painful enough to deliver the next presidential election even though dems are at fault for creating the mess.

Social Welfare On The Cheap: Why Obamacare Was Built To Fail

https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...o-fail/#3f135e11718b

The ACA was destined to fail without the public option.   The Republicans and their best bud Lieberman knew it and made sure it would not pass with a public option.   However, let's be clear, Trump care is far more of a disaster.  When about half of your own party has grave concerns then it speaks volumes.  Trump care will lower premiums in about ten years, once it has graciously priced the elderly out of the market.   


Thanks Trump~!

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

The ACA was destined to fail without the public option.   The Republicans and their best bud Lieberman knew it and made sure it would not pass with a public option.   However, let's be clear, Trump care is far more of a disaster.  When about half of your own party has grave concerns then it speaks volumes.  Trump care will lower premiums in about ten years, once it has graciously priced the elderly out of the market.   


Thanks Trump~!

Actually the public option would have caused Obamadidn'tcare to fail sooner; private insurers would have bailed out sooner.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion...health-care-failures

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

Nice haul Stanky, an opinion piece from a guy who seemingly has never worked in the insurance sector but does work for an organization funded by the Koch brothers!

At least I quoted someone who might be able to balance his own checkbook. Wishful policies by magic wand never work, reality always get in the way. The Public Option would have ensured there would be no possible way for insurers to make a profit or even break even unless we placed the entire health insurance industry even more on corporate welfare than the plan that was passed. It also is a stretch to believe that the Public Option would have lasted longer than the state CO-OPs unless a whole lot more money was thrown at the system. I might add that there is nothing preventing a state (10th Amendment) from creating a public option or single payer system except for the fact that such a system is very expensive and complicated. Ask Vermont why they decided not to go there!

“It is not the right time for Vermont” to pass a single-payer system, Shumlin acknowledged in a public statement ending his signature initiative. He concluded the 11.5 percent payroll assessments on businesses and sliding premiums up to 9.5 percent of individuals’ income “might hurt our economy.”

http://www.politico.com/story/...payer-vermont-113711

I admit I've never understood the complete absence of logic
the liberal, democrat, socialist communist is so freaking proud
of when there isn't one success from it in recorded world history.
 
Maybe because Sharia Liberal Islamic law is all based from the
same principles. hellary is so entrenched for an Islamic America
she's barack on steroids, you shouldn't wonder why they lost.  
jtdavis posted:

Good Lord Jt! The Dems are worse than your silly analogy.

I thought the hard core right wingers are the worst ones

Right Wingers love this country and just want to protect it JT!   They protect it by making sure there are little regulation on guns, less regulation to help the environment, marginalizing minorities through oppressive legislation and gerrymandering, by keeping status quo, keeping rich white men in powerful positions, and taking away protections from the elderly.  


Get with it JT!

And yes you are right, liberalism had nothing to do with that.  It wasn't a liberal ideal to break away from Monarchical rule.  It wasn't a liberal ideal to allow minorities equal rights, nor was it a liberal ideal to give women equal rights.   You nailed it Kraven!!

Kraven posted:
And that's why white America is still the only country making
it's own laws that has served itself well for over three
hundred years. Liberalism not only had nothing to do with that
success but has weakened this country every chance given it.

Did anyone else know we were the only country that made our own laws?  Heck, I thought all countries pretty much made their own laws.   This is amazing!!  And to think our system of law comes from English Common Law, those suckas don't even make their own laws anymore because this badbleep ol' USA is the only country doing that now.  

Suck it England!   'Merica!

 

Just in case anyone didn't know, Kraven has found evidence linking the establishment of the United States to more than 60 years before our recorded history says it was.   1776 was apparently wrong as Kraven has noted with confidence "well over three hundred years."

Last edited by MonkeysUncleByMarriage
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:
jtdavis posted:

Good Lord Jt! The Dems are worse than your silly analogy.

I thought the hard core right wingers are the worst ones

Right Wingers love this country and just want to protect it JT!   They protect it by making sure there are little regulation on guns, less regulation to help the environment, marginalizing minorities through oppressive legislation and gerrymandering, by keeping status quo, keeping rich white men in powerful positions, and taking away protections from the elderly.  


Get with it JT!

BS. Another lying left winger. Take the lies and shove them.

giftedamateur posted:
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:
jtdavis posted:

Good Lord Jt! The Dems are worse than your silly analogy.

I thought the hard core right wingers are the worst ones

Right Wingers love this country and just want to protect it JT!   They protect it by making sure there are little regulation on guns, less regulation to help the environment, marginalizing minorities through oppressive legislation and gerrymandering, by keeping status quo, keeping rich white men in powerful positions, and taking away protections from the elderly.  


Get with it JT!

BS. Another lying left winger. Take the lies and shove them.

Where did I lie?  Do you Republicans not stand firmly against gun control?  Has your ignorant orange leader not spoken openly about taking away some of EPA's power and deregulating industries that are environmentally  dangerous?   Has your party not often redrew district lines in order to gain advantages and take power away from minority districts?  Heck they are on record in North Carolina admitting it.   Where has your party promoted women or minorities other than 1 here or there as a token?   Does your precious Trumpcare not price the elderly out of the insurance market?  


Please, where am I lying in my assessment?  

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

1776 was apparently wrong as Kraven has noted with confidence "well over three hundred years."

--------------------

I'm still right Mr. animal husbandry, too many considered themselves
Americans long before 1776 and it wasn't snotnose libs that
won the war so you could whine about not having enough
free stuff. Ignorant crybabies whine about any unimportant
crap that scares them.
Kraven posted:

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

1776 was apparently wrong as Kraven has noted with confidence "well over three hundred years."

--------------------

I'm still right Mr. animal husbandry, too many considered themselves
Americans long before 1776 and it wasn't snotnose libs that
won the war so you could whine about not having enough
free stuff. Ignorant crybabies whine about any unimportant
crap that scares them.

Do you think the Natives should've banned the snot-nosed Pilgrims from invading their lands?

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:
Kraven posted:
And that's why white America is still the only country making
it's own laws that has served itself well for over three
hundred years. Liberalism not only had nothing to do with that
success but has weakened this country every chance given it.

Did anyone else know we were the only country that made our own laws?  Heck, I thought all countries pretty much made their own laws.   This is amazing!!  And to think our system of law comes from English Common Law, those suckas don't even make their own laws anymore because this badbleep ol' USA is the only country doing that now.  

Suck it England!   'Merica!

 

Just in case anyone didn't know, Kraven has found evidence linking the establishment of the United States to more than 60 years before our recorded history says it was.   1776 was apparently wrong as Kraven has noted with confidence "well over three hundred years."

Anyone with a knowledge of history knows the American colonies existed since the mid 1600s.  They were allowed to pretty much govern their own affairs as long as they laws followed English common law and produced for the mother country.  Many of the colonies, like the Virginia House of Burgess, had their own assemblies.  So, three hundred years isn't a stretch.

Last edited by direstraits

Anyone with any knowledge of the English language or history knows that "america is the only country" refers to the United States, not the colonies.  Because as both you and I know, the colonies were in no way a country.  They were just that, colonies that were beholden to the Monarchy of England.  

Heck I didn't even mention the other glaring error of ignorance where he said we were the only country making our own laws for 300 plus years... in fact, there are a litany of countries whom have been existence longer than the US who have been making their own laws for many years before our founding.   In fact, as far as countries go, the US is still pretty young.  

 

 

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/2a.asp

They created and nurtured them. Like children, the American colonies grew and flourished under British supervision. Like many adolescents, the colonies rebelled against their parent country by declaring independence. But the American democratic experiment did not begin in 1776. The COLONIES had been practicing limited forms of self-government since the early 1600s.

The great expanse of the Atlantic Ocean created a safe distance for American colonists to develop skills to govern themselves. Despite its efforts to control American trade, England could not possibly oversee the entire American coastline. Colonial merchants soon learned to operate outside British law. Finally, those who escaped religious persecution in England demanded the freedom to worship according to their faiths.

I also must object to the use of the word "liberal" as having the same meaning now as in the 18th Century. The Classical Liberal is as much akin to modern liberals as a street walking prostitute is to an eight year old virgin playing on the sidewalk.

A Classical Liberal believed in limited government, unalienable natural rights that all are born with that government can't take away, and free market capitalism. These people are known as Libertarians in the modern era.

A modern liberal is mostly a statist who thinks the only rights that exist concern what he/she/it can bang, the chemicals that can be used for pleasure, free stuff from the goobermint, and the right to rampage against people that are held in contempt by the "intelligentsia". These people think that they can vote themselves to prosperity and can strip what a Classical Liberal thought to be a right at the ballot box.

Last edited by Stanky

You can object as you see fit.  I am referring to the dictionary definition of liberal. Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.  This would encompass all the ideals I spoke of earlier.  They certainly would not have been viewed as conservative ways of thinking.  

And are certainly within your rights to view liberals in a narrow prism which conforms to your conservative viewpoint, but that doesn't make your assertions correct.   Most liberals I know do believe in some form of decriminalization of certain drugs, but this certainly does not support an absurd viewpoint of chemical pleasure.   The fact that alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't simply shows how misguided we are as a nation and as a society and just how strong the alcohol lobby is.

And most of the people I know that receive government assistance are generally pretty conservative.   I always find it ironic when I see someone pulling out an EBT card while talking about "the blacks" and "the mexicans" ruining this country.  And that is something I have seen on more than one occasion due to some of the charity work I have done and jobs I have held.  

One of the more interesting things I have ever witnessed in my life was a conversation with a close friend of mine whom is staunchly conservative.   However conservative this person may be in their ideology, this person also has for many years used recreational drugs.   They also receive a check for, how shall I put this, some  issues they have.   While having a conversation with this person, the follow exchange took place:

 

Friend: I swear man, we should make everyone who gets government assistance take a drug test.

Me: Ok, my grandparents toward the end of their lives had Meals on Wheels, should they have taken a drug test?

Friend:  Well nah man, I don't mean like old people.  

Me:  Ok, so at what age do you draw the line?

Friend:  Hmm... not sure.. that's something we'd really have to work out.

Me:  Ok, well you do realize that you would also have to take a drug test, and you would not pass?

Friend: well not people like me..

Me: Like you?

Friend: yeah I mean I am not really taking advantage of anything...

Me:  Ok.

 

So there you have the crux of the argument.   It's ok for person A to receive government assistance, because they are like you or familiar to you.  But person B, who is in a different class or socioeconomic strata, it's not ok.  It's always so different when it's someone you care about or know and see how the assistance helps that person. 

 

 

Stanky posted:

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/2a.asp

They created and nurtured them. Like children, the American colonies grew and flourished under British supervision. Like many adolescents, the colonies rebelled against their parent country by declaring independence. But the American democratic experiment did not begin in 1776. The COLONIES had been practicing limited forms of self-government since the early 1600s.

The great expanse of the Atlantic Ocean created a safe distance for American colonists to develop skills to govern themselves. Despite its efforts to control American trade, England could not possibly oversee the entire American coastline. Colonial merchants soon learned to operate outside British law. Finally, those who escaped religious persecution in England demanded the freedom to worship according to their faiths.

I also must object to the use of the word "liberal" as having the same meaning now as in the 18th Century. The Classical Liberal is as much akin to modern liberals as a street walking prostitute is to an eight year old virgin playing on the sidewalk.

A Classical Liberal believed in limited government, unalienable natural rights that all are born with that government can't take away, and free market capitalism. These people are known as Libertarians in the modern era.

A modern liberal is mostly a statist who thinks the only rights that exist concern what he/she/it can bang, the chemicals that can be used for pleasure, free stuff from the goobermint, and the right to rampage against people that are held in contempt by the "intelligentsia". These people think that they can vote themselves to prosperity and can strip what a Classical Liberal thought to be a right at the ballot box.

Did the colonies trample on the unalienable natural rights of the Natives? 

Naio posted:
Stanky posted:

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/2a.asp

They created and nurtured them. Like children, the American colonies grew and flourished under British supervision. Like many adolescents, the colonies rebelled against their parent country by declaring independence. But the American democratic experiment did not begin in 1776. The COLONIES had been practicing limited forms of self-government since the early 1600s.

The great expanse of the Atlantic Ocean created a safe distance for American colonists to develop skills to govern themselves. Despite its efforts to control American trade, England could not possibly oversee the entire American coastline. Colonial merchants soon learned to operate outside British law. Finally, those who escaped religious persecution in England demanded the freedom to worship according to their faiths.

I also must object to the use of the word "liberal" as having the same meaning now as in the 18th Century. The Classical Liberal is as much akin to modern liberals as a street walking prostitute is to an eight year old virgin playing on the sidewalk.

A Classical Liberal believed in limited government, unalienable natural rights that all are born with that government can't take away, and free market capitalism. These people are known as Libertarians in the modern era.

A modern liberal is mostly a statist who thinks the only rights that exist concern what he/she/it can bang, the chemicals that can be used for pleasure, free stuff from the goobermint, and the right to rampage against people that are held in contempt by the "intelligentsia". These people think that they can vote themselves to prosperity and can strip what a Classical Liberal thought to be a right at the ballot box.

Did the colonies trample on the unalienable natural rights of the Natives? 

The colonies and early US had people who thought the same as modern liberals. The natives had land and resources that people wanted for free, so people voted for politicians who got it for them. 

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

Anyone with any knowledge of the English language or history knows that "america is the only country" refers to the United States, not the colonies.  Because as both you and I know, the colonies were in no way a country.  They were just that, colonies that were beholden to the Monarchy of England.  

Crown colonies were beholden to the king. Other colonies were beholden to their factors and parliament. I believe Rhode Island was just beholden to parliament.

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

You can object as you see fit.  I am referring to the dictionary definition of liberal. Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.  This would encompass all the ideals I spoke of earlier.  They certainly would not have been viewed as conservative ways of thinking.  

And are certainly within your rights to view liberals in a narrow prism which conforms to your conservative viewpoint, but that doesn't make your assertions correct.   Most liberals I know do believe in some form of decriminalization of certain drugs, but this certainly does not support an absurd viewpoint of chemical pleasure.   The fact that alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't simply shows how misguided we are as a nation and as a society and just how strong the alcohol lobby is.

And most of the people I know that receive government assistance are generally pretty conservative.   I always find it ironic when I see someone pulling out an EBT card while talking about "the blacks" and "the mexicans" ruining this country.  And that is something I have seen on more than one occasion due to some of the charity work I have done and jobs I have held.  

One of the more interesting things I have ever witnessed in my life was a conversation with a close friend of mine whom is staunchly conservative.   However conservative this person may be in their ideology, this person also has for many years used recreational drugs.   They also receive a check for, how shall I put this, some  issues they have.   While having a conversation with this person, the follow exchange took place:

 

Friend: I swear man, we should make everyone who gets government assistance take a drug test.

Me: Ok, my grandparents toward the end of their lives had Meals on Wheels, should they have taken a drug test?

Friend:  Well nah man, I don't mean like old people.  

Me:  Ok, so at what age do you draw the line?

Friend:  Hmm... not sure.. that's something we'd really have to work out.

Me:  Ok, well you do realize that you would also have to take a drug test, and you would not pass?

Friend: well not people like me..

Me: Like you?

Friend: yeah I mean I am not really taking advantage of anything...

Me:  Ok.

 

So there you have the crux of the argument.   It's ok for person A to receive government assistance, because they are like you or familiar to you.  But person B, who is in a different class or socioeconomic strata, it's not ok.  It's always so different when it's someone you care about or know and see how the assistance helps that person. 

 

 

Pardon me, since 1935 the choice was taken from most folks. The goobermint strips money from our paychecks and demands we take Medicare at 65. Since we have no say in the matter about the taxes, it is only fitting people use the services. I would prefer that people get the choice on the matter at least by age 30 and not have the choice made for us by the goobermint.

Stanky posted:
Naio posted:
Stanky posted:

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/2a.asp

They created and nurtured them. Like children, the American colonies grew and flourished under British supervision. Like many adolescents, the colonies rebelled against their parent country by declaring independence. But the American democratic experiment did not begin in 1776. The COLONIES had been practicing limited forms of self-government since the early 1600s.

The great expanse of the Atlantic Ocean created a safe distance for American colonists to develop skills to govern themselves. Despite its efforts to control American trade, England could not possibly oversee the entire American coastline. Colonial merchants soon learned to operate outside British law. Finally, those who escaped religious persecution in England demanded the freedom to worship according to their faiths.

I also must object to the use of the word "liberal" as having the same meaning now as in the 18th Century. The Classical Liberal is as much akin to modern liberals as a street walking prostitute is to an eight year old virgin playing on the sidewalk.

A Classical Liberal believed in limited government, unalienable natural rights that all are born with that government can't take away, and free market capitalism. These people are known as Libertarians in the modern era.

A modern liberal is mostly a statist who thinks the only rights that exist concern what he/she/it can bang, the chemicals that can be used for pleasure, free stuff from the goobermint, and the right to rampage against people that are held in contempt by the "intelligentsia". These people think that they can vote themselves to prosperity and can strip what a Classical Liberal thought to be a right at the ballot box.

Did the colonies trample on the unalienable natural rights of the Natives? 

The colonies and early US had people who thought the same as modern liberals. The natives had land and resources that people wanted for free, so people voted for politicians who got it for them. 

Not sure I understand what you mean.  Do you think capitalism and the free market worked out for the Natives, who were here first?

Naio posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:
Stanky posted:

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/2a.asp

They created and nurtured them. Like children, the American colonies grew and flourished under British supervision. Like many adolescents, the colonies rebelled against their parent country by declaring independence. But the American democratic experiment did not begin in 1776. The COLONIES had been practicing limited forms of self-government since the early 1600s.

The great expanse of the Atlantic Ocean created a safe distance for American colonists to develop skills to govern themselves. Despite its efforts to control American trade, England could not possibly oversee the entire American coastline. Colonial merchants soon learned to operate outside British law. Finally, those who escaped religious persecution in England demanded the freedom to worship according to their faiths.

I also must object to the use of the word "liberal" as having the same meaning now as in the 18th Century. The Classical Liberal is as much akin to modern liberals as a street walking prostitute is to an eight year old virgin playing on the sidewalk.

A Classical Liberal believed in limited government, unalienable natural rights that all are born with that government can't take away, and free market capitalism. These people are known as Libertarians in the modern era.

A modern liberal is mostly a statist who thinks the only rights that exist concern what he/she/it can bang, the chemicals that can be used for pleasure, free stuff from the goobermint, and the right to rampage against people that are held in contempt by the "intelligentsia". These people think that they can vote themselves to prosperity and can strip what a Classical Liberal thought to be a right at the ballot box.

Did the colonies trample on the unalienable natural rights of the Natives? 

The colonies and early US had people who thought the same as modern liberals. The natives had land and resources that people wanted for free, so people voted for politicians who got it for them. 

Not sure I understand what you mean.  Do you think capitalism and the free market worked out for the Natives, who were here first?

Paying or trading for land is capitalism. The goobermint taking land by fiat is statism. People who thought like modern liberals existed then as now, but I doubt they prospered by their actions. Folks like that tend to be too lazy to prosper, so I doubt they held title to the land for very long.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×