Forums | MacLife

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

Initially, only male land owners could vote.
Somehow that doesn't strike me as liberal either.

The constitution is an aspirational document that took along time before it really worked it's way into society. And as your examples show, practices that were accepted back then would be anathema now because we have progressed in our understanding of things and society has become more pluralistic in nature.
Your examples are just further evidence that looking back 200 years to interpret the constitution is a reactionary and undesirable way of looking at things.

Very true. Plus the document was intentionally created to evolve as the people saw fit. We can change it, if deemed necessary. Gotta love the Elastic Clause.

iSeamas wrote:

Is Res actually making the argument that whipping one's wife and only allowing landowners to vote are both conservative values?

No.
I'm making the argument that Pariah is full of it if he thinks our forefathers were liberal.

Bat wrote:

resedit wrote:

iSeamas wrote:

Is Res actually making the argument that whipping one's wife and only allowing landowners to vote are both conservative values?

No.
I'm making the argument that Pariah is full of it

And by extension, y'all? I haven't merged with Pariah, either.

It's not a "conservative value" as in a value held by all conservatives, just like Stalin's persecution of any form of religion is not a "liberal value" held by all liberals.

To be for democracy in 1770s was a very liberal position by the standards of the day.

Some of what they accepted would be a very conservative position by the standards of today.



Is this really a matter of debate ?

Jesus saves, but Orr scores anyway!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE9s_FaO … re=related

sturner wrote:

resedit wrote:

iSeamas wrote:

Is Res actually making the argument that whipping one's wife and only allowing landowners to vote are both conservative values?

No.
I'm making the argument that Pariah is full of it if he thinks our forefathers were liberal.

They were EXTREMELY liberal.

If you want to use that definition of liberal, sure.
But then it has no relevance in the context to what Pariah was saying.

I heard that Ben Franklin liked to wear women's underthings.

He liked to wear the women's underthings that he got to remove from the ladies himself. Ben was quite a womanizer.

resedit wrote:

The founders were liberal, intellectual elitists who shared few of the "Christian" values common in the general population.

Intellectual, sure.
Not sure they could be called "liberal" - they had laws about not working on Sunday, for example, based on the 10 commandments, and you could have your wife publicly whipped for a number of reasons.

I'm not sure liberals would appreciate being associated with that.

Going by that questionable line of thinking then I guess they really were liberals, what with the ruffled shirts (gay) and long hair (hippies), and having sex with underage black women.

Do you understand the concept of thinking in context?

resedit wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

Do 33% of Fox News viewers still believe that the US found WMDs in Iraq?

Actually we did - fairly early on when the inspectors were still there. They weren't usable in the state they were in, the were old and defunct but they were there.

*koff*

Note to KHannon - notice the lack of any supporting documentation for his point?

I've not seen that stat myself, don't really care, but if you are going to be critical when I don't cite a source, take a look around.

I just so happened to take a look around on one of the posted links, and- guess what that wild and crazy-lib George Will had to say on a sidebar link...

Conservative columnist George Will went after former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday, saying the Bush administration could have used some "dithering" before they invaded Iraq.

Will was responding to the VP's widely-circulated comment that President Obama was "dithering" on Afghanistan and putting troops in danger. On the contrary, Will said, it was hasty decisions that put people at risk.

"A bit of dithering might have been in order before we went into Iraq in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction," Will said on ABC's "This Week. "For a representative of the Bush administration to accuse someone of taking too much time is missing the point. We have much more to fear in this town from hasty than from slow government action."

Watch:  <embedded video player>

Well, I know you know more about this than Will- but it still gives one pause, no?

non-existent weapons of mass destruction

George Will To Cheney: You Should Have Dithered Before Invading Iraq (VIDEO)

So what's your point, you disagree with my opinion?

That's given. It's my view, and it reflects poorly on the left, so you have to disagree

Say what? Some of have already felt the need to disabuse you of this, but your continued adherence to "me, and perhaps one or two like me" vs. "y'all" (everyone else) continues to evidentiate.

I know; sometimes one just has to get it purged before feeling better. I've seen you refer to the Syrian move several times, but res' holding forth on that himself must predate my time here. That really only began around election time a year ago.

Bat wrote:

I know; sometimes one just has to get it purged before feeling better. I've seen you refer to the Syrian move several times, but res' holding forth on that himself must predate my time here. That really only began around election time a year ago.

For your enjoyment: a blast from the past.