9 thoughts on “Why Paul Ryan’s Constitution Has A Lot More In Common With Ayn Rand Than With The Founding Fathers | ThinkProgress”
I stopped reading after their taxes blather. If it’s not immediately clear that a major reason for the revolution was punitive taxes and tariffs – and that the Founders would no more appreciate them today – then you need to take another civics class.
If not for the Constitution itself, liberal-progressives shouldn’t be allowed to even speak of it! Liberal-progressives would just as soon wipe their ass with it. Wilson and Roosevelt, two popular men among liberal-progressives, didn’t believe the Construction was relevant in modern times, and liberal-progressives today feel the same way. I can’t tell ya how many liberal-progressives I’ve heard argue against the Second Amendment by arguing against the applicability of our Constitution in modern times!
Liberal-progressives have no respect for Constitution whatsoever. Disgusting.
That is total crap! Conservs are NO more interested in the truth than are the liberals. Conservs cannot speak to what the Constitution is no more than liberals the only way to know what they truly meant by their words is to speak to them and since that is impossible…..any interpretation is just that….what someone thinks it means..,..and a liberals take is as valid as anyone else…..the disgusting thing is that anyone would pretend to know what the Founder’s were thinking…the disgusting thing is a narrow mind.
Your most recent post proves that we as modern citizens can seek guidance from our Founders in the form of their writings. So the idea that unconstituional liberal policies can be justified via a pledge of ignorance regarding our Founders intent, is simply absurd.
Are some conservative policies and actions unconstituional? Of course. But
Loading...
Conservs do NOT speak for the Constitution….they can only speak to what they think it says…..the only way to prove that they are correct is speak to a Founder as to what they intended…….one opinion is as accurate as anyone’s else….
Loading...
Lobotero,
I didn’t say conservatives speak for the Constitution; I factually asserted that conservative politices are more in line with what the Constitution actually says.
But this notion that the Constitution cannot be properly interpreted is asinine. It hasn’t a basis in reality whatsoever. You’re literally saying that despite written words by our Founders explaining a given amendment, the intent of the Constitution can only be guessed.
And isn’t it curious that a constitution by perception just happens to benefit liberals….
Loading...
Once again…NOTHING I say is asinine….then what you are saying is that the Constitution is precise….if so then we should not need the SCOTUS to act as the referee in political debates…..the written word is the published debate…as usual this post has gone from Ryan’s Libertarianism to a debate on the intent of the Founders….is this how the debate goes now…..pick one word out of anything written and turn it into a debate?
Loading...
Lob,
I’m afraid that much of what you have said in this post is asinine.
The Supreme Court is a necessary arbiter. There are certain amendments – such as the 2nd – that are not immediately clear in their meaning, and we need an independent body (SCOTUS) to analyze not only the amendment in question, but the writers of it as well.
My argument is that we can indeed discover the true meaning behind any given amendment simply by reading the diaries, correspondence, and public statements of the author.
You don’t welcome debate?
Loading...
First that post was not mine…..second I posted it just to illustrate the Ryan may not have the same things in mind as the more traditional Repubs……you know you do not need to ask that question……
Loading...
*But conservative policies are more in line with the Constitution than liberal policies.
I stopped reading after their taxes blather. If it’s not immediately clear that a major reason for the revolution was punitive taxes and tariffs – and that the Founders would no more appreciate them today – then you need to take another civics class.
If not for the Constitution itself, liberal-progressives shouldn’t be allowed to even speak of it! Liberal-progressives would just as soon wipe their ass with it. Wilson and Roosevelt, two popular men among liberal-progressives, didn’t believe the Construction was relevant in modern times, and liberal-progressives today feel the same way. I can’t tell ya how many liberal-progressives I’ve heard argue against the Second Amendment by arguing against the applicability of our Constitution in modern times!
Liberal-progressives have no respect for Constitution whatsoever. Disgusting.
That is total crap! Conservs are NO more interested in the truth than are the liberals. Conservs cannot speak to what the Constitution is no more than liberals the only way to know what they truly meant by their words is to speak to them and since that is impossible…..any interpretation is just that….what someone thinks it means..,..and a liberals take is as valid as anyone else…..the disgusting thing is that anyone would pretend to know what the Founder’s were thinking…the disgusting thing is a narrow mind.
Lobotero,
Your most recent post proves that we as modern citizens can seek guidance from our Founders in the form of their writings. So the idea that unconstituional liberal policies can be justified via a pledge of ignorance regarding our Founders intent, is simply absurd.
Are some conservative policies and actions unconstituional? Of course. But
Conservs do NOT speak for the Constitution….they can only speak to what they think it says…..the only way to prove that they are correct is speak to a Founder as to what they intended…….one opinion is as accurate as anyone’s else….
Lobotero,
I didn’t say conservatives speak for the Constitution; I factually asserted that conservative politices are more in line with what the Constitution actually says.
But this notion that the Constitution cannot be properly interpreted is asinine. It hasn’t a basis in reality whatsoever. You’re literally saying that despite written words by our Founders explaining a given amendment, the intent of the Constitution can only be guessed.
And isn’t it curious that a constitution by perception just happens to benefit liberals….
Once again…NOTHING I say is asinine….then what you are saying is that the Constitution is precise….if so then we should not need the SCOTUS to act as the referee in political debates…..the written word is the published debate…as usual this post has gone from Ryan’s Libertarianism to a debate on the intent of the Founders….is this how the debate goes now…..pick one word out of anything written and turn it into a debate?
Lob,
I’m afraid that much of what you have said in this post is asinine.
The Supreme Court is a necessary arbiter. There are certain amendments – such as the 2nd – that are not immediately clear in their meaning, and we need an independent body (SCOTUS) to analyze not only the amendment in question, but the writers of it as well.
My argument is that we can indeed discover the true meaning behind any given amendment simply by reading the diaries, correspondence, and public statements of the author.
You don’t welcome debate?
First that post was not mine…..second I posted it just to illustrate the Ryan may not have the same things in mind as the more traditional Repubs……you know you do not need to ask that question……
*But conservative policies are more in line with the Constitution than liberal policies.