Maine Republicans Adopt Tea Party Platform

[Kstills]

It doesn't matter - it is just an interesting point... that could we be changing what things are called to be 'politically correct' to the right - removing the word 'liberal' from things.

I was going conversational here shag...

I notice that lately the 'right' has been inching towards embracing Kennedy- it has been done a couple of times here.... so when they do, do you think they will have to reword this quote...

“If by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the People — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a Liberal, then I'm proud to say I'm a Liberal.” ~ John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960

Kennedy= Fail...

 

[foxpaws]

Attacking the messenger already Fox?

Who is slinging poo here?

Interesting that you only cite your own post; conveniently avoiding the whole context of the debate. Never mind that you are inherently misrepresenting Jefferson in that post as well as attempting to force unreasonable rules on the debate to favor your point of view ("You may not use David Limbaugh").

No integrity on this forum from day one, eh?

You stay classy.

For anyone trying to make sense of this, she is citing post #62 from this thread; specifically, page three of that thread. One would be wise to read the posts preceding post #62 as well as those after it to get a better idea of the context of the debate.

That is why I put the link in shag - I wasn't hiding anything - however, I would be a fool if I didn't put out a strong point....

I would like everyone to read that whole thread - and at some point shag - you should return to it yourself.

And, once again - you used Limbaugh, I proved him wrong - why should you be allowed to use him again, and I think I could have knocked him down on that second point as well.. It just seemed odd that I would have to discredit a source once I had already done so.

If you discuss the founding fathers - how about just using their words, from their exact documents, easily found at their libraries.

I did throughout that entire debate, that is what is called for, however, you wandered all over, and you were caught with misquotes, mistakes, etc.

I will gladly stand by everything that is in that thread - will you Shag?

 

[foxpaws]

Kennedy= Fail...

But don't you find it odd that some of the right have been sort of dancing around him, picking up on 'positives' in his administration. I do... He is as liberal as they come, why not just leave him alone, and not try to absorb some of his stands, if you are on the right?

 

[shagdrum]

So, you think it is OK for the United States of America to adopt an economic school of thought as what, law?

???

No economic system can be run from the top down; command and control does. Not. Work.

History has shown that countless times.

I would agree with the following quotes:

While the presumption must favour the free market, laissez-faire is not the ultimate and only conclusion

Laissez-faire was never more than rule of thumb. It indeed expressed protest against abuses of governmental power, but
never provided a criterion by which one could decide what were the proper functions of government​

guess who?

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. V. Thornton (short enough Shag?)

Yep!

 

[Kstills]

But don't you find it odd that some of the right have been sort of dancing around him, picking up on 'positives' in his administration. I do... He is as liberal as they come, why not just leave him alone, and not try to absorb some of his stands, if you are on the right?

No, because Kennedy makes today's moderate Republicans look like Nancy Pelosi clones.

A disreputable family that the country is well rid of. I salute John's service, but that's about it.

 

[shagdrum]

And, once again - you used Limbaugh, I proved him wrong - why should you use him again, you tried...

Where?

If you discuss the founding fathers - how about just using their words, from their exact documents, easily found at their libraries.

I have done that numerous times in that thread and in numerous other threads since then. The narrative you tried to draw in that thread is inherently dishonest, as has been shown numerous times on this forum.

you wandered all over, and you were caught with misquotes, mistakes, etc.

Again, where?

 

[shagdrum]

No, because Kennedy makes today's moderate Republicans look like Nancy Pelosi clones.

A disreputable family that the country is well rid of. I salute John's service, but that's about it.

He did take a fiscally conservative approach to the economy in the form of tax cuts to stimulate (though it wasn't called fiscal conservatism at the time).

 

[Kstills]

He did take a fiscally conservative approach to the economy in the form of tax cuts to stimulate (though it wasn't called fiscal conservatism at the time).

"Even a blind squirrel..."....

 

[foxpaws]

Where?

Here - he doesn't understand the Northwest Ordinance...

I have done that numerous times in that thread and in numerous other threads since then. The narrative you tried to draw in that thread is inherently dishonest, as has been shown numerous times on this forum.

No shag - the whole Limbaugh thing was just one example - I think if you are doing this you just use the founding fathers. Do you want a list of when you went elsewhere other than their original documents posted at their libraries?

Again, where?

here - although it took Foss to convince you...

You used Barton - gakkkkkkk.......... just another example of not going to original source

 

[shagdrum]

Here - he doesn't understand the Northwest Ordinance...

Actually, you were simply spinning the passage cited from the northwest ordinance. I was unable to respond right away and was still trying to give you the benefit of the doubt personally, as I was communicating with your privately and thought you had some degree of integrity. I was trying to play nice.

Now you seem to be construing my lack of response as victory. Something you do quite often; turn the thread into a war of attrition and when your opponent tires of you, you declare victory.

The truth is that you did NOT show that I didn't "understand the Northwest Ordinance". At best, you showed it might be a questionable interpretation (and that is being generous).

However, you did that by parsing the line and attempting to distort the actual context of the passage in question.

Do you want a list of when you went elsewhere other than their original documents posted at their libraries?

Yes.

Since Barton's bad claim was identified in that thread I have worked to backtrack to original documents or specify if that was not possible in pointing to a quote..

here - although it took Foss to convince you...

One bad claim, which I recognized early in the thread when fossten pointed it out. However, you are characterizing it as a pattern which is a lie and you know it.

you wandered all over, and you were caught with misquotes, mistakes, etc.

Like I said, you are attacking the messenger here.

 

[foxpaws]

Actually, you were simply spinning the passage cited from the northwest ordinance. I was unable to respond right away and was still trying to give you the benefit of the doubt personally, as I was communicating with your privately and thought you had some degree of integrity. I was trying to play nice.

Now you seem to be construing my lack of response as victory. Something you do quite often; turn the thread into a war of attrition and when your opponent tires of you, you declare victory.

The truth is that you did NOT show that I didn't "understand the Northwest Ordinance". At best, you showed it might be a questionable interpretation (and that is being generous).

However, you did that by parsing the line and attempting to distort the actual context of the passage in question.

I didn't show that YOU didn't understand the Northwest Passage - I didn't have a clue whether or not you did - I showed that LIMBAUGH didn't understand it and used it in a way that has been shown false many times.

You also used Wallbuilders... and was shown how they 'snip' and 'paste'. You used it with a letter of Jefferson's and when Marcus posted the entire letter, rather than the hack job you used from Wallbuilders, it was shown that it meant something rather different than what you claimed it did.

So shag, have you ever understood that the founding fathers had no problem with the concept of state with God, but had a huge problem with allowing religion and state to co-mingle?

Once again - the constitution very clearly states 'religion' and not 'God' and Jefferson also was very clear when he created that wall, that it was between 'religion' and government and not between 'God' and government.

And that it isn't just a point of semantics?

I think why you didn't continue with that thread was because it did finally dawn on you that there was a difference between God and Religion with regards to the constitution, and you just didn't want to have to state that the founding fathers did have problems with mixing religion and state.

One bad claim, which I recognized early in the thread when fossten pointed it out. However, you are characterizing it as a pattern which is a lie and you know it

I pointed it out far earlier than foss... However, I was playing very nice and tried to pose it as a question so you would look up the real letter for yourself... without going into the whole 'dishonest' thing. It just seemed to me you had been led astray by Barton... (once again - gak......)

 

[shagdrum]

I didn't show that YOU didn't understand the Northwest Passage - I didn't have a clue whether or not you did - I showed that LIMBAUGH didn't understand it and used it in a way that has been shown false many times.

Wrong.

You simply spun, and dishonestly parsed the passage in question to misrepresent it.

You also used Wallbuilders... and was shown how they 'snip' and 'paste'. You used it with a letter of Jefferson's and when Marcus posted the entire letter, rather than the hack job you used from Wallbuilders, it was shown that it meant something rather different than what you claimed it did.

Wrong again.

The "snip" in question did not in any way change the meaning of the letter or take it out of context.

Not that you would have the integrity to admit that...

So shag, have you ever understood that the founding fathers had no problem with the concept of state with God, but had a huge problem with allowing religion and state to co-mingle?

Can you say "loaded question"?

A number of states required religious tests (specfically a belief in Christianity) to hold office around the time of ratification. During this time, no less then 6 states had official, state established churches. In fact, this was a point of contention for these states during ratification that the Fed not be allowed to interfere with their official churches and the states won out on that. Hardly seems as if the Framers had a problem with religion and state to "co-mingling".

Maybe you are forgetting the idea of Federalism and how that played out back then. Not to suprising. Most liberals ignore the idea of Federalism.

The truth is that the Framers saw religion as integral to this nation and I have spelled out why on numerous occasions on this forum.

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
-John Addams​

In fact the idea of God was integral to the entire Classical Liberal approach applied by the Framers. The ideas of Natural Law and Natural Rights have the concept of God as their cornerstone, again, as I have spelled out numerous times, including this thread; specifically post #89:

Jefferson clearly bought into the Lockean idea of Natural Rights inherent to being human due to being created in God's image; thus coming from God as the Creator of humans.

The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.
-Thomas Jefferson, Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774)​

Jefferson also saw American society as viewing those rights as coming from God.

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?
-Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia (1782)

This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.
-Thomas Jefferson in a Letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825​

I also spell out in post #94 of that thread how you rely on spinning what amounts to nothing more then circumstantial evidence to prove your point when circumstantial evidence can not prove ANYTHING.

As has been proven countless times on this forum your entire narrative is reactionary and based in an deliberate attempt to reject the clear truth that the Framers viewed religion as integral to this nation.

I think why you didn't continue with that thread was because it did finally dawn on you that there was a difference between God and Religion with regards to the constitution, and you just didn't want to have to state that the founding fathers did have problems with mixing religion and state.

You know better then that and I know you know better from private messages exchanged when that thread was active.

Is that the wedge you are trying to use now to inject your lies; that there is some difference between God and religion that the framers recognized?

Never mind that religion in America back then was generally understood to mean Christianity in a broad sense.

Never mind that the ENTIRE PHILOSOPHY employed be the Framers was rooted in a belief in a Judeo-Christian God (from which Natural Law is derived).

Never mind the the Declaration of Independence makes this abundantly clear when it says "we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable Rights".

Never mind the concept of Federalism and how it influenced what Jefferson said in the Danbury Baptist letter; recognizing that only the Federal government is secular but that state governments and lower were in no way obligated to recognize any sort of "wall of separation". That Jefferson's wall was not as you distort it, but instead had the Federal government on one side and all other levels of government with religion on the other side.

Never mind the fact that it is you that does not understand the Danbury Baptist letter, the Northwest Ordinance or any of these other documents of which you speak authoritatively.

I have already demonstrated that the Framers had no problem with religion or with religion and government co-mingling. They only had any issue with how the Federal government co-mingled with religion.

It just seemed to me you had been led astray by Barton... (once again - gak......)

And there you go again trying to make it seem like a pattern yet you can only point to one valid incident.

However I can (and have on multiple occasions) point to numerous examples of dishonesty on this issue or on almost every issue you discuss on this forum.

 

[foxpaws]

So shag - I just ask people to go back and review the thread - we have been over all those points, and not once did you ever answer the big question...

Do you realize that the founding fathers had nothing against "God and State" and had a huge problem with "Religions and State" and that is what Jefferson was writing about, very specifically?

The founding fathers were a rather vain lot as they aged. I think they knew their place in history. They saved tons of letters, practically every draft... and it is very obvious, from both the final letter and the drafts of the Danbury letter that Jefferson never meant 'Federal government on one side and all other levels of government with religion'. Jefferson wasn't a dolt - if that is what he meant, that is what he would have written. As I said, he had a pretty good idea of his place in history... There is never, ever any indication that is where he was heading, however there is tons of written evidence that the founding fathers wanted organized religion and state to be completely separate. Not God and state - that is fine, but they, almost to a man, worried about involving religion in state affairs. Why do you think we are here - it wasn't because we were being persecuted for our eating habits...

Don't put words in Jefferson's letters that aren't there - I would take Jefferson at his word, and not at your speculation Shag.

 

[shagdrum]

we have been over all those points, and not once did you ever answer the big question...

Do you realize that the founding fathers had nothing against "God and State" and had a huge problem with "Religions and State" and that is what Jefferson was writing about, very specifically?

I answered any and all legitimate questions you asked and you know it. What you are claiming is NOT backed up by facts as I showed in that thread.

The founding fathers were a rather vain lot as they aged. I think they knew their place in history. They saved tons of letters, practically every draft... and it is very obvious, from both the final letter and the drafts of the Danbury letter that Jefferson never meant 'Federal government on one side and all other levels of government with religion'.

And there you go again perpetuating a blatant LIE about the Framer and about Jefferson in particular.

The Danbury baptist letter clearly did mean what I said it did. Simply stating otherwise does not change that. Only by INTENTIONALLY ignoring the historical context of the letter andthe context in the letter as well as assuming the "wall of separation" he talked meant what you think it does can you even come close to reasonably drawing that conclusion from the letter. Circular logic and using the letter as circumstantial evidence.

In fact, trying to use quotes as circumstantial evidence was ALL you did. The only info you EVER provided to back up your claims were VAGUE quotes and citations that could support your positions or support what I said. I provided quotes that unquestionably supported what I said and rejected what you said. You have to take ALL those quotes into account and when that is done your narrative is shown for the lie that it is.

Your argument relied on cherry picking and spin, mine simply relied on the facts. Your argument was based in deception, mine was based in exposing the truth.

I have already spelled out the truth that is apparent in the founding documents and writings of many of the framers. From post #47 of that thread:

The Framer's rightly assumed that increasing autonomy through increasing freedom would lead to an increase in both the inherently good and evil aspects of human nature. Government can only counter that increase in evil through more laws and reductions in freedom. In order to have a free society, the Framers viewed a religious and moral society as necessary because religion would curb those evil aspects of human nature while allowing for a free society. ​

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
-John Addams​

Religion was integral to the working to their "great experiment" working and the Framers only had any contention at all with religion and the FEDERAL government co-mingling. That facts back this up pretty clearly.

Don't put words in Jefferson's letters that aren't there - I would take Jefferson at his word, and not at your speculation Shag.

The only one putting words in Jefferson's mouth is you, and you know it.

Isn't it funny how liberals always project their dishonesty onto other to avoid getting called on it.

 

[foxpaws]

The only one putting words in Jefferson's mouth is you, and you know it.

Isn't it funny how liberals always project their dishonesty onto other to avoid getting called on it.

Once again - if people are interested they are more than welcome to review the thread...

However... let's see who puts words in Jefferson's mouth...

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.​

To make it work for your supposition you have to ADD the words - all other levels of government with religion

Jefferson said exactly what he wanted to - and I don't have to ADD words to make my point - you do.

He didn't even add 'federal government' when he spoke of 'legitimate' government. He was talking about all government - he didn't narrow the field Shag... only you do that by ADDING words and ideas that aren't there...

 

[shagdrum]

You are once again ignoring the context of the letter, the correspondence and (most importantly) the historical context.

Only if you ignore the whole idea of Federalism does your narrative start to make any sense.

Notice he says:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.​

The WHOLE AMERICAN PEOPLE and THEIR legislature was an obvious reference to the FEDERAL government. He clearly was not referring to state level and lower governments who only represented the state's population. He was referring to the one legislature that represented the whole American people; the FEDERAL legislature.

Also, he referred to the 1st Amendment when he said, "...make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." The 1st Amendment (and the entire bill of rights) was ONLY a restriction on the FEDERAL LEGISLATURE and was understood as such by the nation at large and by the Framers and Jefferson specifically. He was not, in any way, referring to anything other then the Federal legislature.

It wasn't until the legal fiction of "incorporation" was created in the 20th century and the 1st Amendment was "incorporated" in the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education that the 1st amendment applied to other levels of government.

Jefferson had no problem with religion and government intermingling on the state level, even promoting it at times. But he was arguably the strongest adherent to 1st amendment as it was understood at the time.

I make this all clear in this thread.

Jefferson's words were carefully chosen and his intent was rather clear. Only by intentionally IGNORING the historical context of the letter can you reach the distortion that you are promoting.

The only one putting words in Jefferson's mouth is you. As usual.

You always get into problems when you forget about Federalism with regards to the Framers.

 

[foxpaws]

The only one putting words in Jefferson's mouth is you. As usual.

You always get into problems when you forget about Federalism with regards to the Framers.

Gosh, and who did he write the letter to, and what was the problem? The problem was a State problem, not a federal problem. He wrote it to the Baptists in Danbury, because the state government of Connecticut was playing favorites...

He wrote this letter specifically address a state problem, and that the fact that the states (all governments) need to adhere to the federal constitution...

Sorry shag - you have to do better than that, still putting words in Jefferson's letter...

I don't have to...

I don't have to create some big 'analytical' retort.

He wrote it to the Baptists in Danbury after they complained to him about how their state government was running roughshod over them.

He very clearly states that church and state need to have a wall between them, in a letter where he is responding to a state government situation...

In fact, in his drafts, he was more vehement - he calls for an 'eternal wall of separation' - sort of really states his thoughts there... however, after it was review by Lincoln and others, he toned it down - in notes in the margins he stated he didn't want to 'offend' - ah yes, he was a politician....

So, we could even take this further - you believe that Jefferson was only indicating that 'wall of separation of church and state' was only at a federal level - that he was fine with allowing states to promote one religion over the other?

And heck, let's see what some other founding fathers thought... Lets go with the father of the constitution...

Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And in a Govt. of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; And that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the declaration of Independence, has shewn that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent Country. If a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States, which have abolished their religious establishments.
James Madison