Can a modern day "liberal" also be a "patriot"?

maineman said:
again... you don't got enough pay grade to dismiss me EVER, cunt. Neither do Senior Chiefs.
Click to expand...

Resorting to the C word now? Queen Darla not gonna be happy with you.

Do you think your boys turned out the way they did because of your long trips to sea? I feel sorry for them. I will say a prayer for them. You can pray away the gay
 
maineman said:
it doesn't "matter" what they are. They are what they are and they both happen to be straight. For you to using insulting terms to describe my children kind of irks me slightly. Like when I was at that bar and saw your wife suck cock for an entire gang of Hell's Angels without ever getting off her knees.... they liked it that she could take her top teeth out, apparently. It was quite a show. She'd suck and suck and then spit into a cup and then start sucking again. Really classy. Where did you find her? I thought she was so skanky looking I wouldn't have fucked her with Truth deflector's cock. But... hey... if it works for you, great. I bet you never have a problem with vaginal lubrication, do you? But again... how do you really enjoy fucking your skanky whore wife when we both know that you were wishing it had been you on your knees in front of the bikers?
Click to expand...
there's the MM we've all come to love and adore.......
 



this man started the heritage foundation.


then your party began getting caught by the courts cheating voters out of their votes for decades.


Your the party of keeping poor and ethnically diverse AMERICANS from voting.



In America that is traitorous.



to be a republican today you have to be unaware of FACTS or a fucking willing traitor.

You people who vote republican here know these facts because Ive forced them on you.


You are willing traitors
 
You cant be a well informed republican voter and NOT be a traitor.


do you think our troops fight and die to keep Americans from voting so your slimebag party can win illeagally?


you are nothing but traitors
 
It is clearly proven FACT that the republican party chjeats in elections right from the very top.


Reagan knew it.

hell he used pumped up race language to win elections.


Reagan was a traitor for backing the heritage foundation when he knew what those creatins stood for
 
How can you be any more of a traitor than to subvert Democracy in this country?



Oh yeah you can PRETEND we are NOT a democracy huh just like the republican idiots do
 
Right said:
I think not.

A modern day liberal, or progressive, seeks to creatively interpret the Constitution. In truth they ignore it, usurp it, despise it. A patriot, on the other hand, is someone who reveres the Constitution, understands its original intent and meaning, and seeks to apply it to solving modern problems.

The meaning of liberalism has changed throughout US history. During the revolutionary period a liberal was someone who was against the monarchy and fought for a republican form of government. They recognized that government was a necessary evil, and that in order to minimize the evil they also had to limit the powers of the government. So they created a federal system with very limited powers and left the rest to the states, or to the people.

In the modern era, a liberal is someone who sees the Constitution as outdated. They want the federal government to have broad, unrestricted power. This power approaches that of a monarchy, of which the patriot, both then and now, fights against.
Click to expand...
Here's a perfect example of someone who is soooooo scared that others may disagree with him that he's going to demonize them as traitors. What a hoot! LOL
 
Since nobody can/will answer my question I'll offer my analysis as to the OP and say that no, a "modern day liberal" can not be considered a patriot in the USA because "modern day liberals" see the US Constitution as an impediment to the public policy goals and society they would like to see created. "Modern day liberals" actively endeavor to craft work-arounds for the Constitution's limits or just happily and unashamedly ignore them.

I find it sickening that "modern day liberals" announce with great self-congradulations that they respect rights but in practice they are hostile to the fundamental American concepts of liberty and equality. Their political philosophy in fact demands they abandon the foundational principles of "rights" the founders / framers embraced and substitute collectivism and statism and discrimination in their place. That, coupled with the authoritarian governing model that needs to be established to force universal compliance / obedience, violates every concept of what "liberty" is.

The original Lockean concept of rights, embodied in the justification for the American Revolution and the source of authority for the U.S. Constitution, is based on restricting state interference in the lives of citizens by forcing government to respect the citizen's natural, civil and political rights. This was achieved primarily by the very structure of the Constitution being founded on the principles of conferred powers and retained rights.

The US Constitution is founded on the maxim that all governmental power originally resides in the people and the People confer a limited amount of that power to establish government and charge government to perform specific limited duties. This means that all not surrendered is retained; since no aspect of our rights were placed in the care and control of government, government can assume no power to dictate to the citizen in those matters.

This novel structure of the US Constitution was a primary reason why there was such resistance to the addition of a bill of rights. As Hamilton argued in Federalist 84:


"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
​


Sadly, by "modern day liberal" definition, rights are no longer "exceptions to powers not granted" but are instead, entitlements the framers mistakenly didn't include.

Obama has spoken openly that he feels that that fact, that the Bill of Rights only secures "negative" rights, is a "fundamental flaw" of the Constitution.

For Obama, it is an oversight that the Bill of Rights "says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." In Obama's view, rights should be redefined into special grants of power to compel others to act. This line of thought has no connection the the US Constitution and is solely a product of 20th Century communitarian ideals and is the political offspring of the 1917 Soviet Revolution.

The emergence of these new, "second generation" economic, social, and cultural rights, demand a very different role for the state in the lives of the people, completely foreign to the powers conferred to government by the US Constitution.

"Modern day liberal" rants demanding our "rights" to health care, prescription drugs, education, affordable housing, internet access, a living wage and that most basic of human rights, an abortion, are demands that someone else provide these things under governmental order. That is never the true definition of a right.

Our rights are NOT a list of services that government provides for us.

Nor are they tangible commodities that the government compels others to provide to us.

The purpose of this Orwellian new-speak is to redefine our rights into a fuzzy, moldable menu of goods and services, privileges and entitlements that, upon our display of various ID cards, filling out the proper forms and payment of license fees, a bureaucrat can stamp “APPROVED” and our benevolent government will bestow our "rights" upon us. Unfortunately, with that mindset comes the acceptance of the situational denial or outright removal of those "rights" -- for our own good of course.

This agenda of redefining rights and outright denying the existence of original, preexisting rights is the most egregious violation of foundational constitutional principle and for me, a good start on what I consider "modern day liberals" to be and what they stand for and why they cannot be considered patriots here in the USA (somewhere else?, yeah, sure).

To be continued . . .



evince and iolo need not reply to this.
I will not see it as you are both on ignore because neither of you have a syllable of reasoned thought to share.
 
WinterBorn said:
I think there are examples of liberals being patriots. The idea that all liberals seek to "creatively interpret" the constitution is laughable.

Many who are labeled "liberal" are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

The definition of "patriot" according to Merriam Webster is:

"pa·tri·ot noun \ˈpā-trē-ət, -ˌät, chiefly British ˈpa-trē-ət\

: a person who loves and strongly supports or fights for his or her country

Full Definition of PATRIOT

: one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriot
Click to expand...
Whaddya mean that there are "Some Examples" of liberals being patriot? The vast overwhelming majority of US Citizens are patriots. Such hackery by Right should be laughed as the mutterings of a disgruntled and insecure partisan hack who can't deal with the fact that he can't have everything his own way.
 
Right said:
I agree, as long as the change is made within the confines of the Constitution: the amendment process.
Click to expand...
But what you're saying is hypocritical and ignorant of the founding fathers intent. You're saying that the Constitution cannot be interpreted and only changes can be made via the amendment process. I'd say....you need to go back and read the Constitution. Particularly where it gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction on interpreting the Constitution.

What your trying to advocate is just complete and utter nonsense that the Constitution is written in stone and should only be interpreted by you and people who agree with you. What silly nonsense.
 
Jarod said:
"Right" and TD seem to live in a bizaro world where they imagine all kinds of untrue things about the evil "Liberal".

I don't know anyone who has ever thought "our military were nothing but a bunch of bumbling fools", or who "sees the Constitution as outdated".
Click to expand...
It's part of their deep seated anxiety derived from their fear of that which is different. They just keep repeating something to themselves....even if they just made it up....and if they repeat it often enough it becomes true in their eyes.
 
Classic Liberal said:
And you know positively that mainman wasn't stealing military secrets and selling them to the commies, right stang?

How do you know that mainman wasn't just hanging out in some military goldbricking, pussy job, or stealing government/taxpayer's military equipment and selling it on the black market because he was frightened of the private job market competition?

How do you know he’s not just another crazy-assed Fort Hood Shooter in waiting?

Does military service prove patriotism? Or can it simply indicate sometimes some folks just can’t find another job?
Click to expand...
How do we know you weren't?
 
Abatis said:
Since nobody can/will answer my question I'll offer my analysis as to the OP and say that no, a "modern day liberal" can not be considered a patriot in the USA because "modern day liberals" see the US Constitution as an impediment to the public policy goals and society they would like to see created. "Modern day liberals" actively endeavor to craft work-arounds for the Constitution's limits or just happily and unashamedly ignore them.

I find it sickening that "modern day liberals" announce with great self-congradulations that they respect rights but in practice they are hostile to the fundamental American concepts of liberty and equality. Their political philosophy in fact demands they abandon the foundational principles of "rights" the founders / framers embraced and substitute collectivism and statism and discrimination in their place. That, coupled with the authoritarian governing model that needs to be established to force universal compliance / obedience, violates every concept of what "liberty" is.

The original Lockean concept of rights, embodied in the justification for the American Revolution and the source of authority for the U.S. Constitution, is based on restricting state interference in the lives of citizens by forcing government to respect the citizen's natural, civil and political rights. This was achieved primarily by the very structure of the Constitution being founded on the principles of conferred powers and retained rights.

The US Constitution is founded on the maxim that all governmental power originally resides in the people and the People confer a limited amount of that power to establish government and charge government to perform specific limited duties. This means that all not surrendered is retained; since no aspect of our rights were placed in the care and control of government, government can assume no power to dictate to the citizen in those matters.

This novel structure of the US Constitution was a primary reason why there was such resistance to the addition of a bill of rights. As Hamilton argued in Federalist 84:


"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
​


Sadly, by "modern day liberal" definition, rights are no longer "exceptions to powers not granted" but are instead, entitlements the framers mistakenly didn't include.

Obama has spoken openly that he feels that that fact, that the Bill of Rights only secures "negative" rights, is a "fundamental flaw" of the Constitution.

For Obama, it is an oversight that the Bill of Rights "says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." In Obama's view, rights should be redefined into special grants of power to compel others to act. This line of thought has no connection the the US Constitution and is solely a product of 20th Century communitarian ideals and is the political offspring of the 1917 Soviet Revolution.

The emergence of these new, "second generation" economic, social, and cultural rights, demand a very different role for the state in the lives of the people, completely foreign to the powers conferred to government by the US Constitution.

"Modern day liberal" rants demanding our "rights" to health care, prescription drugs, education, affordable housing, internet access, a living wage and that most basic of human rights, an abortion, are demands that someone else provide these things under governmental order. That is never the true definition of a right.

Our rights are NOT a list of services that government provides for us.

Nor are they tangible commodities that the government compels others to provide to us.

The purpose of this Orwellian new-speak is to redefine our rights into a fuzzy, moldable menu of goods and services, privileges and entitlements that, upon our display of various ID cards, filling out the proper forms and payment of license fees, a bureaucrat can stamp “APPROVED” and our benevolent government will bestow our "rights" upon us. Unfortunately, with that mindset comes the acceptance of the situational denial or outright removal of those "rights" -- for our own good of course.

This agenda of redefining rights and outright denying the existence of original, preexisting rights is the most egregious violation of foundational constitutional principle and for me, a good start on what I consider "modern day liberals" to be and what they stand for and why they cannot be considered patriots here in the USA (somewhere else?, yeah, sure).

To be continued . . .



evince and iolo need not reply to this.
I will not see it as you are both on ignore because neither of you have a syllable of reasoned thought to share.
Click to expand...
LOL Where do you guys come up with this shit. The best comedy writers in the world couldn't write this. How fucking hilarious. You make shit up out of whole cloth, tell millions of people what they believe is shit you made up and that rationalize your made up beliefs to prove someone is a traitor in your eyes?

Ya'll need to quit hitting that bottle and seek help! LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top