Trump just went full Infowars

[rjs330]

You read where we are not to have a standing army for longer then two years? So it is not "American from the start" by your criteria, correct?

That's not what the Constitution says. Original funding was for two years. Congress isn't supposed to find the military any longer than two years. Then it has to be funded again. It wasn't a prohibition on an army after two years.

We are getting into a completely different subject. Maybe start a different thread.

There still is no support for socialism in the Constitution or by the founders .

 

[Belk]

That's not what the Constitution says. Original funding was for two years. Congress isn't supposed to find the military any longer than two years. Then it has to be funded again. It wasn't a prohibition on an army after two years.

We are getting into a completely different subject. Maybe start a different thread.

Fair enough.

There still is no support for socialism in the Constitution or by the founders .

Since the founders were not prescient, this is little surprise. However to claim that simply because it is not in the constitution it id "UN-American" is a poor argument. Especially since the founders specifically set our form of government so we could change it as we grew. Our system of government is not set in stone and it most certainly is not still how the founders originally set it up.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't think there is any confusion as to what socialism is.
Socialism for Dummies - Socialism in Simple Terms

This lists things like no private ownership of the means of production and no markets. Where are you seeing people promoting those policies? Please, be specific. I have no idea what you think you're talking about.

 

[rjs330]

Fair enough.



Since the founders were not prescient, this is little surprise. However to claim that simply because it is not in the constitution it id "UN-American" is a poor argument. Especially since the founders specifically set our form of government so we could change it as we grew. Our system of government is not set in stone and it most certainly is not still how the founders originally set it up.

The government IS set in stone. The Constitution sets that in place. However that doesn't mean that what the government does is set in stone. For example we could vote for socialism. We can also vote for more freedom. So you're right. But that doesn't mean it's what the country was founded on. We could vote for communism. But that doesn't mean that's what the country was founded on.

Remember what Benjamin Franklin said? Our republic would end when the people figured out they could come themselves money.

Certainly we have some things we do as a country that all the public shares the cost of. Such as roads. The founders didn't support the privatization of everything. They recognized there were some things that the public should share to add to the freedom of all.

But the prevailing ideals of socialists are far reaching and all encompassing. To pretend that's what the founders and people of the time envisioned for America is just disingenuous.

 

[rjs330]

This lists things like no private ownership of the means of production and no markets. Where are you seeing people promoting those policies? Please, be specific. I have no idea what you think you're talking about.

It's what socialists want. Don't pretend it's not true. It's the ultimate goal.

 

[Belk]

The government IS set in stone. The Constitution sets that in place.

You are apparently unfamiliar with the amendment process? The process set in place to change the constitution?

However that doesn't mean that what the government does is set in stone. For example we could vote for socialism. We can also vote for more freedom. So you're right. But that doesn't mean it's what the country was founded on. We could vote for communism. But that doesn't mean that's what the country was founded on.

Are you now claiming that anything the country was not founded on is Un-American? If not I fail to see how what the country was founded on as relevant to the discussion.

Remember what Benjamin Franklin said? Our republic would end when the people figured out they could come themselves money.

Certainly we have some things we do as a country that all the public shares the cost of. Such as roads. The founders didn't support the privatization of everything. They recognized there were some things that the public should share to add to the freedom of all.

But the prevailing ideals of socialists are far reaching and all encompassing. To pretend that's what the founders and people of the time envisioned for America is just disingenuous.

OK. So what? What does the founders view of the government have to do with something being "UN-American"? Are we locked into a view of America from 1776 for some unknown reason?

 

[rjs330]

You are apparently unfamiliar with the amendment process? The process set in place to change the constitution?



Are you now claiming that anything the country was not founded on is Un-American? If not I fail to see how what the country was founded on as relevant to the discussion.



OK. So what? What does the founders view of the government have to do with something being "UN-American"? Are we locked into a view of America from 1776 for some unknown reason?

Has there been an ammendment about this that I am not aware of? Remember to have an ammendment you have to have a convention. I don't believe that's happened yet. That's what I mean by set in stone. We have a process established by tye Constitution.

And we are NOT locked in. If the people vote for representatives that promise more socialism then that's what we'll get. We get the government we deserve because we vote for it. But the republic that was envisioned by the founders was one of freedom from government and not enslavement to it. Benjamin Franklin warned us about it. And demanding socialism, which we can do, is what he warned against.

 

[Kentonio]

And demanding socialism, which we can do, is what he warned against.

Given that socialism didn’t exist at that time, I’m going to have to call foul on that.

 

[rjs330]

Given that socialism didn’t exist at that time, I’m going to have to call foul on that.

He didn't use the word socialism no. But there were people of the time who believed government should be socialist. The ideals we're there, just not the word. Been Franklin warned us about the ideals where we as people could vote ourselves money from the government, our fellow citizens. That's what socialism does in all it's forms.

 

[Kentonio]

He didn't use the word socialism no. But there were people of the time who believed government should be socialist. The ideals we're there, just not the word. Been Franklin warned us about the ideals where we as people could vote ourselves money from the government, our fellow citizens. That's what socialism does in all it's forms.

Would it help if that quote wasn't actually Benjamin Franklin at all, but a misattribution? And that the person who said it was probably actually an obscure Scotsman called Alexander Fraser Tytler?

“When the people find they can vote themselves... | FakeFoundersQuotes

Did Ben Franklin say "when the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic," and if so what was the context? : AskHistorians

 

[Belk]

Has there been an ammendment about this that I am not aware of? Remember to have an ammendment you have to have a convention. I don't believe that's happened yet. That's what I mean by set in stone. We have a process established by tye Constitution.

There have been 27 amendments last I checked.

And we are NOT locked in. If the people vote for representatives that promise more socialism then that's what we'll get. We get the government we deserve because we vote for it. But the republic that was envisioned by the founders was one of freedom from government and not enslavement to it. Benjamin Franklin warned us about it. And demanding socialism, which we can do, is what he warned against.

No, that is not what he warned about and has nothing to do with something being "Un-American".

 

[rjs330]

There have been 27 amendments last I checked.



No, that is not what he warned about and has nothing to do with something being "Un-American".

Your being difficult on purpose? What reason would you say that about the ammendments when we are not talking about them but about socialism and ammendments? I'm baffled.

Yes it's un-american to demand things from the government in the form of socialistic ideas when that was not what this country was founded on. Sorry. We have the ability to change it of course but we can't pretend it it is American when it goes against the founding of Independence. There are those none so blind as those that will not see.

You want socialism? Fine. But don't pretend it's American. It's not. It's European.

 

[Belk]

Your being difficult on purpose? What reason would you say that about the ammendments when we are not talking about them but about socialism and ammendments? I'm baffled.

No, I am trying to understand your claims. You claim the constitution is set in stone and I am pointing out that the method of changing the constitution is built in.

Yes it's un-american to demand things from the government in the form of socialistic ideas when that was not what this country was founded on. Sorry.

No, it is not. Just like it is not Un-American to give equal rights to blacks and women when the country was founded on segregation.

We have the ability to change it of course but we can't pretend it it is American when it goes against the founding of Independence. There are those none so blind as those that will not see.

Can you please define what you mean by "the founding of Independence". I am only aware of the phrase meaning we broke away from England. I fail to see what that has to do with socialism.

You want socialism? Fine. But don't pretend it's American. It's not. It's European.

It is a political philosophy and has nothing to do with a geographic location.

 

[Kentonio]

Your being difficult on purpose? What reason would you say that about the ammendments when we are not talking about them but about socialism and ammendments? I'm baffled.

Yes it's un-american to demand things from the government in the form of socialistic ideas when that was not what this country was founded on. Sorry. We have the ability to change it of course but we can't pretend it it is American when it goes against the founding of Independence. There are those none so blind as those that will not see.

You want socialism? Fine. But don't pretend it's American. It's not. It's European.

Did you miss my post pointing out that Franklin almost certainly didn’t say what you thought he said?

 

[rjs330]

No, I am trying to understand your claims. You claim the constitution is set in stone and I am pointing out that the method of changing the constitution is built in.



No, it is not. Just like it is not Un-American to give equal rights to blacks and women when the country was founded on segregation.



Can you please define what you mean by "the founding of Independence". I am only aware of the phrase meaning we broke away from England. I fail to see what that has to do with socialism.



It is a political philosophy and has nothing to do with a geographic location.

The Constitution IS set in stone. All of it, including making ammendments. Its not that hard to understand. So we can make an ammendment. Just do it the way the Constitution says. I think we agree.

Socialism is under American. The history of the founding of our government is built on indendence from government and not dependence on government. I'm sure you know that. It wasn't about taking money from your fellow Americans and demanding your government do that and give it to you. Can you show me where the founders agreed we should have a socialistic government where government takes care of all of us in a socialists way? When you can then I'll call it American. Until then it's not because what the country was originally founded on dies not show that, as far history shows us.

 

[Belk]

The Constitution IS set in stone. All of it, including making ammendments. Its not that hard to understand. So we can make an ammendment. Just do it the way the Constitution says. I think we agree.

I think we disagree on what "set in stone" means.

Socialism is under American. The history of the founding of our government is built on indendence from government and not dependence on government. I'm sure you know that.

Uh, no the founding of our government is upon limiting and separating its power. It has nothing to do with independence from government. I don't even know what that is supposed to mean unless you are an anarchist.

It wasn't about taking money from your fellow Americans and demanding your government do that and give it to you. Can you show me where the founders agreed we should have a socialistic government where government takes care of all of us in a socialists way? When you can then I'll call it American. Until then it's not because what the country was originally founded on dies not show that, as far history shows us.

I will try one last time... What does what the founders intended have to do with something being American or not? We do all kinds of things the founders were directly opposed to and they are still considered American.

 

[rjs330]

Did you miss my post pointing out that Franklin almost certainly didn’t say what you thought he said?

I know the controversy about the quote. So I will concede that there is an issue on whether or not he said that.

However my stance remains on the founders and freedom from socialistic philosophy.
More Founder's Wisdom

They didn't set the government up for it. It's wasn't the government they wanted or established.

 

[USincognito]

I don't think there is any confusion as to what socialism is.
Socialism for Dummies - Socialism in Simple Terms

Green High Five dot com? lol