Originally Posted by kerry (Post 2378829)

Ann Coulter presents herself as a right wing christian conservative in her public persona.....when associated with 'christian' since neither term is used in their religious texts). In the extreme a christian conservative could be a theocrat.

Originally Posted by Billybob (Post 2378987)

My reference to the Federalist papers was not an endorsement of any particular view or the view of any particular man. It is the best collection of essay’s in which the authors during the course of their arguments intentionally and inadvertently pro and con their own positions and the positions of their political adversaries. Their value is as an insight to these arguments when they took place, not as reinterpreted by later historians.

Also interesting; but not nearly as cohesive a discourse; is the compilation of Borden’s Anti-Federalist Papers his attempt to juxtapose arguments in contemporaneous relevance. Unfortunately they where not authored as direct counterpoints but actually collected and arraigned almost 200 years later by Morton Borden.

Originally Posted by R Leo (Post 2378977)

Oh yeah, that's a stamp of approval.

Jeez, any time someone signals for a right turn, the conservatives think it is a mandate from the voters.

Originally Posted by Fitz (Post 2378983)

Kerry has relegated Ann Coulter to the status of lower-case "c" Christianity. If only she knew, I'm sure she'd be devastated.

Originally Posted by Billybob (Post 2378909)

Not having any idea as to the extent of your present interest or your past experience or education the best thing you could do is read the Federalist Papers. These are the collection of essays contemporaneously written by some of the incredible thinkers and contributors to the US Constitution; Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay as they made their case for ratification to the people of NewYork State, published in 1787-1788.

The vision of the founding fathers was the minimum government and the maximum freedom and liberty of individuals, groups of people as states would be the laboratories where the balance between governance and liberty would be examined. The founding fathers fundamentally understood that individuals instinctively act in their own self interest and the differences in the ways and degrees that states responded to that intrinsic force would determine what balance would be the most successful. States that responded with oppressive interference with individual liberty would not prosper and loose inhabitants and states that responded with negligent intervention would have chaos and the same loss of inhabitants, because the US Constitution prevented government from interfering with people moving to find circumstances that better suited their interests.
States that balanced governance and liberty which allowed the maximum life liberty and the pursuit of their inhabitants happiness would attract people who where not satisfied elsewhere.

The beauty of this logic is that ultimately the collective decisions of all Americans acting in their own best interests was viewed as superior to any higher political authority deciding.

Many people find reading the Federalist Papers and the ideas and ideally articulated within as very close to there own personal feelings rather than the threads of political discourse of their own day and time.

Originally Posted by tonkovich (Post 2379015)

how can it be the "vision of the founding fathers" when only three people are involved?

(and of course, haven't we learned a lot since 1787? when women were property and so were all black people? and native americans had no rights? or even citiizenship)

sure, tell this guy to read the federalist papers. but do admit how limited they are.

Originally Posted by Billybob (Post 2378987)

My reference to the Federalist papers was not an endorsement of any particular view or the view of any particular man. It is the best collection of essay’s in which the authors during the course of their arguments intentionally and inadvertently pro and con their own positions and the positions of their political adversaries. Their value is as an insight to these arguments when they took place, not as reinterpreted by later historians.

Also interesting; but not nearly as cohesive a discourse; is the compilation of Borden’s Anti-Federalist Papers his attempt to juxtapose arguments in contemporaneous relevance. Unfortunately they where not authored as direct counterpoints but actually collected and arraigned almost 200 years later by Morton Borden.

Originally Posted by Fitz (Post 2378983)

Kerry has relegated Ann Coulter to the status of lower-case "c" Christianity. If only she knew, I'm sure she'd be devastated.

Originally Posted by Billybob (Post 2379032)

I'll repost this here again for you!

Originally Posted by tonkovich (Post 2379050)

well, thanks so much, but i read it the first time.

some people (like say, the three branches of government over the last 200+ years) have shown that the constitution is an imperfect document, that needs constant updating and correction, because humanity (well, at least some of it) has learned a bit since 1787.

its nice to idealize a certain group of people in a certain time; let's be honest, they were quite human, and their ideas common in the intellectual and political circles of their time.

Originally Posted by tonkovich (Post 2379050)

some people (like say, the three branches of government over the last 200+ years) have shown that the constitution is an imperfect document, that needs constant updating and correction, because humanity (well, at least some of it) has learned a bit since 1787.