Tetvet your original posting is disjointed and doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by tetvet

None of this has anything to with the original topic . I am not your Subordinate nor Cadet but you are becoming a boring fellow . Events make me happy .

I treat people as they should be treated. If you're gonna act like a whiney 19 year old kid, then I'm gonna treat you as such. You have disrespected almost everyone on here since joining this forum. What makes you think we are just going to sit here and take it?

If you want diologue, take the chip off your shoulder and tone down the constant whining or complaining about one thing or another. Offer some substance to your posts with links or evidence through surveys, statistics, or research to prove valid points and you might actually get a comversation out of this. But, if you are just gonna state one liners that make no sense to anybody but you, then big f*ckin surprise if nobody knows what the hell you're talking about and don't respond to your insults well when you get pissy about nobody understanding you.

I thought with age there was supposed to come wisdom. Of which I have seen almost zero from you since joining the forum. Just a little bit of humility would go a helluva long way. The balls in your court chief.

Originally Posted by crazytanker

Are you REALLY this thick headed? If you want tge founding fathers' values, you don't get to pick and choose which ones. The sad truth is that the founding fathers of this country were slave owners. The founding fathers were far from perfect. But since we're going with their values, we'll take away a woman's right to vote or own property. Women voting was definitely NOT a value of the founding fathers. He did not say a small central government running things. He said go back to the ways of the founding fathers.

Highly debateable about who's thick headed. All or nothing, brilliant! why do people always go off the deep end? Well, @ least you didn't equate a call for smaller govt with anarchy!

Originally Posted by George

Highly debateable about who's thick headed. All or nothing, brilliant! why do people always go off the deep end? Well, @ least you didn't equate a call for smaller govt with anarchy!

Actually, that's exactly the point. The Founding Father's Values were slavery, white property owning males. Those ARE their values. I'm not sure how that's not understandable? You can't just pick and choose which values you'd want back - otherwise there's no point in bringing them back. We still have some of the values - we've moved on and developed new values. If we reset so to speak, we lose what progress we've made.

WHO the F--k is sooo stupid to think that morals and values equate to slavery ? , any idiot knows that at least half or more of the founding of whom ALL were White did not own Slaves did not like Slavery , in those days it was a political issue , it has not been a political issue for last 150 years except to the few that are out of touch and wants to free someone who is already free .

Then why does everyone continue to reply to it ? .

Originally Posted by tetvet

WHO the F--k is sooo stupid to think that morals and values equate to slavery ? , any idiot knows that at least half or more of the founding of whom ALL were White did not own Slaves did not like Slavery , in those days it was a political issue , it has not been a political issue for last 150 years except to the few that are out of touch and wants to free someone who is already free .

Well, the bible, therefore the Christian god, candidly and openly advocate for slavery. So the 70% of Americans who claim Christianity as their faith of choice either overtly or covertly condone slavery if they profess a belief in the "god" of Abraham...

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)"

I love this next one in particular, great family values in addition to the slavery with that whole entrapment bit!

"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)"

So it really wouldn't be a stretch to believe that someone who bases their morality on the "god" of Abraham could clearly condone any type of disgusting behaviour and pass it off as morality.

Since I've no contact with slavery even though it is alive and well in Africa , I have no clue as to what to do about it , perhaps those that which to eradicate slavery should go to where it exists .

12 of 55 Signers of the Constitution owned Slaves hardly a majority muchless everyone. So... who's going off the deep end? The only people who talk about slavery coming back in the US are Moslems.

What of women not voting or owning property? That was DEFINITELY not a part of their values. If it were, at least one of those signers of the Declaration of Independence would have been a woman. Actually, during the period, women were expected to keep the home and raise the children. They did not enlist into the military (at least not with permission). However currently women make up roughly 15% of the Army. So I'll guess we'll just give that 15% of the US Army the axe...? "Sorry, can't be here!"

Or perhaps owning property being a requirement to vote? Until 1850, just over a decade before the start of the US Civil War, owning property was a requirement to vote. Even then, it was still limited to caucasian males. This, of course, was set by the States, not the Federal gov't. It should be noted, of course, that the same general group of people running the States where running the Federal - white, male, property owners. It wasn't even until 1920 when Women had the right to vote in any elections. It wasn't even until the mid-sixties when the voting taxes were eliminated. It was essentially a property tax - without being a property tax.

So I guess I'm confused. Exactly which values would you like to see? A small centralized gov't? Isn't that what was there before the start of the US Civil War? The Federal gov't leaving most of the day to day functions to the States?