Quote from: Solar on December 17, 2013, 06:28:38 AM
To answer your question.
Our Founders were the Radical Right of their day, there was no Right to the Right of them, so any variation in their ideals, their goals, would have to be leftist in nature.

Which brings us to today, as for the values they've instilled on the Nation, the laws they created, the values we once held dear, it was the left that has been the very source of this corruption.

It only takes a bit of commonsense to see that there is no such animal as radical Right, only radical leftism.

To be sure, Solar, the anti-Federalists were to the right of the Constitution.  As were the Quakers.  As were the Articles of Confederation.  Frankly, the Constitution was a move to the left.

As you may know already, a big debate - probably the biggest debate - between the anti-Federalists and the Federalists was between confederation and consolidation.  The Federalists won that debate, and Americans began to wonder if they were straying from the principles of the Revolution.  The Constitution also created uniformity among the states, such as with interstate commerce and tender laws.  Certainly, some move to the left was necessary; even the anti-Federalists thought the states needed a revised, stronger Articles (the Articles didn't provide for the federal government's payment of debts, for example).

In short, the Revolutionary Era was one of rapid political change in America.  In the 1760s, the Americans were witnessing a steady consumption of liberties in England.  Even in the few short decades after the Glorious Revolution, the English government was becoming intrusive, and Americans protested in anticipation of the tyranny that the Parliament and Crown would surely visit upon them.  So in the 1770s, they began establishing their own legislatures, dismissing the Parliament, and later declared independence, dismissing the king.  They then created an instrument that would loosely unite them, something like with the EU today, but they feared licentiousness; this instrument was too far to the right.  So, in the 1780s, the Americans created a strong central government (strong by the conventions of the day) with a new constitution.

On one hand, I wonder if we might not have been better off with a revised Articles, which would have maintained a confederation of thirteen sovereign republics, or with the new constitution, which provides for cohesion among the states and some innovations (such as with a senate being chosen not by an aristocracy but by the states (actually, an innovation of the state of Connecticut)).  I'm happy with the Constitution, and proud to be an American, but some clauses in the Constitution are vague.  You and I know what they mean, and so did the people of the 18th century, but yet they were vague enough for Tories, Democrats, and other liberals to start reinterpreting.

If not the Constitution itself being a little farther to the right, maybe the verbiage could have been more tightly crafted, so as not to give progressivism a handle on our liberties.

Quote from: norwegen on December 17, 2013, 09:03:14 AM
To be sure, Solar, the anti-Federalists were to the right of the Constitution.  As were the Quakers.  As were the Articles of Confederation.  Frankly, the Constitution was a move to the left.

As you may know already, a big debate - probably the biggest debate - between the anti-Federalists and the Federalists was between confederation and consolidation.  The Federalists won that debate, and Americans began to wonder if they were straying from the principles of the Revolution.  The Constitution also created uniformity among the states, such as with interstate commerce and tender laws.  Certainly, some move to the left was necessary; even the anti-Federalists thought the states needed a revised, stronger Articles (the Articles didn't provide for the federal government's payment of debts, for example).

In short, the Revolutionary Era was one of rapid political change in America.  In the 1760s, the Americans were witnessing a steady consumption of liberties in England.  Even in the few short decades after the Glorious Revolution, the English government was becoming intrusive, and Americans protested in anticipation of the tyranny that the Parliament and Crown would surely visit upon them.  So in the 1770s, they began establishing their own legislatures, dismissing the Parliament, and later declared independence, dismissing the king.  They then created an instrument that would loosely unite them, something like with the EU today, but they feared licentiousness; this instrument was too far to the right.  So, in the 1780s, the Americans created a strong central government (strong by the conventions of the day) with a new constitution.

On one hand, I wonder if we might not have been better off with a revised Articles, which would have maintained a confederation of thirteen sovereign republics, or with the new constitution, which provides for cohesion among the states and some innovations (such as with a senate being chosen not by an aristocracy but by the states (actually, an innovation of the state of Connecticut)).  I'm happy with the Constitution, and proud to be an American, but some clauses in the Constitution are vague.  You and I know what they mean, and so did the people of the 18th century, but yet they were vague enough for Tories, Democrats, and other liberals to start reinterpreting.

If not the Constitution itself being a little farther to the right, maybe the verbiage could have been more tightly crafted, so as not to give progressivism a handle on our liberties.

True, had it not been for the Anti federalists, we would not have a Bill of Rights, and without a Bill of Rights, we would probably not have a country even remotely resembling what our Founders had intended.

Quote from: Solar on December 17, 2013, 09:10:45 AM
True, had it not been for the Anti federalists, we would not have a Bill of Rights, and without a Bill of Rights, we would probably not have a country even remotely resembling what our Founders had intended.

A Bill of Rights was implied (a Federalist position), but true enough, its omission would certainly have been another cause for liberal reinterpretation.

Our Founders were very "Radical Right" and you better be glad they were. == "The Philadelphia Convention members finalized the Constitution and submitted it to the states for ratification on September 28, 1787.  The public, expecting a revised version of the Articles of Confederation, was shocked by this new document. The Philadelphia Convention had been a very private affair, and only the individuals inside the meeting room were aware of the drastic changes that were taking place. At times during the convention, the windows were boarded over to ensure the framers' privacy. As a result, the public, assuming that the convention's purpose was to revise the existing Articles of Confederation, was taken aback by the innovative Constitution."
http://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/federalists-versus-antifederalists-/ The whole article is very enlightening and is worth the read.

Quote from: bigmck on December 17, 2013, 03:28:38 PM
Our Founders were very "Radical Right" and you better be glad they were.

I really don't think the framers were radical right, bigmck.  Your link even says that the government the new constitution created was a strong one.

Against the backdrop of American history, the Constitution was not that far to the right.  It was closer to the center.  The people of the late 18th century, ultimately, were centrist.

To the right of the Constitution is licentiousness, and eventually anarchy.  Americans did not trust the Articles in its current iteration to spare them from that fate. To the left of the Constitution is liberalism (Toryism, democracy, socialism), another dreadful prospect.  America's Constitutional Republicanism was poised beautifully to spare Americans from the oppression of either the left or the right.

Conservative advocacy of a restoration of first principles is not radical; conservatives just want to return to that centrist position.  When liberals call them extremists and radicals for their advocacy, I can only laugh at their ignorance on the one hand.  On the other hand, I view them with disgust at this sneaky way they continue to try to control the language and push our country ever farther to the left.

Conservatives and the tea party are radical like a dying host fighting off parasites is radical...  Because the MSM and our government schools have brainwashed so many people with liberalism and we promote some pro-American normalcy, that doesn't mean we're radical.  We're just normal.

Quote from: taxed on December 17, 2013, 04:20:54 PM
Conservatives and the tea party are radical like a dying host fighting off parasites is radical...  Because the MSM and our government schools have brainwashed so many people with liberalism and we promote some pro-American normalcy, that doesn't mean we're radical.  We're just normal.

Well-said, taxed.

I would say the radical right is either: someone who believes there should be no regulations, no taxes, and the role of the government should be microscopic like the libertarian party; or it's someone like Alex Jones, who believes in most of what conservatives believe, but has a lot of conspiracy theories and is basically geared up for a civil war.

But the way the mainstream media talks, all conservatives are radicals apparently. I guess the idea that you can't spend money you don't have is radical. Go figure :P

Quote from: grace_note on December 17, 2013, 11:03:28 PM
I would say the radical right is either: someone who believes there should be no regulations, no taxes, and the role of the government should be microscopic like the libertarian party; or it's someone like Alex Jones, who believes in most of what conservatives believe, but has a lot of conspiracy theories and is basically geared up for a civil war.

But the way the mainstream media talks, all conservatives are radicals apparently. I guess the idea that you can't spend money you don't have is radical. Go figure :P

I would never consider distrusting a faceless govt as radical, in fact healthy skepticism is what got us thus far without intrusion.

Quote from: Nautical Underpants on December 15, 2013, 11:20:43 PM

So, What is the definition of a a radical righty? Not strategy, not politics but core beliefs. What are the core beliefs of the radical right.

Anything the left does not believe in.

Quote from: grace_note on December 17, 2013, 11:03:28 PM
I would say the radical right is either: someone who believes there should be no regulations, no taxes, and the role of the government should be microscopic like the libertarian party; or it's someone like Alex Jones, who believes in most of what conservatives believe, but has a lot of conspiracy theories and is basically geared up for a civil war.

But the way the mainstream media talks, all conservatives are radicals apparently. I guess the idea that you can't spend money you don't have is radical. Go figure :P

Who is in favor of no regulations?  Please post a link or retract this liberal fallacy....

Personally I don't subscribe to the left, right-wing labels. These were originally European constructs to label communists and fascists respectively. American Progressives adopted the convention to muddy the waters since their primary tactic is obfuscation. I interpret every ism of "pure" democracy and anti-capitalism as left of the US constitution, way left. The Overton window in America has shifted so far left that mainstream Americans have little true representation in a society that they are predominately meat and backbone of. Average Joe (full time job, pro life heterosexual nuclear family unit, Christian) is lampooned in entertainment and news media, targeted for punishment and destruction by the Democrat Party, and largely ignored by at least one third of the Republican Party. To the left, Average Joe is radical right, and a constitutionalist like many Tea Party members are terrorists to the left. It's a despicable developement.

Quote from: taxed on December 18, 2013, 09:14:06 AM
Who is in favor of no regulations?  Please post a link or retract this liberal fallacy....

Calm down, dude, I'm on your side lol. I never said anyone is in favor of no regulations.

Quote from: Nautical Underpants on December 15, 2013, 11:20:43 PM
We keep hearing "Conservatives" drone on that we need to tread softly on the electorate because although these "conservatives" believe in conservative policies they believe we need "stealth candidates" to get elected.  In other words they are are conservatives but prefer to run RINOS because anything else is radical 2010 not withstanding.

So, What is the definition of a a radical righty? Not strategy, not politics but core beliefs. What are the core beliefs of the radical right.

POWER AND CONTROL shared ONLY by a select 'selected' minority.  PUNITIVE white males (and the occasional female who is 'controllable') who want to CONTROL everything--money, policy, politics, sex/women, children and ultimately the world. 

Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on December 18, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
POWER AND CONTROL shared ONLY by a select 'selected' minority.  PUNITIVE white males (and the occasional female who is 'controllable') who want to CONTROL everything--money, policy, politics, sex/women, children and ultimately the world.

Well that nails down the Progressive elite, but what about the so-called radical right. There is no such thing, which has already been said. The American cultural POV has been so skewed by the left that your average mainstream American (full time job, shops at Wal-Mart, probably goes to church, maybe votes Republican, most likely member of heterosexual nuclear family unit, probably pro-life) has become radical from a left-wing POV.