>>>If you want to disagree with me, please support your thoughts. It is my position that the founders in no way intended a limited government. The battle was over federal vs. state powers. They never would have taken the trouble to meet in Philadelphia if they wanted us to continue as a lawless society.
>>
>>I realize I've already offending your sensibilities, but this is such nonsense that it needs to be challenged before you can claim your words were turned around.
>>
>>First, we were hardly a "lawless society" before the writing of the Constitution. As subjects of the the crown there was a legal structure, a pretty established tax authority, and as much enforcement as was possible given the demographics, logistics and temperament of the colonies.
>>
>>Nor were we "running around like hillbillies".
>>
>>The idea that the Constitution, which could not even be adopted without the Bill of Rights - limiting the power of the government and defining the rights of the citizen against any possible future government encroachment "in no way intended a limited government" shows you really are out of your depth on this and just digging yourself deeper.
>>
>>If Tracy wants to play, I'll just let her debate you point by point but this really has descended into arguing design patterns with the kid who sells computers at Best Buy <g>
>
>I've decided to bow out. My initial concern was that lurkers might take what he writes as truth but then I remembered that most lurkers are obviously more educated about the founding of this country than he is so there is no danger in that. He has just publicly validated the claim by others that Americans don't know anything about their own country. I'm just flabbergasted by his posts lately.... I think a few gray cells are missing....

Well as DPM said, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, just not entitled to their own facts.