For all you haters...

[AlphaDoG]

It's Constitution Day!

[CUDA]

we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor

Men of Character

Its a shame how far Politians have fallen.

[Will Robinson]

we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor

Men of Character

Its a shame how far Politians have fallen.

They used to stand tall and independent challenging each other over philosophy and any sign of slip in integrity or character.
Now they just fight for their teams market share of the 'consumer base'(read:lemming voters).

[null0010]

They used to stand tall and independent challenging each other over philosophy and any sign of slip in integrity or character.

What in the damn hell history have you been reading? Politicians have always been slimy. The closest any of the "founding fathers" ever came to non-slimy was probably George Mason, but even he wanted a Bill of Rights for mostly selfish reasons.

[Isaac]

FinishHim!

[CUDA]

I think he missed the Point. the Founding Fathers. stood for something. something that they were willing to risk everything for. even their lives, because there is no doubt they would have been executed if they were caught.

Politicians today have no such honor. they are seldom people of principle. the only thing they stand for is pandering to the people to keep them in power. they run from anything that would jeopardize that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Words of Wisdom

[Gooberman]

they are seldom people of principle.

Ya, its our fault though really. I don't think a man of principle would ever subject his family to what it takes to run for office in this day and age. Look at how Obama's wife was targeted by the far right, look at how Bush's daughters were constantly mocked in the media, etc.

[null0010]

I think he missed the Point. the Founding Fathers. stood for something. something that they were willing to risk everything for. even their lives, because there is no doubt they would have been executed if they were caught.

Politicians today have no such honor. they are seldom people of principle. the only thing they stand for is pandering to the people to keep them in power. they run from anything that would jeopardize that.

They stood for personal gain most of the time, they were just far less cowardly than today's politicians. I'll give them that, they were brave as hell. But to say they had "honor" or "principles" that today's politicians lack is just historical blindness.

[CUDA]

They stood for personal gain most of the time

Our founding fathers fought against Tyranny and oppression by the crown. if thats for personal gain then so be it.

We Pledge Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor

and thats what many of them gave. Their Lives, their Fortunes,and their Families

Our Founding Fathers paid the price for the United States of America.
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist
Copyright 2000 Boston Globe



On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted 12-0 -- New York abstained -- in favor of Richard Henry Lee's resolution \"that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.\"

On July 4, the Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson -- heavily edited by Congress -- was adopted without dissent. On July 8, the Declaration was publicly proclaimed in Philadelphia. On July 15, Congress learned that the New York Legislature had decided to endorse the Declaration. On Aug. 2, a parchment copy was presented to the Congress for signature. Most of the 56 men who put their name to the document did so that day.

And then?

We tend to forget that to sign the Declaration of Independence was to commit an act of treason -- and the punishment for treason was death. To publicly accuse George III of \"repeated injuries and usurpations,\" to announce that Americans were therefore \"Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown,\" was a move fraught with danger -- so much so that the names of the signers were kept secret for six months

They were risking everything, and they knew it. That is the meaning of the Declaration's soaring last sentence:

\"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.\"

Most of the signers survived the war; several went on to illustrious careers.

Two of them became presidents of the United States, and among the others were future vice presidents, senators, and governors. But not all were so fortunate.

Nine of the 56 died during the Revolution, and never tasted American independence.

Five were captured by the British.

Eighteen had their homes -- great estates, some of them - looted or burnt by the enemy.

Some lost everything they owned.

Two were wounded in battle.

Two others were the fathers of sons killed or captured during the war.

\"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.\" It was not just a rhetorical flourish.

We all recognize John Hancock's signature, but who ever notices the names beneath his? William Ellery, Thomas Nelson, Richard Stockton, Button Gwinnett, Francis Lewis -- to most of us, these are names without meaning.

But each represents a real human being, some of whom paid dearly \"for the support of this Declaration\" and American independence.

Lewis Morris of New York, for example, must have known when he signed the Declaration that he was signing away his fortune. Within weeks, the British ravaged his estate, destroyed his vast woodlands, butchered his cattle, and sent his family fleeing for their lives.

Another New Yorker, William Floyd, was also forced to flee when the British plundered his property. He and his family lived as refugees for seven years without income. The strain told on his wife; she died two years before the war ended.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, an aristocratic planter who had invested heavily in shipping, saw most of his vessels captured by the British navy. His estates were largely ruined, and by the end of his life he was a pauper.

The home of William Ellery, a Rhode Island delegate, was burned to the ground during the occupation of Newport.

Thomas Heyward Jr., Edward Rutledge, and Arthur Middleton, three members of the South Carolina delegation, all suffered the destruction or vandalizing of their homes at the hands of enemy troops. All three were captured when Charleston fell in 1780, and spent a year in a British prison.

\"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.\"

Thomas Nelson Jr. of Virginia raised $2 million for the patriots' cause on his own personal credit. The government never reimbursed him, and repaying the loans wiped out his entire estate. During the battle of Yorktown, his house, which had been seized by the British, was occupied by General Cornwallis. Nelson quietly urged the gunners to fire on his own home. They did so, destroying it. He was never again a man of wealth. He died bankrupt and was buried in an unmarked grave.

Richard Stockton, a judge on New Jersey's supreme court, was betrayed by loyalist neighbors. He was dragged from his bed and thrown in prison, where he was brutally beaten and starved. His lands were devastated, his horses stolen, his library burnt. He was freed in 1777, but his health had so deteriorated that he died within five years. His family lived on charity for the rest of their lives.

In the British assault on New York, Francis Lewis's home and property were pillaged. His wife was captured and imprisoned; so harshly was she treated that she died soon after her release. Lewis spent the remainder of his days in relative poverty.

And then there was John Hart. The speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, he was forced to flee in the winter of 1776, at the age of 65, from his dying wife's bedside. While he hid in forests and caves, his home was demolished, his fields and mill laid waste, and his 13 children put to flight. When it was finally safe for him to return, he found his wife dead, his children missing, and his property decimated. He never saw any of his family again and died, a shattered man, in 1779.

The men who signed that piece of parchment in 1776 were the elite of their colonies. They were men of means and social standing, but for the sake of liberty, they pledged it all -- their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

[null0010]

They stood for personal gain most of the time

Our founding fathers fought against Tyranny and oppression by the crown. if thats for personal gain then so be it.

They fought against the 'tyranny' of a country that wanted them to (oh, horrors!) pay taxes that went to pay Britain's war debt from the French and Indian War, a war that was started by the colonies, more specifically, George Washington himself.

[CUDA]

They stood for personal gain most of the time

Our founding fathers fought against Tyranny and oppression by the crown. if thats for personal gain then so be it.

They fought against the 'tyranny' of a country that wanted them to (oh, horrors!) pay taxes that went to pay Britain's war debt from the French and Indian War, a war that was started by the colonies, more specifically, George Washington himself.

The French Indian War was one of a series of wars between the British and French starting as early as the 1600s. The French Indian War took place from 1754 to 1763.

uhm in 1754 Washinton was a 22 year old BRITISH Citizen and part of the Virginia Militia under BRITISH command

Events Leading to the War

In the 1750s, France and Britain were fighting in Europe. The war was now spreading to North America. British Colonists wanted to take over French land in North America. The British wanted to take over the fur trade in the French held territory

[Will Robinson]

I think he missed the Point. the Founding Fathers. stood for something. something that they were willing to risk everything for. even their lives, because there is no doubt they would have been executed if they were caught.

Politicians today have no such honor. they are seldom people of principle. the only thing they stand for is pandering to the people to keep them in power. they run from anything that would jeopardize that.

They stood for personal gain most of the time, they were just far less cowardly than today's politicians. I'll give them that, they were brave as hell. But to say they had "honor" or "principles" that today's politicians lack is just historical blindness.

Go read the federalist papers, read as much as you can from that era and as much as you can about their individual lives. Read the letters they wrote to each other about their concerns over what they were undertaking, the pitfalls they anticipated would be faced by the men who followed them and come back and tell me they were no different than a Clinton or a Bush or a Gore or a McCain! You are completely full of crap if you think history supports your claim.
The four successors to the founders I listed couldn't carry James Madison and John Adams wigs if I spotted them a fork lift and ten union dockworkers!!

You are just spewing cynicism without thinking it through or else you truly haven't really studied the history you site!

[null0010]

uhm in 1754 Washinton was a 22 year old BRITISH Citizen and part of the Virginia Militia under BRITISH command

In 1754, Virginia lieutenant governor Robert Dinwiddie, also an investor in the Ohio Company, commissioned Washington a Lieutenant Colonel and ordered him to lead an expedition to Fort Duquesne to drive out the French Canadians. With his American Indian allies led by Tanacharison, Washington and his troops ambushed a French Canadian scouting party of some 30 men, led by Joseph Coulon de Jumonville. This action is regarded as the first hostility leading to the global Seven Years' War, as the French responded by attacking Fort Necessity which Washington had erected, and the British would later send two regiments to engage with the French.

Will, the point I am trying to make is not that the founders were The Worst Americans To Live, but that to place them upon ridiculous pedestals is, well, ridiculous. I'm tired of this American idea that the people who wrote our Constitution were saints or somehow incorruptible.

Even George Mason, commonly held up as an early vanguard of individual rights and one of the chief celebrity spokesmen for modern libertarian causes, and who proposed the Bill of Rights in the first place, was nothing approaching an idealist. He sought protection for Southern shipping interests in the form of a two-thirds majority for commercial legislation, in an attempt to guarantee his own fortune and the continued import of slaves. Back in Virginia, Mason supported limiting the voting franchise to landholders like himself and affirming the freedom to bear arms only within in the context of a ‘well-regulated militia,’ rather than allowing individuals to own their own guns. In the closed-doors meetings (another aspect of politics widely regarded as a recent development) of the Constitutional Convention, it took over two years for the Bill of Rights to be attached to the Constitution, and even then it was merely power politics which warranted its inclusion. Anti-federalists were against a strong central government, and, wanting to limit Congress’ authority to impose taxes, used a sort of red herring to justify their refusal to ratify the Constitution: they claimed it was due to the lack of a Bill of Rights, a criticism few had two years earlier in 1787, when only three representatives refused to sign a Constitution that was conspicuously missing a Bill of Rights. By dramatically objecting to the absence of a Bill of Rights, the Anti-Federalists hoped to compel revision of the proposed Constitution so as to greatly reduce the powers of the national government, or, alternatively, to sponsor a second constitutional convention.

[Will Robinson]

...
Will, the point I am trying to make is not that the founders were The Worst Americans To Live, but that to place them upon ridiculous pedestals is, well, ridiculous. I'm tired of this American idea that the people who wrote our Constitution were saints or somehow incorruptible.....

That may be the point you are trying to make now but you sure didn't do a good job of articulating it when you said:

But to say they had "honor" or "principles" that today's politicians lack is just historical blindness.

In spite of their flaws they understood they were working for something more important than themselves, their re-election chances and their party. they put an awful lot of thought into their plans to form this country. They put in a lot of work to make it all happen, as you alluded to there was a lot of 'debate' to overcome and work around. Ultimately they created a great framework for us to build upon and put their lives on the line to do it and for many of them they sacrificed the easy life they had, their wealth and in some cases even their children's lives.

Compare their deeds and their words to todays group of assholes and you couldn't be more wrong with your original comment regardless of whatever point you were headed to with your follow up.
Can you find any example of Clinton or Bush writing with such passion and grand design for developing or nurturing a republic of free men? Can you find any sign of a sacrifice made by them to better this country?

We don't make the founders out to be saints we just compare them to their successors and the contrast is so great that it just seems like we do.

[Spidey]

The founding fathers were just people, with all the flaws people have…but they were the vanguard of advanced thinking at “their” time.

The question is…who is at the vanguard of advanced thinking today?

Liberals…hardly.

[null0010]

The question is…who is at the vanguard of advanced thinking today?

Liberals…hardly.

Well... Bill Clinton said something pretty dang smart on the Daily Show the other night.

And... the founders weren't exactly at the vanguard, either (well... Paine, Jefferson, and Franklin probably were). They read the vanguard, though.

[Cuda68]

Bill Clinton - Mr. Morals himself yea he knows best

[null0010]

Bill Clinton - Mr. Morals himself yea he knows best

Considering Jefferson had an affair with one of his slaves, I'd say he's in good company.

[Cuda68]

Bill Clinton - Mr. Morals himself yea he knows best

Considering Jefferson had an affair with one of his slaves, I'd say he's in good company.

Did you not knock the founding fathers?? Now your sticking up for them?

[null0010]

Bill Clinton - Mr. Morals himself yea he knows best

Considering Jefferson had an affair with one of his slaves, I'd say he's in good company.

Did you not knock the founding fathers?? Now your sticking up for them?

Opinions can be more complicated than "_________ is good/bad."

[Cuda68]

Bill Clinton - Mr. Morals himself yea he knows best

Considering Jefferson had an affair with one of his slaves, I'd say he's in good company.

Did you not knock the founding fathers?? Now your sticking up for them?

Opinions can be more complicated than "_________ is good/bad."

you right, how silly of me. this is one of those liberal things where we do as you say because you know better. The old flip flop and worm your your way through with BS.

BTW speaking of BS - I am still waiting.

[null0010]

Ah, yes, I'm soooooo liberal that my hair curls. No, this is not a shoe or a breakfast dish, it is an opinion. The whole reason I brought this up in the first place was because historical inaccuracies are something that really tick me off. I hate it when people don't take the time to read some books and discover that the founding fathers (or any other group of worshipped historical figures, like Roosevelt or Reagan or Eisenhower) aren't the whitewashed saintly figures that high school history textbooks portray them to be.

[CUDA]

no body said they were.

[Nightshade]

Fun fun fun!

[Heretic]

Yes I like getting my political views from Jon Liebowitz aka Steward an American political satirist, writer, television host, actor, media critic and stand-up comedian who runs a satirical news program.

satire

sat·ire [ sá tr ] (plural sat·ires)

noun
Definition:

The use of wit to criticize behavior: the use of wit, especially irony, sarcasm, and ridicule, to criticize faults

Political satire is a significant part of satire that specializes in gaining entertainment from politics; it has also been used with subversive intent where political speech and dissent are forbidden by a regime, as a method of advancing political arguments where such arguments are expressly forbidden.

Yes that's some hard core news for you.

[Cuda68]

They used to stand tall and independent challenging each other over philosophy and any sign of slip in integrity or character.

What in the damn hell history have you been reading? Politicians have always been slimy. The closest any of the "founding fathers" ever came to non-slimy was probably George Mason, but even he wanted a Bill of Rights for mostly selfish reasons.

,

I do not see this as satire in any way, shape or form. What are you referring to as satire?

[Heretic]

It was in reference to his Daily Show reply. Which is entirely Satire driven Show.

Why you go back to the beginning of the thread? Do you not know who Jon Steward is?

[Cuda68]

Ahh I see, and to answer your question - nope never heard of her.

[null0010]

Yes I like getting my political views from Jon Liebowitz aka Steward an American political satirist, writer, television host, actor, media critic and stand-up comedian who runs a satirical news program.

Last I heard, Stewart was the satirist, not Clinton.

[Heretic]

Did I say Clinton?

[null0010]

Did I say Clinton?

Well, you either

a) insinuated that what Bill Clinton said is somehow invalid or less than correct because of the venue in which he said it

or

b) you did not read my post properly

[Heretic]

Nope wrong. I would not even give Jon Steward a Click count. So I have no Idea what Clinton Said nor do I care what he said. The people who listens to Jon Liebowitz aka Steward is no better than those who listen to Glenn Beck. They are just at the opposite ends of the spectrum. I don't want to get my political views either one.

[Isaac]

They are just at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

I didn't know crazy was the opposite of funny...

[Heretic]

Touché

I guess I should have spelled it out. Ones Left the other is Right. Both started as comedians turned political activist. Both spouting their own form of propaganda.

Edit: I guess it's funny to disagree with some one and they tell you to go F*&k Yourself. Yep some funny stuff there. Always good for a civil debate.

[Isaac]

I heard about Glen Beck doing some stuff other than the radio and tv show. As for John Stewart, I haven't seen the show recently enough to know what you mean; all I've ever seen him do is mock the Right. From what you say I'm guessing he's doing a bit more, correct?

[null0010]

I don't think Glenn Beck really has an oppposite on the left, or anywhere for that matter. Now, folks like Olbermann are most assuredly the opposite of folks like O'Reilly, yeah.

[Will Robinson]

I don't think Glenn Beck really has an oppposite on the left, or anywhere for that matter. Now, folks like Olbermann are most assuredly the opposite of folks like O'Reilly, yeah.

I think Glen Beck has all the makings of an Ayatollah he was just born into the wrong culture.

[Heretic]

I so much agree with that Will. Then TC may use that as an example of her theocracy is a coming warning.

[AlphaDoG]

I don't think Glenn Beck really has an oppposite on the left, or anywhere for that matter. Now, folks like Olbermann are most assuredly the opposite of folks like O'Reilly, yeah.

Two, well four words:
Ed Schultz
Lawrence O'Donnell

[null0010]

I don't think Glenn Beck really has an oppposite on the left, or anywhere for that matter. Now, folks like Olbermann are most assuredly the opposite of folks like O'Reilly, yeah.

Two, well four words:
Ed Schultz
Lawrence O'Donnell

I've never seen/heard their program and/or writing, so I'd have to look it up before I could agree/disagree.