I've heard it repeated here that the founders were a bunch of "old" white guys. Well here is a refute to the "old" charge .
Here are some of the prominent founders and influential people of the Revolution.

Marquis de Lafayette was eighteen years old in 1776, when he was offered the rank of Major General in the American army.

Alexander Hamilton, at the age of twenty-one, received his commission as Captain of a New York artillery company. He went on to successfully lead his men through critical battles with the British in and around New York City. Hamilton’s military performance and writing skills so impressed George Washington that the General appointed young Hamilton as his personal aide, and promoted him to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He served with distinction through the rest of the war.
As a teenager, Hamilton had already written essays arguing for American independence from Britain. His abilities in writing, law, and political theory were at least as great as his military prowess, and he went on after the war to co-author the famous Federalist Papers with James Madison and John Jay.


At the age of twenty-five, James Madison played a pivotal role by representing Virginia’s Orange County in the drafting of his state’s Constitution. Starting that same year, he continued to be a leader in the Virginia state legislature, where he was notable as an advocate for religious freedom.
While in college, he and some friends formed a political club for discussing oppressive British policy. After the war, he went on to serve as the youngest member of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, co-wrote the Federalist Papers with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, and served as President of the United States during the War of 1812.


John Jay was thirty years old when he served as a delegate to New York’s constitutional convention, where he had a formative influence on the creation of that major state’s new governing documents. From there he continued to be influential within the New York legal system. Jay had initially sought reconciliation with Britain, but in 1776 became an ardent American patriot and advocate for the ideal of liberty, including the liberty of African-American slaves.
He went on from the war to serve as ambassador to France and Spain, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and as co-author of the Federalist Papers.

At the age of thirty-three, Jefferson, already then serving as a member of Virginia’s state legislature, was selected by his peers to draft the Declaration of Independence.
[Taken from Generation Opportunity web site .]
Happy 4th of July! - Generation Opportunity (http://generationopportunity.org/happy-4th-july/?utm_source=twitter_re&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=july4foundingfathers)

This would put all of them in the Millennial generation today. As the site says : If those young Americans had just sat back and let older generations make decisions for them, the United States wouldn’t be the independent nation it is today.

Interesting to note that Jay was an abolitionist before such were in vogue. This gives the lie to the "white slave owners" myth as well. Anyone want to tackle the "rich white guys" meme?

But at what age did they (and people in general) die during those times? And how productive were they in their later years?

Hamilton was struck down when he was middle aged in the duel with Aaron Burr . Both John Adams and Jefferson died on July 4 1826 on the 50th Independence Day. Laffayette died in 1834. I did not check Jay or Madison . But as you see ,they lived to ripe old ages .

I think perhaps the statement that they were "old white guys" might have had two components one of which you have not addressed. Now I know it is hard to address the other component because of what the society was at the time, but the fact is they came from an essentially british society which enjoyed a great deal of privilige if for no other reason that it was a society based on slavery. Where is the representation from the very large slave class population who were for political purposes invisible, non-citizens? These men did not write laws for the benefit of that population

I think perhaps the statement that they were "old white guys" might have had two components one of which you have not addressed. Now I know it is hard to address the other component because of what the society was at the time, but the fact is they came from an essentially british society which enjoyed a great deal of privilige if for no other reason that it was a society based on slavery. Where is the representation from the very large slave class population who were for political purposes invisible, non-citizens? These men did not write laws for the benefit of that population

There's that "white slave owners" meme I was talking about. It is gratifying to note that you mention our common parent society as the slaver, rather than the more common stereotype of Yankee traders inventing the concept.

Yes the british were essentially slave traders rather than slave owners, slavery wasn't endemic in the british isles but rather something they did in the colonies far from the sight of polite society, nor was it a particular british invention but nevertheless the rights of certain people were ignored by those most noble of founders who considered the trade something that later generations might form a different view on. Those in the colonies were happy to profit from slavery and continue the system beyond their newly won freedom. We are all aware of the outcome as the enlightment and its ideas came late to the americas in this respect. The american revolution may have been the catylist to change many ideas in in britain but in a reactionary sense

A look at the US Constitution will give us a glimpse of the political turmoil of the day. Then like now, there were people on both sides of the argument. Slavery was just one of the issues. We see that a compromise had to be made, for them to even accept the US Constitution. Section 9 Article 1

The compromise was that the Federal Government would not interfere till after 1808 on matters of slavery. It also allowed the Federal Government to interfere in any new state that would be formed, or in any US territory.
This compromise was won by General Pinckney who was representing slave owners from North and South Carolina and Georgia. It also in Article IV allowed for slaves to be returned, if they fled to another state. But also did not require if they escape to a territory or a new state.

This and other restrictions on Federal power, was one of the reasons, James Madison refused to sign the Constitution. Only 39 of the 50 delegates actually signed the Constitution. Some were absent, but some absent were gone due to protest of the document.

The same issues we have today, over power of the Federal Government, fear of the power of the Supreme Court, domestic and international affairs, were all issues then also...

Today, our Congress could not even come close to passing the US Constitution. It would be in committee for the next 20 years.

I intentionally tried to avoid slavery and the allegeded wealth of the founders in this op because I have addressed those in previous posts.

the founders interested me because ,unlike the youth of today with their noses buried in their i pods sexting and playing video games ,the founders self schooled themselves in the classics and the enlightenment theories. The link I provided is a call for the new generation to emulate the founders .

I intentionally tried to avoid slavery and the allegeded wealth of the founders in this op because I have addressed those in previous posts.

the founders interested me because ,unlike the youth of today with their noses buried in their i pods sexting and playing video games ,the founders self schooled themselves in the classics and the enlightenment theories. The link I provided is a call for the new generation to emulate the founders .

yes Tom only wanting to discuss what you want to discuss and not the disgusting views of those you hold in high esteem. if these men were flawed in that view they were flawed in others and today the society you have is teh result of those flaws. let me say it again Tom, flaws, and flaws you have sought to impose on others

All you are doing is using 21st century standards to judge 17th Century men ...You show an amazing lack of intellectual honesty . By all measures ;most of the founders were light years ahead of their time regarding human rights.

I intentionally tried to avoid slavery and the allegeded wealth of the founders in this op because I have addressed those in previous posts.

the founders interested me because ,unlike the youth of today with their noses buried in their i pods sexting and playing video games ,the founders self schooled themselves in the classics and the enlightenment theories. The link I provided is a call for the new generation to emulate the founders .

Tom, The Founding Fathers were the intellectuals of their day. They were the educated elite of that society. You didn't often come across the butcher, the baker and the candle-stick maker discussing a comparison of Locke and Hobbes.

so the young adults of today do not have that ready made excuse for not being educated since public school education is mandatory .

Those founders did not ahve the diversions of today therefore lively debate was a part of their society

you are getting close to my point.

so the young adults of today do not have that ready made excuse for not being educated since public school education is mandatory .
My comment wasn't a criticism, it's just the way things were. With privilege came certain benefits, such as education.

there should be more youth with the intellectual curiosity and the activism today then there were at the time of the founding . Instead what we get is something like the Occupy movement ,a fad with a disjointed ,almost unintelligible philosophical premise . I've seen it demonstrated often enough that the kids of today spend their free time binge watching 'Orange is the New Black' ,and as I previously mentioned ;could not pass a basic citizens test given during the naturalization process.

Tom you want that, then you have to remove some modern benefits

remove some modern benefits

Like State Laws?

USC doesn’t want to teach the Constitution, despite state law | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/18/university-of-south-carolina-refuses-to-mandate-constitution-course-despite-state-law-requiring-it/)

Are you kidding me? A student raising hell? Well why don't you see if he has a valid argument or is he blowing smoke to get attention. You do know they have a law curriculum at U of SC don't you?

I think someone is blowing a whole lot of smoke here

blowing a whole lot of smoke

Yes, the University president.


University of South Carolina president Harris Pastides is refusing to comply with a state law that requires all public universities to teach students about America’s founding documents, including the Constitution, calling it “archaic.” In a bit of irony that is apparently lost on Pastides, USC claims the state law is itself unconstitutional.University President Calls Law Requiring Study of Constitution ‘Archaic’ (http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/05/university-president-calls-law-requiring-study-constitution-archaic/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social)

Then the SC legislature has to make its case that he is NOT following the law (the way they want*). What do they want, a required course? That's a bit unclear from the source allegations from the conservative legislature.

*From your original link,

USC doesn’t want to teach the Constitution, despite state law | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/18/university-of-south-carolina-refuses-to-mandate-constitution-course-despite-state-law-requiring-it/)


Broggi is running for president of The USC's student government, and stressed that he would press the administration to follow the law if elected to officehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/18/university-of-south-carolina-refuses-to-mandate-constitution-course-despite-state-law-requiring-it/#). It is important for students to have a rudimentary understanding of the U.S.'s founding laws so that they will know if their rights are being violated by the government, he said.

Is the issue formal classes promoting a conservative view of the constitution? Sure it is as both of your sources said so. We have this fight in Texas every few years also.

Tea Party Groups In Tennessee Demand Textbooks Overlook U.S. Founder's Slave-Owning History (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/tea-party-tennessee-textbooks-slavery_n_1224157.html)


The latest push comes a year after the Texas Board of Education approved revisions to its social studies curriculum that would put a conservative twist on history through revised textbooks and teaching standards.
The Texas revisions include the exploration of the positive aspects of American slavery, lifting the stature of Jefferson S. Davis to that of Abraham Lincoln, and amendments to teach the value of the separation of church and state (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/social-studies-standards-debate/texas-school-board-fights-church-state-separation/) were voted down (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/state-board-of-education/sboe-votes-down-church-state-wall-in-history-books/)by the conservative cadre. Among other controversial amendments that have been approved is the study of the "unintended consequences" of affirmative action.
The board approved more than 100 amendments affecting social studies, economics and history classes for Texas's 4.8 million students.
The influence of the amended textbooks will likely reach far beyond the state of Texas. The state is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks, and many other states adopt Texas's books and standards.
The curriculum changes were pushed through by a majority bloc of conservative Republicans on the Texas school board, who have said the changes were made to add balance to what they believe was a left-leaning and already-skewed reflection of American history.
"There is some method to the madness besides vindicating white privilege and making white students feel as though they are superior and privileged and that that it is the natural order of things," Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas State NAACP, told The Crisis magazine last year about this time. "The agenda being pushed and the ultimate impact intended is to make young people automatically identify with one political party."
A number of groups, including the NAACP, the Texas League of United Latin American Citizens and the Texas Association of Black Personnel in Higher Education have joined forces (http://texasnaacp.org/?tag=text-books) to beat back the measures, which they said would have a negative impact on minority children... "They voted down a motion that requires students to be taught about the terrorism brought about by the Ku Klux Klan and what they did to ethnic and racial minorities, but they turn around and pass a provision that requires the teaching of the violence of the Black Panther Party."

The conservative bandwagon has reached SC.

What's wrong with the conservative bandwagon? Is it because we like our rights as envisioned by the founders and enumerated in the constitution?

46245

I can get with your rights, but they aren't the only rights that's liked by the citizens nor is the conservative band wagon the only one that people want to get on. Conservatives aren't the only ones with rights you know. Nor is it the view of everyone.

Tal, we are not the ones denying your rights and creating new, special interest rights like free birth control. We are the ones PROTECTING your rights, not trying to silence speech you don’t like, spying on and intimidating the media, trying to take away your gun and your religious rights – all specifically enumerated. Your side is at war with those rights. You’re welcome for us standing up for them.

I think someone is still blowing a lot of smoke

Well said by the guys who stand up for enumerated rights and stand by and do nothing when innocents, and kids get slaughtered in their classroom, and a movie, or a pizza house, or a church. Thanks for defending everyone's rights to be victim of a loony with a gun.

but that is eveyone's right courtesy of the second amendment by which noone is safe, you don't have the right to safety becuase noone thought you needed it. Now Tom is going to tell us that if you think you need it all you have to do is amend the constitution

I googled it. Apparently the last amendment is the 27th. It took 202 years to ratify. I think Tom is pretty safe.

No tom is no more safe than anyoneelse, someone can stick a gun in his ear anyday

Well said by the guys who stand up for enumerated rights and stand by and do nothing when innocents, and kids get slaughtered in their classroom, and a movie, or a pizza house, or a church. Thanks for defending everyone's rights to be victim of a loony with a gun.

Thank YOU so very much for supporting those who forced us to stand around unarmed in classrooms, movie theatres, pizza houses, and churches. Your defense of everyone's right to be a victim of Neo-feudalists' programs to drug students has been wildly successful. It wasn't a total success, or the body count would be higher.

Why are americans so angry and violent as to gun down people in classrooms, movie theatres, pizza houses, and churches?

NK, those are CRAZY people who can get their hand on guns easily, and LEGALLY, but some nuts get them because they are available to them. Crazy doesn't mean dumb, just potentially dangerous. Criminals get them easily, and don't care about the legal.

Then you have the gun NUTS who trust NO ONE and are so paranoid they sacrifice safety and common sense for THEIR rights. Then you have the 90% of Americans who have common sense but no clout or money to fight the right wing extremists who are paranoid... and LOUD.

you don't have the right to safety What Tom will say is that you have a right to self defense. What Tom often says is that when seconds count ;the police are minutes away.

I googled it. Apparently the last amendment is the 27th. It took 202 years to ratify.

The 27th was ratified in 1992 and it addressed Congressional pay . Yeah it took some time to build momentum before passing . That just means it took time to build a consensus for the need . The 26th ;which changed the voting age ,took 4 months to pass from conception.

Les Racines de vie Montessori April 5 ,2003 ,York University March 6,2014 ,École Polytechnique Dec 6 ,1989 ,Concordia U Aug 24,1992 ....Why are canadians so angry and violent as to gun down people in classrooms ?

I agree fully with that statement Tom, but have a problem with a gun owner having the right to kill if he FEELS threatened. Too many loopholes for my sensibility, and who needs a 30 round clip for a semi automatic rifle? Hunters surely don't. Got no problems with the firing range though.

Blind people? You surely border on insanity with that one. As with a doctor verifying a potential dangerous situation when he prescribes certain medications.

Why are americans so angry and violent as to gun down people in classrooms, movie theatres, pizza houses, and churches?

Those aren't Americans... those are Liberals that do that MOST of the time.

We aren't so scared that we need to arm the whole populace in order to protect ourselves. The number and scale of our events pale in comparison to yours which are now a weekly occurrence. Why are their so many "crazy" people with guns?

That's only because yours aren't covered on the news most of the time because it would violate the right to privacy of the accused who have not yet been convicted.

You could have a serial rapist living next to you... and not even know it in Canada. Because their rights exceed yours.

Not to mention there are fewer people in Canda to begin with. The State of California has more people living there than the entire Country of Canada....

Too many loopholes for my sensibility, and who needs a 30 round clip for a semi automatic rifle? Hunters surely don't. Got no problems with the firing range though.
The right to self defense extends to protection from the government .

Did some posts go missing in this thread?

The Democrat Party agenda follows this to a "T"
46251

Yep, sounds about right for you.

Defense from the government is best done by vote, and the court. The threat of tyranny of OUR government of the people lies in the corruption bought the old fashion way by the Oligarchs and their MONEY, they extracted (STOLE) through laws they wrote and exploited.

A gun won't change that.

And yet your people keep putting Bargara Fiensteirn, Barbara Boxer,Nancy Pelosi, Harry Ried, Durban and others back into office as they embody that and gained their personal wealth by exploiting it.

And they likely want to exterminate americans jews too, eh smoothy?

Yeah we should have voted for your nuts like Palin, Angle and that witch girl, in Delaware, or the rich guy whose expertise in making money was loading American companies with debt and closing them down for a profit and sending it to offshore safe havens.

"You can't bring a lawsuit to a gunfight" Palin says yesterday, but she thinks she can bring a gun to a lawsuit. Even you guys want her to shut up.

Poll: Americans Want Sarah Palin to Shut Up the Most | Mediaite (http://www.mediaite.com/online/poll-americans-want-sarah-palin-to-shut-up-the-most/)


Notably, four out of every ten Republicans surveyed said that Palin should quiet down. (Two-thirds of Democrats and a “majority” of independents agreed with that sentiment.)
45% of respondents added that they wanted Jesse Jackson to be quiet, too; followed by Cheney (42%), Newt Gingrich (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Newt+Gingrich) (39%), Al Gore (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Al+Gore) (37%), and Bill Clinton (31%).
Only 12% surveyed said that the politicians should keep talking.
Numbers don't lie, people.


I am sure you have a loony right wing rag to quote differently

Tal, all of them would have been HUGE improvements over any of the lunatics you actually have in offices... But then, look at the mess we have today... thanks to your people who actuallty ARE in office... you can't blame that on ANY of the ones the left likes to bash on... because they weren't responsible for ANY of it...


And they likely want to exterminate americans jews too, eh smoothy?

No... they are trying to exterminate the White race... not the Jews... same philosophy... only a different target group. Under teh Radar is they have been VERY effective at culling the Black race...with most Black pregnancies being terminated via abortions....and a near complete destruction of the Black family in only a few decades.

THe Liberals have been responsible for the deaths of far more blacks in the last decade alone...than the Nazi's were for the Deaths of every group combined in their final solution from its inception to its end.

They LOST! Thankfully. It would have been worse if they had won.

Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification smoothy.
I take it you're a strong proponent for "white power"?

They LOST! Thankfully. It would have been worse if they had won.

It's that mindset that makes so many of us believe that places like California, Illinois (including Chicago) and every other place that voted for Obama... deserves the economy they are suffering through right now... because it they got EXACTLY what they voted for... unemployment, misery and poverty... and they deserve every bit of what has happened to them the last 6.5 years.

I could have been a LOT better....but none of you wanted it to be any better.

who needs a 30 round clip for a semi automatic rifle?

Why did Rosa Parks need to sit in the front of the bus? Same question.

Why did Rosa Parks need to sit in the front of the bus? Same question.No, not at all.

Rosa Parks didn't need a 30 clip semi automatic rifle to exercise her rights, why do you?

Those aren't Americans... those are Liberals that do that MOST of the time.

so you have disenfranchised a whole group of people with a wave of your dismissive hand, what you have shown is the thoughts your ilk have about other people

We have the Second Amendment that says we do... whether the lefties like it or not.

that isn't what you said you said lefties arn't americans

There is nothing about a right to 30 shot clips in the constitution. Limits can be set, and they have in the past.

I don't think most of them are... their allegance isn't to this country and its laws.

There is no right to protest or for people to flap their gums incessantly secifically written into it either... limits can be set and they have in the past...

In fact Illegals don't have ANY rights written in the constitution at all...

There is nothing about a right to 30 shot clips in the constitution.

Nothing about where you ride in the wagon, either. The rear seats of the bus got there just as fast as the front. The arguments about "need" are spurious. The American people "need" to be as heavily armed as the enemies crossing the border with the children or the enemies being trained at Quantico.

Your version of the Rosa Parks story is extremely lacking in historical facts and context, and if the Marines at Quantico, your fellow Americans are your enemy then that's pretty delusional. And I fail to see how your guns in your state, in your home, are helping at the border against coyotes.

So the armed forces of the United States are the enemies of the people? sounds like you have regressed 160 years to the days of the confederacy. If your people cared about peopele crossing the border they would take those arms you prize and turn them on the invaders, turns out they think differently to the 1%, whichever 1% that might be, the criminal class, or the rich class, of the rabid red neck class

The Constitution gives the population the RIGHT to own weapons as a failsafe against an out of control president or out of control military to have the means to resist.

Read the Federalist papers, the thoughts and intents of the founding fathers who wrote the constitution and everything is spelled out in them.

We have evolved past the revolution,and civil war dude. We vote and sue. Are you so upset at losing the last election you want to grab a gun? DUDE!

What if you lose the next one too? You must think you have more guns and bullets on your side or something.

Because this last election, in fact the last two elections... have proven we NEED more guns... because its proven a meglomaniac who completely disregaurds the laws, and the cult that follows him protects him when he does it... can steal elections through fraud...and there is no longer an actual independent unbiased media. And hasn't been for far over a decade.


Exactly like happened with Hitler, and Mussilini... and Stalin...

Absolute rubbish smoothy, do you have the gestapo (NSA) rounding up dissidents? Are your local police forces breaking heads and labour strikes? are your students revolting? well yes but that is a different issue. are there large numbers interned for their political views?

We vote and sue lol lol lol lol

If you have evolve beyond settling you differences with wars, you have evolved beyond settling your difference with guns, I guess you haven't evolved as far as you think you have

Some rattle sabers, others pump guns in the air. It's a scare tactic, mostly for those who are afraid and feel threatened but want you to be afraid too. Guns are and never were the real problem Clete, as anything in the wrong hands is lethal.

Yes but guns have become the problem tal, they are the weapon of choice

Yes but guns have become the problem tal, they are the weapon of choice

I could spend a whole day on how wrong that is. When you have a segment of society hell-bent on destroying traditional values, such as families, cheapening human life via millions of abortions, undermining parental authority, intentionally stoking racial tensions (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/211806-dems-push-race-issues-revving-up-their-voters) and otherwise insisting that anything goes EXCEPT respect for the previous things listed, who can be surprised at how perverted and violent it's become? I mean geez, you've got teens running around knocking out unsuspecting victims just for the hell of it. Guns are not the problem.

Yeah, you guys "never" stoke racial tensions, or accept that your "traditional values" are shared by everyone though you think you can make it so.

you've got teens running around knocking out unsuspecting victims just for the hell of it.That was a hoax and you fell for it... because you want to believe it.

Yeah, you guys "never" stoke racial tensions, or accept that your "traditional values" are shared by everyone though you think you can make it so.

Contrary to lib belief, we aren't the ones forcing our values on others, trying to destroy yours, or harboring most of the racists.

Liberals have as much right to their beliefs as you do so get over it, as you are so fond to say about YOUR rights.

That was a hoax and you fell for it... because you want to believe it.

The knock out game is a hoax?

Knockout game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_game)

you've got teens running around knocking out unsuspecting victims just for the hell of it.

I see an opinion that this is a hoax where I come from teh problem has become so endemic that new laws have been enacted because of deaths from this nonsense a fad that has gone aroound the world and guess what gun carrying didn't protect anyone

The 'knockout game' faux media trend has finally jumped the shark - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/12/local/la-me-ln-knockout-game-faux-media-trend-20131211)

snopes.com: Knockout Game Turns Deadly (http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/montgomery.asp)

Reports: Alleged trend of 'knockout game' a myth (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/26/knockout-game-myth/3729635/)

'Knockout Game' Is A Fabricated Trend, Victim James Addlespurger Says (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/08/knockout-game-isnt-real-james-addlespurger_n_4408112.html)

Knockout game trend: It's not real, but random street assaults are. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/25/knockout_game_trend_it_s_not_real_but_random_stree t_assaults_are.html)

Marines at Quantico

You're not aware of the FBI Academy? The people that brought us Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian Gonzales, and a lengthy non-investigation of Lois Lerner?

big place quanico

pretty delusional

Yep, I'm a fruitcake. There's a lot of us.

https://www.aclu.org/war-comes-home-excessive-militarization-american-policing

I kind of agree with most of your link Cats, but I won't minimize the true nature of criminals that hide among the population, with the air of legitimacy, and terrorize entire neighborhoods. That's no excuse for sloppy police work, or sloppy policing. The notion of NO police isn't the solution either.

Oversight and accountability is the key factor in serve and protect in my view, NOT fear or mistakes preventing it. An unregulated militia is as dangerous as a criminal horde.

An unregulated militia is as dangerous as a criminal horde.

No doubt the thought of those founders when they made provision for officers to be appointed, you see the problem here is a portion of the text has been taken to confer an absolute right when in fact a full reading discloses purpose and intent. These days in legal documents we make the statement that the document embodies the full understanding but others want to use other references to find a relevance to their point of view, thus letters and writings are introduced into the discussion

An unregulated militia is as dangerous as a criminal horde

An unrestrained government is worse.

An unrestrained government is worse.I know, do you realize how many deaths the Bush era is responsible for? One of the reasons the conservatives weren't popular with the voters twice in a row.

Bush, Obama, Clinton, I don’t care who is in the White House - an unrestrained government is a threat. The Founders would agree.

You've already lost control of your government. It should be your first priority for all americans to get it back to the people, regardless of your party affiliation.

when we say we want to take our country back ,Eric Holder accuses us of racism.

well it depends upon whose saying it and for what reason, a case could be put that the majority want it back, whether that's racist or not depends on what card they are playing, but you sure have a lot of illegal immigrants and hangers on to the system, I doubt it could be said they have taken control but perhaps they blur the image

The history of immigration in this country is one of the new immigrants being hated and mistrusted. Appears the same cycle is being repeated and takes many years, and even more than a decade to resolve. Generally until the next wave, or big building project comes along. Or war.

LOL, look at the waves of refugees/immigrants throughout the world for whatever reasons and see its not just OUR immigration problem, but almost every country/nation/regions problem. None have solved it completely, not even Australia.

Imagine if the Palestinians started to run for a safe place? Where would they go? Abject poverty and need caused by political/military/ conflict creates these humanitarian crisis, YET AGAIN... and again... and again and will continue until someone figures it out.

well it depends upon whose saying it and for what reason, a case could be put that the majority want it back, whether that's racist or not depends on what card they are playing, but you sure have a lot of illegal immigrants and hangers on to the system, I doubt it could be said they have taken control but perhaps they blur the image
indeed it does matter who's saying it . When Howard Dean was campaigning in 2008 screaming about 'taking back the country ' ;it was a good thing. When Tea Party folks say the same thing ,they are being 'racists ' according to Eric Holder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5mRYUPU_tY

Meanwhile Dems use the phrase as titles of the political screeds :

"You Have the Power: "How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America"and "Winning Back America" by Howard Dean.

"Take It Back: A Battle Plan for Democratic Victory."By Paul Begala and
James Carville

"Taking Back America" by the editor of the lefty rag 'The Nation
Katrina vanden Hevuel

"We the People: A Call to Take Back America" by lefty radio host Thom Hartmann.


racists all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Liberals mean take back the notions of equality, liberty and opportunity, while the wingers want to take back the power and influence they once had for themselves while keeping everyone else in their place below them. That's what happens when you holler, scream, and call names, and obstruct the rights of others by making yours more important.

You resist the change that says share equally and seek a return to dictate, and dominate, and justify by promoting why everyone is NOT equal. Its worse than racism, it's arrogant entitlement. No one is fooled by the rights all out assault on the common good because the only good you recognize is your own. You work hard and holler loud to make the rules reflect that.

Says the people who depend on a voting block who gets all or most of their income from handouts paid for by the rest of use that actually have to work for a living?

Democrats aren't the only poor people on welfare. A huge republican base are poor people too. You are just lucky your job is unaffected as so many other hardworking people have been the last few years. If you work for the government, your wages were frozen.

It's a Fact: Republican Run Red States Have America's Highest Poverty Rates (http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/18/fact-republican-run-red-states-americas-highest-poverty-rates.html)


It is fairly common knowledge the former Confederacy considered owning human beings a biblically-supported and constitutional right according to their interpretation of the 10thAmendment. But even after losing the Civil War they persisted in targeting other groups for discrimination with biblical justification. Since their war against America, southern states opposed interracial marriage, women's right to vote, civil rights, voting rights, women's right to choose their reproductive health, and recently gay rights. The impetus for their opposition to those rights guaranteed in the Constitution is founded in their religion and since they were prohibited by the Constitution from depriving those groups of their rights, they have taken out their anger on the rest of the population by electing Republicans to Congress who promise to subject every American to conditions red southern state residents live under including poverty, slave wages, sickness and disease, and no hope of ever escaping their chosen lifestyle.

Yep, that's you guys all right!

voting block who gets all or most of their income from handoutsYou continue to make the assumption that destitute people are all democrats. Why is that?

No one is fooled by the rights all out assault on the common good because the only good you recognize is your own

Wow, with the regime we have now that insists everyone bow to his will that's an awfully surreal statement.

Most Democrat votors ARE on the dole... thats the only reason democrats are so dead set on giving that lazy bunch money they take by force from those of use who actually work because we aren't lazy.

That's the ONLY group the Democrats defend... and everyone knows they don't do anything to help anyone that's part of any group that's not a majority Democrat voting block.

those of use who actually work because we aren't lazyHow can you be working when you're posting here all day? Is this your job?

How can you be working when you're posting here all day? Is this your job?

You know I can same the same about you and everyone else here.

Incidentally I AM at work... as I've said before... I sit in front of 7 computer screens all day long, much of it waiting for something to happen... I have time to do this.

And Obama hasn't fired you?

. I sit in front of 7 computer screens all day long, much of it waiting for something to happenAh, a low level job.

no a dead end job

Waiting for something to happen is hard work(?? )

Yes as I said must give him a dead end

You must have low the level jobs... I probibly make more than both of you combined.

THere are a grand total of TWO of us in the country that can do what me and my coworker do right now... without needing YEARS of getting up to speed. And that's only if they have been doing this somewhere else. THanks to years of layoffs we do what used to be 5 different job classifications... on top of doing most of what my Boss should be doing but can't because he is complteely unfamiliar with our site, our contract and our work rules (or how everything is structured and routed through it) so he relies on us to know what needs done and do it, and call him when its anything that needs more authority to get done.

Which we've been doing for the last 6 years and the last three bosses since my last boss that was actually HERE got laid off.

The bonus being nobody dreams up extra "make do" work because they can't stand to see anyone relax when they are cuaght up.

I think you guys are just jealous because you have overbearing domineering bosses you live in fear of. Something I haven't had to deal with in the last 20 years.

I've actually loved my job....its not going to last forever, or a lot longer...and I've got several solid leads and at least one offer already for over $120K a year down the street from a CEO of another company I've known for about 16 years. And another where I might hit that mark in the next three if I get a couple liscenses thats all but certain since I'm friends with most of the people who do the hiring.

here he goes again big noting himself, I am a wealthy man, wealthy because I have all I need and pay no tax, I don't need to earn more than you do and spend my waking hours in front of screens, I have been my own boss for fourteen years, my working day begins at ten and rarely goes beyond midday

Current Events sees a lot of fiction.

Indeed but if you think what I say is fiction you are wrong I am just truely blessed, you see I am part of a different economic system, one that is not based on greed

"I am part of a different economic system".

Yeah one that can make the racist minstrel show 'Jonah from Tonga' a hit .

"I am part of a different economic system".

Yeah one that can make the racist minstrel show 'Jonah from Tonga' a hit .

Probibly one of Justin Biebers handful of fans too. ( Apparently he's REALLY popular in parts of Austrailia and Canada with certain groups of men for some unknown reason.)

Clete... I am hardly "wealthy". Not with the median average household income in this area anyway. But odd since you were one of the ones making a snide remark about "low level job". When I haven't had a "low level job" in almost 30 years.

And as far as NK....well, nobody expects anything different from them.

smoothy I call it as I see it, you were telling us how you earn more that we do, well big deal, it isn't a measure of anything, as far as the rest of that crap come right out and say what you are thinking, I'm not interested in teenage idiots from Canada or anywhereelse. I don't have a low level job, if anyone does at least they have a job which is important in this time of unemployment, You do what you do because you want too, or have too or whatever. Let us get back to discussing something relevant

you were telling us how you earn more that we do, well big deal, it isn't a measure of anything,I agree with you. Remember what I posted in that other thread?
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/climate-war-769574-26.html#post3668876

Clete, go back and read your own posts... you are both hypocrites... you like to dish it out but get your panties in a knot when anyone throws it back at you.

Its obvious NK is just a bitter person obviously unhappy with their lot in life....Maybe its all that cold Canadian weather.

Its obvious NK is just a bitter person obviously unhappy with their lot in life.You just love to fling the crap like this.
I'm a happy guy with the stuff that matters - great kids, great health, great friends. :-)

Truth hurts, doesn't it? Explain your incessant bitterness then?

Troll much? :D

No... you have that job here... and I wouldn't think of taking it away from you. You do that much better....being a good troll requires a lot of bitterness, and general unhappiness in their life. I don't have enough of either.

A very right-wing tactic - repeating something as nauseum does not make it true.

Really... Thats the tactic the Liberals have used for decades... not right wingers. Look at history for ample proof of it.

A very right-wing tactic - repeating something as nauseum does not make it true.

LOL, the left regurgitates in unison daily. They don't have an original thought, it's issued to them in talking points.

They don't have an original thought, it's issued to them in talking points.You've just described yours, toms, and smoothy's threads on this site.

Ironic isn't it?

46290

You've just described yours, toms, and smoothy's threads on this site.

Repeating something as nauseum does not make it true.

Well I just said it once but whatever.

....
Maybe its all that cold Canadian weather.

Speaking of cold weather, i awoke to road closures this morning maybe it's the cold that has been turning me off

as opposed to your sniping from the cheap seats.

there are no cheap seats here Tom, we don't have class here and we long ago stopped building theatres with galleries, but we do need some better subject matter