Meredith Shiner, American retard. by JEWELSTAITEFAN

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Canada's history isn't the same as those to the South. There were different dynamics at play there.

Yes, Canada didn't have a cotton economy based on slavery. Slavery is a stain on the south .... AND on the Founding Fathers ... that will take many more generations to overcome.

Yanno, I think the problem is that we like to think in relatively simple paradigms, and (maybe because of conditioning by mass media) we tend to think of events and history as a series of "good guys" and "bad guys". Of course, "our side" is never "the bad guy".

The reality is that MOST events are made by mixed groups of people, many with mixed motives.

I'm going to draw an analogy to what is happening in Ukraine.

We think of the Maidan demonstrators as people who were fed up with corruption, wanting to be part of the European culture, and yearning for "freedom" (whatever that means). But among those promulgating this movement were people who stood to gain a great deal, either economically or politically, from overthrowing the elected government. Some of them were oligarchs and apparatchiks of the IMF/USA who stood to gain from the transfer of wealth from the nation to the IMF and international banking community, or the theft of wealth from other oligarchs (eg Kolomysky) during times of disorganization and strife. Others were ultra-nationalists and Nazis who wanted to remake society into their own ethnic-lingustic-religious ideal. Of course, none of them will SAY what they want in plain language, so they hide under words like "freedom".

The American Revolution was very much the same. There were some idealists in the mix, but many others had mercenary motives. Even George Washington, the Founder of Our Nation, had a mercenary motive: land.

Quote:
“I shall not rest contented till I have explored the western country, and traversed those lines (or a great part of them) which have given bounds to a New Empire,” wrote George Washington. His fascination with the West began young and lasted a lifetime – and exemplified the ongoing social and economic movement. The Library of Congress observed: “Between 1747 and 1799 Washington surveyed over two hundred tracts of land and held title to more than sixty-five thousand acres in thirty-seven different locations.”7 Land was the future. “Land is the most permanent estate and the most likely to increase in value,” wrote a youthful Washington....

Far-sighted Americans saw their future lying to the West – with only native Americans standing in the way of their advance. Historian Bernard Bailyn noted that George Washington “wrote enthusiastically in 1767 about an ‘opening prospect in the back country for adventurers, where numbers resort to, and where an enterprising man with very little money may lay the foundation of a noble estate.’ Anyone he declared, who neglected the ‘present opportunity of hunting out good lands and in some measure marking and distinguishing them for his own (in order to keep others from settling them) will never regain it.”

Land speculation- the retailing of land that one granted to oneself by dint of mapping and conquest - was a hot get-rich-quick-scheme. However, the British Crown saw things differently ...

Quote:
In the late 1760s, America’s British overseers saw damages in these visions and sought to limit Americans’ westward mobility.

And just in case there is any mistake about HOW RICH Washington got form his land

Quote:
historian Forrest McDonald wrote: “One worked or connived to obtain a stake, then worked or connived to obtain legal title to a tract of wilderness, then sold the wilderness by the acre to the hordes of immigrants, and thereby lived and died a wealthy man. Appropriately, the most successful practitioner of this craft was George Washington, who had acquired several hundred thousand acres and was reckoned by many as the wealthiest man in America.

http://lehrmaninstitute.org/history/founders-land.asp

Washington couldn't avail himself of his lands as long as the colonies remained under the British Crown. There were others in the Revolutionary War who also monetary motives: colonists in the south who were building early empires on tobacco, indigo, and slavery.

The words in the Declaration and the Constitution are fine and noble words, but they don't represent the totality of the reasons for rebellion. The Founding Fathers failed more often than they succeeded in bringing their ideals to fruition. During the writing of the Constitution, John Adams' wife repeatedly begged her husband to keep in mind the fairer sex. Slavery, of course, was a delicate subject; the Founding Fathers deferred the extension of "inalienable" rights to Negroes in favor of sticking together a coalition of landholders and businessmen. In addition, those inconvenient natives stood in the way of a lot of people making a lot of money. So as far as MOST of the people touched by the American Revolution, it was a failure in granting them the "inalienable" rights that the Founders had written about.

THAT TRADITION CONTINUES TODAY. We promise freedom and rights, but we deliver something entirely different: more often than not war, destruction, genocide, and expropriation.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 1:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BUMP, for those who need a lesson in American history.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 2:07 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Obama turned centuries old rules of lending on its head, by screwing over those who had actual $ in the game to favor those politically

Sept. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Harvey Golub, the former chairman of American International Group Inc., said President Barack Obama “violated every bankruptcy principle known to man” in the rescue of General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC.
“One of the major elements of a bankruptcy is that debtors similarly situated get treated the same,” Golub told Bloomberg Television’s Betty Liu on the “In the Loop” program today. “They changed the rules and bailed out the unions, not the companies.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-12/golub-says-obama-vio
lated-bankruptcy-principle-in-gm-aid

Harvey Golub is jackass. Without government financing -- initiated by President George W. Bush in December 2008 -- GM and Chrysler would not have been able to pursue Chapter 11 reorganization. Instead they would have been forced to cease production, close their doors and lay off virtually all workers once their coffers ran dry. Everyone who bought GM cars would lose their warranty and it would put 1,000,000 autoworkers and their part suppliers out of work because the swindling chairman of AIG thinks his crooked company didn't get the same treatment as GM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group#Liquidity_cr
isis_and_government_bailout

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
The beginning might have been admirable, but the end of the Revolutionary War left John Adams' fine sentiments far behind. I was looking at a book from 1976 about Washington's victory at Yorktown: After the surrender ceremony was over, soldiers inspected Yorktown, and many wondered that the enemy had been able to resist so long. One wrote, "One could not take three steps without running into some great holes made by bombs with scattered white or Negro arms or legs and some bits of uniforms." Houses were wrecked, and the remaining inhabitants were terrified. Negroes, sick and dying, lay about the streets, amid heaps of American shells which had failed to explode.

As in George Washington's day to this very day, America still loves to kill with high-explosives dropping down from the sky. That's how America really fights for freedom, not the way John Adams imagined the fight.

I have no idea what in the hell that's suppose to mean. The colonists were fighting w/ what ever they could get their hands on , against the most powerful, well equipped military of the day.
Washington started out by fighting only the Redcoats, but at the end of the war, once the colonies finally, after years of begging, were providing explosives, Washington was killing women, children and slaves by bombardment. All of George Washington's empty rhetoric about honorably meeting the enemy, man-to-man, on the battlefield was so much hot air once Washington got bombs.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 2:16 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Washington started out by fighting only the Redcoats, but at the end of the war, once the colonies finally, after years of begging, were providing explosives, Washington was killing women, children and slaves by bombardment. All of George Washington's empty rhetoric about honorably meeting the enemy, man-to-man, on the battlefield was so much hot air once Washington got bombs.

Actually, Washington started out fighting the French and then (later) the natives. There is a persistent story that Washington himself gave smallpox-infected blankets to the natives to decimate their population.

Quote:
In 1779, George Washington sent orders to General John Sullivan concerning the need to attack and destroy the Iroquois Nations:

“The immediate objects are total destruction of their settlements, and capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex possible -”

http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/252

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 2:34 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

I could see George Washington using H-bombs on civilians in London, if only he had some. Washington sent Benedict Arnold to take Quebec. That certainly was not about achieving freedom for the colonies. It was a straight forward grab for more real estate because Quebec appeared to Washington as easy pickings. He miscalculated the difficulties of invading Canada.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 3:05 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, using A-bombs on civilians is a fine American tradition.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 3:31 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Just very quickly on some inaccuracies:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

It absolutely is true. Obama turned centuries old rules of lending on its head, by screwing over those who had actual $ in the game to favor those politically

Sept. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Harvey Golub, the former chairman of American International Group Inc., said President Barack Obama “violated every bankruptcy principle known to man” in the rescue of General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC.
“One of the major elements of a bankruptcy is that debtors similarly situated get treated the same,” Golub told Bloomberg Television’s Betty Liu on the “In the Loop” program today. “They changed the rules and bailed out the unions, not the companies.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-12/golub-says-obama-vio
lated-bankruptcy-principle-in-gm-aid

If Obama did something unusual, Bush got there first.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news/economy/house_friday_bailout/
Bailout is law
President Bush signs historic $700 billion plan aimed at stemming credit crisis.

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Then there's the ACA, which is bad , regardless of who tries to come up w/ the idea. But with Obama, the over all intent is to destroy private HC and force everyone to have govt run HC.

Which is why people are required to buy medical insurance through private insurers?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
They could have easily said ' God ', and not ' Creator ', but to him, and many of the Founders via their own writings, it was clearly the Almighty.
If they could have just as easily said "God", why didn't they?

As the first government with Freedom of Religion, the more general term is more magnanimous than trying to specify a term which might offend various religions. And they were breaking from the Anglican Church which defined their Lord as the English Monarch. No need to confuse George with God.

Quote:

Quote:
You're not really this stupid, are ya ?
MAGONS isn't that stupid, RAPPY, but YOU ARE. It's very clear from our laws and behavior that WE don't feel obligated to extend "God-given rights" to all of humanity, and so ... we don't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 4:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
RAPPY, I don't mean "impose" on others, what I meant was "treat others - even foreigners - with the same respect we would give American citizens".

But in our political and military affairs, it very clear that we make large distinctions between American citizens and others. Foreigners can be searched without probable cause, detained without charges, etc etc. That's why we have the CIA versus the FBI - they're supposed to be operating under different rules, in different arenas. They have different restrictions and accord non-citizens none of our "rights". How have you lived thru so much and not noticed some basic facts?

If not everyone has these "rights", not only are they NOT "inalienable" and "self evident", they're not even rights at all.

The US Declaration is not technically part of our laws, so treating non citizens differently from citizens isn't all that big an issue. ESPECIALLY when non citizens ( terrorists ) are caught on the battlefield. Damn straight we treat them differently than any Joe and Jane American, walking down anystreet USA

Enemy combatants do not get a lawyer before I shoot them in the head. They forfeited their "man" card when they became America's mortal enemy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 4:44 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So, just some musings on government and religion.

It's amazing how often people in power gin up religion* as the reason why they should get to keep it. (* A set of social precepts that must be taken on faith, for which there is no proof required, or even possible.) Around the globe and across history it's the same story: as in the abstract, so on earth. The caste hierarchy - you must have done something bad in a previous life. We can't change the system, it's how the supernatural world works. Ruling classes in China - the fractal theory of rule, from the microcosm to the macrocosm. Perfect thought to perfect action. The ancient Egyptians - everything is done to emulate and revere the gods. The Greeks and Romans - social duty requires proper obedience to and respect for the gods. The ones that are blessed must be doing it best. (BTW the Roman Emperor had god-like magic associated with him - turning water into wine, healing the sick, raising the dead etc. It's amazing how specifically historical those ideas are.). The Aztecs, Maya and Inca - the priest-rulers say we must sacrifice people so the sun will return from underground.

So European Feudalism - god has ordained this hierarchy - as in the abstract, so on earth - was really no different.

The first inklings of democracy came with the signing of the Magna Carta. Granted, it only covered a very limited segment of society in a very limited way, but it was the first crack in the 'Divine Right of Kings'. The 'Right' was not so very godly after all - it had limits.

Anyway, when people set out to create a system of governance, they often set out a rationale by which people are to be kept in line.

The 'democracy' of the colonies wasn't about 'rights' for everyone, it was about rights for middle-aged white male landowners and businessmen.

But I bring this up because there's an idea that democracy somehow brings the best results: a life of freedom, equal opportunity and abundance for all. But all it means is that people can choose anything, good, bad, or somewhere in between.

For example, take Honduras. After Zelaya - a democratically elected president - was illegally ousted from office in 2009, and after an interim president, Porfirio Lobo Sosa was elected in 2010. At that point, and with a back-bench of US conservative and libertarian luminaries, Honduras started on a nightmare libertarian experiment.

Below are selected quotes

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/02/my_libertarian_vacation_nightmare_how_
ayn_rand_ron_paul_their_groupies_were_all_debunked/

My libertarian vacation nightmare: How Ayn Rand, Ron Paul & their groupies were all debunked

Last month, I spent my final vacation night in Honduras in San Pedro Sula, considered the most dangerous city outside of the war-torn Middle East. ... By the time I’d made it to San Pedro Sula, I’d seen much of the countryside and culture. It’s a wonderful place, filled with music, great coffee, fabulous cigars and generous people, but it’s also a libertarian experiment coming apart.

In Honduras, the police ride around in pickup trucks with machine guns, but they aren’t there to protect most people. They are scary to locals and travelers alike. For individual protection there’s an army of private, armed security guards who are found in front of not only banks, but also restaurants, ATM machines, grocery stores and at any building that holds anything of value whatsoever. Some guards have uniforms and long guns but just as many are dressed in street clothes with cheap pistols thrust into waistbands. The country has a handful of really rich people, a small group of middle-class, some security guards who seem to be getting by and a massive group of people who are starving to death and living in slums. You can see the evidence of previous decades of infrastructure investment in roads and bridges, but it’s all in slow-motion decay.

I took a van trip across the country, starting in Copan (where there are must-see Mayan ruins), across to the Caribbean Sea to a ferry that took my family to Roatan Island. The trip from Copan to the coast took a full six hours, and we had two flat tires. The word “treacherous” is inadequate—a better description is “post-apocalyptic.” We did not see one speed limit sign in hundreds of kilometers. Not one. People drive around each other on the right and left and in every manner possible. The road was clogged with horses, scooters and bicycles. People traveled in every conceivable manner along the crumbling arterial. Few cars have license plates, and one taxi driver told me that the private company responsible for making them went bankrupt. Instead of traffic stops, there are military check points every so often. The roads seemed more dangerous to me than the gang violence.

The greatest examples of libertarianism in action are the hundreds of men, women and children standing alongside the roads all over Honduras. The government won’t fix the roads, so these desperate entrepreneurs fill in potholes with shovels of dirt or debris. They then stand next to the filled-in pothole soliciting tips from grateful motorists. That is the wet dream of libertarian private sector innovation.

A democratic result? Officially yes. A good result? You decide.

But even if there is true democracy, where people actually run their society and don't simply pick from the deep state's menu, people could choose badly. They could decide to cut down every last tree, pollute every river, and kill every wild animal if they had a religion* that told them to. (* A set of social precepts that must be taken on faith, for which there is no proof required, or even possible.) It would be democratic. Would it be good?

* The free market is one such religion.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 4:45 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Enemy combatants do not get a lawyer ..."

So you would kill them because of what you believe without proof.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 4:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
graditate

Glad you were able to distinguish caricature.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 4:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Enemy combatants do not get a lawyer ..."

So you would kill them because of what you believe without proof.

When they are working feverishly to kill me, yes I kill them first. Their option to recuse themselves from the realm of civilized man forfeits whatever right they want to claim.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 4:50 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"When they are working feverishly to kill me, yes I kill them first."

So they have to have guns trained on you, bombs next to you etc. Something that lets you know they really are trying to kill you, other than that somebody told you ... and so, you believed, without evidence. (ie that you proudly announce you are eager to be someone's tool.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 6:24 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

here ya' go krappy

krappy
... Kiki (has) swallowed claims by Russia and the separatist 'governments' CONSTANTLY throughout this thread ...'

kiki
How about you get us ALL those quotes of me CONSTANTLY swallowing claims by Russia and the separatist governments. There are 22 pages. I'm sure you can find me quoting or reposting at least 22 claims by Russia and the separatist governments.

Failing to come up with even ONE quote, krappy shifts the goal posts.

krappy
...and you copying and pasting entire RT articles as if was a reliable source, and citing the 'results' of the referenda held by separatist militants in occupied Donetsk/Luhansk etc. etc.

krappy
At least 2, in this thread.

kiki
I posted two articles from my email
Also:
con·stant·ly
continuously over a period of time; always.
For someone who claims to be a writer, you have a poor grasp of English.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 10:04 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

I discovered why the Founding Fathers mention the Creator in the Constitution. It was a courtesy. These fellows had more money than God. God and the Fathers were members of the same country clubs.

The first five Presidents were at the Constitutional Convention. Their net worth is known and is an excellent way to determine if these men were openly serving God or secretly serving Mammon.
www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0220/Presidents-Day-trivia-Who-were-th
e-10-richest-US-presidents/George-Washington-525-million

George Washington
> Net worth: $525 million
> In office: 1789 to 1797
> 1st president
Washington's Virginia plantation, Mount Vernon, consisted of five separate farms on 8,000 acres of prime farmland run by more than 300 slaves. His wife, Martha, inherited significant property from her father. As president, Washington earned well more than subsequent presidents: his salary was 2% of the total U.S. budget in 1789.

John Adams (1797-1801)
Estimated net worth: $19 million
> 2nd president
Adams was flawed. The man had no slaves to lash and was the poorest of the Founding Fathers/Presidents. What a loser.

Thomas Jefferson
> Net worth: $212 million
> In office: 1801 to 1809
> 3rd president
Jefferson was left 3,000 acres and several dozen slaves by his father. Monticello, Jefferson's home on a 5,000-acre plantation in Virginia, was one of the architectural wonders of its time. He made considerable money in various political positions before becoming president, but he was mired in debt towards the end of his life.

5. James Madison
> Net worth: $101 million
> In office: 1809 to 1817
> 4th president
Madison was the largest landowner in Orange County, Va. His land holding consisted of 5,000 acres and the Montpelier estate. He made significant wealth as Secretary of State and president. Madison lost money at the end of his life due to the steady financial collapse of his plantation.

James Monroe (1817-1825)
Estimated net worth: $27 million
> 5th president
Monroe's wife, Elizabeth, was the daughter of wealthy British officer. He made significant money during eight years as president, but entered retirement severely in debt and was forced to sell Highland plantation, which included 3500 acres.

References to the Almighty were not refering to God, but to the Almighty dollar.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2015 11:27 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
If Obama did something unusual, Bush got there first.

False. The matter of the bail out isn't that there was a bail out , but Obama flipped the long standing practice of bailing out unsecured claims over those w/ secured claims

Quote:

The union’s retiree health-care fund did get preferential treatment over other unsecured claims. Obama’s task force that managed the automotive restructurings saw the companies needing a cooperative union to build its vehicles once they reorganized, giving workers more leverage than other claimants.

second - the Founding fathers risked their fortunes and their very LIVES to fight for freedom. Far more than the clowns running our country today. Had the Revolution failed, every one of the Founder's families would be ruined, their fortunes taken from them, and every signer of the Declaration of Independence likely publicly executed.

In contrast to your 1% nonsense, you really are showing them to be far more brave than most realize. Thanks.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2015 7:39 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
second - the Founding fathers risked their fortunes and their very LIVES to fight for freedom. Far more than the clowns running our country today. Had the Revolution failed, every one of the Founder's families would be ruined, their fortunes taken from them, and every signer of the Declaration of Independence likely publicly executed.

In contrast to your 1% nonsense, you really are showing them to be far more brave than most realize. Thanks.

You are welcome. What risk were the Founders taking? The American Revolution was long done when the Founders wrote the Constitution.

We are still talking about the Constitution, and why the Creator got credit for our rights, right?

The Articles of Confederation was ratified on March 1, 1781. In Oct 1781 the Siege of Yorktown ended significant hostilities in North America. In May 25, 1787, the Constitutional Convention met for the first time.

Once the war was won, the Founders were not risking anything while writing the Constitution, except wasting their valuable time if the state legislatures do not ratify a document that serves the Founders much better than the Articles of Confederation.

That's why the Creator got a mention in the Constitution, to get the legislatures to approve. That's why they added a Strong-Bad President, a position the Articles of Confederation did not have, so that the richest man on the American continent, George Washington, would have the highest office and receive 2% of the Federal budget as his pay.

AURapture and the Republicans always jump to the defense of the wealthy, including the super-rich of 1787. The wealthy don't need your help. They already have the Creator in their pocket, protecting their money.

One more thing: Once the Articles of Confederation passed in 1781, Washington could get all the bombs he wanted. Then he showed his true character, going on a bombing rampage, killing indiscriminately. Washington's supply line was suddenly short and full of supplies and explosives; the Redcoats' supply line was, as always, long. The Revolution would have been won years sooner if the rebelling states's legislatures had not been a bunch of cheapskates and pussies at the beginning of the war.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2015 12:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yep, the thing that the reichwing here doesn't appreciate is that the so-called American Revolution was about 75% land-grab.

Yes, the Founding Fathers wrote beautiful and inspiring documents to bamboozle the hoi poloi, but applied their "Creator given" "inalienable" rights to maybe 10% of the population. And that bait-and-switch continues to this day, whether you call it "responsibility to protect (R2P)" or "extending freedom around the globe".

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2015 1:05 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

'creator' not in constitution (not even in preamble)
not in constitution means not the law of the land

we've been thru this before thanks to that wondrous constitutional scholar rush and his meat puppets on the board

https://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

Limbaugh Misquotes Constitution During CPAC Speech
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/limbaugh-misquotes-consti_n_1
71029.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2015 1:21 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
'creator' not in constitution (not even in preamble)
not in constitution means not the law of the land

we've been thru this before thanks to that wondrous constitutional scholar rush and his meat puppets on the board

https://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

Oh My God, you're right! It's only the Declaration of Independence: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them . . ."

What was right about America would still have been right even if there never was a Declaration of Independence, George Washington, American Revolution, or Constitution. Look at Canada, which had none of those and has done fine without. (I wish you well, Canadians Jewel Staite and Nathan Fillion.)

What was wrong about America would never have happened except for the exact same causes: Declaration, Washington, Revolution, Constitution. You know what is wrong: Habitually invading foreign countries then losing (Washington invaded Quebec, without doing the necessary planning, and got his ass kicked), slavery and eventual Civil War (thank you so very much slave-owner Washington for protecting that peculiar institute with the Constitution), a government run for the benefit of the super-rich (Washington was the richest President, ever).

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2015 3:46 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

There is no reference to God, Creator, He, Him, Divine or Divinity ... or any other direct or oblique reference of a religious nature.

"The Framers" were men of varying intellect and education. Some were dim-witted, poorly educated, parochial and conventional (and religious). Others were brilliant, widely read, widely traveled and unconventional (and either atheists or deists).

But fundamentally, the biggest difference between a monarchy and a democracy is that monarchies got their authority in a direct hierarchical line from god, while democracies got their authority from the decisions of humans.

The fact that monarchies got their authority from god made kings (and queens) very sensitive about which god people referenced. A reference to a different god, or to a different sect with a different line of authority, was a direct threat to their power. That's why so many kings (and queens) ordered their subjects to belong to a particular religious sect.

That's also why so many kings (and queens) ordered so many wars be fought between countries - that killed so many people - over religious lines of authority. It wasn't that they thought their religion was 'better', it was a simple power struggle for control. Whoever could impose the definitive religious sect could claim the definitive right to rule. And that you won was 'proof' god was on your side, which was a great sales point for the people.

Perhaps some of "The Framers" understood the historical context.

But a certain historical fact is that some saw that officially incorporating religion into government was divisive and deadly, as evidenced by centuries of European history. That was an issue many specifically and repeatedly wrote about.

As I mentioned earlier, some of "The Framers" were brighter than others. I think the revolutionary war to some didn't go beyond 'I don't like THAT king, he's getting in the way of my business'. The difference between a democracy and a monarchy was a vaguely understood concept. And democracy specifically as the rule of humans sans godly authority was a non-existent concept.

But in crafting how this country would be structured, others took a longer view, and they prevailed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2015 3:53 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Oh yeah

framers

also framers

Not sure which one of these have sainthood so that they are referenced as 'The Framers'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2015 6:30 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Just one last post on this: I assume until proven otherwise that the reason so many of "The Framers" chose a democracy rather than a monarchy was because they didn't want to have a single individual, who was probably NOT going to be them, getting in the way of their ambitions. They just needed to figure out how to get rid of the English king and then share the power between them. And then write the rationale for it to make it look good.

Saving the country from official religion was I think the one thing they did that wasn't directly motivated by self-interest, based on the bitter lessons they learned from European history.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2015 9:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
If Obama did something unusual, Bush got there first.

False. The matter of the bail out isn't that there was a bail out , but Obama flipped the long standing practice of bailing out unsecured claims over those w/ secured claims

Quote:

The union’s retiree health-care fund did get preferential treatment over other unsecured claims. Obama’s task force that managed the automotive restructurings saw the companies needing a cooperative union to build its vehicles once they reorganized, giving workers more leverage than other claimants.

second - the Founding fathers risked their fortunes and their very LIVES to fight for freedom. Far more than the clowns running our country today. Had the Revolution failed, every one of the Founder's families would be ruined, their fortunes taken from them, and every signer of the Declaration of Independence likely publicly executed.

In contrast to your 1% nonsense, you really are showing them to be far more brave than most realize. Thanks.

And only 2 of the signers became President. Jefferson and Adams.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2015 9:51 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Historian Richard B. Morris in 1973 identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams (2), Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson (3), James Madison (4), and George Washington (1). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

The numbers indicate in which order they were president of the USofA. Of the seven, four were president. Their combined presidencies spanned from 1789 to 1817.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2015 4:44 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Enemy combatants do not get a lawyer ..."

So you would kill them because of what you believe without proof.

When they are working feverishly to kill me, yes I kill them first. Their option to recuse themselves from the realm of civilized man forfeits whatever right they want to claim.

man, what deluded planet are YOU on?

Let's have a little reminder about America and enemy combatants and they decided to bypass the geneva convention on treatment of prisoners of war.

"In the United States the phrase "enemy combatant" was used after the September 11 attacks by the George W. Bush administration to include an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban being held in detention by the U.S. government as part of the war on terror. In this sense, "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. However, unlike unlawful combatants who qualify for some protections under the Fourth Geneva Convention, enemy combatants, under the Bush administration, were not covered by the Geneva Convention. Thus, the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in context to determine whether it means any combatant belonging to an enemy state or non-state actor, whether lawful or unlawful, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaeda or of the Taliban being detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States."

wiki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2015 4:50 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Don't want freedom ? Fine. Stay a slave to the crown. Fine by me.

Hmmm, let's see how am I a slave. I live in a democracy which has been stable and largely free of local conflict since federation in 1901. I get a vote, I am able to participate (and I do) in my country's governance. I can run for office at local, state or federal levels. I can own property, run a business. I am entitled to free medical services, or I can opt to be privately insured (which I have). My son gets access to free education throughout school, but we pay fees for an independent school. My city was voted most livable city in the world http://www.onlymelbourne.com.au/melbourne-worlds-most-liveable-city although navigating across it today was unfuckingbelievably bad.

You're welcome to apply for citizenship, but I doubt you'd get in ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hopefully to put a coda on this ridiculous thread:

Quote:
Limbaugh Misquotes Constitution During CPAC Speech

(thank you KIKI) which puts the OP in context.

AURAPTURE/ JSF, I hope you learned something.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:54 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Her Royal Highness, Baroness Sigefreida Von Kundt has spoken.

Now go fuck yourself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:01 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

My city was voted most livable city in the world http://www.onlymelbourne.com.au/melbourne-worlds-most-liveable-city

Good for Melbourne that it made the top of the list. Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary are also listed in the top 10. No USA cities on the list. If Founding Father George Washington had succeeded in his invasion of Quebec, there would be no Canadian cities on that list. Having slaves would make Canada a little worse.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2015 6:26 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Her Royal Highness, Baroness Sigefreida Von Kundt has spoken.

Now go fuck yourself.

Classy. That's you JSF, all the way.

/irony

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2015 6:37 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
You are welcome. What risk were the Founders taking? The American Revolution was long done when the Founders wrote the Constitution.

We are still talking about the Constitution, and why the Creator got credit for our rights, right?

No, you brought up the b.s. about " the rich " only in creating a new nation so they could get richer. We're talking the whole process, the D.O.I, the war, the Constitution... yeah. When the Bill of Rights was penned, the war was already over. But that never would be an issue unless someone stuck their neck out , and the Founders gambled EVERY THING.

How you can't or won't at least acknowledge that much, astounds me.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2015 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Enemy combatants do not get a lawyer ..."

So you would kill them because of what you believe without proof.

When they are working feverishly to kill me, yes I kill them first. Their option to recuse themselves from the realm of civilized man forfeits whatever right they want to claim.

man, what deluded planet are YOU on?

Let's have a little reminder about America and enemy combatants and they decided to bypass the geneva convention on treatment of prisoners of war.

My rules of engagement did not make any reference to battlefield lawyers for each terrorist, or for other mortal enemies. Legal hand-wringing is not for mortal combatants.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2015 8:19 PM

Back to the OP.

So the libtards here supporting her ignorance are leaning on the parsing of terms?
Trying to claim that when our Founding Fathers wrote "Creator" of "all men" they were not referring to a God or creator of all men?

That's all you got?

Really quite pathetic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:38 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

There are no religious references at all in the Constitution, direct or indirect, which is the only legally binding document they wrote.

The Declaration was a sales pitch, written, as they themselves explain, because "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation". In other words, they were trying to influence people's opinions. In other words, a sales pitch.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:09 PM