Reply With Quote
Boom - headshot
Most of the delegates weren't even there. John Adams thoguht it was stupid to make it July 4 but whatever.
Boom - headshot
thomas jefferson said people in dc should not be paid once they were it would be corrupt
TRUTH IN THAT STATEMENT!
Stop throwing a gd pity part on the most important day of the year!
Let the government grow, it. It either gives out money to poor minorities or wastes it on projects that never even get started...OR it sticks its in every household and tries to tell you how to live your life according to the values of religious zealots. No one wins except for the assholes with tons of money, and at this point if you don't have tons of money you won't be getting it because the American Dream has been dead for decades. Thanks, Reagan!
"Independence Day is celebrated two days too late. The Second Continental Congress voted for a Declaration of Independence on July 2. No one actually signed the Declaration of Independence at any time during July 1776. Signing began on August 2 and wasn't completed until late November. July 4 was when the do ent was edited and approved."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...Declaration_of
"But when it became clear that the struggle for independence would be long and difficult, the enthusiasm of many American men for fighting began to wane, while their concerns for the well-being of their farms and other livelihoods grew. After initial enlistment rushes, many colonies resorted to cash incentives as early as 1776 and states were drafting men by the end of 1778, "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...ots_Flocked_to
"The Revolutionary War also pitted Americans against Americans in large numbers. Between 15 and 20 percent of all Americans were loyalists who supported the crown, according to the U.K. National Army Museum. Many others tried to stay out of the fight altogether. Records from the period are sketchy at best, but an estimated 50,000 Americans served as British soldiers or militia at one time or another during the conflict, a significant force pitted against a Continental Army that may have included a hundred thousand regular soldiers over the course of the war."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...United_Against
Huff~n~Puff post...
Give me a break.
I'll bet it's revisionist history in progress.
Prove it.
Me, or Boutons?
I simply said "I'll bet."
In my case it is a clear indication of my opinion, which I have no desire to prove to your sorry ass. If you are incapable of accepting that as my opinion, then how can I possible prove that to you?
Bye Chump. Don't give me reason to put you back on IGNORE.
I expected you to puss out. It was only a question of degree and expressed butthurt.
lol all caps threat
off, you're the spawn of Alexander Hamilton and need an Aaron Burr.
I have read some of those do ents and using the term militia in that context is so misleading. Some municipalities had militias and elected to stand by the crown. Some would support the British army but then the Brits would leave them hung out to dry.
The Continental Army and its supporting militias would come back and rape these local militias after the Brits left. As the war wore on fewer and fewer would remain loyalists becasue the Brits refused to take them along with them. King Charles was cheap.
And do you have any other sources than an obviously liberal biased news outlet. I am not saying that the source is inherently wrong but all that does is reinforce that you are a mindless partisan. You literally spam the conventional liberal platform to a T.
What does Fox Repug propaganda network, tea baggers (VERY wrong about the BTP), red-state bubbas ( ignornant who don't read books) says about early US history?
We know nutcase, slime-bag evangelicals like Barton and other "Christians" absolutely lie about American history, the founders, etc.
And what's "liberal" about posts from Huff posts above? Some facts that upset your dishonest, emotional, myth-riddled fairy tales about early US history?
I don't know. Do you watch Fox? I don't.
You know within your irrational knowledge, but to be honest, I don't even know who they are.
You expect me to accept that when they are a blatant, biased media organization, with an agenda?
Look. They could be right for once. I simply dismiss anything that publication says without verification. They are generally lying when ever they publish anything.
"They could be right for once"
those were statements of historical facts. If you have different, negating facts, unbiased, non-ideological historian that you are, then post those facts.
And just exactly what is the HuffPo "agenda", other than not being a Repug party thought-leader and mouthpiece like Fox's propagandists, liars, and bullies?
While you have a decent point (by your standards anyway), you expand the sphere the Colonials wanted.
The founders and framers basically wanted to be able to pass laws that were needed in their area which the King wasn't allowing. Their ideal, as shown by first the Articles of Confederation, then the Cons ution, then the Bill of Rights expressly shows that their ideal was a small central government focused mainly on insuring the cooperation of member states with the member states being able to rule as they see fit.
The Declaration itself clearly shows they wanted the central government to be restricted by law in its capabilities, held accountable for it's infractions, and some semblance of sovereignty granted to provinces.
As large of a federal government as we have (armed services included) is expressly against what the founders wanted, and there's no valid argument to dispute that. Whether the larger government is necessary given the changing times is a completely different thing, but according to nearly everything in existence that shows the founder's will, most of our current federal government's capabilities should be handled at the state level or not at all.
"large", "small", what is the Founders "right size" of the current federal govt for a non-agrarian, service-based, high-tech economy in a country of 300M+ where one of the main drivers of the economy is diseases that the medical industry charges so much to treat that almost nobody can afford it?
Sincerley,
the guy who lives by the heritage foundation...
LOL GOPnews.net
Like I said, completely different argument than you trying to show the founder's supporting large government. Obviously the founder's couldn't have envisioned half of what society is now, and they did intentionally allow for the main laws of the land to be changed to meet future needs.
It is my personal belief that things like Social Security, med-care reform, insurance reform, etc, could be run more ethically, efficiently, and effectively if run at the state level rather than the federal (of course, depending on the state since some are more ethical and efficient than others).
lol
good thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
