America's Founders were traitors

[MannyGoldstein]

Armed rebellion against their country, all for some notion of "Liberty".

Betrayal!

Too bad the King didn't hang 'em high.

Regards,

Snowden-Sux! Manny

[ProSense]

1. This guy

thinks he's a patriot
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024833813

It takes bravery and courage...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024842335

[Scootaloo]

2. Liberty of their pocketbooks, maybe

You notice it was all rich people screaming for insurrection... and one of the first things they did was seize the wealth of people who didn't join them.

Just like most such rebellions, it was the few, striking for more control and power in an orgy of blood and bullets. And in fact the whole thing damn near fell apart, the same way the French revolution would a few years alter, and the Russian revolution a century after that.

Why didn't it?

Well, because the French and the Russians didn't have Indians and Africans to use as an external threat to rally around, instead turning on each other. Had it just been British colonials in the region, thethirteen states would have just kept on fighting each other, and probably would have been recaptured about a decade later.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. I think it was a little more complex than that.

The thing got rolling due to the rabble in Massachusetts, who were actually a fairly principled and literate rabble. For example, > 90% of women in Mass were literate at that time, and women could sue for divorce. John Adams led the defense of the Boston Massacre Redcoats even though he hated them, because he felt that everyone deserved a fair trial.

The rich and powerful did jump in front of the thing, but they were also pretty principled, I think, as these things go. They definitely gave power back to the people rather than the usual "oh yeah, Democracy, we're not quite ready for that... But one of these days..."

Anyway, that's my take. I just donned my asbestos undies in anticipation of the responses to come.

[GoneFishin]

7. So back then Indians and Africans were like terrorists and telemarketers. nt

[sabrina 1]

41. There were some principles involved and an attempt to give some power to the people. Like all other

groups of people, there were vast differences in beliefs and politics among them. To paint all of them with the same brush is pretty odd, for a Liberal frankly.

John Adams eg, detested slavery, never owned a slave and did not want people who did, in his home. His wife called slavery in some of her letters to him 'a terrible evil'. To be that enlightened during that time period shows how 'progressive' they were. He also truly believed in actual justice. It got him in trouble sometimes with more simplistic and emotional thinkers. But he always did the right thing, no matter who hated him for it. Wish we had a few of him around today.

There were others whose values were admirable, and some who were in it for their own self interests. But to say ALL of them were? That is ridiculous, and shows a lack of knowledge of the people who joined the Revolution. See what happened afterwards when they were finally free of the British Empire, all went back to their various viewpoints and many of them fought furiously with each other over principles and mostly, politics.

[JDPriestly]

60. Liberty from the rule of the British aristocracy and parliament.

The balance of power in a society, accompanies the balance of property in land. The only possible way, then, of preserving the balance of power on the side of equal liberty and public virtue,is to make the acquisition of land easy to every member of society; to make the division of the land into small quantities, so that the multitude may be possessed of landed estates. John Adams From a letter to James Sullivan, 1776.

. . . .

To America’s revolutionary founders, equity seemed natural. Most lived on small, semisubsistence family farms. In an agrarian setting, grand fortunes hardly ever accumulated. Some farmers did work harder than others, but the Earth could yield, no matter how much work was performed upon it, only so much wealth. That reality kept gaps in colonial income and wealth relatively limited. And those gaps would stay limited, the generation of 1776 believed, so long as all who labored were guaranteed the “fruits of their labor.” If those who toiled received their due, significant inequalities of wealth would never emerge in the new American republic. The new republic would prosper,in liberty, for all.

This catchphrase, “fruits of their labor,” would pepper revolutionary era speeches and broadsides. The revolutionaries agreed that Republican liberty would surely fail if their new nation ever let elites expropriate what average Americans labored so hard to earn.To prevent failure, the new nation would have to be vigilant. Fortunes would have to be divided at every opportunity. In Europe, the laws of primogeniture and entail enabled wealthy aristocrats to pass on their fortunes, undivided, to their firstborn male heirs. By ending these laws, America’s founders believed, the young United States could prevent grand concentrations of wealth from accumulating — and threatening republican rule. State by state, in the decades after the Revolution, advocates of republican virtue would work tirelessly to abolish entail and primogeniture. These dangerous principles concentrate the property of the country, and with it the power and influence of a few.” But efforts to end aristocratic inheritance laws, America’s early leaders believed, could not by themselves keep property and power dispersed. Good republicans, the revolutionaries agreed, must attack aristocratic wealth at its source — by keeping the economy free from government interference. America’s revolutionaries subscribed, in effect, to the doctrine of laissez-faire. Egalitarians today, of course, consider laissez-faire an inherently conservative doctrine, a convenient fiction that those of wealth and power propagate to hoard what they have. But America’s revolutionaries saw the matter in a quite different light. They believed that politics, not economics, concentrates wealth and power. Wide disparities in wealth could only result when an elite manipulates politics to extract from hard-working citizens the fruits of their labor.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/23/969608/-Founding-Fathers-and-Wealth

Jefferson for example died bankrupt.

Despite an ostentatious lifestyle – or perhaps because of it – Jefferson owed money to various creditors throughout his life. He inherited debt from his father-in-law as a result of unusual estate planning and was a creditor to many unreliable debtors. His main source of income, Monticello, proved inadequate to cover his debts. Poor management of his estate and price fluctuations of commodities cost Jefferson dearly. Towards the end of his life, he was so severely in debt that he petitioned the state of Virginia to auction off his land; the state refused. After he died, his estate was was auctioned off, and his surviving daughter was forced to rely on charity.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/finance-poorestpresidents/thomas-jefferson/

[rhett o rick]

147. Dont forget the East India Company. The Haliburton of the day. They had a lot of influence

with the weak monarchy.

[JDPriestly]

148. Yes. Thanks.

And of course today we have our international corporations, the successors to the East India Trading Company.

[Exposethefrauds]

69. It Damn Sure was not about taxes becasue the tax burden was LOWER for the Colonists then it was for

a subject living in England at the time.

[rhett o rick]

151. The taxes were meant to make their products more expensive than the imported products

from the East India Company.

[Exposethefrauds]

152. Of course it was the founding Fathers were pissed off at CORPORATE contol of the Government.

[Tom Ripley]

91. +1000

[malthaussen]

144. Ah, the Charles and Mary Beard interpretation.

It has merit, but is a bit simplistic.

-- Mal

[LittleBlue]

3. You're only a traitor if you lose

If you win, you're a revolutionary.

[SteveG]

5. Yupper's

you are a traitor if you lose and patriot if you win.

[oneofthe99]

24. Freedom Fighter , Revolutionary, Terrorist ...sometimes the lines are blurred

[NuclearDem]

4. Maybe don't play the liberty card when talking about a bunch of slave owners

Who only thought it fit to give voting rights to landowning white men.

It was about money and the inability to officially protest their money being taken.

[sabrina 1]

42. 'A bunch of slave owners'. Don't know much about those historical figures do you?? I've seen this

'collective' attack on those who founded this country before, but never on a Dem forum, until lately.

It was always used when ever we accused the Bush gang of War Criminals and Constitution Violators, of doing just that, violating their oaths to defend and protect it.

Right Wingers decided in their insane loyalty to one moronic politician, that if the Constitution was the issue, then why were 'you Liberals defending a bunch of slave owners'. Iow, total loyalty to one man made them think, 'which one, Bush or the Founding Fathers', and the decision was easy for those cultists.

It was ignorant, AND transparent then, it remains so. Thanks for the trip down memory lane when I was naive enough to think you could actually reason with Bush loyalists. That notion was quickly dispelled, thankfully.

[NuclearDem]

74. Blah blah blah civil religion bullshit blah blah blah.

I refuse to kneel down and worship at the feet of a bunch of men who had a handful of good ideas.

Why you choose to do so is your problem.

And no, before you try to imply so, this has fuck all to do with Snowden, the NSA, or warrantless surveillance. And no, it's also not me saying the Constitution is just a damn piece of paper.

[sabrina 1]

104. What utter garbage. You tried to diminish the importance of the Rule of Law in this country

using a now very familiar tactic, ATTACK THE FOUNDING FATHERS and everyone will 'LOOK OVER THERE'. Use 'slavery', 'that'll 'get' those Liberals. Are you familiar with Karl Rove's weekend courses on how to attack the FACTS those damn Liberals keep bringing up? Got any memory at all of the Fake Journalist, trained by Rove in the WH Press Corps??

Use words like 'worship', 'hero' blah, blah as you so eloquently stated. Old old, worn out failed tactics that WILL NOT distract from the crimes committed by people in powerful positions in this government.

I know that the truth is like a red rag to a bull when someone is on a mission to try to suppress it. It must be painful. It is, it shows when people resort to childish Rove type rants AGAINST the Rule of Law for one reason only in most cases, because for some defending and protecting a PERSON, trumps EVERYTHING, including their own rights.

You are free to throw YOUR rights out the window but you don't get to throw OURS away.

[NuclearDem]

106. Blah blah blah assumptions blah blah blah.

Since you clearly have not read a single one of my posts ever, and therefore know that I'm in favor of:

-Reigning in the NSA
-Holding members of both the previous and current administration responsible for war crimes and violations of civil liberties.
-Holding Wall Street responsible for the crimes it's committed.
-Not prosecuting Snowden for whistleblowing
-Slashing the defense budget and ending the pointless wars.
-Abolishing capitalism.
-Ending the War on Drugs and all the other failed racist police programs.

But since I don't worship at the feet of the Founders, I'm clearly in favor of throwing our liberties out the window! Yep, you caught me!

Get back to me when you've actually done some research on the term civic religion, the damage it's done by feeding the nationalist fringe of the Right, and how you're directly feeding into that nonsense by whitewashing everything about them.

You've had a habit of making stupid assumptions about what I believe and creating a false dichotomy where I either unquestioningly agree with everything the lunatic hypocritical anti-US-imperialism fringe says or I'm an authoritarian MIC apologist, and you need to stop.

[truth2power]

75. "loyalty to one man.." Yes. Probably not a good idea to pledge undying loyalty

to any one person.

[SidDithers]

8. And Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere, with a thumb drive full of the news that Tyranny is coming!

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Bad analogy.

Paul Revere was a singular and fascinating figure. I highly recommend "Paul Revere's Ride" by David Hackett Fischer if you're interested.

Snowden is more of a cross between Sam Adams and General Gage's wife.

[sheshe2]

28. Well that sweet tidbit was posted

over and over and over in many of the early Snowden threads...

[grasswire]

76. by a Canadian no less.

Disconnect there.

[QC]

89. One of Ted Cruz's countrymen, you say? n/t

[SidDithers]

94. By a multiply banned troll...

who keeps coming back again and again.



Sid

[sheshe2]

100. I know Sid!

I remember seeing it posted on every rah rah Snowed-in thread, ad nauseum!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023124922

[MohRokTah]

109. Snowden is more of a cross between Christopher Boyce and Ethel Rosenberg. eom

[L0oniX]

133. ...and what the NSA is doing is what?

Standing up for our constitution?
Standing up for justice?
Standing up for the bill of rights?

Yea ...my mother drunk or sober.

[arely staircase]

10. ah the ol thumbdive of liberty

Wonder what that one's current handle is.

[sabrina 1]

43. SDS! n/t

[sabrina 1]

123. Paul Revere was a lot older than Snowden. I get the comparison in terms of

the warnings about danger approaching. But actually that danger has already arrived. Drake and Binney and Tice among the long list of Whistle Blowers, did try to warn us in advance, so might more accurately fit the Paul Revere analogy. Snowden resembles some of the younger FFs imho. How young they were, some only teenagers at the time. He is about Jefferson's age and seems to have similar views to Jefferson.

One thing is for sure, he certainly is getting more recognition for his courageous acts much sooner than his predecessors who are only now beginning to get the credit they deserve for THEIR courage. It's a cumulative effect and there will be more until the criminals within our government are rooted out and brought to justice.

Thanks though for recognizing the historical significance of our many Whistle Blowers. I'm surprised that you of all people, think so highly of them.

[sabrina 1]

123. Paul Revere was a lot older than Snowden. I get the comparison in terms of

the warnings about danger approaching. But actually that danger has already arrived. Drake and Binney and Tice among the long list of Whistle Blowers, did try to warn us in advance, so might more accurately fit the Paul Revere analogy. Snowden resembles some of the younger FFs imho. How young they were, some only teenagers at the time. He is about Jefferson's age and seems to have similar views to Jefferson.

One thing is for sure, he certainly is getting more recognition for his courageous acts much sooner than his predecessors who are only now beginning to get the credit they deserve for THEIR courage. It's a cumulative effect and there will be more until the criminals within our government are rooted out and brought to justice.

Thanks though for recognizing the historical significance of our many Whistle Blowers. I'm surprised that you of all people, think so highly of them.

[L0oniX]

132. You think Canadians are exempt from the NSA?

[Fumesucker]

11. Treason doth never prosper

What's the reason?

Why if it prosper none dare call it treason

John Harington

[sheshe2]

12. Take the ball from grasswire and run Manny!

You just posted on their thread and a new bloom arises~

[MannyGoldstein]

14. I take it that I violated some sort of rule?

Plagiarizing my own work?

Life is so complex today, so much to keep track of.

[sheshe2]

19. Nope!

Just thought it was amusing Manny.

You bloom and then you rise and rise and rise!

I must admit you got one thing right, Snowden S**Ks!

[sabrina 1]

44. Lol, any objection to people posting frequently around here? I thought you fully enjoyed it

yourself. Can't remember ever seeing anyone go into threads of, shall we say, 'frequent posters' and then their follow ups to complain about it. We can always go post our own if it is such an issue. I prefer to read others' posts, too busy mostly to post my own, and don't generally give a rat's ass how many OPs someone and their buddies, if you know what I mean, choose to post here.

Very odd comment to Manny from you frankly.

Keep posting Manny, it seems to please all the best people!!

Rec!

[sheshe2]

46. It pleases me to no end Sabrina.

We all need a laugh to break up our day~

And you gave me another~

[sabrina 1]

54. I'll be here every evening, leave a tip if you can, our energy bills went way up this month!

You crack me up too.

That just reminded me of one of my favorite songs from Mary Poppins!

\
Go Manny!!

[sheshe2]

62. You crack me up to!

I see you all over the place on bashing Obama threads. Congratulations!

Go Manny, Yeehaa!

How about some pro Obama threads and damn the Repuke threads. Nope not you! You are AWOL on those.

Why aren't you going to these posts and K&R'ing? The GOP is taking away our rights and our liberties. Why aren't you on the threads that condemn the GOP? Why aren't you on the threads about equal rights that the GOP is trying to take from us and the Democrats are trying to get it back for us?

Where are you on equal rights for women? Never saw you on a thread that supports VAWA. Equal pay for equal work.? A woman's right to choose? Why are you not raising holy hell that planned parenthood is being shut down and a woman's right to basic fricking healthcare is being taken away. Does that mean anything to you?

How about voting rights and DODT and DOMA? Where do you stand on those? From what I have seen, it is nowhere. You bash and do not support. So don't pull the F**King Mary Poppins on me.

However I would be happier to be her than the cold calculating persona that you portray here.

Here's a vid!

This is everything a Democrat fights against every single day.

Warning Nasty Language~

[sabrina 1]

64. You sound angry!

I slam Republican POLICIES no matter who is pushing them and have for as long as I can remember. Surprised you haven't noticed that.

Re women's issues here, there is no representation of Women's issues here on DU, most women here avoid that nastiness. I deal with the real issues facing women in this world today, where real issues are being dealt with where the nastiness that permeates the women's groups here, which I have no part in nor want to, doesn't exist. Never saw anything like it, anywhere.

Re President Obama, I posted an OP thanking him recently for his proposal to end the NSA's Constitution Violating 'collection and storage of data of all Americans'. I'm glad he is no longer trying to explain it, there really was no way to do that. He deserves credit for his proposal which I gave him. Credit where is DUE!

Sorry I can only speak the truth and simply CANNOT applaud such things as putting SS on the 'Deficit Table' when we all know it had nothing to do with the Deficit.

Nor can I applaud keeping in and appointing MORE Republicans to positions of power AFTER we threw them out. Just can't do it. If Republicans in power when we could have some great Dems is okay with you, then WTH are YOU demanding that I 'attack Republicans'?? Are you serious?

Like I said, you crack me up.

Try not to be so angry with people who just don't agree with you. Life is too short to waste time on such things.

[sheshe2]

65. Talk about angry?!

You are indeed.

There is no representation of Women's issues here on DU, most women here avoid that nastiness. I deal with the real issues facing women in this world today, where real issues are being dealt with, in RL eg.

No representation of women's views? Okay, forceful statement that is totally untrue. You read DU other than Manny correct?

HOF has plenty of views as do I yet I do not post there. My views are in GD. I never once saw you on any post about VAWA. Correct me if I am wrong. You were not there. I posted many threads on that subject as did many people here. They went nowhere because no one cared. Don't preach to me.

Women's issues ... where would I find that on DU?? I've seen the worst kind of nasty fighting, attacks on ANYONE who doesn't agree with the self appointed representatives of women here, they are NOT btw, on what are the important issues women are facing today.

All I can say is, great for them that they have all that time to spend, endless hours of time it appears on such things as the choices free women make as to how to make a living. I applaud ALL WOMEN who manage to use their best assets to raise their economic status and am appalled at what passes for 'women's rights' here. Seems to be more like 'what we consider you have the right to do'. No thanks, I go elsewhere where women are not tearing each other apart, running to other blogs to plot who they can attack and get banned.

It's sickening frankly and demeaning to women. I don't know why it was allowed to go on for so long, driving away a majority of women who would really have liked to have a real women's forum to talk to other women, in a civilized way, about all the serious issues facing them today. DU doesn't have a very good reputation as a place for Women to discuss issues, not at all.

What the hell was that rant about? You have a problem with women at DU? "Self appointed representatives" of women here they are clueless about issues such as health care and rape by the GOP and other perps and invasive ultrasounds et al.

So if you applaud all women, why the hell are you not here fighting the fight every single day? You come to applaud Manny and nothing more. You come to divide and never support.

I avoid shit stirring using issues that are important to ME for the purpose of dividing people.

Okay I will let that one go....

[sabrina 1]

66. This may come as a shock to you, but most people don't live in DU. Lol!

So if you applaud all women, why the hell are you not here fighting the fight every single day? You come to applaud Manny and nothing more.

I don't live on DU. Did you think that what you see me do here is ALL I do?? Lol! That's funny! I assume most people do very little here other than post a few comments, and that they have actual lives, very active lives where they are doing some amazing things. In fact I know they do, me included.

I don't applaud 'all women'. I applaud women who deserve applause. Don't believe I said that at all.

Why are so angry that I simply stated some facts about the nastiness that has permeated women's issues here on DU, and I believe I told you why I don't deal with these important issues here on DU.

Face it, the nastiness that never ends involving women's issues here has driven MOST women here to other venues, in RL etc. And there are plenty of DU women, some I know in RL, with whom I can discuss important issues without venturing into the mud flinging and angry rhetoric, personal attacks that has become infamous re women's issues here.

If I were the ONLY one saying this, you would have a point. But a majority of women, and men btw, simply avoid anything to do with women's issues here. It's a big world AND internet where people, without your permission btw, can go to find more civil discussion of issues if they need to.


Btw, do I owe you something, like a report of my personal activities? You seem to feel entitled to demand one. That's not a particularly great way to entice people to your 'fight' for anything. 'Hey, why are you NOT supporting MY issues dammit'!

Lol, and my point is made.

Go Manny!

[newfie11]

67. +1. Nt

[arely staircase]

15. got so tickled with his own wit he just had to give it more exposure. nt

[sheshe2]

21. Ergo/ Ego! nt

[arely staircase]

23. touche nt

[sabrina 1]

45. Thanks for kicking his thread. I might have missed if you and your friend hadn't kicked it up for me

[sheshe2]

47. Damn I am laughing again!

Thanks sabrina...

You and your friend~

[arely staircase]

50. you just kicked the thread so the joke is on you nt

[sabrina 1]

52. Me too, DU is a riot, totally entertaining, better than a reality tv show.

I used to be so serious here, all about issues, like our Constitutional Rights once Bush started chipping away at them. Like droning innocent people, Wall St bailouts, remember when Bush did that? Like letting the Telecoms off the hook, man were we angry over that. And torture and how we demanded accountability for those war criminals, every day, we never gave up.

But now, I just come here for the laughs, watching the personalities, it's been eye-opening, a little shocking at first, but necessary always to keep your eyes open, to know who really is with on these things.

I go elsewhere for what I used to come here for.

I don't post OPs, much, Manny and a few others do a great job of saying better what I would say anyhow regarding the important stuff. But we do still talk about those serious things, where there are people who share our principles, which haven't changed a bit btw.

But something has ...

Meantime DU is an old habit so I drop in to see the latest meta stuff. Don't read LBN where discredited 'news' media is accepted as credible. There are so many great places to get news now, unlike ten years ago.

Manny actually does make me laugh because he seems to annoy all the right people. He's sort of like sieve that way.

[arely staircase]

48. the whole thanks for kicking thing is even more lame than caring about recs.

Cuz yeah I'm not gonna comment on shit I disagree with because it goes back up to the top of the page. What kind of moran would adopt that as a personal posting habit?

Kicked!

[sabrina 1]

53. I meant it. I didn't see this thread and wouldn't if you hadn't kicked it.

You take offense pretty quickly don't you? We should all be on the same page here regarding issues like this. But some on the 'left' seem to have changed their views since Bush flew out of the WH for some reason. Others probably always supported his policies but stayed quiet about it. Has to be something, because some on the Left sure stopped caring about what they claimed during the Bush years, were super important issues.

[arely staircase]

55. then why thank me? lots of other people posting in this thread.. did you thank all of them?

Or do only my posts and those of "my friend" kick threads to the top? And who is my friend, rhett o rick? Scuba?

Have you found that boxes reference yet? I am waiting for some examples of DUrs criticizing Snowden's boxes. You said they exist. But then you also said 50 million American households watch RT too.

[sabrina 1]

56. I only thank those who are antagonistic to the OP because I appreciate their kicking threads

they don't like. Those who like the thread are going to kick it anyhow.

SDS! It's right here in this and any Snowden thread. Who told us about those boxes in Snowden's garage, about his ballerina girlfriend? Lol, it wasn't people like me who care about the ISSUES and are not all that interested in trying to distract from the issues by pointing at the MESSENGER.

[arely staircase]

57. bwahahahaa

suffering christ that was funny. You might want to go back and read what you wrote oh way back like ten minutes ago.

Holy shit how do you do it?

[sabrina 1]

58. Lol, I know, I'm really good aren't I?

I'm just having fun, since you don't want to talk about issues, just Snowden and some wild CTs about him. I always try to please people!

[MohRokTah]

13. Manny, they were exactly what you HATE.

They were rich old white men who owned other people and didn't want to pay their taxes.

WTF are you trying to do protecting their legacy?

[MannyGoldstein]

16. They could have kept power for themselves.

But they didn't.

Some were scum. Some were Ben Franklin and John Adams. Some were in between.

In the end, they risked their lives and I think our planet is the better for it.

[MohRokTah]

26. They DID keep power for themselves

They ruled for DECADES!

[MannyGoldstein]

35. They began with a very, very weak government

Too weak. It failed.

Washington could have been king, but chose not to. He could have been president for life, but chose not to.

They were a pretty interesting bunch. Highly imperfect, but there was much good, too.

[MohRokTah]

40. And every last one of 'em was an oligarch.

They were much less than heroes, but much more than villains.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. Interesting.

You spent all last week running around saying how Bundy was a domestic terrorist but now we read that America and its founders enjoy no legitimacy in your eyes.

If America is an illegitimate nation then exactly which nation has Bundy acted against?

I can't help but think you have a distorted ideal of what a nation ought to be and that you are willing to send others to fight and die to enforce your demands without compunction. You certainly weren't cheering for American military power to be employed out of some sense of love of America, that much is sure. It is now obvious you wanted power to be exercised to eliminate people whom you do not approve. Yours would be a monstrous tyranny.

[Puglover]

122. What I find interesting

is that this member has 340 posts in 8 days of membership.

I must say. I'm impressed. It took me a year to get to 1000. But I've always been an underachiever.

[sabrina 1]

137. It is interesting. Especially the attacks on the Constitution

in order to defend the Security State policies of George Bush which I remember well. Remember when Bushbots realized their leaders actually had broken the law after the exposure of the mass spying on the American people and there was no way to defend it? That's when they started with the talking point this user is tossing around, 'a bunch of old white slave owners'. That was intended to change the focus from the crime to people arguing over historical figures.

I just got a huge flash of deja vu reading this thread.

[sabrina 1]

49. So do you think we should still be a colony of the British Empire? Hail to the Queen, Royalty rules

and all that? Not that we are not reconnected with our former bosses who are still running around oppressing people, only this letting us lead the way.

But what is your point exactly? The FFs WERE designated terrorists because they rose up against the ULTIMATE, 'Old, Rich White Guys' to try to create something more equitable. You are living here in relative freedom thanks to them, yet you don't appear to like what they did.

Why are you still here then if you so despise what the country is founded on? Not that you don't have have the right, but if I hated a country that much, if I despised what it was founded on, I would HAVE to leave.

I feel the opposite way, I love the ideal it was founded on, but am afraid people are destroying that, because it doesn't benefit 'Old, Rich White Guys'.

Ironic, isn't it, that what those 'Old, Rich White Guys' created strikes fear in the hearts of 'Old, Rich, White Guys', you know, like Bush et al, who have tried their hardest to destroy it. See the irony, or maybe they weren't what you think they were??

Attacks on the FFs are becoming common here lately. I thought that only happened on Right Wing Freeper blogs who frequently used that same form of attack in trying to defend their hero, Bush who was constantly accused, rightfully, of violating the Constitutional rights of the people. Why am I seeing this HERE now??

[arely staircase]

17. it isn't about them or even snowden or the nsa when it comes to one of these nickname myself threads

[MannyGoldstein]

20. It's about lack of executive function

In spades.

[arely staircase]

25. it's about

http://m.youtube.com/results?q=ego+trippin&sm=1

[MohRokTah]

30. True enough.

These things are really all about Manny.

[sabrina 1]

51. No, they are about me 2 n/t

[L0oniX]

134. Share the power?

[Skip Intro]

18. So you hate the founders, partly because they were White?

Do you also hold such disdain for the Constitution?



on edit: should we hate all people who are rich and/or old and/or male and/or White?

[MohRokTah]

27. I don't hate them and I don't idolize them.

I put them in their time and understand them.

[Skip Intro]

29. You use their age, race, and gender as reasons to despise them.

Why?

[MohRokTah]

31. I use their age, race, and gender to define them.

They weren't poor black women.

[Skip Intro]

32. You use the descriptions derogatorily. Why? n/t

[MohRokTah]

33. I use their descriptions factually, why not? eom

[Skip Intro]

34. You say "they were rich, old, white men," then ask why Manny "defends their legacy."

Again, why does their race, age and gender matter? What is the legacy you can't believe Manny defends? That legacy survives today in the form of our Constitution. Again I'll ask, do you also hate our Constitution?

Just say what you really mean.

[mbperrin]

39. That legacy was reversed by amendments to the Constitution.

1. Slavery was ended.
2. Citizenship was defined and made more inclusive.
3. People were finally able to elect their own Senators, rather than having the legislature do it.
4. Black men were given the vote.
5. All women were given the vote.

and so forth. Every President of the United States, save two, were millionaires when they took office, including the first millionaire in North America, George Washington. Only one was still not a millionaire when he left office.

Women still have fewer than 20% of the seats in the House and Senate, even though they are more than half the population. Plenty of room for improvement yet.

So you feel free to celebrate their legacy, and I will celebrate the undoing of much of it.

[MohRokTah]

73. I don't "hate" our constitution. I UNDERSTAND the history of our constitution.

It was pretty damned horrible on day one. Slavery. Black people counted as 3/5 of a person.

Remnants of that beginning still plague our nation. Read: Electoral college, which has allowed three presidents to take office against the will of the people.

I don't idolize our constitution. I accept it as the best we currently have and I understand that we have the capability of making it better.

[sabrina 1]

120. Amazing isn't it, seeing this talking points which were the hallmark of the Bushbots as soon as they

realized that he had violated the Constitution. Now we have 'Ageism and bigotry' on DU in order to try to do the impossible, defend the violations of the Constitution by the people who swore to 'Defend and Protect' it.

Shameful, this forum is not recognizable anymore as a place to get AWAY from Right Wing talking points.

[L0oniX]

135. I've been seeing a lot of new creepy infiltrators lately.

[sabrina 1]

61. The FFs were NOT old, many of them were in their twenties and thirties.

How 'old' was Jefferson at the time of the Declaration? Do you know? Adams? And there were so many others, not remembered sadly, because they DID NOT ENTER Public Life but simply went back to their lives?

You understand that most of those who joined the Revolution never ran for public office so don't stand out in history??? The FFs didn't just consist of the few who are well known due to the fact that some of them became involved in politics and were elected to the presidency??



Ever read the signatures at the bottom of the DOI? Know anything about those who never ran for public office? What happened to them? How 'old' they were?

Ageism, a REAL problem in this country btw. But in this case, for the most part, it DID NOT APPLY. Franklin was the oldest of the FFs who are the best known. He too was opposed to slavery, and airc, never owned a slave. The rest of those we know, like Jefferson were in their '30s, Adams one of the older FFs, was in his '40s and lived to be in his nineties, Jefferson eight years younger, lived to be in his 80s. Both died on the same day, the 4th of July coincidentally, several hours apart.

There were Southerners and Northerners who were so different idealogically it is amazing to see someone throw them all into the same box.

And then there were the Loyalists. Perhaps you liked them better. Many of them left and went to the 'Mother Country' where they were no doubt treated as second class citizens, considering the classism that was a part of the British Empire,, and still is btw.

Their 'loyalty' was acceptable, but they were born here many of them, in a 'Colony' so not acceptable in the 'upper class' in the Empire they were so loyal to.

You seriously need to begin to study history. Seems to me you don't have even a passing idea of the history of this country, the British Empire, not even how old the FFs were.

You appear to just hate them because of their ethnicity and age which you didn't know. Okay!

[mbperrin]

107. First, the average age of the Founding Fathers was 44.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/08/how_old_were_the_founding_father_the_leaders_of_the_american_revolution.html

"the average age of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was 44"

Second, the average life expectancy of the American male in 1776 was 35, so these guys on average, beat the clock. Wealth and advantage still do that, since people in poverty now can expect to live 10 years fewer than non-poverty folk.

Truth is, in context, the Founding Fathers on average were nearly a decade older than the life expectancy of the American male in 1776.

Just trying to get a little factual info out there.

[sabrina 1]

117. "How Old Were The Founding Fathers? Younger than you think!" As I said, surprisingly young!

How Old Were The Founding Fathers? Younger Than You Think

It’s a simple question—perhaps so basic that it’s been overlooked: How old were the leaders of the American Revolution?

As it turns out, many Founding Fathers were younger than 40 years old in 1776, with several qualifying as Founding Teenagers or Twentysomethings. And though the average age of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was 44, more than a dozen of them were 35 or younger.

“We tend to see them as much older than they were,” said John Adams biographer David McCullough in a 2005 speech. “Because we’re seeing them in portraits by Gilbert Stuart and others when they were truly the Founding Fathers—when they were president or chief justice of the Supreme Court and their hair, if it hadn’t turned white, was powdered white. We see the awkward teeth. We see the elder statesmen. At the time of the revolution, they were all young. It was a young man’s–young woman’s cause.”

And more, amazingly young movement at the time of the Revolution:

The Surprising Ages Of the Founding Fathers July 4 1776

The surprising ages of the Founding Fathers on July 4, 1776  AUG 13 2013
For the Journal of the American Revolution, Todd Andrlik compiled a list of the ages of the key participants in the Revolutionary War as of July 4, 1776. Many of them were surprisingly young:

Marquis de Lafayette, 18
James Monroe, 18
Gilbert Stuart, 20
Aaron Burr, 20
Alexander Hamilton, 21
Betsy Ross, 24
James Madison, 25

This is kind of blowing my mind...because of the compression of history, I'd always assumed all these people were around the same age. But in thinking about it, all startups need young people...Hamilton, Lafayette, and Burr were perhaps the Gates, Jobs, and Zuckerberg of the War. Some more ages, just for reference:

Thomas Jefferson, 33
John Adams, 40
Paul Revere, 41
George Washington, 44
Samuel Adams, 53

I'll take historical records any day over the poster you appear to be supporting who could not have been more wrong.


Both Jefferson and Adams lived into their 80s and 90s respectively, they WERE old by then, neither were 'old men' at the time of the Declaration of Independence. They both lived for decades after risking their lives to break away from the British Monarchy.

If you want to be factual, then stick to the facts.

Btw, are you also one of those who oppose the Constitution, now that our leaders have decided it is 'just a quaint piece of paper' and too restrictive for their plans for this nation?

And what btw, do you think AGE and, or Ethnicity has to do with anything? Prejudice is an ugly thing, in ANY form. The poster you are attempting to defend opposes the US Judicial system so I assume that is your position also.

[mbperrin]

128. If you want to be factual, then stick to the facts.

Good advice. You should follow it.

1. My preference for the current Constitution is hardly opposing it.
2. If you do not know that there is white male privilege wielded in this country, read up.
3. The gratuitous ad hominem attack in your last line is a bit disingenuous, given your stated position that prejudice is an ugly thing, in ANY form.

And so, since we are down to personal attacks and out of context notions, I will bid you adieu.

[sabrina 1]

129. Excuse me. You jumped into a conversation where the other party was engaging in

nasty attacks on me, in order to try to defend him. I did not notice that you had any problem with his personal attacks. Personally I ignore such behavior it has zero effect on me.

Your statistics were wrong, I proved that. I also assumed you had no problem with the person you jumped in to defend, hurling personal attacks at me. So forgive me if I made the assumption that you were okay with personal attacks on ME and were allied with the individual who launched them. Next time for the purpose of clarity, when you see someone attacking personally another poster, before you jump in on their side, state your objection to personal attacks first before entering into the discussion.

I find it a little disingenuous to say the least to be okay with nasty personal attacks on others, while taking offense at a legitimate assumption once you chose to side the person who was hurling insults at others.

[former9thward]

119. You like to play with statistics.

Life expectancy of an adult male was not 35 in 1776. It was about 60. Life expectancy at birth was 35 but once you made it past childhood diseases it became close to modern life spans. So the FFs did not "beat the clock" in any sense. Also the average age of the FFs is very subjective. It depends on who you call a FF.

In an earlier post you claim all the Presidents except two were millionaires. It is true that based on 2014 dollars most of the early Presidents were millionaires. But in the 100 years from 1850 to 1950 only about half were millionaires.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/05/the-net-worth-of-the-us-presidents-from-washington-to-obama/57020/#slide36

[mbperrin]

126. Life expectancy at birth is indeed 35 in 1776. Thank you.

And you posit that only 75% of all the Presidents were millionaires rather than 92%. Okay. Can we agree that this is significantly above the national average in all time periods? Or will we posit that at least 75% of Americans are and have always been millionaires.

Fact is, wealthy influential men created a country in their own image. It has been improved since then. I'm hopeful that it will improve even more with the addition of universal single payer healthcare for instance.

If that optimism for the future and disdain for the past makes me a bad person, so be it. I'll live with it.

[former9thward]

131. I agree that Presidents are not 'like us'.

But frankly most leaders of pretty much anything are not like the people they are leading. That is one reason they become leaders.

[Autumn]

72. I'm gonna swoop down like a SEAL team on meth

Soon as my time machine is done I'm gonna go back in time and wipe out those rich old white slave owning jerks before they can change anything. Much better to be ruled by a rich old white king from another country.


Wow you bent yourself into a whatever to attack Manny on that.

Welcome back

[QC]

80. Some very mavericky stuff being posted in this thread.

Things must be slow today in New Jersey.

[Autumn]

85. Well some Democrats are just not For Progress

Imagine how progressive our country would be if those old rich, white slave owning jerks writing that nasty old piece of paper had just shut the fuck up and gone along with the king.

[QC]

86. Such people who are not Democrats for progress

are intellectually dishonest.

They have nothing to offer but venom and vitriol.

[Autumn]

87. It does get spread about.

Much like bull shit that just scorches the ground instead of enriching the soil.

[ucrdem]

22. Treason and rebellion are two different things.

And what Snowball did is much more the former than the latter.

[Vattel]

36. True, they were traitors but there's one thing they didn't do:

Catch Obama with his pants down and force him to initiate some reforms of the NSA.

[sheshe2]

37. I know this is about Snowed-in....

America's Founders were traitors

Armed rebellion against their country, all for some notion of "Liberty".

But what is your take on Bundy? Freedom and Liberty? That is one hell of an armed rebellion for Bundy's liberties.

[nationalize the fed]

38. Here's a fun and educational experiment to try with family and

all your friends!

Ask them if they've ever read the Declaration of Independence
or the Constitution. The blank looks you usually get are a splendid reward.
Give bonus points for mixing them up!

[McCamy Taylor]

59. Damn straight! Love me some Snowden!

[Riftaxe]

63. Indeed they were

Long live the traitor...what? they dead already? well pooh.

I suppose they did give us this country and a rule set that only the french could screw up a few years later....not their fault, they are french after all.

[B Calm]

68. Snowden, the darling of the Tea Party. . .

[Enthusiast]

70. Way to go, Manny!

[JoePhilly]

77. You heading to Nevada to help that rancher?

[MannyGoldstein]

78. Do you think I approve of that fellow? nt

[JoePhilly]

81. He and his friends were taking up arms against the government ... cause liberty.

Was that not the kind of armed resistance you were thinking about?

[MannyGoldstein]

92. So as long as someone says the magic code word "Liberty", you think I'm on their side?

Really?

That's what you believe?

[Autumn]

105. Manny they skipped school that day in second grade,

that is why the blank "duh, Bundy" responses when they see "Armed rebellion against their country, all for some notion of "Liberty"." they get lost. Amurica and all that you know.

[JoePhilly]

113. You also mentioned "armed rebellion" in the same sentence.

[MannyGoldstein]

116. So you think that anyone who says "Liberty" while shooting at the government

Has my blessing?

I think you're smarter than that.

[JoePhilly]

118. Might depend on which of your DU personas is doing the writing.

More importantly, there are some on the left who are hoping for a revolution of sorts ... they see the US as a police state.

So I guess the question is: Who are you expecting to take up arms now, as the founders did, at this point in history?

[MannyGoldstein]

125. I want a revolution, bad.

Last edited Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:09 AM - Edit history (1)

We need one.

Fortunately, the Founders recognized that there was no escaping the shambles that we have today. There hope was that when the time came, the necessary revolution would be bloodless, thanks to the vote.

[NCTraveler]

79. Is this some sort of support for the Bundy clan and their rebellion?

I really hope not. Seems that is what it is. If someone rebels, they are somehow similar to America's Founders. Such flawed logic. Starting a rebellion does not make one good or bad for rebellions sake alone.

[JoePhilly]

82. See ... that's what I thought too!

[NCTraveler]

83. I guess that any rebellion is just good.

That seems to be the logic with the op. If it is a rebellion, then you shall sit next to the Founders in history. So very flawed.

[JoePhilly]

84. There was a guy (not the OP here) making that exact kind of claim yesterday.

[Autumn]

90. Yeah cause Snowden and Bundy are exactly the same. In some bizarre world.

Good job on reading....... between the lines and discovering Snowden IS Bundy.

[NuclearDem]

96. I don't know, have you ever seen them in the same place before?

[Autumn]

97. OMG you are right!!!! And I have never seen Obama and Snowden in the same place.

My mind is now fucking blown!!!!!!!

[NuclearDem]

101. Go Autumn! Blow the whole lid off Snobamundy!

[Autumn]

103. Snobamundy. I like the way it rolls off the tongue.

I'll do that, right after a wee bit more pot infused cheesecake. Provided I don't get all violent ya know. That legal pot here in CO is bad.

[sabrina 1]

140. So you support Bush's policies? n/t

[NCTraveler]

153. Which Bush policies.

I have no clue what you are talking about. I'm sure you think you have me pegged in some way. Love the way you phrase it in the form of a question so you will never actually have to back you completely fabricated assertion. Pretty shitty debate tactic. I will throw it back at you: What Bush policy do you think I support? Clearly there must be something rolling around in your head for you to ask the question.

"So you support Bush's policies?" The ignorance of the accusation is stunning. Back up your weak and backhanded bullshit.

[sabrina 1]

154. Didn't you accuse Manny of supporting some right wing extremist, in the form of a question btw,

which I interpreted as your way of disagreeing with Manny's well known position on the Surveillance State.

I try to speak to people in a way they will understand generally. I simply used what appeared to be your preferred method of discussion to find out 'what about Manny's well known position on the Surveillance State you find objectionable.

Your phrasing of your accusation in the form of a question didn't make clear whether you agree with Manny that massive surveillance of the American people by the NSA is anti-Constitutional so rather than just assume your support for those Bush policies, I followed your own preferred method of simply asking before deciding. Although what Bundy has to do with this I have no clue.

The ignorance of that accusation btw, in the form of a question is simply stunning which is why I asked MY question which is actually relevant to Manny's OP.

If you are not fond of this method of accusation then why on earth would you initiate it yourself, then complain when someone just follows your example?

I agree, accusing people, as you did, of nefarious motives, in the form of a question, is 'weak' to say the least and 'backhanded'.

'Do unto others' etc.

[NCTraveler]

156. So nothing. Exactly what I thought. nt.

[sabrina 1]

157. Nothing at all to justify your accusation against Manny in the form of a question.

Makes one wonder why someone would do that, then complain when people fail to understand what they are talking about and use their very own method to try to find out.

[MineralMan]

88. All revolutionaries are traitors to the existing regime.

What's your point?

Obvious-Way MineralManny

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

95. "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Snowden being a prime example of that axiom.

[MineralMan]

98. Snowden. Yes, well...

Is he a traitor? Not according to the constitutional definition of treason. Did he break the law and renege on something he swore to? Well, yes, he did.

Did it result in benefits to society? That remains to be seen. What he revealed wasn't really that surprising to people who had been following the doings of the NSA, really.

Since he's apparently not in confinement nor convicted of anything, nothing is certain. One thing that is certain, though, is that he will never face a charge of treason. What he did doesn't meet the definition of that. If he shows up in the US, it's very likely that he will be charged with releasing classified information to unauthorized persons. If charged with that, he'll probably be convicted, since he clearly did just that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. What puzzles me is what harm has Snowden done that requires imprisonment?

We hear the big shots tell us that he has "done great harm". But, they never seem to get around to identifying that "harm". Whereas, there's a long list of what harm the NSA/CIA/Military has done...yet they're not facing imprisonment.

[L0oniX]

136. He embarrassed the mob that rules our country.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

138. Yep.

[Dr. Strange]

142. Exactly.

[sabrina 1]

141. If what he revealed was already known, the reforms now taking place BECAUSE of what

he revealed, would have happened BEFORE he revealed what he revealed. Unless you're saying our government knew of the violations and approved of them until they were made public by a Whistle Blower.

That would be very disturbing.

There is already a precedent for Whistle Blowers revealing wrong doing on the part of the government. If what is revealed is information that is in the public's interest, and required breaking the law in order to get the information to the public, the Whistle Blower will most likely not be convicted of a crime.

We have laws protecting Whistle Blower, not that anyone would know considering the past the number of years regarding how all, and there have been quite a few, have been treated here.

Chelsea Manning revealed War Crimes eg, yet it was SHE not the war criminals who was investigated, tortured, imprisoned, silenced and sentenced to 35 years in jail.

This is not a safe place for Whistle Blowers which is why from now on no one should be surprised if the seek political asylum elsewhere, until the rule of law is restored.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. Yep. But, George III had a case of "harm done" against those traitors.

Whereas, nobody seems to have a case of harm done against Snowden.

[Progressive dog]

102. Right, Kings by divine right are the same

as democratically elected governments.

[Rex]

108. Hang 'em, high? That is modern western culture Manny.

You need to stay accurate to your time period rant for me to feel this was not just 'called in'. A chopping block and a date with the axeman would be far more accurate.

Although they did hang people, your terminology makes me think of The GB&U.

[MannyGoldstein]

111. In my defense...

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
- Dr. Benjamin Franklin

[Rex]

115. Okay point is yours.

Can't argue with that one.

[AverageJoe90]

110. Apples and Oranges. n/t

[Oakenshield]

112. Meh, bugger the founders.

Who knows how better off we'd be today if we'd stuck with Great Britain. At the very least we might have a coalition government today instead of our regressive two party system. That isn't to say I'm not grateful Snowden acted as a whistleblower.

[Tom Ripley]

114. +1000

[WinkyDink]

121. Uh....Nathan Hale, anyone? (Among others.) Is someone arguing they WEREN'T rebels?

[DirkGently]

127. Because all "crimes" are crimes. Amen. God save the King.

[Recursion]

130. You're only a traitor if you lose the war (nt)

[tabasco]

139. RAH RAH YAY YAY SIS BOOM BAH!

So much simpleton cheerleader hero worship drivel on this site.

[malthaussen]

143. "Treason never prospers, what's the reason?

For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

-- Mal

[malthaussen]

145. For an interesting insight, read Oliver Wiswell

A novel by Kenneth Roberts, who wrote quite a few novels about the Revolution. The protagonist of this one is a Loyalist, and Roberts sheds quite an interesting light on the Royalist movement in the Revolution, which has never had sufficient exposure by virtue of being the losing side.

-- Mal

[MannyGoldstein]

149. Benjamin Franklin had a hard time deciding whether to go in with the Revolutionaries

He was one of the most outspoken critics of British behavior towards the colonies, yet he had a very difficult time coming around to the need for revolution. As in all wars, I'm sure there were a variety of viewpoints and motives on both sides.

I'll get Oliver Wiswell from the library, sounds like good reading.

[malthaussen]

150. There is also reason to believe that Mr Franklin was a spy for the British...

... which is almost impossible to conceive. Evidence in British intel archives points to Ben as the "Agent 72" who passed on info about American shipping while he was part of the embassy to Paris.
It is known that Franklin did pass on information to allow Captain Cook to avoid American privateers, because he thought science was more important than politics. But it's hard to think what inducement he could have been offered to betray the Revolution. Filthy lucre, one would expect, would hold no interest. Did they threaten his son (who was a Loyalist expatriate and former governor of New Jersey)? Or was some subordinate passing stuff on without his knowledge? The Chris Christie defense, one might say... hard to believe as Franklin was a rather astute and cunning politician.

Mr Franklin has a cameo in Oliver Wiswell. We see him in his London residence, playing the harpsichord while taking an "Air Bath." I love stuff like that.

-- Mal

[KittyWampus]

146. America's Founders used espionage. So your hero would have informed on them. LOL!

Google "Culper Spy Ring".

[whatchamacallit]

155. HAIL HYDRA!

[NuclearDem]

158. Damn you, now I want to see that movie again.