Poor a***ogy, Ron. These men were liberals in the eyes of King George III. However, they stood for the rights of the individual not the govt, smaller govt, right to bear arms, lower taxes, capitalism, freedom of religion, and they built a Republic.
These men were not liberals in this country. They stood for what the Republicans stand for now. Sorry that I have to stand on the other side of the issue from you my friend, but that is certainly nothing new.
Haarakkon - I'm all for the peaceful overthrow of our elected representatives. They have failed us all. If that doesn't work....well let's see what happens. WTFO - You were right the first time. It's "bear arms." Bare arms would be n****...oh my!
Beg to differ, gents. If the conservatives like to claim a hemp growing immigrant as one of their own (George Washington), that's their choice. I see you completely dodged the overthrow question, WTFO.
Frankly, I believe the founding fathers would be disgusted by all of it if they were alive today, the divisiveness, the partisan bickering, the incivility. Jefferson certainly would advcocate armed revolution.
I didn't dodge anything. We overthrew a dictator that engaged in acts of war against this country, was a known sponsor of terrorism, he violated international law for a decade, and he was a threat to his neighbors and his own people. So when the UN was
too weak to back up their own "strongly worded letters" to Saddam, we gathered 39 other like-minded countries and wiped him and his psycho sons off the planet. A job well done. That move also worked to set the battlespace for the Global War on Terror.
Building a free country in that region takes time and is harder when hostile countries around the area (Iran, Syria, Saudi) keep flooding insurgents into Iraq. I'm sorry you are not patient enough to give them a chance to succeed.
As for Washington, Hemp is used to make rope and other things as well. It also wasn't illegal at the time so it's an irrelevant point in my mind. I believe that this country has been divisive since its beginning. Several colonists didn't want to go to war
Whoa, Nellie. Iraq never entered this equation. My contention is merely this, that anyone advocating armed overthrow of their current form of government, is, by definition, a radical. Therefore, the founding fathers were radicals, even in their own time
My fault. I thought that was where you were going. However, on your real point, those who overthrow of an oppressive govt are only considered radical by the govt being overthrown. From the perspective of the founding fathers, there liberated us and I
agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately, our govt is being overthrown (but not through the use of arms) right now. Some of the founding principles of this nation are under attack because the radicals were voted into govt offices.
Radicals are not only left-wingers. I submit the Militias of Montana and Michigan are fairly right-wing in their beliefs. The founding fathers believed in the principle of equality, an extremely liberal notion for their time.
No argument here on having radicals on both sides. Unfortunately, the good, moderate Dems are marginalized right now cause the far left has captured the party. Yes, the founding fathers had "liberal" thoughts for their time but that definition of the word
I'm not certain the previous 8 years were any better for us as a people. Or that the next 3 1/2 are the second coming of Ragnarok. Some fundamental liberties suffered under the Bush administration. Some may suffer under this one. What confuses me is how
a few radical agitators that threw off the yoke of oppression 200+ years ago have become symbolic of the conservative agenda today, although your comments give me some insight on this. Few things I can think of are further from the truth than to say the
To be accurate, I think if they were with us today, they'd toss both parties to the wayside. I believe they'd be more in line with the Libertarians of today. However, between Reps and Dems, I think they're principles are more right than left. My opinion.
Don't get me wrong, while I'm very pissed at the freedoms that have been violated over the past couple of months, I don't advocate blood to change things. I am a serviceman and am completely loyal to the Office of the President. However, I don't have to
I cannot advocate violent overthrow by virtue of my position, either. It is my opinion that those elected representatives (and yes, I have personally met both senators, my congressman and governor) no longer represent the people.
@WTFO - Thank you. I like how you expressed yourself. It is a complex thing to feel a loyalty while at the same time expressing disagreement with policy. I find it very similar to supporting our service women and men without supporting the war.