WalterWhite Posted March 10, 2015 Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 They owned guns, they didn't want high taxes, they didn't let women vote, and the whole slavery thing. Groundbreaking journalism here you fucking idiots. http://www.salon.com/2015/02/26/why_the_right_hates_american_history_partner/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 Actually breaking away from a monarchy and religious tyranny was a very progressive step but see what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterWhite Posted March 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 Actually breaking away from a monarchy and religious tyranny was a very progressive step but see what you want. They were breaking away from large government, the opposite of your progressive state funded bullshit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 They were breaking away from large government, the opposite of your progressive state funded bullshit No they just wanted representation and recognition. If England would have granted even a lip-service representation in Parliament things may have been a lot different. If you want to talk about strong Federal vs strong State government where progressive ideals prevailed that would be the US Civil War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 No they just wanted representation and recognition. If England would have granted even a lip-service representation in Parliament things may have been a lot different. If you want to talk about strong Federal vs strong State government where progressive ideals prevailed that would be the US Civil War I disagree pretty strongly with those who try to paint a picture of the founding fathers as freedom loving zealots and people dedicated to religious freedom. these men where the 1 percent, a very richest human beings in colonial America. as time went by it dawned on them that they could keep the tax money previously being sent to King george for his war against the French or send it to him carefully.. guess which option took precedent? the king was at a loss to defend his tax money and the founding fathers had hungry rebels looking for a fight. taxation without representation rings as true as throwing the silver dollar across the Potomac. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 I disagree pretty strongly with those who try to paint a picture of the founding fathers as freedom loving zealots and people dedicated to religious freedom. these men where the 1 percent, a very richest human beings in colonial America. as time went by it dawned on them that they could keep the tax money previously being sent to King george for his war against the French or send it to him carefully.. guess which option took precedent? the king was at a loss to defend his tax money and the founding fathers had hungry rebels looking for a fight. taxation without representation rings as true as throwing the silver dollar across the Potomac. WSS And you are entitled to that position. I do think the Declaration of Independence & US Constitution do frame a picture that included a degree of human independence and governance. It is hard to prove what purse strings the Founding Fathers held but by most accounts they were less wealthy than the Loyalist counterparts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 It shouldn't be hard to prove it. of course the British who had been sent over to be the governors were rich. So were the revolutionaries that wanted to sieze that wealth. as soon as the revolution begin most of the wealthiest British fled to Canada. this is the way of most revolutions and they were happening all across the globe as nearly everyone shifted political gears. Don't forget that one of the first things the new government did was ream the population for taxes just like the king. The ink was barely dry on the declaration when they sent troops to crush the Whiskey Rebellion. I'm as much a territorial loyalist as anyone but I don't think we should sugar coat human nature. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 But to the point the ideas of conservative vs liberal or progressive change with the times. So the labels don't really count for much. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 The liberal ideas of the past (some) are either moderate or conservative now. By definition we've progressed as a nation. I don't agree with everything in the article, but I can see the point it's trying to make Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 I'd say we've gotten worse as a nation. Much worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 I'd say we've gotten worse as a nation. Much worse. Progressively worse. .. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 I'd say we've gotten worse as a nation. Much worse. Well, I haven't been alive in this nation as long as you, but from what I've read/heard/seen about the past, I disagree completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 Let's see - the refusal to be run over by their gov - like the Tea Party and most conservative and libertarian Americans... check. and.... the Boston Tea Party, check. The same Americans fighting for freedom from tyranny.... check. But libreals/progressives/marxists/sloths always want to turn everything upside down, inside out, and bass ackwards, to paint a surreal, utopian, stupidass picture of reality....apparently because that makes them feel like they run everything. Bunch of sick, twisted, dishonest, UNprincipled, sum beech would be Napoleons. Boy, I'm glad we're close to the first day of spring. Have tomato plants 7" high in the greenhouse ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohican Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 The citizens of the 13 colonies under the Articles of Confederation paid much higher taxes than they did to the King prior to the Revolution. And BTW, the original meaning of Federalis meant strong state governments and a weaker Federal or General Government. But in a brilliant PR move, Hamilton, John Jay and Jimmy Madison grabbed the term Federalist for their postion. Hamilton was a monarchist who knew it wouldn't fly. Jimmy Madison was a flip flopper over the years on a lot of issues. The people against the plan by the triad known as Publius called themselves ®epublicans, but Hamilton called them Anti Federalist, which was a brilliant stroke of his pen. For reasons I can go into deeper, the ®epublicans/Anti Federalist have been proven right over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.