bertusgeert 1 #1 October 18, 2006 THe longer I live here the more I see how the U.S. today is COMPLETELY different from how the founding fathers would have wanted it to be, yet we hold on to their values and ideas as if it is the grounds for our thoughts today. This series shows how inventing the enemy is useful in exercising an agenda: http://youneed2see.com/political/57/The_Power_of_Nightmares Why has the government never shrunk - even under republican small government advocates? Politicians love their power - it's all they have, and it is what they are there for. Only a noble politician will give up power - (definitely not a Bush - and many others, he's not alone.) 1. Have an agenda 2. Create an oposing force 3. Paint it as the villian and create a massive marketing plan around it 4. End result = more power More and more I realize how there is enough evidence that pretty much anything a politician says on the news is NOT TRUE. hey, the world has never been perfect, never will be...so it goes... --------------------------------------------- As jy dom is moet jy bloei! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #2 October 18, 2006 QuoteTHe longer I live here the more I see how the U.S. today is COMPLETELY different from how the founding fathers would have wanted it to be, yet we hold on to their values and ideas as if it is the grounds for our thoughts today. The whole story of the "founding fathers" is a lie. Their values are but a myth. Equality was but for a select few. If you could go back in time, ask the slaves they owned. Ask the indians that suffered from ethnic cleansing. My own ancestors suffered on the Trail of Tears. The values of the "founding fathers" would not even come close to getting off of the ground today. Their values were the reason for the civil rights movement. They were traitors, criminals and violators of human rights. If someone today were to try what they did, they'd be tried and convicted for life. I, for one, am glad that we are past their "values" (though it does seem that we are sliding in reverse)."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #3 October 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteTHe longer I live here the more I see how the U.S. today is COMPLETELY different from how the founding fathers would have wanted it to be, yet we hold on to their values and ideas as if it is the grounds for our thoughts today. The whole story of the "founding fathers" is a lie. Their values are but a myth. Equality was but for a select few. If you could go back in time, ask the slaves they owned. Ask the indians that suffered from ethnic cleansing. My own ancestors suffered on the Trail of Tears. The values of the "founding fathers" would not even come close to getting off of the ground today. Their values were the reason for the civil rights movement. They were traitors, criminals and violators of human rights. If someone today were to try what they did, they'd be tried and convicted for life. I, for one, am glad that we are past their "values" (though it does seem that we are sliding in reverse). I'm guessing you've read Chomsky and/or Zinn. That whole "our ancestors were actually scum" schtick is so myopic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #4 October 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteTHe longer I live here the more I see how the U.S. today is COMPLETELY different from how the founding fathers would have wanted it to be, yet we hold on to their values and ideas as if it is the grounds for our thoughts today. The whole story of the "founding fathers" is a lie. Their values are but a myth. Equality was but for a select few. If you could go back in time, ask the slaves they owned. Ask the indians that suffered from ethnic cleansing. My own ancestors suffered on the Trail of Tears. The values of the "founding fathers" would not even come close to getting off of the ground today. Their values were the reason for the civil rights movement. They were traitors, criminals and violators of human rights. If someone today were to try what they did, they'd be tried and convicted for life. I, for one, am glad that we are past their "values" (though it does seem that we are sliding in reverse). I'm guessing you've read Chomsky and/or Zinn. That whole "our ancestors were actually scum" schtick is so myopic. Well, if Foley and Studds are scum and Foley is a hypocrite, then Thomas Jefferson certainly qualifies on both counts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #5 October 18, 2006 QuoteWell, if Foley and Studds are scum and Foley is a hypocrite, then Thomas Jefferson certainly qualifies on both counts. Ah yes.. applying today's standards, values and mores to a different era. Intellectual dishonest? How about all those men of the 1700s who married young brides... should they all be vilified as pedophiles? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #6 October 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteWell, if Foley and Studds are scum and Foley is a hypocrite, then Thomas Jefferson certainly qualifies on both counts. Ah yes.. applying today's standards, values and mores to a different era. Intellectual dishonest? Not at all. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. written by a slave owner who fathered (at least one) child by his slaves. Explain how that is not hypocrisy by the standards of any age.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #7 October 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell, if Foley and Studds are scum and Foley is a hypocrite, then Thomas Jefferson certainly qualifies on both counts. Ah yes.. applying today's standards, values and mores to a different era. Intellectual dishonest? Not at all. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. written by a slave owner who fathered (at least one) child by his slaves. Explain how that is not hypocrisy by the standards of any age. Are you saying he raped one of his slaves? If so, how do you know that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #8 October 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, if Foley and Studds are scum and Foley is a hypocrite, then Thomas Jefferson certainly qualifies on both counts. Ah yes.. applying today's standards, values and mores to a different era. Intellectual dishonest? Not at all. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. written by a slave owner who fathered (at least one) child by his slaves. Explain how that is not hypocrisy by the standards of any age. Are you saying he raped one of his slaves? If so, how do you know that? I'm wrote what I wrote; it is quite clear for anyone who chooses not to misunderstand.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #9 October 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, if Foley and Studds are scum and Foley is a hypocrite, then Thomas Jefferson certainly qualifies on both counts. Ah yes.. applying today's standards, values and mores to a different era. Intellectual dishonest? Not at all. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. written by a slave owner who fathered (at least one) child by his slaves. Explain how that is not hypocrisy by the standards of any age. Are you saying he raped one of his slaves? If so, how do you know that? I'm wrote what I wrote; it is quite clear for anyone who chooses not to misunderstand. Reading a biography on Jefferson might clear things up for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #10 October 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, if Foley and Studds are scum and Foley is a hypocrite, then Thomas Jefferson certainly qualifies on both counts. Ah yes.. applying today's standards, values and mores to a different era. Intellectual dishonest? Not at all. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. written by a slave owner who fathered (at least one) child by his slaves. Explain how that is not hypocrisy by the standards of any age. Are you saying he raped one of his slaves? If so, how do you know that? I'm wrote what I wrote; it is quite clear for anyone who chooses not to misunderstand. Reading a biography on Jefferson might clear things up for you. Explain how keeping slaves while writing that all men are created equal is NOT hypocrisy.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #11 October 18, 2006 It was implied that the statement was about white men. If you can provide an unbiased historian who says this is incorrect, please do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #12 October 18, 2006 QuoteIt was implied that the statement was about white men. If you can provide an unbiased historian who says this is incorrect, please do so. then the hypocrisy is direct and implication defined it even more obtusely - that they didn't recognize it at the time for what it was just highlights how far we've come since then. Their intent doesn't mitigate that it is a hypocritical stance. However, the hyposcrisy also doesn't dilute the good that resulted. 2 separate things. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #13 October 18, 2006 QuoteIt was implied that the statement was about white men. If you can provide an unbiased historian who says this is incorrect, please do so. Oh, the old "implied" get out of jail free card You should be a politician.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,079 #14 October 18, 2006 >It was implied that the statement was about white men. Perhaps, but that's not what they wrote - and what someone puts on paper to preserve for posterity trumps what someone thinks they were implying, 230 years later. The US was founded by a bunch of people with varying desires. The south's economy was dependent on slaves; they were not going to sign anything that did away with slavery. Indeed, they even got a provision in the original constitution that northerners had to return escaped slaves. The north, on the other hand, was ideologically opposed to slavery, but realized they had to give in on that point to unite the colonies against King George, and later get the constitution written. In other words, things back then were a lot like things are today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #15 October 18, 2006 QuoteAre you saying he raped one of his slaves? If so, how do you know that? How did you arrive at that from what John wrote? Jefferson thought that it was unthinkable that a white man would be with a black woman (at least publicly). Although Sally Heming was more white than black. Her mother was mulatto. Sally, from all accounts, was nearly all white in appearance. Still, there is hypocracy in Jeffersons views. He owned near 200 slaves (some, he inherited from his wifes father) while preaching freedom. I tend to believe that what I learned in school of the founding fathers is, for the most, a lie. The same as with the Christopher Columbus story is a lie. Thanks to the vast resources on the internet, it is easy to see past the books from high school and get to the sources that the government would rather one not see. Anyhow, from slave accounts, Jefferson did not rape her and for the most was a very decent man. One slave stated that he seldom had the slaves whipped. I guess, from the standards of the day, that was considered decent."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #16 October 18, 2006 You both are ignoring the context in which it was written. Go back and read my second post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #17 October 18, 2006 QuotePerhaps, but that's not what they wrote - and what someone puts on paper to preserve for posterity trumps what someone thinks they were implying, 230 years later. For someone to dishonestly interpret by today's standards. QuoteThe north, on the other hand, was ideologically opposed to slavery More to the point, The North was economically opposed to slavery. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #18 October 18, 2006 QuoteYou both are ignoring the context in which it was written. Go back and read my second post. The relevant sentence about self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence is absolute, it does not depend on context. Jefferson was a hypocritical slave owner and an adulterer. Given the slave status of Heming, it is reasonable to also assume that he was a rapist.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #19 October 18, 2006 Jefferson was an adulterer? How so? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,079 #20 October 18, 2006 >For someone to dishonestly interpret by today's standards. So reading what is written is dishonest? And assuming racism where none is stated is a more honest interpretation? Is this the latest doublethink? >More to the point, The North was economically opposed to slavery. Eh, the north was pretty neutral economically when it came to slavery. At most slavery was a competitive issue that gave southern farmers a slight edge, but for the most part they were competing in different markets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #21 October 18, 2006 QuoteJefferson's original draft included a denunciation of the slave trade ("He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither."), which was later edited out by Congress Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bertusgeert 1 #22 October 18, 2006 without having read the entire thread, I quote George Carlin: It's the old American double standard, you know say one thing and do something different. And of course the country is founded on the double standard, that's our history, we were founded on a very basic double standard. This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free. Am I right? A group of slave owners who wanted to be free. So they killed a lot of white English people, in order to continue owning their black African people, so they could wipe out the rest of the red Indian people, and move west and steal the rest of the land from the brown Mexican people, giving them a place to take off and drop their nuclear weapons on the yellow Japanese people. You know what the motto of this country ought to be? You give us a color, we'll wipe it out! --------------------------------------------- As jy dom is moet jy bloei! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #23 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteJefferson's original draft included a denunciation of the slave trade ("He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither."), which was later edited out by Congress "The amalgamation of whites with blacks produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character, can innocently consent," Thomas Jefferson A 1998 DNA study concluded that there was a DNA link between some of Hemings descendants and the Jefferson family, but did not conclusively prove that Jefferson himself was their ancestor. Three studies were released in the early 2000s, following the publication of the DNA evidence. In 2000, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which runs Monticello, appointed a multi-disciplinary, 9-member in-house research committee of Ph.D.s and an M.D. to study the matter of the paternity of Hemings's children. The committee concluded "it is very unlikely that any Jefferson other than Thomas Jefferson was the father of [Hemings's six] children." In 2001, the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society commissioned a study by an independent 13-member Scholars Commission. The commission concluded that the Jefferson paternity thesis was not persuasive. The National Genealogical Society Quarterly then published articles reviewing the evidence from a genealogical perspective and concluded that the link between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings was valid.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #24 October 19, 2006 QuoteHow did you arrive at that from what John wrote? Ummm.. a couple of posts later he said so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #25 October 19, 2006 QuoteUmmm.. a couple of posts later he said so. Saw it. According to slave accounts and the accounts of others, she was a willing partner. According to discription of her she appeared to be white and not black as her mother was half white. Not sure if her father was white or black. Maybe in Jeffersons saw her as being a white woman and not black or mulatto."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
