Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

DoD calls founding fathers extremists


Drayno

Recommended Posts

The Founding Fathers were extremists heck some of them were almost religious zealots and GOD bless them for it.

Most of the "Founding Fathers" were aristocrats and Deists, generally either non-Christian or in a few cases anti-Christian, including Thomas Jefferson, who owned plantations and hundreds of slaves while hypocritically preaching human equality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i always see people calling jefferson a hypocrite, that seems a bit unfair, given the time, he was just taking advantage of a business model, I don't think its reflective of what he'd prefer necessarily

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Through all the verbiage, one thing stands out; the US government is dysfunctional. I dunno -- maybe it is something about how the American culture has evolved, but no one has imitated its Presidential system in a long time. The reason it isn't fixed is that special interests, especially the lawyers, like it this way -- it's dysfunctional with its legal system a lot like fourth century Rome. Behind this lies an obsolete Constitution.

I don't think the constitution is obsolete so much as the government ignores it or tries to do things that are totally against the way it was designed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the "Founding Fathers" were aristocrats and Deists, generally either non-Christian or in a few cases anti-Christian, including Thomas Jefferson, who owned plantations and hundreds of slaves while hypocritically preaching human equality.

I see the progressive disinformation on the founding fathers is working out well. as for old T.J. he inherited a lot of debt and since at the time slaves were viewed as property it would have looked pretty bad to his debtors if he just started freeing his slaves(or in their eyes giving away his property). I know people struggle with this but the world was different in the 1700's heck it was different in the 1900's than it is now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone wanting to be a teacher IMO needs to look into "Waldorf-style Education". Basically (very basically) it's about using a student's strengths and interests to engage their dislikes and weaknesses (case in point - I've been teaching basic maths and literacy via Magic: The Gathering and the school has used DnD for years INCLUDING a DnD club that takes up an hour (or sometimes five) of an afternoon's teaching time).

Games are VERY important to learning at my school.

I wish I had gone to your school.

Using Magic: The Gathering is very original and inventive.. I've dabbled with it. I know a lot of people who play it.

I plan on being an English teacher; I plan to use Star Wars and LoTR to convey archetypes..

Through all the verbiage, one thing stands out; the US government is dysfunctional. I dunno -- maybe it is something about how the American culture has evolved, but no one has imitated its Presidential system in a long time. The reason it isn't fixed is that special interests, especially the lawyers, like it this way -- it's dysfunctional with its legal system a lot like fourth century Rome. Behind this lies an obsolete Constitution.

Very good points.. What good is the rule of law - or any legal precedent for that matter - if no one obeys it?

I don't think the constitution is obsolete so much as the government ignores it or tries to do things that are totally against the way it was designed.

Unless it's hypocritically using the Constitution to bash other politicians..

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its more about the "definition" of terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i always see people calling jefferson a hypocrite, that seems a bit unfair, given the time, he was just taking advantage of a business model, I don't think its reflective of what he'd prefer necessarily

Its about preaching equality and owning slaves. A lot of the founding fathers did not own slaves, Jefferson owned hundreds. He even had sex with slaves, which is really a form of rape.

Jefferson as a person is unimpressive; he had a smooth tongue and that has made him famous, but I have a lot more respect for Franklin and Adams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the horrible things we rarely hear about that happened to loyalists ("Tories") living in the Colonies during the US Revolution strike me as terroristic, and were certainly done without the approval of either Washington or the Continental Congress.

Similar atrocities happened on both sides during the US Civil War.

So it is plain that American extremism is as capable of producing terrorists as any other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extreme in what way other than they understood reality?

Their views were backed by years upon years upon years of rigorous education involving history, political science, mathematics, etc. The way our system was originally set up reflects upon their education..

The very fact that our founders expressed the intent to abolish destructive governments in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence reflects upon their knowledge and in-depth understanding of how despotism comes around easier than people anticipate. This is why the Bill of Rights, which protects the natural rights of man, acts as a safeguard against tyranny - because despite the fact Obama told people to ignore voices warning of tyranny, our founding fathers knew the problems of democracy, because the wolves can simply outvote the sheep. That's why our constitutional Republic was created - to have representation proportionate to population; including the addition later of of having two senators appointed for each state in the Union - so that tyranny would have no chance to creep in the back door.

Plus, the militia, also known as the entire population who owns a gun, had the moral obligation to remove despotism, despite how arduous and hopeless the expedition might be. What is going on in our government is that they are using The War on Terror - which was probably engineered to bring about the destruction of America in the way I'm about to explain - to then label their own citizens as potential terrorists; 'extremists', undermine the traditional values America was founded upon - exploit how meaningless they are when translated to our modern times despite their universal messages, and then incrementally strip the people of their civil liberties to effectively establish a stronger despotism.. Essentially, every thing our 'extremist' founding fathers warned us of.

By calling the founding fathers 'terrorists' they mean to make American principles null.

By making out the foundation of our country to be terrorism - they can assign any one who follows this ideology - or who believes in natural rights - as opposed to rights given and taken away by the state, as a terrorist and, ironically, the progressives can liberally throw around the word terrorist to demonize any conservative opposition and then prosecute them for belonging to 'hate-groups' that oppose the 'first African-American president'..

They've already set up the framework for it.

See where I'm going?

maybe they have a point.

We've been following the same piece of paper for over 200 years, the world is a different place, and the fact it's been amended so many times shows it's flawed.

Maybe its time to adapt, rather than cling to an old piece of paper.

Of course it's flawed, what the hell isn't? What are you implying that we follow here? Rather not cling to an old piece of paper? Either amend the Constitution or overthrow the government and rule of law. If you do the former you're within your legal rights. If you do the latter you're a terrorist to your government.

People, even in a majority, are flawed. That's why a supermajority and 3/4ths of the states ratify amendments and not 50.1% of the country and new less-tired pieces of paper from the shills in office.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its about preaching equality and owning slaves. A lot of the founding fathers did not own slaves, Jefferson owned hundreds. He even had sex with slaves, which is really a form of rape.

Jefferson as a person is unimpressive; he had a smooth tongue and that has made him famous, but I have a lot more respect for Franklin and Adams.

We don't know that it was rape, as for all we know it was all consensual

For all we know he treated the slaves as equals.

And, if they didnt work for him, who knows what their lives would have been like?

I'm not exactly a paragon of morality, but in my eyes, we dont have solid evidence of Jefferson being unfair to his slaves, so I'm fine with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as consent when the woman is your slave. There can't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little King George IIIs, every one of them. Pathetic. Another federal department of political geniuses telling us what to think and what to value. They're driving down roads paved by giants. They should mind themselves with a little respect.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people doing immoral things in their personal lives are reasons why not to accept their political successes and accept them as politicians, what the hell are we still supporting the likes of Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer, and Alan Dershowitz for? Even in the '90s during all the sleazebag loop going 24/7/365 in the US media about his spooge on Monica Lewinsky's dress, no mention was given to Bill Clinton's war crimes or any of his immoral public actions when serving as POTUS. He should have been impeached alright, for illegally bombing Africa. Nixon should have gotten his, not for his little tape recordings, but for bombing Laos and Cambodia. We've lost our minds in this country. Bombs are a fool's way of changing minds. The only way to win the Vietnam war was to lose it in the way Patton never would.

I'm feeling unpatriotic, ashamed, and even a bit depressed just by observing what my country is doing in/to the world.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as consent when the woman is your slave. There can't be.

She still has an opinion, if she wanted it to happen, then its not rape, if she didn't then its rape.

There's no way for us to know one way or the other

Legally there isn't consent, but comparing a different time to our standards makes everyone look like pieces of **** just like we will to people in the future or like we would to people from the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have the right to compare Jefferson, who declared human equality and had slaves, to others of the time, such as Franklin, who did the same but in spite of his wealth never owned a slave and expressed reservations about t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Franklin wasn't in the agriculture business though. If he was making a living through crops he may have had slaves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Franklin wasn't in the agriculture business though. If he was making a living through crops he may have had slaves.

You are rationalizing; he had hundreds of employees, and a large residence to be maintained. Also, he was not alone at this time in wanting to end slavery. There is a considerable history here that I don't think most Americans know about, since face it the hypocrisy of slavery and the standards the revolution claimed it was about is pretty blatant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware of the history. But I'm also aware that just because someone owned slaves doesn't make them a monster.

Rhetoric in wars is always used they can scream liberty and freedom all they want, it sounds good. At the end of the day, it was about money.

Also, i thought this, but wanted to make sure, Franklin owned at least 2 slaves that are known, and profited from the slave trade throughout his business career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have the right to compare Jefferson, who declared human equality and had slaves, to others of the time, such as Franklin, who did the same but in spite of his wealth never owned a slave and expressed reservations about t.

Listen to Franklin, or listen to Jefferson. The message is the same.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen to Franklin, or listen to Jefferson. The message is the same.

Except it's rank hypocrisy from one of them, that's Frank's point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except it's rank hypocrisy from one of them, that's Frank's point.

What are we to do about Frank's little point? If Frank ate his own cooking he'd oppose hypocrite Obama as much as I do. Should we find someone free from hypocrisy? I found Ron Paul. Frank would have nothing to do with him. My point is, we find something better to aspire to, not let imperfections in the messenger stop us.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand that its not hypocrisy.

He personally wanted something, but he had to work within the world he lived in.

Again, if he didn't own them, who knows what kind of person would have.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you actually read Franklin and Jefferson rather than just read about them, you will find that they were quite different. Franklin had a common-sense pragmatic attitude about business and government and even religion and what they could do and couldn't do, was morally and intellectually honest although he certainly liked women, he never was a hypocrite about it. Jefferson had his head in the air with his rhetoric about "freedom" and his behavior shows he didn't really believe it -- either that or was a split personality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course franklin was pragmatic that was his whole schtick, but all that doesn't extend to this issue. They were both personally anti slavery, but both had slaves because of the world they lived in.

I dont see why either of them have to be hypocrites, Jeferson lived in the south, had farms, so yes, he had slaves to work them. Do we have solid evidence he treated them unfairly? Franklin has homes that needed looked after, he has slaves, and used the slave trade to make money

it's sepparating business and personal feelings, and you have to do that sometimes

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Employer-employee relationships today aren't equal either. There's plenty of inequality in the roles of society that we must perform. Everyone has a boss. Everyone's boss has a boss. Follow the ladder on up. The guy at the top has more rules to contend with than anyone.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.