Modern politicians and the Founding Fathers

[Lisle16]

So I was watching the HBO series on John Adams and it struck me how much the Founding Fathers were truly pillars of their communities. They considered politics a public service and a duty, not a lucrative career opportunity. They earned thier wealth by other means. When they returned from politics, they didn't go into some stupid lobbying or think tank job that paid incredibly high. They went back to work...farming, serving their local communities, and otherwise helping the nation in other ways.

Furthermore, they seemed to be more serious about politics and governing. Most of today's politicians seem to be in it for themselves and don't seem to take the task of serving America, the states, and the people very seriously, in my view.

Career politicians, who see politics as an opportunity to acquire wealth and power and not serve, have done this nation a disservice.

[Deborah K]

I bought the series. I agree with everything you just wrote.

[demolama]

I blame colleges that push out political science dodoheads that have nothing to offer society except to be a parasite on the people by working for the government

[heavenlyboy34]

So I was watching the HBO series on John Adams and it struck me how much the Founding Fathers were truly pillars of their communities. They considered politics a public service and a duty, not a lucrative career opportunity. They earned thier wealth by other means. When they returned from politics, they didn't go into some stupid lobbying or think tank job that paid incredibly high. They went back to work...farming, serving their local communities, and otherwise helping the nation in other ways.

Furthermore, they seemed to be more serious about politics and governing. Most of today's politicians seem to be in it for themselves and don't seem to take the task of serving America, the states, and the people very seriously, in my view.

Career politicians, who see politics as an opportunity to acquire wealth and power and not serve, have done this nation a disservice.


I wouldn't say it's quite that simple (there are rotten apples in every bunch, like the Hamiltonians), but that's pretty well said overall.:cool:

[Lisle16]

I wouldn't say it's quite that simple (there are rotten apples in every bunch, like the Hamiltonians), but that's pretty well said overall.:cool:

True. Hamilton and his supporters were the beginning of the downfall, I think.

[Icymudpuppy]

This is why I think being a politician should not come with a paycheck at all.

[YumYum]

True. Hamilton and his supporters were the beginning of the downfall, I think.

The "founding fathers", and the whole Patriot story of Indepedence is a myth. Most of them were wealthy land speculators, and owned land west of the Smokey mountains that they paid as little as a few cents an acre. (Remember, Washington had been a land surveyor?) Britain passed a law that forbid the colonists from settling west of the mountains. This upset our founding real estate developers, so they incited they colonies to rebel against Britain. All this talk of "tyranny" by Britain is hype. The Colonists never had it so good. The Civil War was an unnecessary waste of lives, but so was the Revolutionary War.

[Deborah K]

The "founding fathers", and the whole Patriot story of Indepedence is a myth. Most of them were wealthy land speculators, and owned land west of the Smokey mountains that they paid as little as a few cents an acre. (Remember, Washington had been a land surveyor?) Britain passed a law that forbid the colonists from settling west of the mountains. This upset our founding real estate developers, so they incited they colonies to rebel against Britain. All this talk of "tyranny" by Britain is hype. The Colonists never had it so good. The Civil War was an unnecessary waste of lives, but so was the Revolutionary War.

Please list all the "wealthy land speculators".

[pcosmar]

The "founding fathers", and the whole Patriot story of Indepedence is a myth. Most of them were wealthy land speculators, and owned land west of the Smokey mountains that they paid as little as a few cents an acre. (Remember, Washington had been a land surveyor?) Britain passed a law that forbid the colonists from settling west of the mountains. This upset our founding real estate developers, so they incited they colonies to rebel against Britain. All this talk of "tyranny" by Britain is hype. The Colonists never had it so good. The Civil War was an unnecessary waste of lives, but so was the Revolutionary War.

Watching. :p


I'm for liberty and freedom,

So you say, but the content of your posts does not support that position.


Keep posting, your positions become more clear. I had you pegged for socialist infiltrator some time ago.
Please feel free to continue. You are confirming my suspicions.

[YumYum]

Watching. :p

Watch all you want dude. Paranoid. Get a life.

[YumYum]

Please list all the "wealthy land speculators".

Most of the signers of the "Declaration of Indepedence" were land speculators. What is ironic, is that most of them died broke.

[Deborah K]

I am a descendant of Benjamin Harrison, signer of the Declaration of Independence. He was not a surveyor and he didn't die broke. John Adams wasn't a surveyor either, nor was John Hancock or Thomas Paine or Sam Adams.

Who were the surveyors?

[heavenlyboy34]

The "founding fathers", and the whole Patriot story of Indepedence is a myth. Most of them were wealthy land speculators, and owned land west of the Smokey mountains that they paid as little as a few cents an acre. (Remember, Washington had been a land surveyor?) Britain passed a law that forbid the colonists from settling west of the mountains. This upset our founding real estate developers, so they incited they colonies to rebel against Britain. All this talk of "tyranny" by Britain is hype. The Colonists never had it so good. The Civil War was an unnecessary waste of lives, but so was the Revolutionary War.

Interesting, indeed! I'd forgotten some of those details over the years.

[demolama]

There are court records that show George Washington went court to get Scottish settlers off his land in western parts of Pennsylvania and there were petitioners that wanted to claim land in Maine that were owned by Henry Knox.
The Proclamation of 1763 is what stopped settlement to the West.

While Yum Yum is correct a lot of the rich men were speculators I don't know about the whole starting the rebellion to have people settle in the west for profit.

[bunklocoempire]

"A Leap in the Dark"

-The Struggle to Create the American Republic-

By John Ferling

Oxford University Press



Bunkloco

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yeah.....These guys were just going to start a Revolution against the most powerful nation on Earth, because of....wait for it..Land speculation! You have to be a complete moron to believe that load of BS.

Britain wasn't a Tyranny, the British soldiers could just order you to shelter and feed them, shot protesters, and put excise taxes on much of the common "sin" items. Not only that, they had no say in how the colonies were run. That's not Tyranny though!

Hey YumYum, I hope Patrick Henry gives you a good ol' spanking if there is such thing as a Heaven.

The Revolution for most was about Liberty and Classical Liberalism. For others (Hamiltonians), it was about power. Most of the Founder's died in the war, or died broke. You have to be stupid to believe they had an insurrection against the most powerful nation on Earth for profit.

[YumYum]

"A Leap in the Dark"

-The Struggle to Create the American Republic-

By John Ferling

Oxford University Press



Bunkloco

This book looks interesting. Can you share some of Ferling's insights? So much of the Early history of our country is treated as sacred, that people are offended when it is pointed out that our founding fathers weren't saints. That Ole' Ben Franklin liked his orgies is unthinkable!!:rolleyes:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This book looks interesting. Can you share some of Ferling's insights? So much of the Early history of our country is treated as sacred, that people are offended when it is pointed out that our founding fathers weren't saints. That Ole' Ben Franklin liked his orgies is unthinkable!!:rolleyes:

No, what's mostly sacred is the reasoning behind our Revolution.

[YumYum]

Yeah.....These guys were just going to start a Revolution against the most powerful nation on Earth, because of....wait for it..Land speculation! You have to be a complete moron to believe that load of BS.

Britain wasn't a Tyranny, the British soldiers could just order you to shelter and feed them, shot protesters, and put excise taxes on much of the common "sin" items. Not only that, they had no say in how the colonies were run. That's not Tyranny though!

Hey YumYum, I hope Patrick Henry gives you a good ol' spanking if there is such thing as a Heaven.

The Revolution for most was about Liberty and Classical Liberalism. For others (Hamiltonians), it was about power. Most of the Founder's died in the war, or died broke. You have to be stupid to believe they had an insurrection against the most powerful nation on Earth for profit.

They were gods, weren't they? Infallible men of integrity, who never served their own self interests. They don't make 'em like they used to. So what and who did these shining pillars stand up to that was so vile? Illuminati? The Elite? Zionists? Reptilians? Bilderberg?

“Father, I cannot tell a lie, I chopped down the cherry tree…..oh,..and I also smoked some of your kick ass bud!!”

[YumYum]

No, what's mostly sacred is the reasoning behind our Revolution.

It was a front, and you bit. Did I ever tell ya the one about good ole Abe?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

They were gods, weren't they? Infallible men of integrity, who never served their own self interests. They don't make 'em like they used to. So what and who did these shining pillars stand up to that was so vile? Illuminati? The Elite? Zionists? Reptilians? Bilderberg?

“Father, I cannot tell a lie, I chopped down the cherry tree…..oh,..and I also smoked some of your kick ass bud!!”

Liberty is a self-interest....also, you can google King George III.

[Deborah K]

This book looks interesting. Can you share some of Ferling's insights? So much of the Early history of our country is treated as sacred, that people are offended when it is pointed out that our founding fathers weren't saints. That Ole' Ben Franklin liked his orgies is unthinkable!!:rolleyes:

I don't know about "early history being treated as sacred" but I do know that sweeping generalizations about the founders created myths like: " The founders were all deists and atheists" - which is a load of crap and has been sufficiently debunked.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Founders were perfect. But if you can name any other country that rose to power by creating a government that protected the God-given right to individual freedom, I'd like to know about it.

[YumYum]

I don't know about "early history being treated as sacred" but I do know that sweeping generalizations about the founders created myths like: " The founders were all deists and atheists" - which is a load of crap and has been sufficiently debunked.

Please read "Blasphemy", by Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He does an excellent job of proving that the majority of the founders were deists and atheists.


I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Founders were perfect. But if you can name any other country that rose to power by creating a government that protected the God-given right to individual freedom, I'd like to know about it.

New Zealand, Estonia, Botswana, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada...

There are many countries that rose to power that did not have slavery. If you discount blacks as humans, and that their freedoms didn't count, then your opinion falls flat on its face. If our founding fathers gave our ancestors so much freedom, why did President George Washington send troops to kill ex-soldiers who fought for him in the Revolutionary during the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Penn.?

[Deborah K]

Please read "Blasphemy", by Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He does an excellent job of proving that the majority of the founders were deists and atheists.


Haven't read the book, but I've done my own research on it based on actual writings by the Founders. Dershowitz would have to revise history in order to come to that conclusion.


New Zealand, Estonia, Botswana, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada...

There are many countries that rose to power that did not have slavery. If you discount blacks as humans, and that their freedoms didn't count, then your opinion falls flat on its face. If our founding fathers gave our ancestors so much freedom, why did President George Washington send troops to kill ex-soldiers who fought for him in the Revolutionary during the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Penn.?

I don't think one of the countries you listed has a Constitution as old as ours nor can they claim to be founded as a republic, nor have they ever risen to power. Every one of them has required assistance by the US. As to your accusations of Washington, what is your source?

[pcosmar]

New Zealand, Estonia, Botswana, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada...



None of the above. I see examples of Socialism.
Examples of High Taxation. (theft of property)
Civil rights violations. (natives)

I make no claim that America is perfect, nor the people in the past had no flaws. But I certainly would not call any of those "shining" examples.

And you comment about slavery. Intellectuality dishonest.
Most countries have practiced slavery, Europe was built by slave labor.
And not all slaves in the Americas were black. There were white races that were slaves.
A moot point, It was on it's way out long before the civil war.

[Deborah K]

There are many countries that rose to power that did not have slavery. If you discount blacks as humans, and that their freedoms didn't count, then your opinion falls flat on its face. If our founding fathers gave our ancestors so much freedom, why did President George Washington send troops to kill ex-soldiers who fought for him in the Revolutionary during the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Penn.?

People who attempt to discount the Founders by relying on the sin of slavery to so do are being anachronistic. It's easy to superimpose modern day values on practices that occurred centuries before. Research reveals that slavery, at the time of the founding, was already being hotly debated.


I'm still waiting for the list of founding fathers who were rich land surveyors, as well as any source you have on Washington executing ex-soldiers.

[YumYum]

Haven't read the book, but I've done my own research on it based on actual writings by the Founders. Dershowitz would have to revise history in order to come to that conclusion.



I don't think one of the countries you listed has a Constitution as old as ours nor can they claim to be founded as a republic, nor have they ever risen to power. Every one of them has required assistance by the US. As to your accusations of Washington, what is your source?


http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Whiskey_Rebellion#encyclopedia

Do you really believe that the founding geniuses didn't know what they were doing when they gave congress the authority to borrow money? That's like giving a compusive shopper a credit card with no limit. By putting that trash in the Constitution, how were they setting up a government of "freedom and liberty" for its citizens? If you don't believe me, you need to look at our national debt.

[YumYum]

None of the above. I see examples of Socialism.
Examples of High Taxation. (theft of property)
Civil rights violations. (natives)

I make no claim that America is perfect, nor the people in the past had no flaws. But I certainly would not call any of those "shining" examples.

According to Ron Paul, Ireland, Chile, Estonia and Botswana are now enjoying more freedom and liberty because they don't take aid from other countries and practice free market economics.


And you comment about slavery. Intellectuality dishonest.
Most countries have practiced slavery, Europe was built by slave labor.
And not all slaves in the Americas were black. There were white races that were slaves.
A moot point, It was on it's way out long before the civil war.

You are missing the point. How can you say that this country came to power with more freedom than any other country in history when it permitted slavery? I don't care that other countries practiced slavery. There are also a lot of other countries that never practiced slavery. So your point is moot.

BTW, why are defending this country when you are supposed to be an anarchist? Talk about a theme and contradiction.

[pcosmar]

BTW, why are defending this country when you are supposed to be an anarchist? Talk about a theme and contradiction.

I have never made any claim of being an anarchist.
I have been accused of being one and have denied it.

Where do you get the Idea that I am an anarchist?

:confused:
As to your other claims,,,, Fabricated and fictitious come to mind.

[Deborah K]

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Whiskey_Rebellion#encyclopedia

Do you really believe that the founding geniuses didn't know what they were doing when they gave congress the authority to borrow money? That's like giving a compusive shopper a credit card with no limit. By putting that trash in the Constitution, how were they setting up a government of "freedom and liberty" for its citizens? If you don't believe me, you need to look at our national debt.

From your souce:


The militia force of 12,950 men was organized, roughly the size of the entire army in the Revolutionary War. Under the personal command of Washington, Hamilton, and Revolutionary War hero General Henry "Lighthorse Harry" Lee, the army assembled in Harrisburg and marched to Bedford, Pennsylvania the site of Washington's headquarters, then on to western PennsylvaniaWestern Pennsylvania
Western Pennsylvania consists of the western third of the state of Pennsylvania in the United States. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is the largest city in the region, with a metropolitan area population of about 2.4 million people, and serves as its economic and cultural center....
(to what is now MonongahelaMonongahela, Pennsylvania
Monongahela is a city in Washington County, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, United States and is part of the Pittsburgh Metro Area. The population was 4,761 at the 2000 census....
) in October of 1794. The rebels "could never be found," according to Jefferson, but the militia expended considerable effort rounding up 20 prisoners, clearly demonstrating FederalistFederalist Party (United States)
The Federalist Party was an American political party in the period 1792 to 1816, with remnants lasting into the 1820s. The Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801....
authority in the national government. The men were imprisoned, where one died, while two, including Philip Vigol (later spelled Philip Wigal), were convicted of treason and sentenced to death by hanging. Washington, however, pardoned them on the grounds that one was a "simpleton," and the other, "insane."

Only two were actually arrested and jailed: judge Robert PhilsonRobert Philson
Robert Philson was born in County Donegal, Ulster, Ireland, and immigrated to Pennsylvania with his uncle John Fletcher. They kept a store in Berlin, Pennsylvania, Bedford County, Pennsylvania....
and devout Quaker Herman HusbandHerman Husband
Herman Husband was a farmer, radical, pamphleteer, and preacher. He was born in Maryland and raised as an Anglican. One of the many to be inspired to the Great Awakening after hearing George Whitefield preach, he became disenchanted with his original faith and became a "New Light" Presbyterian and then a Quaker....
. Philson was released by Washington, but Husband died in jail before he could be released.

By November, some individuals were fined and charged with "assisting and abetting in setting up a seditious pole in opposition to the laws of the United States," and in January 1796 the following were fined five to fifteen shillings each: Nicholas Kobe, Adam Bower, Abraham Cable Jr, Dr. John Kimmell, Henry Foist, Jacob Holy, Adam Holy, Michael Chintz, George Swart, and Adam Stahl of Brothers Valley townshipBrothersvalley Township, Pennsylvania
Brothersvalley Township is a township in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, United States. The population was 4,184 at the 2000 census....
; John Heminger, John Armstrong, George Weimer, George Tedrow, Abraham Miller, John Miller Jr, Benjamin Brown, and Peter Bower of Milford townshipMilford Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania
Milford Township is a township in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, United States. The population was 1,561 at the 2000 census. It is part of the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Metropolitan Statistical Area....
; Emanuel Brallier, and George Ankeny, of Quemahoning township; Peter Augustine, James Conner, Henry Everly, Daniel McCartey, William Pinkerton, and Jonathan Woodsides of Turkeyfoot township.

Didn't find anything that confirms your claim that Washington "sen[t] troops to kill ex-soldiers who fought for him".

You seem to hold a lot of contempt for the founders. Why? You've jumped around from one accusation to another where they are concerned. It is a mistake for you to assume that those of us who happen to be proud of our heritage and the founders are somehow brainwashed and are deifying the founders. I understand that the Constitution isn't perfect and that the founders weren't perfect. I wouldn't expect they would be.

[YumYum]

People who attempt to discount the Founders by relying on the sin of slavery to so do are being anachronistic. It's easy to superimpose modern day values on practices that occurred centuries before. Research reveals that slavery, at the time of the founding, was already being hotly debated.

Do you realize how you sound? You are saying on the one hand that the values of this country at its founding were oblivious to the evils of slavery, as if it was the totally accepted norm , but on the other hand, it was a hotly debated issue. If it was hotly debated, than it would appear that there were Americans that held our "modern day values". So, didn't the founding genuises see and comprehend the view of those that were against slavery? Or were they too thick to comprehend the anti-slavery movemen't's arguments? The bottom line is that our founding gods permitted slavery for economic reasons. They didn't give a shit about human freedoms.



I'm still waiting for the list of founding fathers who were rich land surveyors, as well as any source you have on Washington executing ex-soldiers.

I didn't say they were "surveyors", I said that they had an interest in the land west of the Appalachian mountains: literally millions of acres that they owned, but could not sell to the colonists who wanted to settle west. The British enforced this law to protect and to keep the agreements that they had made with the Native Americans, the same Indian tribes that your hero, Andrew Jackson, sent to their demise on the "Trail of Tears". Ole George was the surveyor who intitially bought up all this land. I didn't say he "executed" ex-soldiers, I said he sent an army in to "kill" his ex-soldiers, but the rebellion was put down before there was any slaughter. What delite do you get out of being an apologist for these "founding fathers"? I am sure your ancestor was a nobel man, but you cannot judge the actions of the others based on his actions.

I was told by my college professor in class, who is the head of the political science dept., about the founders being land speculators. I will get the names.

[pcosmar]

You seem to hold a lot of contempt for the founders. Why? .


The British enforced this law to protect and to keep the agreements that they had made with the Native Americans,

I suspect because YumYum favors Fabian Socialism.
If you follow the posting history, you will see the obvious socialist bias.

[JeNNiF00F00]

mmmhmmmm

[Deborah K]

Do you realize how you sound? You are saying on the one hand that the values of this country at its founding were oblivious to the evils of slavery, as if it was the totally accepted norm , but on the other hand, it was a hotly debated issue. If it was hotly debated, than it would appear that there were Americans that held our "modern day values". So, didn't the founding genuises see and comprehend the view of those that were against slavery? Or were they too thick to comprehend the anti-slavery movemen't's arguments? The bottom line is that our founding gods permitted slavery for economic reasons. They didn't give a shit about human freedoms.

The founders didn't have a magic wand. Long before the Revolution, slavery had taken hold in the south and was entrenched. The economy of the south relied almost completely on slavery. That is why ending it was such a mess. It was a process, so no, I dont agree that I am being inconsistent about the issue of slavery being debated regularly. Especially in the North. And even Jefferson is quoted to have said:"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [blacks] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:72



I was told by my college professor in class, who is the head of the political science dept., about the founders being land speculators. I will get the names

Okay this explains a lot. Have you ever heard of the book "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" ? There has been a systematic objective in this country for the last 80 or so years to move Americans away from capitalism and individual freedom and into socialism and collectivism. In order to do that it takes re-educating the youth and re-writing history.

[Deborah K]

I didn't say they were "surveyors", I said that they had an interest in the land west of the Appalachian mountains: literally millions of acres that they owned, but could not sell to the colonists who wanted to settle west. The British enforced this law to protect and to keep the agreements that they had made with the Native Americans, the same Indian tribes that your hero, Andrew Jackson, sent to their demise on the "Trail of Tears".

Um....yes you did....i may have used the wrong word but you claimed they were wealthy land owners. So I'd like to know who the speculators were.




The "founding fathers", and the whole Patriot story of Indepedence is a myth. Most of them were wealthy land speculators, and owned land west of the Smokey mountains that they paid as little as a few cents an acre. (Remember, Washington had been a land surveyor?) Britain passed a law that forbid the colonists from settling west of the mountains. This upset our founding real estate developers, so they incited they colonies to rebel against Britain. All this talk of "tyranny" by Britain is hype. The Colonists never had it so good. The Civil War was an unnecessary waste of lives, but so was the Revolutionary War.

[YumYum]

Um....yes you did....i may have used the wrong word but you claimed they were wealthy land owners. So I'd like to know who the speculators were.

I enjoy discussing this with the group. I have to run and take care of some things, and will continue this debate. I am spending $10,000 a year to get an education, not to become "brainwashed", by socialist professors, but to learn information and come to my own conclusions. I do not subscribe to any agenda, other than the message of liberty and freedom, as I see it, not how you or anybody else sees it. I truly respect your views, and yet I need to challenge you and others to break away from any preconceived notions that we are continually being spoonfed from "experts" on all sides. Even Ron Paul has to be challenged; he wouldn't want it any other way.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I enjoy discussing this with the group. I have to run and take care of some things, and will continue this debate. I am spending $10,000 a year to get an education, not to become "brainwashed", by socialist professors, but to learn information and come to my own conclusions. I do not subscribe to any agenda, other than the message of liberty and freedom, as I see it, not how you or anybody else sees it. I truly respect your views, and yet I need to challenge you and others to break away from any preconceived notions that we are continually being spoonfed from "experts" on all sides. Even Ron Paul has to be challenged; he wouldn't want it any other way.

Your post history certainly says everything about your ideological predisposition. In nowhere can we find an inclination to liberty. You say, you subscribe to the message of "liberty and freedom", yet you contradict that message in near every post. I suspect you have read Rules for Radicals....we are a very questioning bunch, why not infiltrate and use against us our own ideals. You see, unlike the mass of people in America, it is more prominent in this movement that we are actually well educated in American history, philosophy, and Laissez-Faire.

You can stop your duplicity at once because we all see through it. Irreverence to our founding ideals does not equate to deification. In case you haven't wondered, most on this board are Anti-Federalists, and the Anti-Federalists at the time didn't want the Constitution. Without them there would be no Bill of Rights.

I'm not sure who we should look back on and improve upon in your view....Locke? Burke? Bastiat? Jefferson? George Mason? Patrick Henry? Who in your esteemed view is worthy of your admonition?

The deck is stacked. The information they give you is fabricated, revisionist, and in most cases heavily distorted. I bet there is only a handful of American History collegiate classes that actually teach about the Federal Government being tertiary to the States, who voluntarily agreed to be apart of this Union. You see, we are a Confederacy in that regard. No, they only give you enough information to brainwash you on their side. Read some Thomas Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo, etc.

Do college's ever teach you about the rising standards of living in the time of the "evil robber barons"? No. College is a sham for the most part. What's funny is you think you are actually being exposed to different idea's, but when College campus' are 90%+ Liberal, that surely isn't the case. There are of course exceptions (George Mason, etc.). They only give you the information they want you to hear. If the college system actually taught people that our 10th Amendment actually DOES have bite and has been used successfully, it would undermine the Federal Government...The Federal Government wouldn't want that, now would it? Guess who's in charge of Public Education? Oh shoot.

[Deborah K]

I enjoy discussing this with the group. I have to run and take care of some things, and will continue this debate. I am spending $10,000 a year to get an education, not to become "brainwashed", by socialist professors, but to learn information and come to my own conclusions. I do not subscribe to any agenda, other than the message of liberty and freedom, as I see it, not how you or anybody else sees it. I truly respect your views, and yet I need to challenge you and others to break away from any preconceived notions that we are continually being spoonfed from "experts" on all sides. Even Ron Paul has to be challenged; he wouldn't want it any other way.

Challenge away, YumYum. I'm always up for learning new perspectives. If you want to know whether your professor is a socialist or not, ask his/her views on the progressive movement during 1890 - 1940 or thereabouts. The response will be a tell-tale sign.

[bunklocoempire]

"A Leap in the Dark"

-The Struggle to Create the American Republic-

By John Ferling

Oxford University Press

$19.95 Softcover Very cheap, like myself.

:)

Bunkloco

[Agnapostate]

None of the above. I see examples of Socialism.

You see examples of the collective ownership and management of the means of production in social democratic capitalist states? By all means, elaborate.

[pcosmar]

You see examples of the collective ownership and management of the means of production in social democratic capitalist states? By all means, elaborate.

Sure, as soon as adjust your attitude.
Your post history ( short as it is) shows an antagonism to the forum and members.
Just what is your position?

[Agnapostate]

Sure, as soon as adjust your attitude.
Your post history ( short as it is) shows an antagonism to the forum and members.
Just what is your position?

The clarifier. While I of course have sentiments contrary to those of most here, I'd be deluged if I expressed them. So I do just try and maintain clear communication through accurate descriptions of terminology, ideology, and debate methods.

[pcosmar]

The clarifier. While I of course have sentiments contrary to those of most here, I'd be deluged if I expressed them. So I do just try and maintain clear communication through accurate descriptions of terminology, ideology, and debate methods.

I see.
and I watch. ;)

[Agnapostate]

I don't see a reason for me to be banned for expressing dissenting opinions. If I was engaging in some kind of disruptive trolling that was genuinely contrary to the advancement of this site's agenda, that would be another thing, but I think I can help some people here improve their understanding of various political/economic issues.

[pcosmar]

I don't see a reason for me to be banned for expressing dissenting opinions. If I was engaging in some kind of disruptive trolling that was genuinely contrary to the advancement of this site's agenda, that would be another thing, but I think I can help some people here improve their understanding of various political/economic issues.

Interesting.
No one said anything about a banning you. I certainly don't have that power. I am neither a moderator nor an owner of this site.
As far as "understanding" ,,,, there are some fairly sharp minds that frequent this forum. Most are active in attempting to reshape the political landscape. With some successes.
but join in, there is always room for more. You might even learn something.

[Agnapostate]

I'm glad. I'm just hoping I won't be regarded as disruptive by the mods if I posted a few civil but oppositional threads intended to facilitate constructive discussion.