I am tired of hearing "We should go back the times of our fore fathers", "We need to do it exactly as the founders planned it", "We need to end this socialism and get back to good old George Washington Capitalism".
1. Sorry everyone but while these men were intelligent and brave, this does not make there 300+ year old opinions relevant in today's age.
2. An extension on this, taking verses from the Old Testament a more than 2,000 year old book is not a good idea, granted that perhaps, things may have changed in the past couple thousand years. ( Mostly turned towards using bible against gay rights)
3. Not all the founding fathers were all that together in the head, not stupid mind you, but somewhat crazy. Thomas Jefferson was very racist and very hard to deal with at times.
4. They did not take pride in there work all the time, George Washington only became president because he had to.
5. Some of the founding fathers were atheist! *GASP*, they strongly believed in the separation of church and state, and the right for men to not have religion hang over there lives like some requirement or standard.
90% of the people who talk about stuff like that don't have a clue about the Constitution past the first 2 amendments. Let alone what the word amendment means.
Don't know if there has ever been a time in America where historical revision has been so approved of or treat ignorance as a virtue.
Piston Honda wrote:Don't know if there has ever been a time in America where historical revision has been so approved of or treat ignorance as a virtue.
Don't you think a statement like this is just another form of referring back to "the good old days?" Back in the day, we didn't have as much historical revisionism and people weren't as ignorant!
But seriously though, there definitely have been other times. The Red Scare comes to mind, and I'm sure there were others.
Piston Honda wrote:Don't know if there has ever been a time in America where historical revision has been so approved of or treat ignorance as a virtue.
Don't you think a statement like this is just another form of referring back to "the good old days?" Back in the day, we didn't have as much historical revisionism and people weren't as ignorant!
But seriously though, there definitely have been other times. The Red Scare comes to mind, and I'm sure there were others.
It has more to do with purposely changing history to conform your beliefs just being ignorant of history and being proud of it. Rather than admitting your are wrong or stupid, it makes one look better to just change history. Even after they were proven wrong, people will put their fingers in the ears if it does not agree with their inexorable thoughts.
Not sure if this concept is growing or it is just more under the spotlight, but historical revisionists need to be looked down upon.
Just one question-who's this George Washington guy? You mean the peanut butter dude? Good call-we should go back to the good old days of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches-back to when we were all in elementary school and the worst thing in our lives was when we forgot to do our math sheet and missed recess. That is what you meant, right?
Alexzandvar wrote:I am tired of hearing "We should go back the times of our fore fathers", "We need to do it exactly as the founders planned it", "We need to end this socialism and get back to good old George Washington Capitalism".
1. Sorry everyone but while these men were intelligent and brave, this does not make there 300+ year old opinions relevant in today's age.
2012-1783 =229
5. Some of the founding fathers were atheist! *GASP*, they strongly believed in the separation of church and state, and the right for men to not have religion hang over there lives like some requirement or standard.
First atheists: prove it.
Second one statement disagrees with the other. "those old ideas are dumb"..."unless I agree with them"
Some people claim Jefferson was an atheist people he didn't agree with parts of the bible. Or they read some blog on the internet which is Loosey Goosey with its facts.
Piston Honda wrote:Don't know if there has ever been a time in America where historical revision has been so approved of or treat ignorance as a virtue.
Don't you think a statement like this is just another form of referring back to "the good old days?" Back in the day, we didn't have as much historical revisionism and people weren't as ignorant!
But seriously though, there definitely have been other times. The Red Scare comes to mind, and I'm sure there were others.
It has more to do with purposely changing history to conform your beliefs just being ignorant of history and being proud of it. Rather than admitting your are wrong or stupid, it makes one look better to just change history. Even after they were proven wrong, people will put their fingers in the ears if it does not agree with their inexorable thoughts.
Not sure if this concept is growing or it is just more under the spotlight, but historical revisionists need to be looked down upon.
Oh, I agree with you that changing history to conform to your beliefs is not a particularly good thing. I'm just saying it's definitely not a new thing.
In before frazz complaining about christian bashing threads
Frazz only jumps in on threads where weiner dogs take over the planet. They'd probably do a better job than us too. Hell, I'd vote a weiner dog into office. Would have done a better job than some idiots who made up their own words, ran away from war and passed college only cause daddy paid off the dean. Oops, guess I'm only talking about one guy. Weiner is better than Bush. I said it.
In before frazz complaining about christian bashing threads
Frazz only jumps in on threads where weiner dogs take over the planet. They'd probably do a better job than us too. Hell, I'd vote a weiner dog into office. Would have done a better job than some idiots who made up their own words, ran away from war and passed college only cause daddy paid off the dean. Oops, guess I'm only talking about one guy. Weiner is better than Bush. I said it.
As long as the Weiner isn't a republican or democrat I'd vote for it.
Piston Honda wrote:Don't know if there has ever been a time in America where historical revision has been so approved of or treat ignorance as a virtue.
Don't you think a statement like this is just another form of referring back to "the good old days?" Back in the day, we didn't have as much historical revisionism and people weren't as ignorant!
But seriously though, there definitely have been other times. The Red Scare comes to mind, and I'm sure there were others.
It has more to do with purposely changing history to conform your beliefs just being ignorant of history and being proud of it. Rather than admitting your are wrong or stupid, it makes one look better to just change history. Even after they were proven wrong, people will put their fingers in the ears if it does not agree with their inexorable thoughts.
Not sure if this concept is growing or it is just more under the spotlight, but historical revisionists need to be looked down upon.
Oh, I agree with you that changing history to conform to your beliefs is not a particularly good thing. I'm just saying it's definitely not a new thing.
I never claimed it was a new thing. I said I never seen or heard of such a time where historical revision was so accepted like it is now. That, or it has just become more apparent with TV and internet.
I never claimed it was a new thing. I said I never seen or heard of such a time where historical revision was so accepted like it is now. That, or it has just become more apparent with TV and internet.
no kidding, what is up with the history channel and their "aliens did it" campaign.
Piston Honda wrote:Don't know if there has ever been a time in America where historical revision has been so approved of or treat ignorance as a virtue.
Don't you think a statement like this is just another form of referring back to "the good old days?" Back in the day, we didn't have as much historical revisionism and people weren't as ignorant!
But seriously though, there definitely have been other times. The Red Scare comes to mind, and I'm sure there were others.
It has more to do with purposely changing history to conform your beliefs just being ignorant of history and being proud of it. Rather than admitting your are wrong or stupid, it makes one look better to just change history. Even after they were proven wrong, people will put their fingers in the ears if it does not agree with their inexorable thoughts.
Not sure if this concept is growing or it is just more under the spotlight, but historical revisionists need to be looked down upon.
Oh, I agree with you that changing history to conform to your beliefs is not a particularly good thing. I'm just saying it's definitely not a new thing.
I never claimed it was a new thing. I said I never seen or heard of such a time where historical revision was so accepted like it is now. That, or it has just become more apparent with TV and internet.
I realize you never claimed it was a new thing, you said you didn't know. That's why I posted that it definitely wasn't new, and provided an example from the past to support my claim. I can provide more, if the first one wasn't satisfactory.
Alexzandvar wrote:I am tired of hearing "We should go back the times of our fore fathers", "We need to do it exactly as the founders planned it", "We need to end this socialism and get back to good old George Washington Capitalism".
1. Sorry everyone but while these men were intelligent and brave, this does not make there 300+ year old opinions relevant in today's age.
2. An extension on this, taking verses from the Old Testament a more than 2,000 year old book is not a good idea, granted that perhaps, things may have changed in the past couple thousand years. ( Mostly turned towards using bible against gay rights)
Now I am no Doctor of Mathology, but I think you may have massaged these numbers a bit.
Alexzandvar wrote:I am tired of hearing "We should go back the times of our fore fathers", "We need to do it exactly as the founders planned it", "We need to end this socialism and get back to good old George Washington Capitalism".
1. Sorry everyone but while these men were intelligent and brave, this does not make there 300+ year old opinions relevant in today's age.
2. An extension on this, taking verses from the Old Testament a more than 2,000 year old book is not a good idea, granted that perhaps, things may have changed in the past couple thousand years. ( Mostly turned towards using bible against gay rights)
Now I am no Doctor of Mathology, but I think you may have massaged these numbers a bit.
well the ideas the founding fathers borrowed from where around since SPARTA!!!!!!, and that damn england proclimation I cant think of the name of right now so democracy is 2kish years old as well. new testament 1862ish years ago.
Some ideas will stand the test of time, but I didn't think this thread was serious so why nit pick over facts
Alexzandvar wrote:I am tired of hearing "We should go back the times of our fore fathers", "We need to do it exactly as the founders planned it", "We need to end this socialism and get back to good old George Washington Capitalism".
1. Sorry everyone but while these men were intelligent and brave, this does not make there 300+ year old opinions relevant in today's age.
2. An extension on this, taking verses from the Old Testament a more than 2,000 year old book is not a good idea, granted that perhaps, things may have changed in the past couple thousand years. ( Mostly turned towards using bible against gay rights)
Now I am no Doctor of Mathology, but I think you may have massaged these numbers a bit.
well the ideas the founding fathers borrowed from where around since SPARTA!!!!!!, and that damn england proclimation I cant think of the name of right now so democracy is 2kish years old as well. new testament 1862ish years ago.
Some ideas will stand the test of time, but I didn't think this thread was serious so why nit pick over facts
What ideas from Sparta were those? Hukking chiodren with defects over a cliff, or sending them off to grow up in a camp and learn to be warriors?
Alexzandvar wrote:I am tired of hearing "We should go back the times of our fore fathers", "We need to do it exactly as the founders planned it", "We need to end this socialism and get back to good old George Washington Capitalism".
1. Sorry everyone but while these men were intelligent and brave, this does not make there 300+ year old opinions relevant in today's age.
2. An extension on this, taking verses from the Old Testament a more than 2,000 year old book is not a good idea, granted that perhaps, things may have changed in the past couple thousand years. ( Mostly turned towards using bible against gay rights)
Now I am no Doctor of Mathology, but I think you may have massaged these numbers a bit.
well the ideas the founding fathers borrowed from where around since SPARTA!!!!!!, and that damn england proclimation I cant think of the name of right now so democracy is 2kish years old as well. new testament 1862ish years ago.
Some ideas will stand the test of time, but I didn't think this thread was serious so why nit pick over facts
What ideas from Sparta were those? Hukking chiodren with defects over a cliff, or sending them off to grow up in a camp and learn to be warriors?
they're often credit with the first working democracy and if they had fell then the idea of democracy might have died with them.
The big problem I have with the Founding Fathers is how people will say they beleived something, as if the Founding Fathers were a single hive mind, who achieved absolute consensus on how everything ought to be (and of course their conclusions just happen to line up exactly with the speaker).
They were a diverse group of people with a diverse group of beliefs. They didn't reach absolute consensus on the best form of government, but had difference arguments gain political ascendancy at different times. They were the politicians of the day.
sebster wrote:The big problem I have with the Founding Fathers is how people will say they beleived something, as if the Founding Fathers were a single hive mind, who achieved absolute consensus on how everything ought to be (and of course their conclusions just happen to line up exactly with the speaker).
They were a diverse group of people with a diverse group of beliefs. They didn't reach absolute consensus on the best form of government, but had difference arguments gain political ascendancy at different times. They were the politicians of the day.
The Founding Fathers wanted me to be king. It's in thier secret diaries I can publish some of thier quotes that name me and declare me the one true and divine Catholic King of the Americas.
sebster wrote:The big problem I have with the Founding Fathers is how people will say they beleived something, as if the Founding Fathers were a single hive mind, who achieved absolute consensus on how everything ought to be (and of course their conclusions just happen to line up exactly with the speaker).
They were a diverse group of people with a diverse group of beliefs. They didn't reach absolute consensus on the best form of government, but had difference arguments gain political ascendancy at different times. They were the politicians of the day.
The Founding Fathers wanted me to be king. It's in thier secret diaries I can publish some of thier quotes that name me and declare me the one true and divine Catholic King of the Americas.
Ah, but you missed the corollary where they declared me to be space-pope. So bow down and kiss my multihued robes, my space-son.
AustonT wrote:The Founding Fathers wanted me to be king. It's in thier secret diaries I can publish some of thier quotes that name me and declare me the one true and divine Catholic King of the Americas.
Well, given you can find a Jefferson quote to support just about any position imaginable, it really wouldn't surprise if you had some quote of his supporting your claim as the one true and divine Catholic King.
Edit, Or possibly you could just get David Barton to claim that it's true for you. Convince him that you becoming divine King of the Americas* is an essential part of winning the culture war in America, and he'll put it in one of his bestselling books. And that means Beck will love you. It means you'll get to speak at Palin's fundraisers. You'll might not be King of the Americas, but you'll soon be King of the Crazies.
*He's evangelical so you'll have to drop the Catholic bit.
Alexzandvar wrote:I am tired of hearing "We should go back the times of our fore fathers", "We need to do it exactly as the founders planned it", "We need to end this socialism and get back to good old George Washington Capitalism".
1. Sorry everyone but while these men were intelligent and brave, this does not make there 300+ year old opinions relevant in today's age.
2012-1783 =229
5. Some of the founding fathers were atheist! *GASP*, they strongly believed in the separation of church and state, and the right for men to not have religion hang over there lives like some requirement or standard.
First atheists: prove it.
Second one statement disagrees with the other. "those old ideas are dumb"..."unless I agree with them"
Did this rant actually have a point?
It supports that, in addition to the fact it should be illegal to vote if you're under 21, you shouldn't be able to voice opinions about the past unless you're over 21?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:Oh this should be interesting.
In before frazz complaining about christian bashing threads
Grumble grumble!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:
timetowaste85 wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:Oh this should be interesting.
In before frazz complaining about christian bashing threads
Frazz only jumps in on threads where weiner dogs take over the planet. They'd probably do a better job than us too. Hell, I'd vote a weiner dog into office. Would have done a better job than some idiots who made up their own words, ran away from war and passed college only cause daddy paid off the dean. Oops, guess I'm only talking about one guy. Weiner is better than Bush. I said it.
As long as the Weiner isn't a republican or democrat I'd vote for it.
Wiener Dog Party 2012: They'll stop the Crab People, for YOU!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote:
AustonT wrote:
sebster wrote:The big problem I have with the Founding Fathers is how people will say they beleived something, as if the Founding Fathers were a single hive mind, who achieved absolute consensus on how everything ought to be (and of course their conclusions just happen to line up exactly with the speaker).
They were a diverse group of people with a diverse group of beliefs. They didn't reach absolute consensus on the best form of government, but had difference arguments gain political ascendancy at different times. They were the politicians of the day.
The Founding Fathers wanted me to be king. It's in thier secret diaries I can publish some of thier quotes that name me and declare me the one true and divine Catholic King of the Americas.
Ah, but you missed the corollary where they declared me to be space-pope. So bow down and kiss my multihued robes, my space-son.
I for one welcome our new Space Pope Overlords, and will quietly narc out all who oppose them.
The title about "Found Fathers" gave me hope that this was a thread about Maury Povitch DNA testing. imagine my dissapointment when I find it's a poorly thought out thread with some very weak arguments about the founding fathers.
I always imagined those people were actors. Never for the life of me could I understand what would compel you to willingly participate in shows like those.
daedalus wrote:I always imagined those people were actors. Never for the life of me could I understand what would compel you to willingly participate in shows like those.
I saw a documentary on these shows so I'm an expert. :-) A lot of the people are paid for exclusive interviews and for them to show up. The people (mostly poor and uneducated) get a free trip to Hollywood and some spending cash for their troubles. Behind the scenes, the producers goad them and tell them to put on a "good show" for their money.
Also, I am severely disappointed in this thread. All this talk of the Founding Fathers and no mention of George Washington's 30 dicks?
Following might be NWS so proceed ahead at etc etc yadda yadda
sirlynchmob wrote:well the ideas the founding fathers borrowed from where around since SPARTA!!!!!!, and that damn england proclimation I cant think of the name of right now so democracy is 2kish years old as well. new testament 1862ish years ago.
Some ideas will stand the test of time, but I didn't think this thread was serious so why nit pick over facts
What ideas from Sparta were those? Hukking chiodren with defects over a cliff, or sending them off to grow up in a camp and learn to be warriors?
they're often credit with the first working democracy and if they had fell then the idea of democracy might have died with them.
Methinks somebody meant to say Athens, not Sparta.
Also, if you think that the ideas of Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin, or indeed those of their Enlightenment contemporaries like Rousseau and Locke, are not relevant to the modern world, then you probably haven't read them.
juraigamer wrote:The basis' of the founding fathers can't be farther from what's going on with the US' current state.
And yet, people try to convince others that it's the other way around.
I heard Glenn Beck give a diatribe about how he no longer supports Teddy R because he "discorvered" Teddy's progressive policies. I feel like when he started and ran under the "Progressive Party" ticket that should have been a clue a 7 year old would pick up on. He still spouts about how great Abe Lincoln was, I wonder when he'll "discover" that Lincoln was an early Marxist and a Progressive too. People believe what they want to believe, and the thoughts, motivations, and acts of the Founding Fathers were very different from ours, and have to be seen through an anachronistic lens. Making sweeping generalizations like your quote are as untrue as saying that what's going on now is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers intended; you don't know either way.
Really? The theoretical reactions of a bunch of rich, white slave owners forming a country out of a rebellion in a time centuries ago when women were barely considered people might not be the best way to gauge potential changes for a diverse world power in our day and age? I am shocked and offended.
juraigamer wrote:The basis' of the founding fathers can't be farther from what's going on with the US' current state.
And yet, people try to convince others that it's the other way around.
I heard Glenn Beck give a diatribe about how he no longer supports Teddy R because he "discorvered" Teddy's progressive policies. I feel like when he started and ran under the "Progressive Party" ticket that should have been a clue a 7 year old would pick up on. He still spouts about how great Abe Lincoln was, I wonder when he'll "discover" that Lincoln was an early Marxist and a Progressive too. People believe what they want to believe, and the thoughts, motivations, and acts of the Founding Fathers were very different from ours, and have to be seen through an anachronistic lens. Making sweeping generalizations like your quote are as untrue as saying that what's going on now is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers intended; you don't know either way.
O_o And yet Teddy R is repeatedly considered one of the best presidents we've ever had!
And I'd say we can look to the writings, letters, other written records of the founding fathers' thoughts re: government and body politic to see what they'd think of our current state.
I mean, I can't, because I haven't read it all, but surely there are some people who can.
Alexzandvar wrote:I am tired of hearing "We should go back the times of our fore fathers", "We need to do it exactly as the founders planned it", "We need to end this socialism and get back to good old George Washington Capitalism".
1. Sorry everyone but while these men were intelligent and brave, this does not make there 300+ year old opinions relevant in today's age.
2. An extension on this, taking verses from the Old Testament a more than 2,000 year old book is not a good idea, granted that perhaps, things may have changed in the past couple thousand years. ( Mostly turned towards using bible against gay rights)
3. Not all the founding fathers were all that together in the head, not stupid mind you, but somewhat crazy. Thomas Jefferson was very racist and very hard to deal with at times.
4. They did not take pride in there work all the time, George Washington only became president because he had to.
5. Some of the founding fathers were atheist! *GASP*, they strongly believed in the separation of church and state, and the right for men to not have religion hang over there lives like some requirement or standard.
This man is a heretic, a witch, a liar, a scoundrel, a terrorist and unpatriotic! HANG HIM!!!!!
I agree with you through and through. What really drives me insane about the religious wingnuts is that they go on about the grace of god even though it clearly says in the old testament he was a god all for the rape, murder, pillaging and wide-scale genocide, and not just of his own followers! It's also highly amusing to see people mis-apply Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Example: for some reason people equate the managerial elite as a necessary element of capitalism, even though said managerial elite is what kills and grinds capitalism to a stand-still and is in reality a core element in any Marxist system. Key word? [i]manage[i]ment.
What really gets me though, is that people insist on calling the joke we have for an electoral system (Doesn't matter where in the world you are) "democracy", because, as a point of fact, you vote only once every few years on which crook(s) you want to rob/ruin you. There are never any public refferenda, now public votes on issues, nothing. Polling the public is a load of crap because you can easilly skew the results by pre-emptively selecting only individuals that will speak in a certain way, and political activism is also a load of crap, because instead of creating fairness or equality in circumstances it creates only inequality. A propelry functioning system requires complete disinterest in something so that attempts to satisfy specific parties are not made... (Read: The Unconscious Civilization by JR Saul)
Alexzandvar wrote:I am tired of hearing "We should go back the times of our fore fathers", "We need to do it exactly as the founders planned it", "We need to end this socialism and get back to good old George Washington Capitalism".
1. Sorry everyone but while these men were intelligent and brave, this does not make there 300+ year old opinions relevant in today's age.
2012-1783 =229
5. Some of the founding fathers were atheist! *GASP*, they strongly believed in the separation of church and state, and the right for men to not have religion hang over there lives like some requirement or standard.
First atheists: prove it.
Second one statement disagrees with the other. "those old ideas are dumb"..."unless I agree with them"
Did this rant actually have a point?
They were not Atheists, mostly Deists and couple were Unitarian.
I personally dont see whats so bad about holding our Forefathers in such high regard. They actually had enough and put a stop to the BS that was going on at the time. Unlike us currently, we sit at our computers, bitching on forums and pretending to be well educated badasses, and then log off and watch some TJ Hooker or something. They actually did something that mattered, I can respect that
KingCracker wrote:I personally dont see whats so bad about holding our Forefathers in such high regard. They actually had enough and put a stop to the BS that was going on at the time. Unlike us currently, we sit at our computers, bitching on forums and pretending to be well educated badasses, and then log off and watch some TJ Hooker or something. They actually did something that mattered, I can respect that
There is a difference between holding something in high regard and transforming it into some monolithic deity worship.
There were also people then that didn't do that much as well as people complaining that people used to get more done in the past. There are also people alive today that get things done and do things to put an end to what they see as the BS of our time.
KingCracker wrote:I personally dont see whats so bad about holding our Forefathers in such high regard. They actually had enough and put a stop to the BS that was going on at the time. Unlike us currently, we sit at our computers, bitching on forums and pretending to be well educated badasses, and then log off and watch some TJ Hooker or something. They actually did something that mattered, I can respect that
Now see here, KC-that's too rational. Internet pissing and witch hunts are far more enjoyable. I find I can agree on going back to how the forefathers acted for one reason: the wigs they wore. I think England does it still, and I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that Obama would be cooler if he rocked a big, white wig.
KingCracker wrote:I personally dont see whats so bad about holding our Forefathers in such high regard. They actually had enough and put a stop to the BS that was going on at the time. Unlike us currently, we sit at our computers, bitching on forums and pretending to be well educated badasses, and then log off and watch some TJ Hooker or something. They actually did something that mattered, I can respect that
Now see here, KC-that's too rational. Internet pissing and witch hunts are far more enjoyable. I find I can agree on going back to how the forefathers acted for one reason: the wigs they wore. I think England does it still, and I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that Obama would be cooler if he rocked a big, white wig.
I think your right, as far as the wigs go anyways. At least, thats how they do it on the UK version of Law and Order. The judges and whatnots. Strange people those Brits
KingCracker wrote:I personally dont see whats so bad about holding our Forefathers in such high regard. They actually had enough and put a stop to the BS that was going on at the time. Unlike us currently, we sit at our computers, bitching on forums and pretending to be well educated badasses, and then log off and watch some TJ Hooker or something. They actually did something that mattered, I can respect that
respecting our predecessors is one thing, going back and using their mentality, methodology, reasoning and solutions to problems is another. By and large, people, behavior and politics don't change, what does change is the speed with which things happen, and the volume of different factions they have to deal with. NOW! all that said, as time has gone on, enough has changed over 300 years that the original unifying forces behind the US are no longer valid as the political circumstances have changed. All those things the fathers of the United States fought after.... wellllll... by and large, it's been had, and as the media spins it, everyone still has it. If you had those exact individuals with their mentalities again today, they would be part of that fringe crouwd, gunslinging and trying to tear down the country and rebuild it from the west, because I just don't see that they would agree with the current system.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OH! while were on this topic, I would like to educate you about John A. MacDonald!
He is one of our founding fathers, and he's an interesting character.
For starters, he has a mop of unruly curly hair, and a massive nose visible from the far side of the rockies. The man was inarguably a bigot, and a drunkard like you wouldn't believe. I'm not joking, he was a disastrous, terrible drunk. As it happens, during one particular campaigning evening, he and his Liberal counterpart were goign to argue their points and receive questions from the crowd. As per usual, he stumbles onto the venue, very very late, and very very drunk. He stumbles to his podium in the closing moments of his counterpart's speech. When the fellow finished his oration, our MacDonald, unable to restrain himself any further, proceeded to retch across the entire podium. At the very least, he WAS a statesman, so he "disguised" it as disgust at the Liberal's platform.
So do I REALLY want to venerate this man that's the father of our Canadian confederacy? I say no, because, I'd be happier in a canada without quebec, and because he really was a drunken lout.
Just a couple months ago I was lamenting to my friend who works at an arcade restaurant about how the overall quality and variety of arcade games has diminished since our youth. Along with the actual arcades. When I took my wife home to Montana we had to do some shopping...you know because I have a wife. And at every mall from my childhood I would point to hat stores, shoe stores, and similar useless vendors and say, "that used to be an arcade." What happened America? What happened.
I remember when the arcade was king. It was a fun time. Street Fighter 2, Mortal Kombat II, House of the Dead, Lethal Enforcers, Starblade, T-Mek, Ninja Turtles, X-Men, Aliens vs. Predator, etc. etc.
The founding fathers would be disgusted if they knew the sorry state of arcade games today.
I remember x-men, battle toads, spiderman, turtles, street fighter, MK, children of the atom, x-men vs. SF, house of the dead, skeeball, primal rage and others. Any I could buy on consoles, I did. Everything else I downloaded on MAME. Bring em back, I'll buy em. No arcades makes me sad. And I agree-Jefferson would be pissed at the lack of arcades these days. Washington cheated at skeeball anyway. Guy had no honor-I hear he pantsed Cornwallace at a diplomatic meeting and made fun of all British...members.
AustonT wrote:I heard Glenn Beck give a diatribe about how he no longer supports Teddy R because he "discorvered" Teddy's progressive policies. I feel like when he started and ran under the "Progressive Party" ticket that should have been a clue a 7 year old would pick up on. He still spouts about how great Abe Lincoln was, I wonder when he'll "discover" that Lincoln was an early Marxist and a Progressive too. People believe what they want to believe, and the thoughts, motivations, and acts of the Founding Fathers were very different from ours, and have to be seen through an anachronistic lens. Making sweeping generalizations like your quote are as untrue as saying that what's going on now is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers intended; you don't know either way.
I suspect Beck dropped things like 'discovering' Roosevelt's progressive politics into his rants because they give so much joy to the liberals watching his show, which reportedly make up a large portion of his audience.
I mean, we all know Beck is a complete tool, but behind him there's a large production staff who'd look over his scripts, fact check and do all that stuff. The idea that something like your story above would sneak through without anyone saying 'uh, Glenn, this makes you look really stupid' is impossible, so the only alternative is to believe it's put in there quite deliberately.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
poda_t wrote:There are never any public refferenda, now public votes on issues, nothing.
Umm, yes there are. I mean your statement there is just in direct contrast to reality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:There is a difference between holding something in high regard and transforming it into some monolithic deity worship.
There were also people then that didn't do that much as well as people complaining that people used to get more done in the past. There are also people alive today that get things done and do things to put an end to what they see as the BS of our time.
poda_t wrote:There are never any public refferenda, now public votes on issues, nothing.
Umm, yes there are. I mean your statement there is just in direct contrast to reality.
Come to my neck of the woods. Only British Columbia and Quebec seem to have any refferenda, BC because they are progressive, Quebec because they can't stop whining about seceding from canada (I wish they would just bloody damn do it so they would stop stealing money from the rest of canada)
poda_t wrote:Come to my neck of the woods. Only British Columbia and Quebec seem to have any refferenda, BC because they are progressive, Quebec because they can't stop whining about seceding from canada (I wish they would just bloody damn do it so they would stop stealing money from the rest of canada)
Why would I come to your neck of the woods to know your claim wasn't true? To add your previous sentence in for context;
"What really gets me though, is that people insist on calling the joke we have for an electoral system (Doesn't matter where in the world you are) "democracy", because, as a point of fact, you vote only once every few years on which crook(s) you want to rob/ruin you. There are never any public refferenda, now public votes on issues, nothing."
You said it doesn't matter where you are in the world, there's no democracy. And to establish this you said there were never any public referendums. That plainly is not true.
azazel the cat wrote:I kinda wish y'all would stop calling them the "founding fathers" and instead start referring to them as "The Great Old Ones"
Only if you rename your houses of government the House of Syrup and the House of Pancakes, and the Prime minister shall become the Griddlemaster General.
So, do you think the fact that the US has the Founding Fathers is a good thing or not? Given that people try and second-guess what they actually meant, their motivations etc.
Looking in from a country that has effectively ambled along into its current position it seems that concerning yourselves with the Founding Fathers makes things... less flexible.
Lux_Lucis wrote:So, do you think the fact that the US has the Founding Fathers is a good thing or not? Given that people try and second-guess what they actually meant, their motivations etc.
Looking in from a country that has effectively ambled along into its current position it seems that concerning yourselves with the Founding Fathers makes things... less flexible.
It is a double edged power axe. On one hand we can look back and have a rudder that can be used to guide our noble nation. On the other, these are all men who have been dead a long time who lived in a world so different to ours as to be unrecognizable to today.
The big issue is that people project what they want out of them using their own filters. With what has been written, and what they indeed wrote, it is easy to cherry pick a quote to support your argument.
"During the course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the number and quality of video game arcades has been drastically reduced. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety." - Thomas Jefferson
I think Thomas Jefferson's stance on arcades is pretty clear, actually. I agree that Great Old Ones is a way cooler title than Founding Fathers as well.
AustonT wrote:Only if you rename your houses of government the House of Syrup and the House of Pancakes, and the Prime minister shall become the Griddlemaster General.
When I was in the US it took a silly amount of time to figure out what you guys meant when you kept talking about griddles. Silly Americans, call things by their names please.
AustonT wrote:Only if you rename your houses of government the House of Syrup and the House of Pancakes, and the Prime minister shall become the Griddlemaster General.
When I was in the US it took a silly amount of time to figure out what you guys meant when you kept talking about griddles. Silly Americans, call things by their names please.
This is a griddle...as far as I know it doesn't have another name. They are commonly used by restaurants...there are smaller versions for home use, which are next to useless. I'll add a second img anyway. Anyway, what would you call that in OZ?
AustonT wrote:Only if you rename your houses of government the House of Syrup and the House of Pancakes, and the Prime minister shall become the Griddlemaster General.
When I was in the US it took a silly amount of time to figure out what you guys meant when you kept talking about griddles. Silly Americans, call things by their names please.
This is a griddle...as far as I know it doesn't have another name. They are commonly used by restaurants...there are smaller versions for home use, which are next to useless. I'll add a second img anyway. Anyway, what would you call that in OZ?
If it's outside we call it a barbeque, if its inside and either next to or on top of the oven we call it a hotplate, as God intended.
But a barbeque is a heat source with a grill type thingy holding the cooked item above it, a griddle is a heated flat surface. Its like saying an oven is the same as a stove.
Bromsy wrote:But a barbeque is a heat source with a grill type thingy holding the cooked item above it, a griddle is a heated flat surface. Its like saying an oven is the same as a stove.
Or that a stove outside is a barbeque.
How to speak Austrailian.
Barbie
Girlfriend:
Beer:
Spoiler:
Just taking a piss on the girlfriend...it just totally worked.
Bromsy wrote:But a barbeque is a heat source with a grill type thingy holding the cooked item above it, a griddle is a heated flat surface. Its like saying an oven is the same as a stove.
Or that a stove outside is a barbeque.
How to speak Austrailian.
Barbie
Girlfriend:
Beer:
Funnily enough, no-one in Australia has ever drunk a can of Fosters. Basically it got marketed as the Australian beer to overseas markets because they couldn't sell any of the stuff here. And kangaroos make terrible girlfriends, because they never put out, the frigid bitches.
Oh, and all those Outback Steakhouses you have over there are completely silly. There's no such thing as steakhouses in Australia. We eat plenty of steak but we just serve it in restaurants and pubs alongside other food. The only thing we have that's a steakhouse is this franchise that started about ten years ago and hasn't ever done very well called 'Lonestar Steakhouse' which is Texas themed.
I wouldn't say "no" Australian has EVER had Foster's. I have it on good authority that once upon a time it was quite popular in the OZ. Kind of like Rainier here in the states the 80's were not kind. I was reminded of Rainier's once great status by of all god forsaken things the Twilight movies. I glimpsed that classic R on Chief Swans table and recalled my misspent youth. I'm not surprised it's unpopular Fosters tastes like ass, and if I want a gakky Lager I don't have to pay for Fosters. I figured most people would be aware of the How to Speak Austrailian ad campaign though.
I have been to Outback exactly twice. I'm not surprised it doesn't originate in Rooland, few restaurants actually bear any ties to thier theme. Lone Star is from Miami, the Texas Roadhouse is from Illinois. But as this is how our conversation got here; I found this delectable:
Wikipedia on Outback Steakhouse wrote: steaks are prepared on a griddle using butter as a heat transfer medium
Bromsy wrote:But a barbeque is a heat source with a grill type thingy holding the cooked item above it, a griddle is a heated flat surface. Its like saying an oven is the same as a stove.
Or that a stove outside is a barbeque.
How to speak Austrailian.
Barbie
Girlfriend:
Beer:
Funnily enough, no-one in Australia has ever drunk a can of Fosters. Basically it got marketed as the Australian beer to overseas markets because they couldn't sell any of the stuff here. And kangaroos make terrible girlfriends, because they never put out, the frigid bitches.
Oh, and all those Outback Steakhouses you have over there are completely silly. There's no such thing as steakhouses in Australia. We eat plenty of steak but we just serve it in restaurants and pubs alongside other food. The only thing we have that's a steakhouse is this franchise that started about ten years ago and hasn't ever done very well called 'Lonestar Steakhouse' which is Texas themed.
Man, you just destroyed a long held and cherished illusion. For years I had fantasies of going to Australia, going to a real Aussie steakhouse and drinking lager from a gallon can. I guess when I finally get there, Paul Hogan probably wont grill shrimp for me either. I suppose I will have to content myself with the rich culture, great mutton, and pretty women named Shelia.
treadhead1944 wrote:Man, you just destroyed a long held and cherished illusion. For years I had fantasies of going to Australia, going to a real Aussie steakhouse and drinking lager from a gallon can. I guess when I finally get there, Paul Hogan probably wont grill shrimp for me either. I suppose I will have to content myself with the rich culture, great mutton, and pretty women named Shelia.
Nah, some gigantic spider or ultra-venomous snake or insect will kill you the second you set your foot of the plane!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Wiener Dog Party 2012: They'll stop the Crab People, for YOU!
Now, I'm no Doctor of Wienerology, but that dog is about to get Crabbed!
treadhead1944 wrote:Man, you just destroyed a long held and cherished illusion. For years I had fantasies of going to Australia, going to a real Aussie steakhouse and drinking lager from a gallon can. I guess when I finally get there, Paul Hogan probably wont grill shrimp for me either. I suppose I will have to content myself with the rich culture, great mutton, and pretty women named Shelia.
Nah, some gigantic spider or ultra-venomous snake or insect will kill you the second you set your foot of the plane!
I have a hat with strings and corks, will that help?
AustonT wrote:I wouldn't say "no" Australian has EVER had Foster's.
I would. They might have been wearing a hat with corks on it and riding a kangaroo, but if they drank a Fosters then they're not Australian.
Wikipedia on Outback Steakhouse wrote: steaks are prepared on a griddle using butter as a heat transfer medium
Ha! That sums it up perfectly!
You are killing me sebster, just killing me. I'll throw out the hat then, but if I get attacked by a poisonous ANYTHING while in OZ my blood will be on your head. I was right about the mutton though? Please?
Well moving on then. I WAS aware that Fosters owns VB and Corona. I wad also aware that some sort of bootleg restriction has meant VB is sold in ONE liquor store in San Fransico or some nonsense. Armed with the knowledge of VBs Mexican connection I saw a newly marketed Mexican beer called Victoria. Thinking, "Finally, Miller has decided to goad those OZ bastards into brewing VB in Mexico for my enjoyment!" I was wrong, that beer was an offense to nearly all of my senses at once. Now I am left hoping Fosters in the green oil can is any good, if it's not I may travel to OZ to disappear into the bush; reappearing to raid beer convoys.
Just walk away.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You could be poisioned by one of those goddamned frogs that have spread from the coast like a bibical plague.
Alexzandvar wrote:I am tired of hearing "We should go back the times of our fore fathers", "We need to do it exactly as the founders planned it", "We need to end this socialism and get back to good old George Washington Capitalism".
1. Sorry everyone but while these men were intelligent and brave, this does not make there 300+ year old opinions relevant in today's age.
2. An extension on this, taking verses from the Old Testament a more than 2,000 year old book is not a good idea, granted that perhaps, things may have changed in the past couple thousand years. ( Mostly turned towards using bible against gay rights)
3. Not all the founding fathers were all that together in the head, not stupid mind you, but somewhat crazy. Thomas Jefferson was very racist and very hard to deal with at times.
4. They did not take pride in there work all the time, George Washington only became president because he had to.
5. Some of the founding fathers were atheist! *GASP*, they strongly believed in the separation of church and state, and the right for men to not have religion hang over there lives like some requirement or standard.
I believe they're refering to the romantic ideal or mythos surrounding the Founding Fathers. Not what the Founding Fathers actually were. I mean George Washington was a plantation owner with all the odious associations that come with that and was interested in acquiring land in the Great Lakes before the war to make himself a landed gentleman; so he advocated ethnic cleansing, if not genocide of the Indians living there. Both of which could be justified by the 'enlightenment' philosophy they followed. Property of the individual was held to be sacred; including slaves. Whilst it was an inevitable part of the civilizing process of refinement that the barbarians give way to the more advanced and civilised society.
By todays standards the man wasn't very nice.
Plus, the winners get to write history. If George the Third had won, then Washington would have had a traitors death, which would have involved being hung, drawn and quartered in London; along with the rest of the Founding Fathers. Had that happened he would have gone down in infamy as a fool who tried to beat the commercial might of the British Empire; much like how the Jacobite leader Bonnie Prince Charlie is viewed.
poda_t wrote:There are never any public refferenda, now public votes on issues, nothing.
Umm, yes there are. I mean your statement there is just in direct contrast to reality.
Come to my neck of the woods. Only British Columbia and Quebec seem to have any refferenda, BC because they are progressive, Quebec because they can't stop whining about seceding from canada (I wish they would just bloody damn do it so they would stop stealing money from the rest of canada)
