Were America's founding fathers radical liberals? - Page 3

DanteAugustusGermanicus · #21 (**permalink**) 06-22-2008, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fear-And-Loathing

What a great refuting of the evidence I have presented. Oh well, I though you had something in you

Ron Paul is a whack job. He is a political gadfly. That is not to say he doesn't have a following or many good points, but he is mad as a hatter on some issues.

ex: economic ideas, fiscal policy and philosophy

DanteAugustusGermanicus · #22 (**permalink**) 06-22-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRed

Yea, they were probably liberals. But that isn't a bad thing (when you don't use the context of today).

More importantly though, they were hypocrites.

Which ones were hypocrites and on what issues? Context is important

BigRed · #23 (**permalink**) 06-22-2008, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteAugustusGermanicus

Which ones were hypocrites and on what issues? Context is important

Um...all of them.

Freedom.

DanteAugustusGermanicus · #24 (**permalink**) 06-22-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRed

Um...all of them.

Freedom.

nope.

sorry, not all of them

BigRed · #25 (**permalink**) 06-22-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteAugustusGermanicus

nope.

sorry, not all of them

Yes, all of them.

masterproctor · #26 (**permalink**) 06-22-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteAugustusGermanicus

"" but they bare little resemblence to the modern day Liberal movement in the United States.another opinion masquerading as a fact.

Actually its a fact masquerading as...fact. Besides change, the liberal movement of 2008 has little to tie itself with the political positions that the founding fathers had.

Quote:

so the Palestinians when they assassinate soldiers and when the IRA did attacks on Brit soldiers they were not acting like terrorists?

I did not say the colonial army was a terrorist org, but the militias at Lexington and Concord were considered to be terrorists by the standards of the day.

The Continental Army was a recognized fighting force in uniforms and with a code of conduct and ranks...

I don't doubt that the British government considered the colonial militias to be anarchist groups that promoted violence and bloodshed (which I guess might be considered a link to modern day terrorists) but that was just propaganda, and if you take an academic look at what the militias actually did, they did resemble Palestinians and the IRA attacking soldiers. But they did not resemble the Palestinians (whichever group it might be) and the IRA which made it a goal of theirs to spread terror specifically amongst a civilian population to gain notice of the independence movements there.

Had the colonial militias targeted colonial civilians for attacks to spread terror, then I could consider them terrorists using the definition of terrorism, but they didn't, so I don't. Let's not forget the colonial groups (e.g. Sons of Liberty) considered the British to be "terrorists" of sorts through blockades, quartering acts, shootings, etc However, most people don't consider the actions of the British to be terrorism.

DanteAugustusGermanicus · #27 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRed

Yes, all of them.

nope, not all of them

DanteAugustusGermanicus · #28 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteAugustusGermanicus
"" but they bare little resemblence to the modern day Liberal movement in the United States.another opinion masquerading as a fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by masterproctor

Actually its a fact masquerading as...fact. Besides change, the liberal movement of 2008 has little to tie itself with the political positions that the founding fathers had.

Change? That is not the liberal chant of 2008, that is the progressive message of 2008 of both the GOP and the DNC. get yer facts straight bubba.

Liberalism changed America from a colony to a nation and liberalism is not the Democratic party. I know many liberals who were in the GOP and some who stayed after the wing-nuts took over---the GOP.

maybe you need to go back to school?

Quote:

so the Palestinians when they assassinate soldiers and when the IRA did attacks on Brit soldiers they were not acting like terrorists?

I did not say the colonial army was a terrorist org, but the militias at Lexington and Concord were considered to be terrorists by the standards of the day.

The Continental Army was a recognized fighting force in uniforms and with a code of conduct and ranks...

Quote:

Originally Posted by masterproctor

I don't doubt that the British government considered the colonial militias to be anarchist groups that promoted violence and bloodshed (which I guess might be considered a link to modern day terrorists) but that was just propaganda, and if you take an academic look at what the militias actually did, they did resemble Palestinians and the IRA attacking soldiers. But they did not resemble the Palestinians (whichever group it might be) and the IRA which made it a goal of theirs to spread terror specifically amongst a civilian population to gain notice of the independence movements there.

jesus. you're all over the place here trying to justify what you know is bs. You are not at a debating society where taking a position you do not believe in scores you points

Quote:

Originally Posted by masterproctor

Had the colonial militias targeted colonial civilians for attacks to spread terror, then I could consider them terrorists using the definition of terrorism, but they didn't, so I don't. Let's not forget the colonial groups (e.g. Sons of Liberty) considered the British to be "terrorists" of sorts through blockades, quartering acts, shootings, etc However, most people don't consider the actions of the British to be terrorism.

you are making up your own definition. While I agree on some points the basic premise stands

TheChief · #29 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 06:19 AM

Yes they were radical liberals. The irony is that people who call themselves 'liberal' today are the complete opposite of what the founding fathers were! If they looked back now they would be ashamed at every single one of you and how you disrespect the rights they fought and died to bring you. Hears an idea.. if you like control so much go back to britain! Im sure you would love it there!

Lackluster · #30 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheChief

go back to britain! Im sure you would love it there!

Hmmm,

Beer? check

Dogs? check

music? check

Humor? (oops, I meant humour) check

Gardening? check

You are a sensible man, Chief!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What would the founding fathers do?	hendrixpujols11	Political Opinions & Beliefs	6	05-27-2008 08:19 AM
The Founding Fathers and the Jews	gadfly27	Middle East	19	03-15-2008 08:40 PM
The Founding Fathers on War...	Truth-Bringer	Political Opinions & Beliefs	76	03-29-2007 05:33 AM
Jefferson, the Founding Fathers, and taxation	raytri	Budget & Taxes	15	09-26-2006 07:20 AM
Considering what our founding fathers meant...	Printer2	Political Opinions & Beliefs	0	09-04-2004 11:35 PM