| Topic: Was George Washington the 8th President??? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
quiet_2008
on
Thu 06/11/09 08:50 AM
|
|
|
"A prime example of why history is best learned from history books not comic books (or the modern equivalent, web sites of dubious validity)"
-snopes I couldn't have said it better of course some people will say that snopes is biased. right before they copy and paste something from smirkingchimp |
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. As it says on the bottom, there was no such a thing as "united" "states" "of America" and neither any "president" of it. Perhaps a suiting title from me would be " appointed leader of the North American British colonies" or "head of the Independent wannabe Confederation of America" they were the leaders of the terrorist cell trying to over throw the local ruling party
it was what it was Except that's not what it was
Mirror, I'm not sure where you went to school (England?) but yes, that is what it was. Our initial government leaders (Washington et al) would have been (and were, by many) considered to be traitors and terrorists. It is only by the fact that we won the war and many years going by that they are now considered to be heros and great leaders.
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of a revolution we could just respect the democratic election and the peoples choice as a true American should
"True" American's have the right, no the OBLIGATION, to protest what they feel is wrong. If they feel that the current system of government is wrong, not working or whatever, they have the right, obligation and duty to do what is necessary to correct it, including overthrowing the government. Those who disagree with them have these same rights, obligations and duties. It is NOT a "true" American's obligation to just sit back and take whatever our government does that they feel they can get away with. Our government was built on revolution, protest and the right of the people to speak up when they disagree (or agree, as the case may be). Sheesh, basic high school government class. Then whats the point in having an election?
|
|
|
|
|
|
by today's standards...they were terrorists. just like if someone tried to overthrow our current government. England was in charge (which is a government) during that time
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They didn't commit acts of terrorism. They were on their home soil. They tried to lawfully redress their issues with the foreign occupation authorities,and when that didn't work they eventually overthrew the foreign occupation authorities. The Founding Fathers were rational men of Enlightened values not domestic terrorists. Their situation bears no comparison to a small and spoiled misguided group of disgruntled people who lost a lawful democratic election fair and square.
|
|
|
|
|
|
look up "the Boston Massacre"
|
|
|
|
|
They didn't commit acts of terrorism. They were on their home soil. They tried to lawfully redress their issues with the foreign occupation authorities,and when that didn't work they eventually overthrew the foreign occupation authorities. The Founding Fathers were rational men of Enlightened values not domestic terrorists. Their situation bears no comparison to a small and spoiled misguided group of disgruntled people who lost a lawful democratic election fair and square.
DOMESTIC terrorists commit acts on home soil
just because they tried talking first????? so if say....people tried to talk about the stimulus bill and the government does nothing....should they commit terrorist acts??? NO...because they would be terrorists then and unlawful |
|
|
|
|
Respect the right of the American people to elect their lawful and constitutionally elected leaders.
|
|
|
|
|
The current administration was elected in a lawful and fair democratic election by the will of the majority. The peoples right to vote should be respected. End of story a far as I am concerned. Been fascinating discussion Adj4u. Have a great night.
maybe it was and maybe he was there is doubt involved too many voting machine issues and no proof that the machines actually cast the vote as it was instructed why is it no printout of the votes as cast was not given to the voter why is it when voting machines already were having problems that they were still being used ---------------------- and when one tells blatant lies to become the elected official why is there no recourse by the people the only way to remove an elected prez is through a successful impeachment proceedings (which must be done by others that have more than likely done the same things) and (more than likely the president knows it) that works very well as we have seen yes the will of the people should be respected if it is truly the will of the people -- but who says what the will of the people is the election (see above) not everyone was in favor of the actions of those involved in the revolt that lead to independence (there were many loyalist) that supported the british rule what about them should their will have been followed why is it that the federal govt can blatantly turn its back on the constitution and the declaration of independence [these are the basic foundation of the formation of this country] that alone would be enough to lead to a legit uprising by the people if they were inclined to do so (should their will be followed) how many people do you know that say i am not voting it is a waste of time (yes it is wrong to not vote) they could vote third party to let their feelings be known (that they are tired of the main stream politics) what about their will there are a lot of people thus there are a lot of will of the people (why is it the govt wants to take weapons out of the hands of the people) so the will of the people can be crushed???? yes most of the things you have said are good points probably what the loyalist were saying before and during the revolution that lead to the founding of this country |
|
|
|
|
|
there were no elections (that was the issue)----- True
their home soil was british----- Some of them,some not .
the boston teaparty was a terrorist act----- It was an act of protest. Protest is not terrorism.
by todays patriot act they were terrorists---- definately would be considered illegal.
no doubt about it we could rightfully do everything that the founding fathers did ---- It would be rightful to respect the democratic will of the American people.
and for the same reasons and do it to reinstate the constitution---- There was no Constitution when the Revolution happened.
and yes the patriot act would make us terrorists as well---- It would certainly be treason against the American people.
A real American would respect the lawful and democratic choice of the American people. We had a lawful and fair election. The right of the American people to vote for their own representatives and President should be respected. The choice was made. You win some and you loose some. You don't always get what you want. Theres always the next election. That's democracy Thats America.
You just can't seem to grasp several key things. One, because of the patriot act we are pretty much back where we were before the revolution where the government can invade our privacy, steal our money and do nearly anything it pleases under the guise of security. Two, the patriot act has basically gutted our constitution so we no longer really have one. Three, we have little to no say in who our president will be. It may be a lawful election but it is in no way a fair election. We are shown a handful of crooks and told to pick one of them. That's like asking who you'd like to be your executioner. Four, I doubt our forefathers who rebelled and were considered terrorist would probably have similar feelings about where we are at today. I still believe a peaceful solution is possible but things have to change and our constitution must be restored if it's to be avoided over the long haul. |
|
|
|
|
Respect the right of the American people to elect their lawful and constitutionally elected leaders.
If we had the right I would. Truth is that the majority of votes cast in favor of putting Obama in office were votes against that wacko McCain and not because they liked Obama. Simple fact is most modern presidents were elected on the basis that they were simply not as bad as the other guy. |
|
|
|
|
Respect the right of the American people to elect their lawful and constitutionally elected leaders.
If we had the right I would. Truth is that the majority of votes cast in favor of putting Obama in office were votes against that wacko McCain and not because they liked Obama. Simple fact is most modern presidents were elected on the basis that they were simply not as bad as the other guy. you are right Davey...and how many of the people that say accept the elected now...complained about previous people in office...going as far back since the beginning of America???? |
|
|
|
|
|
oh yeah? well Theodore Roosevelt is not my president!!
|
|
|
|
|
I still laugh at the name smirkingchimp I couldn't tsake a site with that name seriously no matter what the site said
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh yeah? well Theodore Roosevelt is not my president!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. As it says on the bottom, there was no such a thing as "united" "states" "of America" and neither any "president" of it. Perhaps a suiting title from me would be " appointed leader of the North American British colonies" or "head of the Independent wannabe Confederation of America" they were the leaders of the terrorist cell trying to over throw the local ruling party
it was what it was Except that's not what it was
yes it was (by todays definition) if not what was it They didn't commit acts of terrorism. They were on their home soil. They tried to lawfully redress their issues with the foreign occupation authorities,and when that didn't work they eventually overthrew the foreign occupation authorities. The Founding Fathers were rational men of Enlightened values not domestic terrorists. Their situation bears no comparison to a small and spoiled misguided group of disgruntled people who lost a lawful democratic election fair and square.
In Massachusetts, rioters ransacked the home of the newly appointed stamp commissioner, Andrew Oliver. He resigned the position the next day. Threatening or attacking the Crown-appointed office-holders became a popular tactic against the act throughout the colonies. Though no stamp commissioner was actually tarred and feathered, this Medieval brutality was a popular form of 18th century mob violence in Great Britain, particularly against tax collectors. . . . By November 1, 1765, the day the Stamp Act was to officially go into effect, there was not a single stamp commissioner left in the colonies to collect the tax. http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/popup_stampact.html These could be viewed as at least quasi terroristic actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
is this a trick question???
|
|
|
|
|
|
is this a trick question???
psst...the answer is D) all the above
at least that is the answer quiet put on his test |
|
|
|
|
|
should I succumb to peer pressure and chose 'D'
what a dilemna???
|
|
|
|
|

Except that's not what it was
Then whats the point in having an election?
They didn't commit acts of terrorism.
True
Some of them,some not