Are you "too good" to get a menial wage job or two to make ends meet?

Yup. I am really thankful that I took an advanced history course in high school. I actually kept failing history in high school because I couldn't stand the bull(*)(*)(*)(*). I knew most of it was lies because it just didn't sound human. Everyone was portrayed in this god-like aura. It felt like a painting more than a human story.

My guidance counselor wanted to put me in a slower history class. I told him no. I'm not stupid. I'm just bored. So I made him put me in advanced history. And it was amazing! We read actual journals of the founders. I learned their sins, their regrets and their true desires for this country. A lot of it was well intentioned but they made so many poor choices. Some of which would be just considered evil by modern standards.

 

I think it might be actually good for the country to rewrite the constitution every 50 years or so to keep it progressive. Though I wouldn't be very well versed on the legal mess that would create lol

 

I did a history degree at college, so I went even deeper into that process. However, I left high school still thinking the founders were great. It was only in college, when exposed to the reality of the situation, that I started questioning that nonsense!!

To be fair, for the time, the founders were reasonably progressive people, who were more supportive of liberty than many of their contemporaries. However, as examples for modern society, they fall woefully short. Maybe Paine didn't, but most other people that was the case for.

 

It is still Communism and dead wrong.

 

You are a wonderful example of exactly what is wrong with this country today.
You are a product of an educational system that instills a false sense of intellectualism to cover it's own incompetency of turning out morons that support the degredation of this country.

 

You preclude the possibility of honest debate when you approach a contentious issue by implying your opponent does not have a brain.

I have seen you complain numerous times about trolling, partisanship, and inflammatory remarks, well, you would do well to follow your own advice, because the issue of slavery and the founders is not as simplistic as you are making it out to be.

Several of the founders did not even own slaves, so that immediately undercuts your generalizations.

Two, several of the founders did indeed fight for abolition and were some of the first and most prominent opponents of the institution of slavery.

If it weren't for the early efforts of some of the founders, the abolitionist movement wouldn't have been nearly as strong as it was.

You are taking an incredibly nuanced and complex issue and distilling it into an overly simplistic and self-serving ideological screed.

I cannot believe you would actually try and defend someone who would rather go on welfare than work when there is absolutely nothing wrong with them.

Forget the founders, how would our grandparents or their grandparents look at such an attitude? The idea of someone just refusing to work and immediately going on welfare is truly an awful attitude to have and it perplexes me that you would even defend such a notion while simultaneously smearing our founding fathers.

 

Do you apply this same logic to FDR, a man who put hundreds of thousands of loyal Japanese-Americans into concentrations camps?

How about Abraham Lincoln? Did he fight for the right of women to vote? Did he stem the slaughter of the plains Indians?

 

"The founders" were thrown out as a block of people, NOT BY ME, but by Maat. When throwing them out as a block, the fact is they supported slavery because they decided to create a constitution wherein slavery was legal and constitutionally protected. That means the "founders" were ABSOLUTELY NOT abolitionists. As I pointed out, there were exceptions to this like Paine, Adams, and Franklin but the reality is they were a minority, otherwise slavery wouldn't have become constitutionally protected.


As far as welfare goes, I would never go on welfare, but to be honest I would never have to. I have a wonderfully supportive family, as well as a large subset of skills, and a large list of degrees. I may have to live just scraping by for a while, but welfare would never be a legitimate option. However, I think Tao was talking about unemployment. Something I would probably consider. I have never been in the situation to need it, but if in 10 years I am married with kids and I lose my job, I imagine I would probably take unemployment until I could find a new job. I don't see the problem with that.

 

ummm, no.
Read the Dread Scott Decision.

Slavery is not legal under the constitution.
There were even free black men in the original 13 colonies.

The legal trick (legal tricks are still common today by ignorant (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s with more education than intelligence) was to deny black people were the same species, therefore they were not protected or entitled under the Bill of Rights or Constitution.

The BTurds played this same game with Native Americans.
Read about Ol' Hickory, The Supreme Court and the Trail of Tears.

 

I don't make excuses for them, NO!! I think similarly, by modern standards, those men do not hold up to scrutiny. However, I think FDR is preferable to the founders. I certainly do. He did inter many Japanese Americans, and that was a terrible crime, but he did many things I think were good as well. So it is a mixed bag, as it is with most historical figures. The problem is, with the founders the mix tended to be more bad than good.


PS. As I said, I do make exceptions for people like Thomas Paine who WAS an abolitionist, did have more progressive views towards women, etc. He was hardly a champion of feminism, but for his day he was exceptionally progressive(I mean that in the non-political sense of the term).

 

Of course. I do anyway. People should be judged for both their successes and failures. Otherwise how else do we learn?

 

It really is pretty interesting to watch.... Most of the time they do not want to do anything to add to their usefullness, or skillset, or work multiple jobs etc, to get more for themselves. They seem generally content to mill about and complain about how someone else should force others to give them what they want.

Sort of like the OWS protesters.... "I do not want to work harder..... they have so much... I have so little.... please... government force those that have more than I do to give me more stuff!!!! I deserve it because I want it!!!"

This is sort of the way that it translates out. Seriously.... do you think that any of the OWS protestors has a seriously marketable skillset. Do you see any doctors, lawyers, engineers, plumbers, electricians, etc sitting out there an banging on drums? I wonder why that should be. If large companies are exploiting their workers so badly, you would expect to see even more highly compensated people out there.

Strangely enough, the tea party movement actually DOES have such people in it, and they really DID show up in washington DC not too long ago. It was a huge crowd from what I saw. And again strangely enough, when they left... there was no trash or clutter left at all. I will wager when the OWS people in NYC leave there will be a HUGE clean up bill that someone has to pay.

For some the name of the game is... "How can I get more for doing less" as opposed to "How can I improve myself to get more"

 

I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Slavery was legal under the constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause


"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. "

This is a very pro-constitution source, and even they do not deny that slavery was legal under the constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html

 

How can you make a generalization about a block of people when you admit there are exceptions to that generalization? It makes no sense.

And there were more exceptions than you are leading people to believe. Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, Oliver Ellsworth, Robert Paine, and Roger Sherman did not own slaves.

Others who did own slaves emancipated them in their life or upon their death.

Like I said, it is a complex and nuanced issue.

As for your reference to the 3/5 compromise, you are misrepresenting its purpose. It was not meant to codify slavery but to lessen the representation of slave states in government. If anything, it was an anti-slavery measure as evidenced by the support it garnered from the prominent anti-slavery founders.

Unemployment insurance is meant for people who cannot find a job. Not for people who are too lazy or too proud to work for minimum wage. That kind of an attitude is contributing to the degradation of our welfare system, and it certainly doesn't help persuade your political opponents to continue financing it with their tax dollars.

 

Move to Canada. They have high paying employment available, and need more workers.
You don't have to give up your U.S. citizenship to work there.

 

The mix tended to be more bad than good? They successfully rebelled against monarchy and founded this nation! I'd say that's a pretty good thing. They also codified the philosophy of natural rights in the Deceleration of Independence and US Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, for all his faults, was one of the main reasons why we have a "separation of church and state" today.

You act like he was the only one.

 

And, yet, you summarily dismiss the manifold successes of the founding fathers. Every single right you enjoy was fought for by the founders and codified into the Constitution you continually dismiss.

Freedom of religion, speech, and conscience; the right to keep and bear arms; protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; the right to a speedy and public trial; these are not just abstract ideas but things which are put into practice every single day of your life.

The very nation you live in was their doing. How can you not call that a monumental success?

 

Who didn't own slaves and had progressive views towards women? I say that because if he wasn't the only one, he is among a very small handful of people!!

 

Well, yes, the only prominent one, anyway. Paine was certainly the most progressive of them.

But as it concerns the issue of slavery, Paine was not the only abolitionist.

 

I didn't dismiss anything. They created a wonderful country that was remarkably progressive for the time. I'm just saying their opinions shouldn't be used in modern policy choices because there are of things we consider rights today that the founders would be appalled that we allowed.

 

You aren't dismissing anything, except for all their opinions on policy formation...

And did you ever consider the possibility that they might be justified in being appalled? Our country isn't exactly on the right track.

 

You should go check out some of the occupations. Shouldn't be too hard to find one, wherever you are. You might find that the people are less like a stereotype than you've been lead to believe.

 

This is rich... if the U.S is a free market workplace... why dont we open up our borders to Mexico and South America with work visas... anybody that has a job lined up can get in so long as they dont have a criminal record...

Thats when you hear people like S.M start screaming about them "takin our jobs!" lol

As a person wearing jackboots... I cant wait to see how this little thing plays out.

 

While I do admit freely, I have not gone to any of these events... I did go to youtube to see what other people saw going on there. I thought going to youtube might be a bit more fair of a picture, because there are so many points of view etc. And as we all know new networks tend to slant a story one way or the other.

So feel free... go to youtube yourself and see what I saw... There were one or two people that were coherant, but the vast majority were of the "I want more.... gimme!!!" variety.

In addition... I would suggest (because I already listened to it) going to
http://www.daveramsey.com/specials/...e|5532976226&gclid=CMubjOy5o6wCFUcaQgodimmTDQ

It is the website of Dave Ramsey... He is a financial guy, helps to get a lot of people out of debt, a good guy. He was curious about what the deal with OWS was... so on Oct. 19, he stopped his regular show... and opened up his phone lines for 3 hours straight to just OWS supporters... he wanted to know what they wanted... and why... You should listen to it on his site in the archives section. No particular bias.... he opened his phone lines to whoever wanted to speak.... a better cross section I could not think of... the people he spoke to were.... interesting to say the least...

 

I am not too good to get a minimum wage job. The problem is, if a minimum job won't pay the bills, what is the point of working?