What would the Founders think of our Welfare State?

Discussion in 'Revolutionary War' started by skyblue, Jan 16, 2013.

  1. skyblue

    skyblue Active Member

    Just because I don't "like" YOUR opinion doesn't mean I don't "like" others.

    Your "context" renders you incapable of seeing the facts at hand. Instead you cling to the dogma of your institutions. The end result is a mind that could be used to learn and maybe even teach others something useful, but is instead, argumentative and dismissive of any dissent. Just like the campus that produced it.
  2. gloine36

    gloine36 Member

    And the alternative pick is an uneducated, undeveloped, and completely asinine interpretation of history that really rejects any factual evidence in favor of a belief system that is not shared by the majority of the people in this country. That would be you and those like you. I think I'll just keep on teaching American history as it actually happened instead of the kind you want taught which of course only existed in fantasy land.
  3. skyblue

    skyblue Active Member

    Oh, I get your mobster mentality and disdain for: "a belief system that is not shared by the majority."

    The biggest heresy for academics is disagreeing with the crowd. Individual thought is a great evil to those that seek mob rule.

    If the majority deemed it a public "need" the mobsters would gladly send all dissenters into death chambers, just as they try to shut them down in their everyday lives and in public forums.

    Personally, I won't watch this kind of tyranny without identifying it's presence.
  4. gloine36

    gloine36 Member

    That's really funny considering most of us academics are seen as dissenters by conservatives.

    You know the best way to shut down people like you Sky? Make them use their real names and photos. I've seen multiple blogs and public access forums that have done that and the conversation goes from garbage to good overnight.
  5. skyblue

    skyblue Active Member

    Leftists have a monopoly in academia so how could they possibly be considered dissenters in that context?

    I could list countless conservatives (one of which, I am not!, but I realize from our former conversations that your faith won't allow the possibility of the existence of a free-thinker) who have been barred from speaking engagements at your Institutes of Leftist Propaganda.

    How many non-Leftists teach at your Institution? Oh, let's see you will probably say there are a few scattered anarchists allowed, of a Libertarian bent. How open your Halls of Learning are! Yet, they are on the Left, too! For anarchy is another form of mob-rule.

    It is truly laughable to call a Leftist a dissenter on a college campus!!o_O

    You would be intersted in shutting me down. For you cannot stand that anyone would stand up to you. But, I grew up around your compatriots and I know what you stand for and will fight it until the day of my death.

    I have you know that I speak out in my own name exactly like this on my facebook page and ALL my posts are public. Without fail, every Leftist I have encountered on facebook, does not post anything except cat pictures "publicly" and unfriends/blocks me at the first disagreement, just like you would shut me down.

    I understand that you are tying to trap me here so that you can harass me further in my personal life but you will have to satisfy your bullying intentions exclusively on this forum and in the realm of ideas, where I will remain anonymous.

    Fight the ideas, if you can.
  6. gloine36

    gloine36 Member

    No, I really don't care about your existence that much. I try to teach those capable of learning which you are not. You don't make much sense whining away at things you don't like. I think you just are too lazy to go to college and therefore seek to demean those that took the time and made the effort to learn.
    The problem is I run into your kind on history blogs when you put forth erroneous information based on what you want and not what happened in history. If you don't want to take the time to learn then that's your problem. But don't blast those of us who know what we're talking about. You don't know much about US history. It shows.
  7. skyblue

    skyblue Active Member

    I came to this forum to increase my knowledge of history, not argue with people. I never claimed to be an expert, unlike some.

    You are the demeaning one, from our first conversation you have hounded me and belittled my observations and thoughts. You can't shut me up, so you attack me.

    It's your way or the highway. What a teacher.
  8. pietastesgood

    pietastesgood Member

    I think the Founders would be most disappointed in the massive growth of the federal government since Teddy Roosevelt and how the freedoms that they sought to protect are beginning to fade away.
    skyblue likes this.
  9. After the Revolution, I believe it was in the Continental Congress, a woman whose husband was killed in the war came to the government asking for a pension or something to live on since she was now a widow. The delegates said that it was not for the government to provide for her, but they took money out of their own pockets and gave it to her. Yes, I'm sure they would be ashamed of how socialist this country has become supposedly in the honor of all they fought and died for.
  10. gloine36

    gloine36 Member

    The men who served in the Continental Congress differed on this issue just like they did on almost all issues. Generally, the conservative factions opposed pensions while the more liberal factions favored them, but that is a broad statement. Given the state of American finances pensions were paid in paper money which was next to worthless in many cases or in certificates which were often sold to speculators for a fraction of their value. Later after the Constitution was ratified, the decision was made to honor the face value of the certificates (many members of Congress had them as well plus were speculating and had bought a lot of them) and this was the early beginning of the financial system put in place that Alexander Hamilton espoused.

    The lack of honoring wartime promises as well as moving the tax burden to the lower classes sparked resistance from the people before the Constitution was ratified (Shays Rebellion for one example) and afterwards, (Whiskey Rebellion for one example). The Federalist Party was the conservative faction in that era and in the process of putting down these people's movements created their own downfall by pushing people into the Jeffersonian Republican side which was the liberal side of that era. (They don't match up with modern labels well beyond the general label.)

    There is no way to determine what the men and women of that era would think of today. Some would disagree while others would favor it. To say they would dislike it is to ignore a lot of people that wrote in favor of social programs including the Federalists themselves who did pass social legislation at times. One thing is clear. The leaders of Congress during the 1780s didn't do a whole lot of the men who fought in the Revolution. We've seen that repeated time after time in American History. As for pensions, here is a bit on them. http://eh.net/book_reviews/americas-first-veterans-and-revolutionary-war-pensions

Share This Page