It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by alldaylong
America's Founding Fathers had one motive and one motive only. Their own self interest's. Why share the wealth of the country with the motherland when you can keep it all for yourselves. That was it in a nutshell. All this rubbish about "Freedom" was just that......rubbish,
Originally posted by onthedownlow
Originally posted by alldaylong
America's Founding Fathers had one motive and one motive only. Their own self interest's. Why share the wealth of the country with the motherland when you can keep it all for yourselves. That was it in a nutshell. All this rubbish about "Freedom" was just that......rubbish,
The words of a happy serf! I guess some will always be more geared towards servitude and security. Tell the queen mum that I said hi!
Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by frazzle
Excellent! I would say that they wanted a living document that could grow with the populous, modernize as the country did, yet remain free from the constraints of tyrany. It
That is just my belief, but I also believe that they would profoundly appreciate the amendments that currently reside within the document, as they are proof that the Constitution works- that said, they most likely are turning in their graves over the dismal repair of the nation and the massive encroachment of central power.
Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by alldaylong
So it would be your contention that equality that arrose through the Bill of Rights was an unintentional surprise? It is clear what the Founding Fathers' intent was, even if they used their position to create an advantage for themselves- hence the built in safegaurds against tyrany.
Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by alldaylong
So it would be your contention that equality that arrose through the Bill of Rights was an unintentional surprise? It is clear what the Founding Fathers' intent was, even if they used their position to create an advantage for themselves- hence the built in safegaurds against tyrany.
Originally posted by frazzle
Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by frazzle
Excellent! I would say that they wanted a living document that could grow with the populous, modernize as the country did, yet remain free from the constraints of tyrany. It
That is just my belief, but I also believe that they would profoundly appreciate the amendments that currently reside within the document, as they are proof that the Constitution works- that said, they most likely are turning in their graves over the dismal repair of the nation and the massive encroachment of central power.
Many would say that what we have now is tyranny so how did they protect us from it? If they wanted to make the first ten amendments part of the constitution, why didn't they put those sentiments in the body of it instead of just tacking them on as an afterthought? If you read what they stood for its hard to see "limited" anywhere in their intent, its all about a strong / powerful central government and that's sure as heck what we got.
Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by frazzle
"Limited" was the eventual outcome of the document, are you suggesting that it was an accident? Yes, I would agree that we now have tyranny- but the three branches were intended to keep government in check. The founding Fathers failed to realize how Nationalism could allow for the seepings of tyranny, but it is preposterous to suggest that it was inevitably intended. The Bill of Rights is the reason that the Constitution was ratified, which would suggest that the founders would not lend merit to the document unless certain safegaurds were included. Are you suggesting that the Bill of Rights was only included to appease angry voters?
Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by onthedownlow
You must be very nieve not to realise the true motive of the American Revolution. A revolution against tyranny is usually lead by the poor, down trodden serfs against the hierarchy. Examples being the Russian and French Revolutions ( And also the English Civil War).
What did we have in America? A revolution being led by the wealthy and landed gentry.
Damn right, man. All this talk from these guys about all men being created equal, and freedom. Yet they enslaved MEN, and only white guys with land could vote. If it was up to the ''founding fathers'', women still wouldn't be able to vote, and I'd still be in physical chains. These were no benevolent guys.
Originally posted by alldaylong
Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by alldaylong
So it would be your contention that equality that arrose through the Bill of Rights was an unintentional surprise? It is clear what the Founding Fathers' intent was, even if they used their position to create an advantage for themselves- hence the built in safegaurds against tyrany.
A means to an end. Convince the people that we want freedom from that nasty King George and get then to do the fighting for you. Result the founding fathers had feathered theirs nests very nicely indeed.
America's founding fathers where the 18th Centuries equivalent to to-days bankers and financial institutions. Those at the top get wealthier at the expenses of those at the bottom.
Lets look at that word "Freedom". What freedom did Tomas Jefferson offer to the hundreds of slaves he owned? Just another case of "Them and Us"
Perhaps I am nieve, or just far less cynical. Weren't the French and Russian revolutions fought for selfish reasons as well? Socialism and Communism? I believe that our ideologies differ greatly, but the US constitution does not limit anyone to a prescribed station, it enables people to rise above their station. Did not the French and Russian revolutions begat tyrany? I supose at this point, we should just agree to disagree.