Topic: Was George Washington the 8th President???
no photo
Thu 06/11/09 08:49 AM
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

MirrorMirror's photo
Thu 06/11/09 09:30 AM




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

:wink: drinker

it was what it was
happy Except that's not what it washappy


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.
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

MirrorMirror's photo
Thu 06/11/09 09:32 AM


drinker Instead of a revolution we could just respect the democratic election and the peoples choice as a true American shoulddrinker


"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.
laugh Then whats the point in having an election?laugh

yellowrose10's photo
Thu 06/11/09 09:32 AM
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

MirrorMirror's photo
Thu 06/11/09 09:33 AM
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

MirrorMirror's photo
Thu 06/11/09 09:34 AM
:smile: They didn't commit acts of terrorism.:smile: They were on their home soil.:smile: 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.:smile: The Founding Fathers were rational men of Enlightened values not domestic terrorists.:smile: Their situation bears no comparison to a small and spoiled misguided group of disgruntled people who lost a lawful democratic election fair and square.:smile:

no photo
Thu 06/11/09 09:41 AM
look up "the Boston Massacre"

yellowrose10's photo
Thu 06/11/09 09:44 AM

:smile: They didn't commit acts of terrorism.:smile: They were on their home soil.:smile: 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.:smile: The Founding Fathers were rational men of Enlightened values not domestic terrorists.:smile: Their situation bears no comparison to a small and spoiled misguided group of disgruntled people who lost a lawful democratic election fair and square.:smile:


DOMESTIC terrorists commit acts on home soil whoa

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

MirrorMirror's photo
Thu 06/11/09 09:54 AM
:smile: Respect the right of the American people to elect their lawful and constitutionally elected leaders.:smile:

adj4u's photo
Thu 06/11/09 10:14 AM


:smile: The current administration was elected in a lawful and fair democratic election by the will of the majority.:smile:The peoples right to vote should be respected.:smile:End of story a far as I am concerned.:smile:Been fascinating discussion Adj4u.drinker Have a great night.drinks


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



DaveyB's photo
Thu 06/11/09 10:25 AM


there were no elections (that was the issue)-----:thumbsup: True:thumbsup:

their home soil was british-----smile2 Some of them,some notsmile2 .

the boston teaparty was a terrorist act-----smile2 It was an act of protest.smile2 Protest is not terrorism.smile2

by todays patriot act they were terrorists----:thumbsup: definately would be considered illegal.:thumbsup:

no doubt about it

we could rightfully do everything that the founding fathers did ----smile2 It would be rightful to respect the democratic will of the American people.smile2

and for the same reasons and do it to reinstate the constitution----smile2 There was no Constitution when the Revolution happened.smile2

and yes the patriot act would make us terrorists as well----smile2It would certainly be treason against the American people.smile2






smile2 A real American would respect the lawful and democratic choice of the American people.smile2 We had a lawful and fair election.smile2The right of the American people to vote for their own representatives and President should be respected.smile2The choice was made.smile2 You win some and you loose some.smile2You don't always get what you want.smile2Theres always the next election.smile2That's democracysmile2Thats America.smile2


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.

DaveyB's photo
Thu 06/11/09 10:31 AM

:smile: Respect the right of the American people to elect their lawful and constitutionally elected leaders.:smile:


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.

yellowrose10's photo
Thu 06/11/09 10:55 AM


:smile: Respect the right of the American people to elect their lawful and constitutionally elected leaders.:smile:


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????

no photo
Thu 06/11/09 10:56 AM
oh yeah? well Theodore Roosevelt is not my president!!

yellowrose10's photo
Thu 06/11/09 10:57 AM
laugh I still laugh at the name smirkingchimp laugh I couldn't tsake a site with that name seriously no matter what the site said laugh

MirrorMirror's photo
Thu 06/11/09 10:59 AM

oh yeah? well Theodore Roosevelt is not my president!!
laugh

ThomasJB's photo
Thu 06/11/09 01:36 PM





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

:wink: drinker

it was what it was
happy Except that's not what it washappy


yes it was (by todays definition)

if not what was it


:smile: They didn't commit acts of terrorism.:smile:They were on their home soil.:smile: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.:smile:The Founding Fathers were rational men of Enlightened values not domestic terrorists.:smile:Their situation bears no comparison to a small and spoiled misguided group of disgruntled people who lost a lawful democratic election fair and square.:smile:




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.

franshade's photo
Thu 06/11/09 01:50 PM


Was George Washington the 8th President???

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/hanson.asp

is this a trick question??? laugh

yellowrose10's photo
Thu 06/11/09 01:55 PM



Was George Washington the 8th President???

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/hanson.asp

is this a trick question??? laugh


psst...the answer is D) all the above laugh

at least that is the answer quiet put on his test

franshade's photo
Thu 06/11/09 01:58 PM
should I succumb to peer pressure and chose 'D'

what a dilemna???

laugh