Those Rich Old White Guys

My 2007 video on the not-so-rosy aftermath of the signing the Declaration of Independence.

Text written by Rush Limbaugh's dad.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Declaration
• of
• Independence

[BlackAndRight]

@verstwo2 Well, it's obvious you haven't read any of the writings of Frederick Douglass who probably did more research into the writings of the Founders than you have on Wikipedia, and concluded the Constitution was an anti-slavery document. Whose word should we take, his or yours?

As far as your whitewashing of history, it may work in the classroom, but we aren't buying it here.

[DosuZakuKin]

Don't you hate how history/reality tends to have a conservative/libertarian bias?

[nsdtr01]

correction: Hart's wife died in October, his home was over-run in November 1776 - most of his 13 children were adults and were not at home - Hart died of kidney stones

[82abhilash]

@Jcolinsol The constitution is not there to provide a simple set of rules for everyone, that at best is a bonus. It is there to equally protect the liberties of everyone. Rich man and the poor man, the industrialist and the labourer, the doctor and the lawyer, the janitor and the CEO. Because people who are not equally talented are still equally free. You are just trying to read your biases into the consitution.

[82abhilash]

@Jcolinsol Nonsense. Everyone is superior (or inferior) to someone else in some respects. Not everyone can be Mozart or Pablo Picasso. Aristocracy is superiority based purely on birth. If birth does not gives one superiority, then by virtue of his talents, he can be superior still. That does not make anyone into an aristocrat. You are just pissed off that some people are smarter than you.

[Jcolinsol]

@82abhilash

And that attitude feeds in very nicely to the historical belief that the artistocrats were elites by virtue of their superiority. You are not advocating aristocracy, are you not?

Not only that, but now you are contradicting the whole intended purpose of a constitution: to eliminate the need for a governing class by creating simple laws applicable to everyone.

So has this secretly been your position all along, or is your political philosophy simply incoherent?

[82abhilash]

@Jcolinsol Elite. People smarter than me who by virtue of their intellect are in a position of virtue and privilege with my consent. I like that. I want that. I want people who won't make the mistakes that I make to take the important decisions. But you resent that. You are jealous that they are smart. You cannot stand that they can rule with consent. So you try to destroy the republic. I and many like me are the strength of the elites you detest. They have earned our respect, you our contempt.

[82abhilash]

@Jcolinsol So you are playing with words. Nice to have you admit it. An aristocrat is a dirty word because it puts people in positions of privilege based on birth. You transpose that dirty word into an irrelevant setting because you are simply pissed off that the same few people have consistently displayed the skill to be the people's representative. You are being deceptive. I submit to you none of their children can inherit their prestige. They will have to work at it for themselves.

[Jcolinsol]

@82abhilash

Right, you are making an argument for what I consider to be the fictional idea of how government works. I am pointing out ways that the actual system is elitist and deprives the people of freedom.

As for checks and balances, I am all for them, but observation of natural systems of social order suggests to me that the best checks and balances have nothing to do with government, and that constitutions are tools for elites to avoid having their power checked.

[Jcolinsol]

@82abhilash

Well, this is certainly the popular mythos about representational government, but observation leads me to consider it fiction. When I say aristocracy I mean a small group of privileged elites with rule.

At present our economy is dominated by a handful of corporations, that very directly looks like a small group of privileged elites with rule.

In fact your assertion that they worked for what they have goes back to the historical belief that aristocrats were better than commoners.

[82abhilash]

@Jcolinsol I am not making an argument for power. I am making an argument for freedom. With little or no checks in place to protect people's freedom, you have rival power factions turning the country into a war zone. The constitution provides the checks. There is no aristocracy in America. Obama maybe related to Dick Cheney or the bastard child of Henry the VIII for all I care. He is in power because he worked to get there, not because who he is born to. That would be Prince Williams.

[Jcolinsol]

@82abhilash

I don't think that Somalia's recent history is a good proof for your argument, considering that several of the series of failed states there HAD constitutions. It could just as easily support my assertion that constitutions are irrelevant to real political power.

If you really think that there is no aristocracy in America, I don't think that you are paying attention. This country is very clearly dominated by an elite few. Even Obama is a blood relation of Dick Chaney!