If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   NPR explores what its coverage of the British burning Washington 200 years ago might have sounded like. Subby's guessing it starts with an exploration of how American aggression caused the carnage and finished with six hours of British recipes   (npr.org) divider line 115
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2277 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Aug 2014 at 10:28 AM (3 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-22 07:18:29 AM
Wonder if it will be better than the death of Mary Queen of Scots.
 
2014-08-22 07:30:35 AM
And don't forget "Right, What's All This, Then, Don't Tell Me".
 
2014-08-22 07:40:45 AM
The sounds are just the president's running footsteps, and his wife screaming "Don't leave me here!"
 
2014-08-22 08:06:03 AM
I'm guessing you might have heard the booming report of these in the background:

img.fark.net

Well, not really.  The 95th didn't arrive in North America until December 1814, though there were at least a couple companies of the 7th Bn Rifles in Maine earlier in the Fall.

But it's a good excuse to post a picture of one of the most bad-ass muzzleloaders ever made.  The bayonet is a sword, therefore your argument is invalid.
 
2014-08-22 08:20:20 AM

dittybopper: I'm guessing you might have heard the booming report of these in the background:

[img.fark.net image 639x186]

Well, not really.  The 95th didn't arrive in North America until December 1814, though there were at least a couple companies of the 7th Bn Rifles in Maine earlier in the Fall.

But it's a good excuse to post a picture of one of the most bad-ass muzzleloaders ever made.  The bayonet is a sword, therefore your argument is invalid.


A friend of mine found one of those swords/bayonets in the wall in his old house. It looks like it was in a closet upstairs and slid down the inside of the wall.
 
2014-08-22 08:30:39 AM
It would presumably trick you into thinking you were about to hear a piece of decent current events analysis and then interview a farmer in Iowa.
 
2014-08-22 09:02:55 AM

grokca: A friend of mine found one of those swords/bayonets in the wall in his old house. It looks like it was in a closet upstairs and slid down the inside of the wall.


Cool.  Both the rifle and the sword are both reproductions.  My father built the rifle, and bought the sword/bayonet to go with it.  I call it the "Rifle That Shall Be Mine":  I've told him he needs to let me know if he ever wants to sell it, and I've told my brothers I've got dibs on it.

But while those are neat to have a working reproduction in order to get a feel for how it was like to operate them, there's nothing like an actual historical artifact.
 
2014-08-22 09:08:22 AM
I have a bayonet from that war.
I'm not touching it.
It sits on a book case in my house.
 
2014-08-22 09:22:58 AM
Wait...the colonists wanted change, making them liberal in their thinking.  NPR is the libbiest lib libby radio station out there. They would have then been backing the colonists.
 
2014-08-22 09:34:19 AM

Demetrius: Wait...the colonists wanted change, making them liberal in their thinking.  NPR is the libbiest lib libby radio station out there. They would have then been backing the colonists.


That's true, but they were "Classic" liberals.

Well, that's not really true either.  Many of the Founding Fathers were indeed classically liberal, in the sense of wanting a large degree of liberty for all, along with a representative government.

But some places, groups, and individuals on the winning side of the Revolutionary War weren't really what we'd call liberal, even in the classical sense.  Some where slave holders, especially in the South.  Some, like those in large parts of New England, were religulous authoritarians.  Some were what we'd today consider to be libertarians.  And there were people who filled in all the gaps in between those groups.

I think one of the things that united them was that over the previous 50 to 100 years prior to the Revolution, a distinctly "American" culture had developed, one that resented being told what to do.  Not everyone bought into that, obviously, but enough did by the latter half of the 18th Century that a successful revolution was possible.
 
2014-08-22 09:40:32 AM

vudukungfu: I have a bayonet from that war.
I'm not touching it.
It sits on a book case in my house.


Memento of war
Sits on my book case at home
Centuries at peace
 
2014-08-22 10:25:37 AM

dittybopper: Demetrius: Wait...the colonists wanted change, making them liberal in their thinking.  NPR is the libbiest lib libby radio station out there. They would have then been backing the colonists.

That's true, but they were "Classic" liberals.

Well, that's not really true either.  Many of the Founding Fathers were indeed classically liberal, in the sense of wanting a large degree of liberty for all, along with a representative government.

But some places, groups, and individuals on the winning side of the Revolutionary War weren't really what we'd call liberal, even in the classical sense.  Some where slave holders, especially in the South.  Some, like those in large parts of New England, were religulous authoritarians.  Some were what we'd today consider to be libertarians.  And there were people who filled in all the gaps in between those groups.

I think one of the things that united them was that over the previous 50 to 100 years prior to the Revolution, a distinctly "American" culture had developed, one that resented being told what to do.  Not everyone bought into that, obviously, but enough did by the latter half of the 18th Century that a successful revolution was possible.


You mean, they were a group of men who came from varied backgrounds and had a wide range of views on many things who were able to find a common goal in a time of strife to not only unite, but rally together to form a new nation, casting of the yoke of tyranny against an overwhelmingly superior foe, and alter the course of history? I guess they have absolutely nothing in common with our current leaders after all.
 
2014-08-22 10:32:03 AM
www.theimaginaryworld.com
 
2014-08-22 10:35:30 AM
It was Henry Clay and his fellow imperialists who wanted all of Canada for the United States. We sent ships to burn some Canadian towns and drink all the beer and fark all the mooses. The Brits returned the favour by burning the White House and drinking all the Coors Lite and schtupping Dolly Madison. But we got over it.
 
2014-08-22 10:36:11 AM
Sure, forget about reporting the burning of Buffalo NY by those Maple Leaf fans.
 
2014-08-22 10:37:07 AM
for about 30 seconds yesterday I had a war of the worlds moment when I got in my car.  NPR came on and I hear audio of smashing and yelling and gunfire and I'm thinking Fergusen, but then I hear the commentator say "the white house is on fire and the president and first lady have fled Washington"  Then another commentator say something like "this all began with a bitterly divided congress and nation" then i heard something about muskets and thought oh those crazy teahadists.
 
2014-08-22 10:39:24 AM
Why do they only hire nasally hipsters/yuppies?
 
2014-08-22 10:40:06 AM
Fox News:  August 1814:  Time to Greet Our Liberators with Rose Petals
Redcoats want to impart their freedoms upon us.
Our Democracy Experiment is a Failure:  Time to Rejoin the Empire
 
2014-08-22 10:40:47 AM
I listened to part of this yesterday and it was rather painful.  Its not how "NPR" would of covered it.  Its how CNN or FoxNews would of covered it.
 
2014-08-22 10:42:42 AM

gingerjet: I listened to part of this yesterday and it was rather painful.  Its not how "NPR" would of covered it.  Its how CNN or FoxNews would of covered it.


Really, you didn't like it? It was on when I got in the car yesterday and I didn't know what it was. Cracked me up. I'm not that versed in my history to care which way it was slanted.
 
2014-08-22 10:43:24 AM
Madison knew! 8/24 was an inside job!
 
2014-08-22 10:44:08 AM

Demetrius: Wait...the colonists wanted change, making them liberal in their thinking.  NPR is the libbiest lib libby radio station out there. They would have then been backing the colonists.


I don't know.  Is Air America still out there?
 
2014-08-22 10:46:46 AM
NOON: From our telescope atop the Capitol Building, we can see the dust from the British march columns in Bladensburg. More later.
1 pm: Redcoats are still walking
2 pm: Redcoats are still walking
3 pm: Redcoats are still walking
4 pm: Redcoats are still walking
5 pm: Redcoats are here. EVERYBODY PANIC!!
 
2014-08-22 10:48:22 AM
If NPR had covered it, maybe people would know more about it than the hagiography we get spoon-fed in school.

Like, that only about a third of the country supported the revolution. A third were Loyalists (called Tories by the "Patriots," even though they might very well have supported Whigs in Parliament) and a third just didn't want a war. The whole notion that the colonists were fighting for "liberty" baffled the British, because England considered itself the freest country in the world, with most legal protection for individual rights.

Also, the British freed slaves who fought against the rebels. More than 30,000 blacks joined the British effort, and most of them were resettled in Canada after the war. Hard to give the moral high ground to the Americans on that front. Nor for the terrorist mob attacks against Tories and their families during and after the war (most emigrated to Canada).

So, you'd be left with the impression that the American Revolution was an important step in creating modern democratic government, but not with the false idea that most Americans have of it being fought by angels against devils.

Also, there'd be an extended segment on the role of gay people in creating 18th century fashions.
 
2014-08-22 10:48:32 AM

Nayest: Why do they only hire nasally hipsters/yuppies?


Is yuppies even a thing anymore? I don't think so.
 
2014-08-22 10:48:36 AM

Schmerd1948: It was Henry Clay and his fellow imperialists who wanted all of Canada for the United States. We sent ships to burn some Canadian towns and drink all the beer and fark all the mooses. The Brits returned the favour by burning the White House and drinking all the Coors Lite and schtupping Dolly Madison. But we got over it.


Listen to a Canadian tell it and they will say that that was the primary objective of the war.

/ Visited Niagara-on-the-Lake in 2012 (200th anniversary of the war)
// They loves them some War of 1812
/// Ice wine slushies FTW!
 
2014-08-22 10:50:14 AM
Well, technically, didn't the US invade Canada to officially start the War of 1812? Granted, all the British screwing around with our shipping commerce and impressing sailors (so, not saying war wasn't necessarily justified), but we did technically start the war at the same time some of the British leadership was trying to de-escalate the tension (and they were trying to deal with Napoleon at that time).

While the War of 1812 didn't exactly show off our military prowess (despite some notable victories at sea and in the South), it still did prove that the United States was here to stay. It proved that our revolution was not a fluke and that we could maintain ourselves as a nation and defend our borders (even if we couldn't quite project power very well at that point).
 
2014-08-22 10:51:11 AM
NPR: Helping America sleep for 44 years.

//I listen to it most mornings on my way to work.
 
2014-08-22 10:51:11 AM

Demetrius: Wait...the colonists wanted change, making them liberal in their thinking.  NPR is the libbiest lib libby radio station out there. They would have then been backing the colonists.


Actually they were fightng oppression, making them libertarian/conservative.
 
2014-08-22 10:51:27 AM

LazyMedia: If NPR had covered it, maybe people would know more about it than the hagiography we get spoon-fed in school.

Like, that only about a third of the country supported the revolution. A third were Loyalists (called Tories by the "Patriots," even though they might very well have supported Whigs in Parliament) and a third just didn't want a war. The whole notion that the colonists were fighting for "liberty" baffled the British, because England considered itself the freest country in the world, with most legal protection for individual rights.

Also, the British freed slaves who fought against the rebels. More than 30,000 blacks joined the British effort, and most of them were resettled in Canada after the war. Hard to give the moral high ground to the Americans on that front. Nor for the terrorist mob attacks against Tories and their families during and after the war (most emigrated to Canada).

So, you'd be left with the impression that the American Revolution was an important step in creating modern democratic government, but not with the false idea that most Americans have of it being fought by angels against devils.

Also, there'd be an extended segment on the role of gay people in creating 18th century fashions.


AND I've just written a tl;dr about the wrong war. Never mind.
 
2014-08-22 10:52:55 AM
That's a lot of butthurt subs; be careful you don't rupture something.
 
2014-08-22 10:54:17 AM
They said NPR subby, not CNN/MSNBC
 
2014-08-22 10:54:18 AM

Schmerd1948: It was Henry Clay and his fellow imperialists who wanted all of Canada for the United States. We sent ships to burn some Canadian towns and drink all the beer and fark all the mooses. The Brits returned the favour by burning the White House and drinking all the Coors Lite and schtupping Dolly Madison. But we got over it.


Mind you, MOOS herpes can be veri nasti.
 
2014-08-22 10:55:45 AM

Born_Again_Bavarian: Schmerd1948: It was Henry Clay and his fellow imperialists who wanted all of Canada for the United States. We sent ships to burn some Canadian towns and drink all the beer and fark all the mooses. The Brits returned the favour by burning the White House and drinking all the Coors Lite and schtupping Dolly Madison. But we got over it.

Listen to a Canadian tell it and they will say that that was the primary objective of the war.

/ Visited Niagara-on-the-Lake in 2012 (200th anniversary of the war)
// They loves them some War of 1812
/// Ice wine slushies FTW!


Fun Fact: The Americans burned down my favourite pub in retaliation for the White House torching.
The Angel Inn
Niagara-on-the-Lake
.
/rebuilt shortly thereafter
//it has a ghost!
///shameless plug
 
2014-08-22 10:56:51 AM

Born_Again_Bavarian: Schmerd1948: It was Henry Clay and his fellow imperialists who wanted all of Canada for the United States. We sent ships to burn some Canadian towns and drink all the beer and fark all the mooses. The Brits returned the favour by burning the White House and drinking all the Coors Lite and schtupping Dolly Madison. But we got over it.

Listen to a Canadian tell it and they will say that that was the primary objective of the war.

/ Visited Niagara-on-the-Lake in 2012 (200th anniversary of the war)
// They loves them some War of 1812
/// Ice wine slushies FTW!


Hey, I was there too for the 200th anniversary. Even dressed in 1812 costume. I really didn't know about it. Man, they take the War of 1812 seriously.
 
2014-08-22 10:57:38 AM

happydude45: Demetrius: Wait...the colonists wanted change, making them liberal in their thinking.  NPR is the libbiest lib libby radio station out there. They would have then been backing the colonists.

Actually they were fightng oppression, making them libertarian/conservative.


You realize the most basic principle of being a conservative is the maintaining of things as they've been, right? It's the antithesis of change.
 
2014-08-22 11:02:38 AM

BeowulfSmith: Well, technically, didn't the US invade Canada to officially start the War of 1812? Granted, all the British screwing around with our shipping commerce and impressing sailors (so, not saying war wasn't necessarily justified), but we did technically start the war at the same time some of the British leadership was trying to de-escalate the tension (and they were trying to deal with Napoleon at that time).

While the War of 1812 didn't exactly show off our military prowess (despite some notable victories at sea and in the South), it still did prove that the United States was here to stay. It proved that our revolution was not a fluke and that we could maintain ourselves as a nation and defend our borders (even if we couldn't quite project power very well at that point).


Yes, we started it. The Brits farked around with our shipping, and refused to recognize the concept of a "former" British subject turned American citizen. As far as they were concerned, once a subject always a subject, and they treated our merchant ships the way they treated their own; pressing sailors at will from them.

We declared war on THEM, which basically flabbergasted them. The reason we sucked so hard at actually fighting the war, and didn't conquer Canada in the two years that the Brits were completely absorbed in defeating Napolean, was that Madison's government refused to PAY for it. Instead of raising a proper army, we tried to conquer Canada with militia, with predictable results (also, spats between the army and navy over strategy on the Great Lakes, and and utterly corrupt failure to cut off Lower Canada because it would have hurt a rich landowner's pocketbook didn't help).

Fascinating read: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7809077-the-civil-war-of-1812 Bas ically concludes that the Americans and British tied in the war, the Canadians won, and the Indians lost. If we had spent the money and sent a real disciplined force into Canada, the Canadians would fairly cheerfully have joined the United States, but instead we sent a bunch of drunken, pillaging militiamen who made them hate us.
 
2014-08-22 11:03:26 AM

dittybopper: Well, that's not really true either. Many of the Founding Fathers were indeed classically liberal, in the sense of wanting a large degree of liberty for all, along with a representative government.


Yes and they would cringe at what that government has become, 2 parties just fighting to smear the other one while the people get zero representation or shiat we never needed, asked for, or remotely helps the situation.

dittybopper: But some places, groups, and individuals on the winning side of the Revolutionary War weren't really what we'd call liberal, even in the classical sense. Some where slave holders, especially in the South. Some, like those in large parts of New England, were religulous authoritarians. Some were what we'd today consider to be libertarians. And there were people who filled in all the gaps in between those groups.


Yeah there wasnt much of a south at the time of the civil war, a lot of slaves were north near Virginia and quite a few of the framers of the nation owned slaves so quit trying to always lump in the south as the problem.
 
2014-08-22 11:09:32 AM

Schmerd1948: It was Henry Clay and his fellow imperialists who wanted all of Canada for the United States. We sent ships to burn some Canadian towns and drink all the beer and fark all the mooses. The Brits returned the favour by burning the White House and drinking all the Coors Lite and schtupping Dolly Madison. But we got over it.


Britain has been accused of many terrible things over the years.

Our history is filled with depraved acts. However, we have never and never shall drink Coors light.
 
2014-08-22 11:12:08 AM

BeowulfSmith: Well, technically, didn't the US invade Canada to officially start the War of 1812? Granted, all the British screwing around with our shipping commerce and impressing sailors (so, not saying war wasn't necessarily justified), but we did technically start the war at the same time some of the British leadership was trying to de-escalate the tension (and they were trying to deal with Napoleon at that time).

While the War of 1812 didn't exactly show off our military prowess (despite some notable victories at sea and in the South), it still did prove that the United States was here to stay. It proved that our revolution was not a fluke and that we could maintain ourselves as a nation and defend our borders (even if we couldn't quite project power very well at that point).


In 1812 Canada = England

We weren't going to send an entire army over to England (Even if we could) so in order to open a land war "Canada" was the first logical step.

No doubt that had we won a decisive victory we would have snagged as much land north of Lake Ontario, Erie that we could but that wasn't the reason for going to war.
 
2014-08-22 11:12:39 AM

fireclown: Demetrius: Wait...the colonists wanted change, making them liberal in their thinking.  NPR is the libbiest lib libby radio station out there. They would have then been backing the colonists.

I don't know.  Is Air America still out there?


Nope.  Folded pretty quickly, only lasted 6 years (2004 to 2010).  Just not a market for that kind of stuff.

NPR is different because while it may have a particular institutional bias, they actually attempt to do real journalism, and largely they succeed.  Also, the public radio stations that support NPR get a large part of their money directly from the consumers, which can be a successful strategy for quality programming.

If the stations that support you are dependent on local and national advertising, and you consistently take positions that are controversial, then you're going to limit the pool of advertisers willing to support your programs.  That happens with right-wing talk radio also, but for various demographic reasons, it's less of a factor.
 
2014-08-22 11:15:27 AM

steamingpile: dittybopper: Well, that's not really true either. Many of the Founding Fathers were indeed classically liberal, in the sense of wanting a large degree of liberty for all, along with a representative government.

Yes and they would cringe at what that government has become, 2 parties just fighting to smear the other one while the people get zero representation or shiat we never needed, asked for, or remotely helps the situation.

dittybopper: But some places, groups, and individuals on the winning side of the Revolutionary War weren't really what we'd call liberal, even in the classical sense. Some where slave holders, especially in the South. Some, like those in large parts of New England, were religulous authoritarians. Some were what we'd today consider to be libertarians. And there were people who filled in all the gaps in between those groups.

Yeah there wasnt much of a south at the time of the civil war, a lot of slaves were north near Virginia and quite a few of the framers of the nation owned slaves so quit trying to always lump in the south as the problem.


You're quite right, real patriots and authentic Americans like you prove their intellectual worth by being fark trolls.
 
2014-08-22 11:15:28 AM
Teabaggers would have been praising King George for being a strong moral Chrisitan leader.
 
2014-08-22 11:16:14 AM

steamingpile: dittybopper: Well, that's not really true either. Many of the Founding Fathers were indeed classically liberal, in the sense of wanting a large degree of liberty for all, along with a representative government.

Yes and they would cringe at what that government has become, 2 parties just fighting to smear the other one while the people get zero representation or shiat we never needed, asked for, or remotely helps the situation.


I don't think they'd agree. For the most part, the Founding Fathers did not even represent the majority of colonists. Less than 1 out of 3 colonists wanted the revolution. Even during the war, the American militia continued to drink to the health of the king because they thought the king would just give them more independence to govern themselves but they would never break away entirely. It was first after the war was over that history was written to make believe that everyone wanted independence.
 
2014-08-22 11:16:27 AM
I just feel sorry for the poor Tea Partier who was flipping through the channels and heard the NPR station tell him the White House was in flames and the President was fleeing for his life.

Wait, did I say sorry? I meant bad. Really really bad.
 
2014-08-22 11:17:05 AM

Born_Again_Bavarian: BeowulfSmith: Well, technically, didn't the US invade Canada to officially start the War of 1812? Granted, all the British screwing around with our shipping commerce and impressing sailors (so, not saying war wasn't necessarily justified), but we did technically start the war at the same time some of the British leadership was trying to de-escalate the tension (and they were trying to deal with Napoleon at that time).

While the War of 1812 didn't exactly show off our military prowess (despite some notable victories at sea and in the South), it still did prove that the United States was here to stay. It proved that our revolution was not a fluke and that we could maintain ourselves as a nation and defend our borders (even if we couldn't quite project power very well at that point).

In 1812 Canada = England

We weren't going to send an entire army over to England (Even if we could) so in order to open a land war "Canada" was the first logical step.

No doubt that had we won a decisive victory we would have snagged as much land north of Lake Ontario, Erie that we could but that wasn't the reason for going to war.


It was part of it. The imperialists who really, really wanted to annex Canada were a minority in Congress, but a sizable minority. Pretty much every American thought we'd waltz right in and take Canada, just because of overwhelming population disparity, and the almost complete lack of redcoats in Canada in 1812 (they were all over in Spain with Wellington), but they failed to account for the power of incompetence.
 
2014-08-22 11:17:53 AM

BeowulfSmith: Well, technically, didn't the US invade Canada to officially start the War of 1812? Granted, all the British screwing around with our shipping commerce and impressing sailors (so, not saying war wasn't necessarily justified), but we did technically start the war at the same time some of the British leadership was trying to de-escalate the tension (and they were trying to deal with Napoleon at that time).

While the War of 1812 didn't exactly show off our military prowess (despite some notable victories at sea and in the South), it still did prove that the United States was here to stay. It proved that our revolution was not a fluke and that we could maintain ourselves as a nation and defend our borders (even if we couldn't quite project power very well at that point).


Yeah. Britain never had any desire for war with the US in 1812 no matter what many Americans believe. There was no plan to retake the colonies.

The US main beef was Britain and France both blocking shipping to each other. US said stop or we'll attack you.

Both Britain and France agreed to stop... but Britain's reply came too slow... US attacked Canada before the response arrived.


Britain of course was fighting against the 19th Century equivalent of Hitler. Napolean was more or less ruling over most of continental Europe killing off those in power and nobles and setting up a French based dictatorship for the continent with various puppet powers.

Napolean also had plans to conquer the US after Europe taking an invasion route through Mexico.

On land he was almost undetectable... so he might have succeeded.

You Americans have Britain to thank you're not speaking French as a result of WW0.

Although to be fair, if you spoke French the chicks would dig you more.
 
2014-08-22 11:19:42 AM
"with me in studio is Blythe Devonshire-Smythe columnist for The Daily Whig-Mercantile, and Thomas Appleton, Political reporter for the Democratic-Republican Advocate, thank you both for joining us.   So the Burning of Washington DC brings up the obvious question, what does this do for Jame's Monroe's chances in 2016, and will it embolden some of the prominent Whigs who seemed ready to sit this one out to throw their hats in the ring?" Bylthe, you first:"

"Well CLEARLY this was a failure of leadership on the Part fo the Madison administration.   They were soft on defense  and national security for YEARS and now we are seeing the inevitable results of that.   Their cancellation of the m-12 advanced Cannonade project, and their woeful failure to build more ships of the line, have to be seen in retrospect as blunders of HISTORIC proportions"

"Blythe, if I could interject:....I think the country will Rally around Madison at this historic juncture after this barbaric act but drunken British scum.   or does this setback fall squarely on Madison;s shoulders ,we are still cleaning up the mess President Adams made of our foreign and defense policy, including failing to show a strong hand to the Barbary pirates and force the world to respect American power, the way President Jefferson did.

I also think our recent incredible victory at Fort McHenry   COMPLETELY validated President Madison's decision to rely on proven palisade and rampart technology, and I think in retrospect this unfortunate incident will really just be a footnote in America's victory.

Host:"Let's take our first caller"

Caller: " I want to know why we ever thought that breaking away from the  British empire was a good idea anyway.  As Rep Ron Paul observes, fighting the world's mightiest empire  is not in the Constitution, and..."
 
2014-08-22 11:21:03 AM

steamingpile: dittybopper: Well, that's not really true either. Many of the Founding Fathers were indeed classically liberal, in the sense of wanting a large degree of liberty for all, along with a representative government.

Yes and they would cringe at what that government has become, 2 parties just fighting to smear the other one while the people get zero representation or shiat we never needed, asked for, or remotely helps the situation.

dittybopper: But some places, groups, and individuals on the winning side of the Revolutionary War weren't really what we'd call liberal, even in the classical sense. Some where slave holders, especially in the South. Some, like those in large parts of New England, were religulous authoritarians. Some were what we'd today consider to be libertarians. And there were people who filled in all the gaps in between those groups.

Yeah there wasnt much of a south at the time of the civil war, a lot of slaves were north near Virginia and quite a few of the framers of the nation owned slaves so quit trying to always lump in the south as the problem.


You mean like I lumped large swaths of New England in with the Puritans?

Listen, I know you're butt-hurt about the South being a whipping boy for that sort of thing, but remember I'm talking in general terms here, and everything I said in general outline is true.  And I spread the love around, not *JUST* calling out the South, because as you point out, they weren't the only ones who had problems living up to the high-sounding rhetoric of many of the Founding Fathers.

So lighten up.
 
2014-08-22 11:21:06 AM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Teabaggers would have been praising King George for being a strong moral Chrisitan leader.


Considering he was locked up in the loony bin from 1811 until his death in 1820, they probably would have transferred their fanboy love to the Prince Regent, the future George IV. "He's a real man who swims the Thames naked, and goes fox hunting every weekend, not like that henpecked, effete midget Madison."
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report