Apparently, the first president of the US took out a couple library books back in 1789, and never returned them.
G. Washington books long overdue
I wonder if they'll take it out of his estate?
Printable View
Apparently, the first president of the US took out a couple library books back in 1789, and never returned them.
G. Washington books long overdue
I wonder if they'll take it out of his estate?
Before we respond... was he a lib or a con?
Must be a lib. Cons don't like libraries since they come from big government socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by East Detroit
Washington was definitely a lib, but not as liberal as that left-wing extremist radical preacher, Jesus of Nazareth.
Washington was one of the richest men in America.
Actually, a lot of it was his wife's money. He was a younger son who married a rich widow.Quote:
Originally Posted by ejames01
Same with Jefferson
So our country was started by gigolo's?
Well, Adams earned his own, so not all of them. Madison also married a widow, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sstashmoo
It was a private library, a.k.a. a subscription library [[as were all libraries at the time).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pam
I'll also add that all the founding fathers were conservative. It was the liberal exertion of government power by the British that the founders were rebelling against.
I thought that was a joke, but the partisans jumped all over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by East Detroit
Unbelievable. You accidentally trolled the partisan fish out of the water. How sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by East Detroit
Talking to yourself?
Yes, it was an example of the irony of partisans talking in circles. Glad you asked.
I'll be here all week. Try the specials.
We got it. Some of the responses were jokes too.Quote:
Originally Posted by East Detroit
East Detroit, do you really not have any opinion on any political matter? I'll agree that much of the partisan bickering is counterproductive, but you must lean at least slightly one way or the other, don't you?
Hi Retroit, thanks for asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
Sure, I have opinions and many strong opinions on a myriad of topics. However, I do not consider myself a partisan and am sickened by their behavior because in my definition they are those who "pick a side" and stick to it no matter what or how harmful. Not only the citizens, but those citizens who are representing us and playing games with our country and its future based solely on which side of a room they sit on [[and which corporation is feeding them).
In real general terms, I am probably fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but it still depends on the specific topic and many subjects require a balance or concession.
I laugh with sadness when I see how easily people are swayed to pick a political football team and engage in screaming/bleeting/repeating with more emotion than thought. When I observe the [[sadly more and more rare) person who has opinions that are not bound by party affiliation, that is to me a great opportunity for intelligent discourse. Sadly, many of them left this part of the board when they were drowned out by the jock mentality. Even more sadly, this happens in daily life and agreement with someone on a subject can often bring a short-lived friendship when they realize that doesn't mean you wholeheartedly agree on another hot topic of their choosing.
Well, East Detroit, I'm sorry to say that I agree with you wholeheartedly. :)
But I still think that for internet forum discussion purposes, it is somewhat necessary to take a side on any given issue. To complain about partisanship every time a topic is brought forward doesn't really add much to the conversation.
I would actually like to hear your non-neutral opinion on more matters; you sound like you would have something sensible and intelligent to offer.
True there...the Teatards threw parties when they announced the closure of Troy's library.Quote:
Must be a lib. Cons don't like libraries since they come from big government socialism.
East Detroit: You might like this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhEeFnqvy-s
Agreement? No!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
Sure, its necessary to take a side to offer the benefits of interesting discourse. My complaint about partisanship doesn't come up based on the topic... it's based on [[and when) the same biased people take the same side no matter the issue, and often it starts with a ridiculously leaning comment that offers less content and more ad hominems or trolling. That is a replacement for my honest opinion on the matter which would be a waste of time to express when confronted by nattering nabobian nonsensical nitwiticism.
Perhaps though, since we've had some recent weeding, there are some flowers to enjoy, so I'll keep my eye out for the opportunity to partake in earnest.
Very cool, thanks... I guess some things never change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pam
Although Reagan and Tip O'Neill seemed a lot less partisan-for-its-own-sake than Clinton and Gingrich.
Definently conservative. He was a military general. Military guys are generally pretty conservative.
I understand what you are saying, East Detroit, but I don't think you are giving enough importance to the debate over the course our country should take. Whether we become a country with a limited, financially secure government, or whether we become a county with an over-extended, over-indebted government will absolutely determine our country's fate. People have gone to war over such matters, including the subject of this thread.
I agree than we have financial issues, especially paying $400B just in interest on the national debt. The balance between those financial issues and our social issues is something to keep in mind, lest we chop mindlessly and invite a revolution or put us at a short term gain/long term loss.
How about if we bring home 250,000 of our 500,000 foreign deployed troops and drop our military spending from $1Trillion per year to $500B per year? We would still be spending more than the next 8 highest military spending countries, but it would be better than the next 15 [[as we do now), and we would help our country instead of helping the military-industrial complex corporations taking our money [[and not paying taxes or just moving to a foreign country... GE, HAL, etc...)?
Its also been said that as many as 1/3 of them were slave owners as well, so yes I'm sure they were conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit