George's Quotes.
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence.
The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism.
No pecuniary consideration is more urgent, than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt: on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable.
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence... that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible..
The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
2007-11-09
09:23:20
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Elutherian
4
in
Politics & Government
➔ Elections
O.k dude.
Instead if islamo-fascists we had Brittish.
We still should use the same principles on every new issue. If you don't have principles you have.... well you have the Bushes and Clintons.
2007-11-09
09:32:25 ·
update #1
So you're basically saying electricity should make us look to Stalin for answers instead of our Founders.
2007-11-09
09:35:38 ·
update #2
Actually most of our founder fought against slavery and eventually relinquished ownership of them.
The point is we HAVE TO HAVE PRINCIPLES not just say human rights can be expended because society progresses.
2007-11-09
09:37:41 ·
update #3
you do realize we have nuclear weapons too.
2007-11-09
09:38:55 ·
update #4
nothing will get you the label of crazy quicker than to espouse the ideals that our country was founded on
2007-11-09 09:26:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
10⤊
2⤋
So if the people that made the constitution, declaration of independance, bill of rights, and created this nation aren't important in the way the govt should functions now, why don't we just become a Christian Theocracy, or have a nice Marxist revolution or set up a pretty Oligarchy. To the person that mentioned the issues of their time and slavery, founding fathers not wanting women to vote, and people that arent property owners etc. Why don't we allow children to vote, prisoners, immigrants etc. In the 1800s people that weren't property owners werent educated enough(women, children, people that arent property owners), did not have rights (slaves) (immigrants). But yeah I guess people are willing to see a Representative Republic turn into Despotism, Theocracy, or a Direct Democracy. I do agree with certain things that people said about how we cannot retreat ourselves and be isolationists like Ron Paul wants but as far as Domestic policies we should operate the way the Federal Govt was set up to operate back then.
2007-11-09 10:21:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by archy 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
The final quote, regarding Christianity, was not spoken by George Washington. The words were penned by Joel Barlow, a diplomat assigned to Algiers during the period of problems with piracy off the north coast of Africa. The words appear in the text of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate in 1797 and signed by President John Adams. The only connections Washington has to this statement are that negotiations began toward the end of his presidency, and Barlow once served as his chaplain.
Some argue that the statement, having found its way into the treaty (a very short-lived one and one that has no legal status) and not being challenged by lawmakers, was the official position of the Founding Fathers. One could make the argument that Barlow, an advocate of secular government, put that in there because it served a dual purpose: One, it did not run counter to his personal beliefs, and two, it served to placate the Muslim pirates.
From Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Instead of taking this one bit of text to be proof of the official position of the Founding Fathers, one could just as easily take it that the politicians of that era realized that it was smart to keep the dispute a business matter instead of a clash of religions.
It would appear that even as far back as 1797, secularists were worming their way into things, and Islam was a problem.
Just my opinion, but at any rate, the quote attributed to Washington was NOT spoken by the man.
2007-11-09 09:56:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by curtisports2 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
George Washington's Farewell Address 1796
"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
He doesn't say by any means Christian, but it is very clear the importance he placed on the morals taught by the religions.
2007-11-09 09:39:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by floatingbloatedcorpse 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
After reading those responses do you understand how stupid you are? You are comparing people who didn't even live at the same time, which is clearly no possible, I mean, they never even stood next to each other. Additionally, why talk about Ron Paul who is so clueless multiple exclamation points were necessary to emphasis the extreme degree of his clue lacking.
Like George Washington could possibly relate to our world today- he'd probably break your iPod to release the demon inside, because everyone knows people were so stupid back then compared to the brilliance Yahoo Answers offers today.
You may argue the underlying ideas of government, power, and liberty are timeless, and Ron Paul is, in that deeper sense, much more in line with what the founding fathers seemed to believe. Yes, you may.
2007-11-09 10:00:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by donfolstar 3
·
0⤊
4⤋
I commend your well thought question. It is nice to see someone who really digs deep to find facts and history to back up their views!
However, if you were to sit George Washington down and explain to him that in the year 2007 there were weapons capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people in a flash. That their were going to be radical religious extremists not with sword or musket but with rocket propelled grenades and chemical agents, he might amend his though process.
The world has changed. Complacency and pacifism don't work anymore. We walk away and promote isolationism in this day as Mr. Paul wishes and we will perish.
But, please understand i commend you for your fervor. maybe Ron Paul supporters have hope of being actual contributors to political brain storming after all.
2007-11-09 09:37:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by jskmarden 4
·
3⤊
2⤋
Not sure that you can truly compare people from two completely different eras. Nor can you take what GW said of a country that was newly-founded on democratic ideals during an era of Royalty and pretend that it is pertinent in today's world. Remember, GW was also for not letting any women vote, nor any man who didn't own a specific amount of property ("landed gentry"). And he probably didn't think much of the intellectual capabilities of his slaves, either.
2007-11-09 09:34:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
In the 18th century, Washington did not have the matter of Islamo-fascist terrorists blowing up nightclubs and flying planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
There wasn't even a stock market, common laws or infrastructure governing interstate trade, and slavery was an issue at that time. No electricity, no international e-commerce, no telephones, no cellphones, no formal post office system, no ICBMs, no nuclear technology no way of transportation that can transport enemies of the nation across vast oceans in only a matter of hours, no television. . .
Aaahhhhh!!! The good old days Ron Paul wants us to return to!!! Back to the horse and carriage.
The British and the Muslims are not even close to the same thing. For starters, one invaded our country, while we took our own country from the other. . . May do you some benefit to study Revolutionary War history and not live by everything Ron Paul tells you. . .
2007-11-09 09:30:06
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
8⤋
I think if there were a presidential candidate campaigning today in a white wig and stockings, people would think he was even crazier than Ron Paul, yes.
2007-11-09 09:26:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
2⤊
5⤋
George Washington is way too old for today's presidency, he must be about 300. And a bit grisly.
2007-11-09 09:27:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mike1942f 7
·
5⤊
5⤋