Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Founding Fathers question. What were THEY entitled to?

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 12, 2011, 6:13 p.m. EST by mynameismoe (153)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

They didnt has for entitlements, why are you so lame to need them?



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Chimptastic (67) 12 years ago

They thought they were entitled to land that wasn't theirs, and the forced labor of other people based on skin color. They also thought they were entitled to self governance, and free sailing of the Atlantic without fear of conscription by the British Navy.

[-] 0 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

YOU PEOPLEEEEEEeeeeeee. Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights,,,,,, as you can read it today,, mentions "Entitled to Happiness?" What part of that is hard for you people to understand? Forget about sailing in the Atlantic,,,, get on point.

[-] 1 points by Chimptastic (67) 12 years ago

What!? I was on point. What did I say that had anything to do with the being entitled to happiness. Your topic asked what the founding fathers felt entitled to. My answer was just that. They kept slaves and didn't question the morality of the practice, therefore they felt they were entitled to that person's labor. The forced native people off continental land and moved them elsewhere, obviously they felt entitled to that land. They fought a revolution to end their governance by king george, obviously they felt entitled to self-governance. They fought a war in 1812 over Britain's policy of capturing and conscripting American sailors in the Atlantic, obviously they felt entitled to free sailing of the Atlantic. You asked a question and I answered it. I never said anything about happiness or being entitled to it.

[-] 0 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

Sorry, you did make valid points.

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

The founding fathers asked for justice, a government to secure the self evident rights of humankind. If our nation followed our laws, most of our problems would be avoided.

Henry Ford said, “It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

We are beginning to understand, and Occupy Wall Street looks like the beginning of the revolution.

We are beginning to understand that our money is created, not by the government, but by banks. Many authorities have confirmed this, including the Federal Reserve itself. The only money the government creates today are coins, which compose less than one ten-thousandth of the money supply. Federal Reserve Notes, or dollar bills, are issued by Federal Reserve Banks, all twelve of which are owned by the private banks in their district. Most of our money comes into circulation as bank loans, and it comes with an interest charge attached



[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 12 years ago

Who gave the federal reserve to right to print money and who has the power to collect the debts which are attached to that creation?

[-] 0 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was signed fraudulently as law in 1913. The Constitution states that Congress shall coin and regulate our currency. A bill cannot legally modify the Constitution.

The power to collect is based upon the faith and credit of the United States and our people.

The Fourteenth Amendment mandates the government to pay its debts already incurred, including pensions. That means Social Security, which IS an “entitlement,” in the original sense of the word. We’re entitled to it because we’ve paid for it with taxes.




[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 12 years ago

My point is that it doesn't matter whether money is printed by the government and backed by taxation or by the Federal reserve and backed by taxation. If we are to eliminate debt-based currency we must implement currency based on objective value in its place.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

I agree that we must eliminate debt based currency. The Bank of North Dakota is functioning well in this time of economic crisis by providing a medium of exchange, which at this time is credit. Except for coins all of what we think of as currency is actually a bank loan.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 12 years ago

What is the credit based on?

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

Their capital base consists of all the assets of the State of North Dakota, including all of the state funds which by law must be deposited in the Bank of North Dakota. They have a website and they operate in a TRANSPARENT manner.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 12 years ago

In other words, money they collect through taxation? Money which takes the form of federal reserve notes?

From what I can see on their website, they use currency provided by the Federal Reserve. Which means that the 'medium of exchange' that they provide is the same that any other bank provides. Which means that their currency is still debt-based.


[-] 2 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

They didnt ask for entitlements.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

The Indian's land, of course. ;o)

[-] 0 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

You must feel terribly depressed and wishing to return what you have to the indians? Have you started doing that?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

Hey, I have no agenda, I was just answering your question.

You asked "Founding Fathers question. What were THEY entitled to?" and I answered "The Indian's land, of course."

Without taking sides, anyone who looks at the situation has to admit we have ALWAYS acted like we're entitled to the Indian's land.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Uh . . .a continent.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

I think this is a rather simplistic question, and for that very reason, I may be able to answer it. What the Found Fathers believed they were entitled to is this:

God, Liberty, and Free Enterprise.

They worshiped all three equally; one could not have existed without the other.

[-] 0 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

God Bless that.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

When we reduce the entire equation; when we finally answer all the whats and whys... this is precisely what we are left with.

[-] 1 points by Publius1981 (22) 12 years ago

Depends on which Founding Father you're talking about. Jefferson felt entitled to the labor of his slaves while John Adams fought this assumption to his grave.

The founding generation believed it was entitled to limitless growth based on an open frontier. We don't have that luxury anymore.

Many of the members of the founding generation also resisted the kind of capitalism that conservatives stand for today - with the possible exception of Alexander Hamilton.

The founding generation did not speak with a single voice. What they came up with was a compromise between different interests. The challenge we face today is the same that Madison identified 225 years ago - the dominance of politics by a faction of interests with wealth and influence with representatives on "both sides" of the political spectrum.

[-] 3 points by socal63 (124) 12 years ago

You seem to know little about Jefferson. In 1806, he appealed to Congress asking for a ban on the slave trade.

"The founding generation believed it was entitled to limitless growth" - This is vision, not entitlement. The growth that occurred required a great deal of hard work and sacrifice.

[-] 1 points by Publius1981 (22) 12 years ago

Did he emancipate his own slaves - either during his lifetime, or in his will, like George Washington? No. Principles are one thing, implementing them in one's own life is another. That's something everyone needs to keep in mind - conservative and liberal.

Vision - a vision that's easier to achieve when you have the resources at your disposal to act on it.

Slight change of direction but still a response to your post:

Hard work and sacrifice - something that wasn't unique to the founding generation. Every generation that came afterwards to this country seeking a new start has built on that vision. Including today's immigrants who are working for a wage that most Americans won't take - because multinationals demand low-wage labor in the U.S., or they'll outsource it to another country (they won't pay you $20 an hour to do low-skilled labor - they'll relocate).

[-] 1 points by socal63 (124) 12 years ago

It is my understanding that Jefferson treated his slaves with dignity and respect (I know that sounds repulsively ironic, but consider the circumstances of the early 1800s). Emancipating slaves that have no true freedom is a nice gesture, but how were they expected to survive outside the plantations and ownership of others? When Jefferson made his appeal to Congress, he was President. That must have been very unpopular.

It seems that we may have some common ground. Although many of the immigrants that come to the US work extremely hard in pursuit of the American dream, the floww of illegals has been very harmful to our economy. I believe that both political parties have an interest in keeping the illegals flowing in.

[-] 2 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

I'm glad you are a follower of history. However, I can read the Washington Post and the Washington Times, both "RECORDS" of our daily history, and can read two different reports of what exactly happened just YESTERDAY. What you read about Jefferson or Adams or any others of the times could be interpreted by two different sources of THE TIME. I can read the Constitution and Bill of Rights without any possible bias. I can find no mention of entitlements or limits to greed. Sunday mornings news will read different depending on the agenda of the editor. (or book writer.)

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 12 years ago

Hamilton was not a friend of Capitalism. He was a friend of Interventionism. It is largely due to his efforts that the commerce clause exists.

[-] 1 points by invient (360) 12 years ago

We should do away with that... if we want something to be regulated across the nation it should have to go through the same amendment process as anything else... that clause give way too broad of power.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 12 years ago

I absolutely agree.

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

Founding fathers agreed we are entitled to democracy.

Why do you hate America??

[-] 2 points by dalton (111) 12 years ago

They agreed we were entitled to a REPUBLIC

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

All REPUBLIC means is that it's not a monarchy. All you moronic Glenn Beck fans have just twisted it to mean something it's not.

[-] 1 points by dalton (111) 12 years ago

A democracy is not a monarchy either, but that is not our form of government. A republic means a lot more. This would be a good beginning. http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/democracy%20versus%20repubblic.htm

And please don't assume I listen to glenn beck. I don't.

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

So you link me to fanatical religious web site??

"The difference between Republic and Righteous Republic is that in the Republic the Government rules according to the law set up by men, in the Righteous Republic the law is the Law of God."


This is nothing but pro-Theocracy nonsense that seems to be peddled by Glenn Beck's guests...

If you say "Constitutional Republic", it makes some sense...

It basically claims authority is derived from a constitution (instead of a monarch), which in our case has some of things you mentioned.

But to just try to redefine "Republic" to mean something it doesn't is a ridiculous practice that I just don't advocate. It can even refer to a government that gives supreme authority to religious leaders, such as Iran. As long as it isn't a monarch.

[-] 1 points by dalton (111) 12 years ago

Last time...I don't listen to Glenn Beck. The web site has an excellet definition of a republic. The only place it vears is the last paragraph.

[-] 1 points by dalton (111) 12 years ago

You only took offense to the last paragraph. Other than that paragraph, that site spells out the difference between a republic and a democracy.

Since you took offense,

http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm http://www.garymcleod.org/republic.htm http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276845/posts http://www.tmra2.org/images/democracyvsrepublic.pdf

"I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation, under GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

Again, you replied with slew of right-wing propaganda sites.

By the way, the "under God" part wasn't added till 1954..

The whole pledge was founded by Christian Socialist, Francis Bellamy in 1892..

In other words, it's not as traditional or historical as you thought.

[-] 1 points by dalton (111) 12 years ago

where did i say historical? traditional it is. even if you take out the under god part, it is still a republic. you are trying to evade the argument.

I give you four different sites and all you can say is they are propaganda, or right wing, or fanatical religious. All I did was give you some answers as to why we are a republic and not a democracy.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

They are not diverse sources. c4cg, absolutely a right-wing fringe. freerepublic, are you kidding. tmra2, maybe I'm not familiar with the texas motorcycle rights, but all these sites you've posted are simply referencing the same right-wing fringe. A republic refers to government not headed by a monarch. "Our Republic" refers to the one defined by the constitution, rather than a monarch that holds ultimate power. The rest of what you say is just the same propaganda. I'm shocked you thought those sites were somehow neutral.

[-] 1 points by dalton (111) 12 years ago

see. we live in a republic. your definition can be found in the dictionary. so can mine.

but that is not all that republic means.

all of this started because you said we have a democracy. I have shown that we do not.

[-] 1 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

I'm not nor did I start the OWS movement. I dont have a problem with America. I like it just the way it is,,,,, since 1776.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

See, I'm a bit more selective and don't believe in slavery, corporate personhood, or any other measure which undermines democracy. Had the forefathers agreed with you, they wouldn't have included an amendment procedure. Either that or they also didn't like democracy. In which case their system needs to be fixed via constitutional amendments.

[-] 0 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

There has been a NUMBER of times when a constitution amendment could have been proposed during a democrat congress and democrat president. Rich liberal democrats ENJOY their wealth probably more than a rich republican.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

So we have whores and cheap whores.. I'm for a congress where whoring out their votes is banned. All this blame game nonsense is worthless unless you're supporting the OWS movement and its goals.

[-] 0 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

Pursuit of Happiness does not equal, ENTITLED to Happiness.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

I believe they said that we are all entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 12 years ago

Yes, and you are entitled to those things, without asking other people to hand you anything for free.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

I'm not asking for handouts, I give handouts.

[-] 0 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

If there was a line. You decide which line to get in. The sign above one line say, "Pursuit of Happiness" and the other says "Entitled to Happiness" which one would you get in? If you said Entitled to Happiness they you proved my point. There is NO Entitled to Happiness. Pursuit means you have may pursue at your abilities.


[-] 2 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 12 years ago

all humans pursue things out of self interest, you are never going to eliminate greed.


[-] 2 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 12 years ago

you still work for a wage. you still live in more comfort than most of the world, no matter what you do if you're in the US. that $15 you spent at tgifs? you could have ate for $5 at mcdonald's and fed a family for days with $10 in africa. etc. just because you volunteer things as well, doesn't mean you don't do things out of self interest. and maybe you are super selfless and do give that $10 away every time, that's great. but the vast majority of people are motivated by self interest, it's human nature, and i have doubts that is ever going to change.

[-] 1 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

Your use of the Constitution or BoR's should have at least ONE example of wording talking about "greed" Where do you find that "greed" is not allowed? I cant find it but bet you can send me the line saying that.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

If we followed the Constitution, greed would be checked.

After World War II, the G.I. Bill provided returning servicemen with free college tuition, as well as cheap home loans and business loans. It was called “the G.I. Bill of Rights.” Studies have shown that the G.I. Bill paid for itself seven times over and is one of the most lucrative investments the government ever made.

The government could do that again—without increasing taxes or the federal debt. It could do it by recovering the power to create money from Wall Street and the financial services industry, which now claim a whopping 40% of everything we buy.


[-] 0 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

WWII. Let's see,,,,, 1940's? What about 1776-1940's?

Back on point,,, there is NO restictions on GREED. If you can post the wording in the Constitution or BoR's,,, I would SHUT UP.

[-] 0 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

First of all, I am not asking anyone to shut up . . .

The Constitution says only that “Congress shall have the power to coin money [and] regulate the power thereof.” The Founders left out not just paper money but checkbook money, credit card money, money market funds, and other forms of exchange that make up the money supply today. All of them are created by private financial institutions, and they all come into the economy as loans with interest attached.

Governments—state and federal—could bypass the interest tab by setting up their own publicly-owned banks. Banking would become a public utility, a tool for promoting productivity and trade rather than for extracting wealth from the debtor class.


[-] 1 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

Our monetary system has worked and continues to work. I'm not sure how your posting concerns entitlements.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

If our government created our money (as required by the Conststitution) rather than borrow the use of our own money from private "banksters" there would be a plentiful money supply to ensure the general welfare of our people.

Our monetary system is the root cause of our many problems including the ongoing financial crisis of 2008.


[-] 1 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

Your post and made my point.

[-] 1 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

It clearly says that you have the right to PURSUE happiness. "Created equal doens mean STAY equal." It is clear to me the wording you posted fails to say, "ENTITLED to happiness."

[-] 1 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

you are not given equality by government

[-] 1 points by LogTax (71) from Swifton, AR 12 years ago

You're supposed to be treated equally by the government.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

that also is not true

[-] -1 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

Where is the line in the Constitution, "ENTITLED to Happiness?"

[-] -1 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

The founding fathers were a bunch of rich white slave owners - the robber barons of the day - who didn't want to pay taxes.

Just to keep things in perspective ...

[-] -2 points by thefly (36) 12 years ago

it's Fondling Fathers

[-] -3 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

Only if they attended Penn St.