[–] clamhurt_legbeard 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

John Adams, for his persecution of anybody critical of him through the misuse of the Sedition Act.

For example:

Luther Baldwin was indicted, convicted, and fined $100 for a drunken incident that occurred during a visit by President Adams to Newark, New Jersey. Upon hearing a gun report during a parade, he yelled "I hope it hit Adams in the arse."[15][10]:112–14

[–] 1Iron_Curtain 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I would say this is an easy one and its Thomas Paine. Paine was the heart and soul of the radicalization of the notion behind the Revolution being one where Americans sought freedom and independence from the British crown and from the growing British Empire, fearing that they would just become just another colony, with little economic focus given to them and very little political rights in return(thus the reaction to taxation even though Americans were taxed 1/10th of what people in Great-Britain were taxed to pay for the debts of the French-Indian War).

I would say that the circumstances surrounding the French Revolution and American revolution are very similar. You had a peasant/blue-collared population who wanted their own land and "freedoms,"(although the circumstances differed, such as in the case of North America colonialists wanted the land West of the Appalachia which the Indian Demarcation Line did not allow and the French peasants wanted to be given a better living in return for the corvee system and wanted local landlords to have less legal control over them and their land and less freedom to roam around on their land for hunting purposes). What really drove both revolutions was the rising class of mercantile middleman(why New England was ground zero of the revolution). There was also lesser dissent among the landed-class and lower nobility for lack of representation within the French monarchy.

I think one can say that in the South, even though there were a healthy amount of loyalists, many of the planters and the large class of indentured servants/middle-men in the South believed they were not politically represented by Great-Britain and that the crown was not really backing its own economic enterprises. They were also reacting to a Great-Britain that was undergoing Whig ascendancy in parts of their system(one can see how a lot of it could be a reaction to Cromwellian/post-Cromwellian England). Anyways, back to the point, and getting to this at a later time, Paine was the only real one that strikes me as abnormal among the founding fathers. He had an extreme influence on writing up the constitution and wanted a more centralized state than Hamilton-Adams wanted. Hamilton-Adams wanted a centralized state because it would ensure a stable and unified economy. Paine was basically advocating for the ideals of the French Revolution(and even went to take part in the French Revolution and almost lost his life in the course of action).

He is the person that advocated for unconditional liberty, equality, et cetera for all. I also think he is the one that really branded in the minds of the founding fathers(who only partially believed it, especially in the North, where they wanted to return to a monarchic like-system ala the Federalists) that Great-Britain was a tyrannical force. Perhaps he was a seer because as Great-Britain democratized it became more tyrannical, albeit through its corporate sector, but he had a flawed perception of Great-Britain. Paine is the inspirational force of a certain aspect of the revolutionary spirit that is very leftist leaning, very anti-constructivist, and actually inspired early secessionist movements which were predecessors to later ones that played on rifts between the South and North that existed before the Revolutionary War.

The damage Paine has wrecked and the fact that his beliefs and suppositions are treated as such inalienable truths makes him one of the worst founding fathers.

[–] Oswy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Parroted cliches, interminable waffle, astounding occasional illiteracy...


[–] Joe_McCarthy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

No strong opinion. In former years I might have said Paine for his left leaning politics and views on religion. But I have since developed a greater appreciation for the power of his pen. It is even possible there would have been no American Revolution without it.

So I'll try and up my cred with the Jew haters (not that any of them are likely to have ever even heard of this dude):


[–] 1Iron_Curtain 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I was reading that Wikipedia page and was wondering how can one be part of a nation(people never talked of racial affiliation that way in the past, but rather with culture, as Johann Herder did) and enjoy all the privileges of another nation and not be somewhat inclined to be treasonous/traitorous to it.

Am I the only one that sees the inconsistency? Either you are loyal to your nation or "The" Nation. Its that simple. All European ethnic groups, besides for maybe the Irish for a short time, Southern Europeans(and even then they got over this) and Eastern Europeans(they at least tried hard and I mean hard) openly embraced becoming true and blue Americans. We see at a micro-sociological level that other non-European groups, like Middle-Easterners, the Hindu/Indian-American, Iranian-American do not embrace what it means to be an American and part of that is because they racially can't, because they insulate themselves, and because their cultural ways and beliefs disallow them from doing such. East-Asians and Hispanics stand on the periphery of being able to embrace and try hard to embrace certain aspects but fail to embrace the core(but are still to be considered honorary citizens). I don't consider myself a Jew-hater(although maybe I am secretly one without knowing it? and after all I have ranted once upon a time about how Jews were the big problem with society, but that was a while ago and I see the more complex dynamics now) but it seems that Haym's viewpoint is strongly held by a lot of the "good old American" Zionist Jews that live in North America(that sense of self-entitlement when it comes to privileges(not talking about accessibility to privileges) and even worse).

Haym seems to be in this context worthy of the wrath of those who are not anti-Jewish but anti-Painesian. Again, here lies another problem with the British not being supported, which Andrew Jackson addressed rightfully later on(the concept of Imperio Imperium when it came to the Native American position in North American society; I don't think Jackson's resolution was appropriate or right-minded though and even one can say the notion of creating the state of state into a "Bantustan" is ideal, especially if it applied to Native Americans(wonder why Jackson never thought about this; oh well, I think Apartheid had nearly a perfect human rights record, with some small issues, which would have been hard for a military man like Jackson to live up to).

The only population that supports the state within a state mentality, besides for modern American Zionist Jews, are African-Americans and their reasons are more understandable and I sympathize with it(Jews are part European in some cases and those that are should just look to integrate to the state apparatus).

[–] 1Iron_Curtain 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Paine was the most insidious of the founding fathers, besides for the snooty John Adams(and even then he had some points to make about sedition laws).

Paine had no point and clearly paved the path towards unchecked destruction all in the name of the "cult of reason." Paine illustrates the danger of the pen(as you call it), which could be used as a small arms against the institution that fosters it. I admire those who the pen, even it is done with guile, subterfuge, and social overthrow in mind, but there must be something constructive in place. It cannot be just mere deconstructionist banter. Paine was a pure ideologue, unlike all the other founding fathers who were men of reason and practicality. Paine could even be considered a crypto-socialist(he was rising against the "tyranny" of British capitalism, which proved to be a mostly benevolent thing, besides for its misadventure in the Transvaal, which led to the Boer Wars. Its like saying we should praise Marquis Sade for his writings.

Slavery would have been abolished earlier(my main problem would be whether it just became like any other Creole Caribbean society, but I sort of doubt this), secession would never have occurred, and the Union would truly have been preserved. I think the South was fighting for everything Paine stood for during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was a big fan of Paine and not to pull out a Red Herring out of the hat had Marxist sympathizers in his cabinet. Also, the mess that is the area west of the Mississippi would have been more lightly settled and not as crowded with peoples.

The British would have taken it to keep the Spanish and later Napoleon in check(as they were already combatting Napoleon by expanding into French colonies) and would certainly tried to assume control over the Mississippi, but all the weird "religious" mysticism and populism attached to the West would never have arisen and the brash individualism would have focused around the Mississippi and the Southern United States.

It would have made the British the eternal rulers of the world and Cecil Rhodes vision of having a economic union between Great-Britain and Germany, which would have checked the powers driving against each other, from occurring. It would have been as wunderbar only a little less so than Germany winning World War I.

[–] Rask-III [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Looks like Xerxes from 300.

[–] PoundSign_999 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 


[–] con77 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

the imaginary muslims obama insists were part of everything

[–] SurfinMindWaves 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'm going with Ben Franklin, since they found all those bodies buried under his house.

[–] Oswy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I heard this. Dismaying. The anatomy excuse COULD be legit, but do we have any more info as to age and sex and so on?

[–] Rask-III [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

An insane weirdo I follow who's accidentally right several times a day once claimed that Benjamin Franklin was the inspiration for Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. You know, bodies and electricity and all that.

I'm sure all kinds of weird experimenters could have proven inspirational for that (that's what science used to be when they actually discovered stuff), but obviously the founding father and discoverer of electricity would be the most interesting one.

[–] Master_Foo 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It was his house in Britain, so I'm going with the idea that Franklin was some kind of Olde-tyme James Bond or something and the bodies he buried were henchmen who tried to kill him.

[–] SurfinMindWaves 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's an entertaining theory. I like it.

[–] middle_path 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Source? Just listened to a great audiobook on BF and have a newfound appreciation for him.

[–] SurfinMindWaves 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Bones from at least 15 people. Personally I don't believe the possible excuses.


[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Privatize grave yards.

[–] SurfinMindWaves 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[–] Pawn 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Trump, for not throwing Hillary in prison.

[–] Master_Foo 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm going to go with Hamilton on this one. He was the worst.

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)