What is Digg?106 Comments
- lechtellhavel, on 11/13/2007, -2/+38Hard to believe that he was speaking to his contemporaries in 1796 and not directly to us in 2007.
- blueridgewv, on 11/13/2007, -0/+28Look and see how Washington warned of the government becoming an "unjust dominion" by popular parties that would subvert the constitution, as is the case now:
"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." - Lane, on 11/12/2007, -2/+22Not only Washington but many of the founding father's absolutely despised political parties. Think what you will but if you deduce your vote to (R) or (D) then your only serving to spread ignorance. Representatives used to be just that, and in this age when you can check upon each and every vote your representative makes their is no reason to not be fully aware of which candidate most supports your views. We should be ashamed of what this country has slowly mutated into.
- bleuwolfe, on 11/12/2007, -6/+26One word - READ.
- conceptkid, on 11/12/2007, -2/+15Seriously, you people who try to belittle the founding fathers of the USA are so ignorant that you forget they are the only reason you are even here today. Being Patriotic is not about who can build the biggest fleet of jets or who can salute the flag the most, being Patriotic to me, is remembering and honoring the people who founded this great country.
- rnelsonee, on 11/12/2007, -1/+12So I've got a question - whenever I read things written by the founding fathers, or even just an older president, it's always so eloquent. Compare a speech from Abe Lincoln to a speech made by Bush today. It's apples and oranges. Were the earlier Presidents simply more educated? Did everyone talk like that? Or maybe the Presidents were not only smart, but the intended audience was comprised of more educated citizens (other politicians, lawyers, etc.) rather than Joe Sixpack today. I don't know, I hope it's not that we've all gotten dumber, but I feel like I'm in Idiocracy now [Joe: "There was a time when reading wasn't just for fags. And neither was writing. People wrote books and movies. Movies with stories, that made you care about whose ass it was and why it was farting. And I believe that time can come again!"].
- scm21st, on 11/12/2007, -1/+10If it's so easy to see the wisdom in Washington's words, why is it still so hard for most Americans to give up loyalty to party? Abandoning your party is your first step in doing your part to save this nation. The next and logical step is to eliminate the career politician from our political landscape. - www.termlimiter.org
- Misesean, on 11/12/2007, -0/+7Why is being "the most powerful country in the world" worth caring about? Do people from less powerful countries like, say, Switzerland or New Zealand care that those countries aren't "superpowers"? I don't think so. (Why care about "countries" at all? They're just arbitrary lines on a map and nasty thugs that claim the right to control the slaves that live inside those lines)
- JLecker, on 11/12/2007, -0/+7Damn, comment expired. Here's what I meant to say:
I think their eloquence was a product of several factors: For one, education back then actually focused on creating such eloquence rather than on raising the test scores of the worst students. The flip side, of course, is that fewer people received such education--but that's another subject entirely. Also, Presidents didn't have the ability to reach massive audiences in a very short period of time, so they would presumably try to appeal to the ones that really mattered (other politicians, lawyers, and especially the wealthy). Plus, I think most politicians wrote their own speeches back then. If they were complete morons, it would show in their orations; they had no speechwriters to cover up the stupid.
The fact is, the game of politics itself has changed. Politicians back then served a dual-purpose as legislators and orators, so eloquence was practically required to do their jobs well. Today's politics, by contrast, are punctuated with 30-second soundbites; there is no opportunity (or need, even) to make grandiose speeches when the public will only hear a fraction of it.
Of course, we all know that the Founding Fathers and President Lincoln were light years ahead of Bush in brainpower. The Founding Fathers were able to organize a revolution, win a one-sided war, unite feuding factions, and compose one of the most brilliant documents in Western history. Lincoln was able to prevent the nation from dissolving and incidentally abolished slavery along the way. Bush couldn't even keep an oil company or two from going down the drain. - mranderson86, on 11/12/2007, -1/+8The answer to 1984 is 1776.
- gbarberi, on 11/12/2007, -0/+7We were given a possible solution in the Federalist Papers: Keep your factions small and numerous.
Why should I have only two (or three) choices to vote for. - krnldmp, on 11/12/2007, -0/+6Back in the day you didn't get dugg down on digg for saying stupid *****. You actually got pelted with rotten vegetables. That's how they handled people like Bush.
- zanzzz, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5That had better be bitter sarcasm.
- jeffness, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5thank you for picking out the relevant quote
- jaymzdean, on 11/12/2007, -2/+7There are too many idiots.
- TwinTurboMike, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5Don't underestimate the power of China's economic and export standings. Military might wouldn't be enough to withstand the repercussions of 0 Chinese imports and liquidation of the 1.2 Trillion US Dollars they've stockpiled.
If China cut the US off from export, they'd feel a 20% deficiency, which would quickly be made up by an increase in goods prices throughout the rest of their export markets. The US on the other hand, would be in deep $#!?. - cyberdork, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4Isn't the two party system the source of most problems in the US?
Just think about the ridiculously wide political spectrum both parties have to cover. - RobotBuddha, on 11/12/2007, -1/+5"All the answers were laid out for us."
I totally disagree. A proposition was put forward, and tested. While I'd certainly agree that it's vitally important to know the choices and ideals which got us here, the future's up to the living, not the dead. In many ways the grand experiment hasn't yielded the expected results, and cleaving to failed theory is not only bad science, but just plain bad for everyone involved.
That said, Washington's farewell address is one of my favorite texts from the early days of the US. Far more important than the vast majority of what's considered mandatory study material in most high schools. - jmgoody311, on 11/12/2007, -1/+5good read.
- goffy59, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4It makes me mad most Americans are not this way. While our current government claims they fight as patriots defending the constitution when they in reality whip their ass with it.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/12/2007, -3/+7They did NOT despise political parties. They did not know/did not anticipate that political parties would ever exist in America. They only decided to put their best man in the presidency and the second best in the VP.
- RobotBuddha, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3It's difficult for a lot of reasons. Near the top is something akin to stockholme syndrome. Americans are usually taught from a very young age that they're part of a participitory form of government which allows their voice to be heard, and their concerns to be recognized. It's obviously not the case, which leads to a subconscious choice to come to terms with the cognitive dissonance. Either reject the polite lie told by society and find oneself somewhat outcast along with a sense of powerlessness, or identify with a group whose concerns actually are addressed and whose voice is actually heard. The person might just be lip synching the words of a party, but to them it will actually feel like 'they' are the ones who think them up.
- ddawggin, on 11/12/2007, -2/+5Good point, I think black people are a whole person not just 3/5's and I think women should be given the right to vote.
- thebellmaster1x, on 11/12/2007, -4/+7There's more than one good choice. Let people make up their own minds on whom to vote for.
- mahdaeng, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3I miss George Washington.
- annonimality, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2"/sarcasm" would be nice. There are such idiots on digg you never know who is being sarcastic and who is being sincere.
- AutumnWindz, on 11/12/2007, -4/+6four words:
shut the ***** up - Misesean, on 11/12/2007, -1/+3Huh? You realize the 3/5s thing was more or less in favor of black people, right? If they'd been counted as whole persons, the slave states would have had more representation. The pro-abolitionist position would have been to not count slaves at all! (It doesn't say "black people are 3/5s of a person"; it says, basically, "for the purposes of representation, slave-owners don't get to count their slaves as an extra vote" - it doesn't actually mention color)
There's nothing in the Constitution that says either that black people are 3/5s of a person or that women can't vote. - mikesbaker, on 11/12/2007, -1/+3not being ironic just a troll
- TwinTurboMike, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2I'm pretty sure this is sarcasm, judging by the stories he's dug up in the past. :)
- maltofbowl, on 11/12/2007, -1/+3Written by Alexander Hamilton.
- yoda17, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
- nphase, on 11/12/2007, -5/+7No. See, in this nation we don't listen to our founding fathers or supporters of the consitution. You've got it all wrong.
- howea, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2heh, you forgot to put in 9/11, Mr Guiliani
- Arkaris01, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Does anyone know the paper that Washington wrote near the end of his life about the 2 party system he saw coming into place? Or was it Jefferson? Someone wrote a paper and talked about how sad it made them, that we could not live without division or something to that effect. Anyone out there with a better memory than me?
- Rince, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Well said, although I would like to add that I get the feeling that these people saw their country as a work in progress: trying honestly to give the best, the best they could. Always looking forward and trying to create something built on ideals, but able to withstand the test of time. Disregarding their own personal situation: think about Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independence while his wife was ill and he longed to be home. He could but he wouldn't go home, his duty was first to society and to his fellow citizens. Washington could have lived the quiet life of a country gentleman, but he didn't, standing up for what he truly believed to be his duty to society.
They may have bickered and disagreed, but these men were truly a band of brothers. - Arkaris01, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2It says you have to be a land owner and at the time I don't think women could own land? That was one of the women's movement things right? Someone bought a bunch of land and then sold 1 sq ft of it to a group of women so they could vote? The things I wish I would have paid attention to during school.
- Misesean, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2George Washington /was/ a "terrorist"
- conceptkid, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Seriously people, I could care less about all of the wars that were fought ever since the USA was founded. The founding fathers and what they did is more important to me, if they hadnt of founded this country, we would not be here today. All of the other ***** that happened in between then is irrelevant, as long as its not the ending of our FREEDOM in this country, I could care less because as long as this country still stands for what was intended by the fathers, then all is good. Please dont let government brainwash you into thinking, "well good thing we killed Hitler! Or good thing we got Saddam, he had a suitcase nuke! we saved the country!!, Praise us people!! We are the greatest!"
Lets keep this "Experiment" of a Free country that was founed 200+ years ago going into infinity. Our first step to getting back on track, is voting in the Modern Day George Washington AKA RON PAUL
I WANT RON PAUL ON THE NEW DOLLAR BILL! :D
Nobody can take over this country. They can attack us if they want to, but I honestly think we have a better chance defending. I truly do not believe that any country wants to nuke another country. I know the USA did it in the past, yes, there were some crazy wacko people living back then even in America, I believe human kind has moved past that and realized that nukes are not the thing to do. - beuke, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2And then four years later, in 1800, one of the fiercest and dirtiest political races between two parties took place. The Republicans, in Jefferson, beat out the Federalists, in Adams.
- drummerjed, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2he also warned of getting involved in world politics. Thanks Napoleon.
- schwab002, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2That's a perfect example of why people california should feel like they're getting screwed. In california there are 638 472 people per electorial vote, while in delaware there are 269 people per electoral vote. Why is a person's vote in california worth less than a person's vote in delaware? Popular vote is a safe way to ensure everyone's vote counts the same.
The electorial college is already really messed up. The only states that matter are the swing states (OH, FL, PA, etc). If it was done by popular vote, candidates would benefit from campaigning anywhere there are lots of people, not just in swing states. So many since delaware doesn't have a large population, it might not get too many candidates coming through, but right now it's not a swing state so no one is coming through anyways. At least with the popular vote system campaigners could go the the most densely populated area of the state to campaign and still benefit.
also, think of how nice it would have been if gore won the 2000 election since he wont the popular vote. - uptown, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2You make it sound as if getting people involved in government, and activism couldn't exist if it weren't for political parties. That seems short-sighted to me, and is only true today because it's the only option available.
- Arkaris01, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2In case you didn't read. For the past few years China has basically kept the Yuan at the same price as the dollar. The sliding US dollar has dropped the price of the Yuan. China is now pulling the Yuan out of the US dollar and putting it into the Euro. Take a wild guess as to what happens to their economy when we strengthen the dollar again? That's right... the same thing that happened to Japan in the 1980s! Very good.
For the past few years we have been getting more and more from China for less and less, even as the dollar dropped in value. Now that the dollar is worth very little and China is pulling out, they are losing a huge percentage and when we strengthen the dollar against the Euro, they will be taking huge losses. We are going to do it to India next, unless the American Manufacturing base comes home and we get jobs here. - Arkaris01, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1*Dies under all the text*
- Mesmorize, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Right on the money, the age of mass democracy had yet to come to be. President Andrew Jackson was the first to speak directly to the masses.
- FascistNation, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Tell George not to sweat it. There is only one political party. The Washington Party. And both the right wing and left wing skillfully coordinate to fleece the maximum in labor from the populace that they annually figure they can get away with, with the minimal use of the truncheon.
- dansvan, on 11/12/2007, -1/+2Digg needs a corruption of our founders' ideas section.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1albeit they never intended for them to grow to the extent we have today. The emergence of the real political party system we have today originated from 1832, the time of Andrew Jackson.
- Misesean, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1It was when Newton said it. He meant it as an insult to Hooke.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is