US
Stossel: Did ‘Drunks and Prostitutes and Slackers’ Play as Big a Role in History as the Founding Fathers?
- Posted on March 14, 2011 at 11:42pm by
Scott Baker
- Print »
- Email »
Yes, says Thaddeus Russell, author of ” A Renegade History of the United States“:
Editor’s note: Maybe it’s just my computer…but I’ve had a hard time getting this video to fully buffer. You may see a spinning symbol, but I found if I hit the play button anyway…the video plays.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 585 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 369 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 369 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (146)
miles from nowhere
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 1:09amMANTHONG you nailed it! Do not leave MAO out he would cry fowl if he did not get the same treatment as Broker. Thanks
Report Post »barrynmooch
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 1:01amAll those that try to rewrite history and tell us what the men who signed our constitution were “really thinking” usually only reflect their beliefs. Every one of them owned guns…yet the ******** will tell you they were really for only limited people owning them. More than one of them farmed tobacco , and if they saw 5 bucks a pack tax on it now..they would likely string the person up that taxed it as a british sympathizer. More than one of them had distilleries , and made their own whiskey and didn‘t want any government to tell them what they could do and what they couldn’t do.
Report Post »weeblewacker1
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 11:27amshhhh,barrynmooch, does good old G.Washington and the whiskey rebellion ring a bell?
Report Post »thought
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 1:00amMy first impression is that Mr. Russell is a Libertine.
Report Post »(A libertine is one devoid of most moral restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behavior sanctioned by the larger society.)
Whenever I hear someone use the term, Puritanical, I know they have no regard for that which is considered clean and moral by society. Because it threatens his libertine philosophy, he must belittle morality by making it seem outdated. He thinks he is being restricted. So, Mr. Russell attempts to rewrite history by pointing to the debauchery of certain people with glee.
I noticed that Russell does not take into account the First Great Awakening and the huge impact it had on the Colonies.
MLK was a Baptist minister who had a moral compass. Most Black pastors think homosexuality is immoral (just ask).
The Founding Fathers were men of good moral judgement. So, what’s so bad about that?
SCHEXbp
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 7:01amHe keeps using “madams” as his prostitute examples, but they were the exploiters of women.
Report Post »All his claptrap about drunks & violent rabbles being the driving force behind everything from The Boston Massacre to The Birmingham riots is superficial. Try building an army for George Washington from drunks & SLACKARDS. These stalwarts were just the opposite. He has a nice comic front, but it is mostly schtick. Stossel, being libertarian, does not actively enough debunk his exaggerations & of course his constant implication of “presentism” wherein he applies the morality of today (such as it is) to the morality of days long past. Weak stuff, almost clownish in dealing with a SERIOUS world-changing event, the establishment of America.
ManThong
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:53amIf it wasn’t for drunks, dopers, prostitutes, slackers and deviants we wouldn;t have any liberal progressive democrats to make fun of.
Report Post »heavllyarmed
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 1:19amjust not the same without Ted Kennedy.
Report Post »restorehope
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:51amThe Founding Fathers were human, just like the rest of us. They all had strengths and weaknesses and made mistakes in their lives. It is easy to look back with hindsight and judge people, whether it is the Founders or the less-than-perfect slackers, drunkards, and prostitutes. It was the Founders’ wisdom and determination, however, that birthed our nation. They were willing to stay the course in spite of how their personal lives were conducted. We owe them over 200 years of prosperity because they gave us such a phenomenal start.
@Snow
Report Post »I think our current generation could be considered the Preservers. We Americans seem to be joining forces to preserve the freedom and destiny that, before now, we tended to take for granted. I will never again forget or underestimate America’s greatness. This progressive attempt to steal the country from us shows us just how fragile our freedom is. Patriots like Beck and grassroots movements like the Tea Party have not only alerted us to the socialist agenda, but also energized us for the stand we have to take to preserve America.
Comeandtakeit
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 9:32amHere, here, exactly. The Founders were human and all unique individuals with extraordinary talents that combined at a critical time in history to give us what we have today. I think the guy is telling some truths but also imposing some of his own stereotypes on history and misrepresenting the human side of the founders to impose his “own” moral prejudices on history. I take his conclusions based on this interview, and not having read his book, with a large shaker of salt.
Report Post »Cherynn
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:45amCherynn, Speak Your Mind
Report Post »why bother, it will get deleted
Exrepublisheep
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:51amDon’t give up!
Report Post »Alvin691
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:37amOccidental College. Ring a bell?
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:39amno, please enlighten me.
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:45amO’Blahblah used to romp in the meadows there
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 1:09amOh………………………
Report Post »Dahart
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 8:16am@RESTORHOPE
THANK YOU….. For your voice of reason. The making of this great country has not always been pretty but never the less it is still great. And if we were all so perfect…..we would not be were we are at today in this country.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:35amWell… ole Benjamin certainly did like the women. what did that have to do with the constitution?
Report Post »ole George grew hemp and focused on the female plants what did that have to do with the constitution?
both were human, along with the rest.
our country has the RICHEST culture; because of our freedoms. this guy emphasizes what he sees as important.
GetUpOnTheWheel
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:32amThis guy rocks. Good stuff. Anyone dismissing it out of hand….should at least give it a watch. Good stuff.
*Hint he got fired from Columbia U for being politically incorrect about MLK.
Report Post »NeoKong
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:29amSorry….a ten minute video is pushing it.
Report Post »I-HATE-THE-WORD-DISENFRANCHISE
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:26amWho thinks druncks, prostitutes and community organizers aren’t running our two-thirds of our government today.
Report Post »I-HATE-THE-WORD-DISENFRANCHISE
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:29ammy bad, drunks
Report Post »Dictatorship
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:26amLame topic. Times were hard back then, maybe they did, but they made our country strong.
Now it’s nothing but Mamsi-pamsies in government, who want to rule the world.
Report Post »oldguy49
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:20ampeople …………….please leave broker alone…………..i for one appreciate his point of view……….lets me know that i am right most of the time!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »HTuttle
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:16am–Editor’s note: Maybe it’s just my computer…but I’ve had a hard time getting this video to fully buffer. You may see a spinning symbol, but I found if I hit the play button anyway…the video plays.—
I find that with many Fox videos.
Report Post »TunaBlue
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:16amSure! Just like drunks and prostitutes contribute today. Uh…not really. Never mind. Oh, I heard that these idiots are trying to sell the idea that Lincoln was gay.
Thaddeus Russell is the only drunk in this drama. Drunk with desire to change history, and prostituting himself for money. The only people who will buy this book will be the JournoList, academia, and the pseudo-intellects of every ilk.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:21amDoes it matter if Lincoln was gay?
Report Post »RedHarley
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 8:41amArchon,
If it were true that Lincoln was gay it would matter much less than if a President had grown up with Socialist/Marxist/Communist influences his whole life.
Report Post »dontbotherme
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:09amSigh…. I‘ll learn my history from ’A Patriot‘s History of the United States’. I’m sure there were people of ill repute that had a hand in the formation of our Nation, but our FOUNDING FATHERS were good men & they formed our Constitution & Bill of Rights. I think this is just another attempt to tear us down some more, so I’ll not be paying attention to it.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 11:39amIt sounds like you don’t want to be bothered with a reply, but I’ll risk it anyway. I just reread the portion of Schweikart & Allen’s “Patriot’s History” that deals with the Jacksonian period and found it OK on some things, but excessively intent on villainizing Jackson (probably because he was a Democrat) and fitting everything into a big-government bad-small-government good Procrustean bed. Reread the parts of Zinn’s “People’s History” covering the same period and it’s all the evils of slavery and Indian removal and the heroism of those who resisted them. Both suffer from idol-worship. What‘s refreshing about Russell is that he doesn’t fall into the heroes-vs.-villains trap; he simply points out that a good many Americans have always been hard-drinking, gambling, fornicating types, and that at times these elements have been in the forefront of the forces making for change.
Report Post »dontbotherme
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 4:49pmLloyd – My name was chosen by my children. It is the response they used to get from me when they would come running into the house to snitch on each other. I used to say, “Don‘t bother me unless there’s blood involved”. So, I am not opposed to hearing another viewpoint. I am not young. I have read many different History books, written & re-written as time goes by. In case you missed it, I did acknowledge the fact that there were probably people of ill repute who had a handle in our founding. So… I agree somewhat & will check your suggestion.
Report Post »glennisright.com
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:07amWe need a union for drunks, prostitutes, and slackers to get us our rights back.
Report Post »RedHarley
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 8:26amWe already have several for the slackers…..
Report Post »Just need them for drunks and prostitutes.
Exrepublisheep
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:02amWHAT? THIS IS….oops, spilled my beer on my ******.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 2:55amThats American…….LOL
Report Post »SlimShavings
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:00amWTF. Booze and whores brought capitalism to Vietnam even though the Commies are in power. Booze and whores have played a part in every revolution,civilization rise or falll since time immemorial
Report Post »marine249
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 11:50pmI don’t know about then but
Report Post »we sure do today
Carbine1
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 11:49pmHell yes they did. It is a fact that an alcoholic does better then 50% of those who don’t excessively drink at any job being a leader.
Report Post »TunaBlue
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:08amDo you have a source for your ridiculous assertions?
I think you’ve been hitting the sauce, too. There are at least three grammatical errors and one misspelling in your second sentence.
Report Post »Protege
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 3:42amAt the risk of inciting more of Carbine’s comments:
Churchill was a qualified drunk.
Hitler was a health nut.
Nimitz was smashed more than he was sober.
Yammamoto was a personal fitness fanatic and against all alcohol.
Macauthur was known to have some SERIOUS whiskey issues.
Togo ate nothing he himself did not grow in a garden.
U.S. Grant was hammered for at least half of the US Civil War.
R.E. Lee swore off spirits for the duration of the war.
Easy enough facts to check anywhere. Not saying he is correct, but history (unfortunately) bears out his argument to a small degree.
Report Post »broker0101
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 11:49pmMr. Russell actually did his own research and has historical, written proof to support his opinion. Uncomfortable when that works against your Beck-Bot philosophy, isn’t it?
Report Post »Nigel2
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:01amWhat’s wrong broker? Not enough excitement on the liberal blogs? Oh that’s right, you pathetic liberals can’t establish and maintain a proper message board.
Well that is ok, we will just put on our nose plugs and tolerate your pathetic drivel. So sad for your pathetic ilk.
Report Post »GdavidH
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:07amBroker you are an idiot.
Report Post »The “founding fathers” were not All in agreement in faith. They were a diverse group of men who argued constantly about faith, religion, and WHAT TYPE OF GOVERNMENT TO SET UP.
This guy is a putz.
Are all black men absentee fathers???? Are all Jews frugal???
Stereotype= fact????????????????????????????
The Third Archon
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:07amHere here–I love how literally every shred of empirical evidence that even dares to question Glenn‘s narrative get’s completely ignored and marginalized by Beck’s followers with cries of “troll,” flagging anything they disagree with, and other ad hominem attacks that side-step the actual claim-warrant-evidence chain; and they consider this logical argumentation!
If your ideologically really needs such fanatical devotion to believing that you must ignore, marginalize, and attempt to silence any criticism, then it’s probably WRONG.
Report Post »Comeandtakeit
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:09amThe problem I see with some of what he said is that it simply isn’t true all of the Founding Fathers were that restrictive about sex, For example. Benjamin Franklin was definitely a womanizer and it has been documented that Thomas Jefferson had a black mistress for years. This was used against him in his political campaigns, too. I also take issue with his denigration of people who happen to believe in monogamous sex- this was the norm for many years, and many of us find it normal, not something to mock.
Report Post »rpp
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:09amTo quote that pithy and gifted observer f human nature, Bugs Bunny, “What a maroon.”
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:16amBroker 0101
Do your own research and see what is really there, not your own views imposed on history.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:33amI’m sure that Broker knows all this because Broker probably was sitting right next to the guy while he was doing the research, to make sure he got every despicable comment in as possible. That’s the way Broker is — cannot bring himself to say a kind word to anyone about anything.
Report Post »RLTW
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:46amBrokers simpleton statement denies the historical foundation the founders put in place, no American can deny the colorful background of this country, but it was always the balancing of opposites that kept the American people on course.
Report Post »The founders set a place on the compass, liberals/progressives have spent a 100yrs trying to move us completely off course.
RepubliCorp
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 2:50amTokers 202′s power-mac fell of the dryer today and he is taking it out us. Maybe his mommy will make him some fish sticks and he will slither back to the huff-n-puff and pick on Palin for a week or two. She is dumb, she is this, that & whatever. Libturds and their gay lovers see the end is near and all they have is noise
Report Post »randy
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 11:48pmLiberals trying to re-Write history again
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:25amhow do you know this guy is a liberal and how do you know what he’s reporting is incorrect? Seems like he researches history pretty extensively.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:26amHow do you know he is a liberal and how do you know he is incorrect about history? seems like he does extensive research into this
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:37amThe folks that formed America were exceptional in every respect. OK my family was there and a 150 yrs before so I am bragging.
The liberal anti-Christ heathens take a board and pick every sliver out one at a time until it is no longer whole or solid. Well that will not work on those of us who are American Patriots.
My family was there and no whores were present around us, just farmers, blacksmiths, Christians, sailors, to mention only a few. All were special in what they offered and they did what it took to carve out a nation against all odds.
It seems we as Americans have always been outnumbered but we have always overcome and will again. No one is ever going to match what they did. It is unfortunate those who would pervert the truth to tear down a nation that has been so good to its people and the world.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 11:14amRandy:
If you mean Russell, he doesn’t seem to be a liberal at all; according to him, he got fired from Barnard because he challenged liberal orthodoxy by questioning the non-violence of the civil rights movement while bringing up the homophobia of many of its leaders. (Did anyone else note that he then bounced over to Occidental, where Obama studied before going to Columbia? Probably just a coincidence.)
This interview sprawls all over the place, from the Boston Massacre to the red ball gowns worn by recent First Ladies, so it’s difficult to get anything coherent out of it, but in general Russell’s thesis seems to be that American history has been driven more than we know by disreputable elements, be they 18th-century ruffians acting out as “Sons of Liberty,” 19th-century hookers flaunting their stuff in public, or 20th-century hoodrats forcing the issue on civil rights.
In each case, more “elite” elements were able to take advantage of what their inferiors were doing, while at the same time struggling to suppress their more anarchic tendencies. Sam Adams and John Hancock adeptly used the Boston mob against the British and their Tory supporters while preaching not anarchy but liberty under law.. Middle-class 19th- and early 20th-century feminists pursued independent careers, went out in public unescorted, and even sometimes smoked, drank and wore more revealing clothing–even as they tried to stamp out brothels and saloons among the lower orders. Civil rights leaders dressed respectably and talked about turning the other cheek and bearing witness as a beloved community, but were not above hinting at violence to come and pursuing furious vendettas among themselves. I take it this is the point Russell is trying to make.
A word about the founders: broadly speaking, they were active between 1760 and 1830, which is a transitional period not just in America but in much of the western world, and not just for its revolutions! It witnessed the rise of a new moralism, better called Victorian than Puritan because it was less theologically rigorous, which found expression in abolitionism, temperance, prison reform, revivalism and “family values,” not so much replacing as supplementing the rationalism of the Enlightenment. This is why Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, sometimes seem to come from different worlds morally and culturally, though politically they found much to agree on, at least in the crucial 1770s-1780s.
Report Post »Quagaar Warrior
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 11:47pmI‘m sure they did with broker0101’s fathers!
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 11:54pmBINGO!
http://tinyurl.com/4rv8xsm
Report Post »joseph Fawcett
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:05amI wouldn’t doubt a lot of what the guy said. I think maybe he has put too much importance upon some things. Also I think that he has a bone to pick, and wants to get paid quite well for it too. I have noticed that we in the perspective of history tend to put people we admire on a pedestil (sp? sorry) and only look at their greatness. However, a lot of what the guy said about the founding fathers is true and we would be better off following their examples. They however did not impose thier religious views on others nor demand anyone follow them in their practice. If you want to see a true depiction of a whores life in the old west then watch the Deadwood HBO programs. Don’t let this guy make it sound like these ladies were great people. They were people, maybe wealthy, but their wealth came from the “slavery” of women who sold themselves.
http://www.josephfawcettart.com western artist
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:16amThe bottom line of the argument from history is very simple to understand; the founding fathers are the ones who put the country togeather, over many years of time and great deal of debate for it to happen. What acted as the stones and mortar to hold the country togeather at that time and since is the PEOPLE of AMERICA, for it is WE THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA who are the nation itself.
So yes, if drunks, prostitutes and slackards were apart of the beginning, so be it; yet it is the idea of freedom, liberty and the ability to chase your dreams and make them happen that gave all of the people, men and women, the way to go.
Each generation is a band of “Founding Fathers’ and “Founding Mothers’ for the generation who will come next after our own; building upon the foundations of the past to a greater future from our own present.
This generation at the time will be remembered as the “Restorers” in addition to the “Founders” of the very same future; for in the saving and restoration of the nation, we find what they had then, in common with each other despite differences, and what makes each of us different to add a unique bit to the country as a whole.
So let the Restorers and Founding Mothers and Fathers of this generation keep on the work.
For this nation shall not pass into the night while I still have any way to prevent it from happening.
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:19amI’m sure even drunks and prostitutes of the 18th century had better ethics and morals ,
Report Post »than the politicians of today .
Anarcho Capitalist
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:26amyou people better know its all true. May as well wake up and see your own history, that its not bad, and not just what you want to see.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:30amI for one am glad our founding fathers were guided by God…and gave us our freedoms ..as far as the “rich” prostitutes…I myself like to think of women like Martha Washington who was at Valley Forge giving biscuits to the men…or Dolly Madison who gathered important documents out of the White House as the British were storming it..Harriet Tubman who walked miles in the dead of night to smuggle people to the north…This guy wants to talk about all the sinful people of colonial America…and because our founders were decent men…thats a problem…and if you really want to know what I think…Martin Luther King was right about alot of stuff..sinful behavior has always been around…always will be…doesn’t mean we have to do it…
Report Post »sissykatz
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:38am@ Joseph
I agree with you about the prostitutes, I did not see so much liberation as slavery. Unless maybe the Madam was liberated and she made her money off the “slavery” of her stable as it still is today.I find it extraordinary that some people think it is somewhat “laughable” for Christians to believe in no pre-marital sex or extramarital affairs and believe in monogamy. I do and always have believed that is the way it is supposed to be. He was right about the “civil rights” not being all non-violent, it had plenty of violence I was there and it kinda reminds me of Wisconsin today.Even when it was not extremely violent there was plenty of provacation. Peoplel wanting you to be violent or give them a reason to be.Really alot like unions.
Report Post »Jayk Signal
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:51amHe refers to “The Founders” as if they were a monolithic entity. I suspect the founders had varying opinions on all sorts of subjects.
I find it hard to believe they struggled and fought so hard over the precise language of the Constitution and Declaration, yet they had absolute unity on the topics this guy claims.
Sounds about as well researched as the MSM’s blanket statements about the Tea Party.
Report Post »Fletch
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 1:03amSo Charlie Sheen was a founding father???
Report Post »Hobbs57
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 1:17amI am sure most of this is true. These Historians are unique people, however, they can get lost in trying to make a point. I do respect their work though. It all primarily depends upon what documented history is found, and what perspective the author of the work’s has. Often, Historians are renown for not taking the culture of the times into account.
Report Post »For example, My grandmother, a little Irish Roman Catholic, would not even consider her children sharing a bed with the opposite sex. Not even when I was a child, I’m 35. However, after 30 years of watching the garbage on TV, she had come to a completely different perspective the years leading up to her death. She allowed my girlfriend to share a bed with me when we were visiting. However, as shocked as I was, I refused too. I would certainly not disrespect her, even upon her reassuring me and insisting. Because of what she taught me as a child, I came to the understanding i my own mind, that it wasn’t respectful of me to have to cause my loved ones concern about what may be going on in their house while I was a guest. It is so crazy how the times have changed. Sadly, she was a “pull the lever Democrat, even id it was for a Rock” Rooseveltite of the Great Depression. The progressives RUINED all these good God loving Americans by using their loyalty to exploit them morally.
History is history, I am in college right now and in a History course of the reconstruction to modern times. The book is so slanted I can barely read it. It is all about the labor movement, woman rights movement, progressive movement, and hoe terrible our nation treated the slaves and the Indians. All of which is true, but it is all they write about. Oh Yeah, the greedy capitalist as well. They plainly just tie the Industrialist and the Bankers into together. Something they still do to this day.Yet, I never read of the great parts of our history, like Ford, and Edison. Somehow they changed the railroads these Industrialist built to being bad and evil. I do enjoy learning about this stuff as well, but , because I am older and know better, it is clear how they are indoctrinating these children. Many who’s college educated parents had indoctrinated them as well. It is tough to keep my mouth shut.
No matter what our past has in it, it is part of who we are. Just as myself, the lessons I learned first hand are the ones I am most passionate about. Just as any church one attends, or group or organization one is a part of, or even you community, state , or nation, if you are going to judge the body of the church by the few humans characters you don’t lie, then you will never be part of anything,The old adage, it is about the message not the messenger idea. That is, unless you are an intellect and see life and the world in terms of the black and white print of a book, causing you to spend you life judging and excluding instead of forgiving and including, you will never be able to see the big picture. That is, America set the morale and ethical standards that best ensure a free and liberated people. Time takes time, something you would think the historian would understand best.
Kurty C Wipe
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 1:33amWe all need a good laugh, Harry Reids son, Classic
Report Post »http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201…counts-address/
godlovinmom
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 1:34amHobbs…right on…I’m a homeschooling mom on the public school curriculum and it is a twisted view of history…God bless you!
Report Post »ME
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 3:26am@Quagaar Warrior
Hands down the best “firsties” I have seen in a while:)
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 4:57amThe freedom we enjoy today is so controlled. I would love to go back to a time where we truly could do what we wanted to do without GOVERNMENT intervention. If you aren’t hurting someone else what does it matter, but the first time you hurt another, you get punished by jail or by a lawsuit. Let your own morality be your guide and prostitution, drunkards and drug addicts will bring on their own demise. Jealous wives and overdoses would thin out the crowd. Morality would be seen as a good way to live and the other life would be seen as a road to deatruction…Your choice.
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 5:52amThis man’s interest in prostitution seems a little too obsessive to me but he did make some good points otherwise.
Report Post »CrackerSmurf
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 6:16amwho cares what they were. They DID what they did.
Report Post »SCHEXbp
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 6:29amHobbs57 is right; I’m 25 tears older than he & have seen a similar example, evaluating it the same. And his examples of “educational” propaganda are spot on.
Report Post »Modern culture, especially TV, beats down moral principles over decades. Everybody who at least tries to espouse, if not practice standards, just shrugs & does whatever the cultural norm is now. Often “defenders” simply lose their rebuttals to common excuses to act poorly and just give up because they’re tired of arguing even though they have a defensible position. I have coined the phrase “emotional senility” for when a staunch holder of a position seems to totally backslide on their lifelong positions of morality & political viewpoints in their golden years. It is an acquiescence to the trends on society that they are tired of standing against. Notice this when you see some icon come out for a side that seems contrary to the position you know they have held their whole life. And watch how society applauds them. That is why when someone gets older and does NOT cave, he is all the more of an icon – like Reagan, who did not change his position on The 2nd Amendment when he got shot himself. Others would have & been the toast of columnists & TV talk shows. It works even more for morality standards (look at the wearing down of ANY “judgement” about homosexual behavior & variants thereof – it started with “Queer Eye” & now we have TV reality shows with drag queens evaluated by RuPaul).
Since the 60s modern culture seems to rub its hands together in glee when espousing every kind of deleterious smarmy behavior. Most of this book just does it retrospectively. The farther back in history his examples occurred, the less weighty his argument.
TruthTalker
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 11:45pmErm, OK. Just as big. Sure.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 8:39amTalk about a professor who knows how to double-down on his fallacious logic when challenged. The Founders were making history, and making liberty possible. The “renegades” were either along for the ride, or abusing what liberties they had. Huge difference. The Constitution can‘t work if the people aren’t moral enough to uphold it by obeying just laws. Abuses do and have always existed, but they work against the founding principles, not in advancement of them.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 8:44amWhen you have a group of guys get together and pen writings about Live and Let Live, you have to kind of assume that they’re the type who, gosh, Liver and Let Live.
As if, follow me here, they were all normal, happy human beings who enjoyed life and didn’t want some nagging nobbob dictating to them how to live.
If they were a bunch of moral Puritans I would have been shocked if they’d had been able to write a single line in the Declaration of Independence. Puritans don’t like freedom, they like conformity and rules and a strict moral code throughout society. Fun loving types are the opposite of moral Puritans.
I for one would celebrate a cadre of fun loving men who enjoyed their booze, whores and who were not married to their work 24/7. Much better company than a bunch of church ladies if you ask me. :)
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 8:45amLiver = Live. Freudian slip? You decide! :)
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 9:43amYou’ve written many respectable things on this forum, Ghost, but it appears here that you can’t distinguish between Libertarian and Libertine. You’ve been duped. You trade fun for joy, and completely miss the point of liberty and the principles undergirding it if you believe the notion that obedience to moral laws invariably makes Jack a dull boy. The most fun-loving people I know are ones who never touch alcohol, who love their wives and kids, and who release their energy in socially and morally responsible ways, rather than in pure rebellion against the very “rules” that allow us all the freedom we enjoy. I’m not defending prudish puritanism, but you appear to be defending wantonness. It can’t lead to happiness, I’m sad to have to tell you. Don’t you know the stop sign on the road keeps you free from accidents with cross traffic?
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 9:58am@HAPPYSTRETCHEDTHIN
“You’ve written many respectable things on this forum, Ghost, but it appears here that you can’t
distinguish between Libertarian and Libertine.”
Given my posts here to date, do you really think that I don’t know the differences between libertine and libertarian? That I haven’t read the Marquis de Sade in some depth, that I’m not familiar with the Aesthetic movement of the late 19th century?
“You’ve been duped. You trade fun for joy, and completely miss the point of liberty and the principles undergirding it if you believe the notion that obedience to moral laws invariably makes Jack a dull boy.”
There’s no problem with following moral laws. There is a problem with embracing moral Puritanism. There’s a difference. You should do what’s right, you should be a good person, but that doesn’t mean that you should abstain from all fun in life. You can drink and flirt with women and get this, you can still be a decent moral guy. There is a false dichotomy that‘s developed since the Victorian era that says you’re either some chaste moral Puritan, or you’re for no-rules hedonism.
“The most fun-loving people I know are ones who never touch alcohol, who love their wives and kids, and who release their energy in socially and morally responsible ways, rather than in pure rebellion against the very “rules” that allow us all the freedom we enjoy.”
The most fun loving people are ones that sometimes touch alcohol, or do not, who love their wives, or who are not married, and who release their energy as they see fit as long as they do not harm others. The “rules” that allow us all the “freedom we enjoy” are few, and have to do with living your life as you see fit, assuming you harm no others. You cannot stumble around drunk in the middle of a highway and screech that it’s your right, that’s a given, but you don’t have to be a pristine Puritan either. The rules, again, are few in a truly free society, and yes, adherence to those rules is required by all. What that has to do with having a drink, liking women and not being a 24/7 workaholic, I honestly don’t know.
“I’m not defending prudish puritanism, but you appear to be defending wantonness. It can’t lead to happiness, I’m sad to have to tell you. Don’t you know the stop sign on the road keeps you free from accidents with cross traffic?”
But that stop sign has nothing to do with what kind of music I choose to play on the car radio. And that’s what *I’m* saying. Lots of folks run under the mistaken notion that the Founders were these morally pure chaste types who ran around with Bibles in their hands and would only engage in nearly Holy activities. And my original post is, well, that kind of person would not even conceive of wanting to establish a nation of liberty where each man is free to do as he wills as long as he harms no other. Those in fact are the opposite types of people.
Report Post »marjorie faye
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 10:28amTo Ghostofjefferson,
You said: “I for one would celebrate a cadre of fun loving men who enjoyed their booze, whores and who were not married to their work 24/7. Much better company than a bunch of church ladies if you ask me. :)
Prostitution harms society. Nothing you do is indifferent in its effect on society. Every action makes a ripple. Every thought makes a ripple.
Report Post »numbers
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 10:31amAmen, Happy. Laws were made for the lawless. The success of society requires sharing of fundamental moral views.
Report Post »Kasman
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 10:35am@HappyStretchedThin
Ghost has shown himself to be a true freedom loving American, and not just in his statement in this thread. Ghost hit that proverbial nail directly on the head.
To address your statement – Exactly who’s morals are you refering to???? Yours ??? Someone elses ??? Who has either the right or the ability to decide what morals are right or wrong for another human being ???
The irrefutable fact is NOBODY on this rock(Earth) has either the RIGHT nor ABILITY to determine what another human being’s moral compass should be. P.E.R.I.O.D. Any attempt to do so is an act of subjugation… Subjugatin IS aggression… Think Slavery…. Think again before you think yours or another human beings morlas take precedence over someone elses. That train of thought can/will cost a life very quickly…
And to your stop sign statement….. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!! Tell me you really don’t think that red and white painted piece of metal next to the road actually prevents accidents ?¿! What? you can’t think for yourself? You need a sign to tell you that your comin up on an intercestion and there could be other cars there ???? Oh, wait, umm, wouldn’t that be common sense ?? Ever notice what happens at a major intersection that has a stop light, when the power is out ??? Gee, people seem to be able to figure out on their own, how to address the situation without some sign post, person, entity, government, or outside influence or control….. Human nature seems to have a good grasp on it, and I will bet ya 100 GaZillion pounds of gold that each of those people have their very own personal set of morals…….. DOH
Thanx, and have a nice day.
Report Post »Kasman
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 10:47am@marjorie faye
“Prostitution harms society. Nothing you do is indifferent in its effect on society. Every action makes a ripple. Every thought makes a ripple.”
Umm, and to who’s society are you refering ???
How does something you don’t even know exists, have a “ripple-effect” on you ??
And just how do my “thoughts” effect anyone else on this planet ??
Classic Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Facist, Marxist ingrate thought process.
K, thanx for playing, bye bye now…
Report Post »Kasman
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 11:07am@numbers
“Amen, Happy. Laws were made for the lawless. The success of society requires sharing of fundamental moral views.”
Really ????????????????????
That statement is so foolishly false, it’s hard to determine where to begin….
Opinions(Law’s written or thought up by man), are NOTHING more than that -> OPINIONS !!! and as to those OPINIONS being made for the “Lawless” – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LMAO !!! I am very sure my morals and yours differ greatly. The great country of America has been orperating rather well for a society thats factually made up of MILLIONS of different beliefs, MORALS, and OPINION systems….
You know what makes any and all great societies work ? It’s call -> FREEDOM to live as one sees fit, without the dictate of another.
To think some of the clowns posting here think they know what freedom is or what America is really about is just mind boggling….
Thanx, have a nice day.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 11:10am@ GHOST and HAPPY……….I hear both of your arguments and my thought (to throw my hat into the ring) is that both positions need to tread lightly. Neither can be held up to be an absolute position. There is certainly no room for Puritan beliefs to be cast upon society in the form of law (even though I am a devout Christian and believe there is great benefit to much of what they would have held). This is consistent with the founders ideas (we may talk with people and encourage them, but I believe to make laws as such would not be healthy. The law of God already exists on these matters), however, we must also realize that there is a limit to what morally someone can do in this country (ie drugs vs. alcohol, bigamy vs homosexual marriage, Hate speech laws (which I abhor) etc.). GHOST when you say “as long as someone does no harm to someone else”, this is very sticky ground because harm can come in many forms other than physical violence. What about homosexual marriage (which I am against) and given your argument it would be just fine and dandy if you define harm as physical only. I believe historically, morally, and logically homosexuality has been shown to be destructive to the foundations of society, and therefore, harmful in my opinion. You may disagree with that but what makes your opinion on that topic superior to mine? What even makes your opinion right over mine? At the same time there needs to be a definite balance because we do need to protect personal liberties. It is a difficult balancing act is the point I am trying to illustrate and we cannot make many general sweeping statements about this issue that are universally true in all given circumstances. Alcohol can bring harm and even death but we allow its use over other certain illegal drugs (who’s morality is that?). Cigarettes are becoming increasingly castigated by the public in many ways and the same arguments to justify that I could make for alcohol. Seat belts laws really don’t harm others yet I am forced to wear them by law is this infringing my liberty? These are not easily answered questions in some cases. Guns are a right but they kill people every day ( I am in favor of guns, yet would not be necessarily an alcohol drinker, but you could argue against guns in some ways like you would alcohol). My point is that none of these examples cleanly fit into either position. Just trying to provide a little balance. We must be careful about thinking in absolute terms all the time. Thanks for reading my limited thoughts !!!!
Report Post »jakartaman
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 11:11amWow, This is a big surprise – some of our founding fathers were not saints!!!
Report Post »genius is genius – talent is talent – intellect – is intellect – morality is very subjective
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 11:12amI hear you Ghost, and am glad I was able to draw you out a little more. You bring back a little balance and realism to discussions of the Founders which, you’re right, can tend to put them on a falsely puritanical pedestal.
I still wonder if you aren’t swinging the pendulum of balance on this discussion a little too far in your desire for a proper correction.
The Founders had to pioneer a political system in which tyranny was to be held in check by a government by the people, of the people and for the people (I know that’s Lincoln, but he was summarizing the Founder’s essential difference from the political models of the day), which could best be guaranteed, in their view, by freedoms held together, or rather kept in order, by “very few rules” as you put it. But if (I said IF) you believe that because they rejected political tyranny by advocating for personal freedom they somehow also rejected moral purity as an ideal for them to pursue personally, you also are guilty of twisting history to suit your own lifestyle choices. Yeah, Franklin was a skirt-chaser. And yes the other Founders would defend his right to behave according to his own moral compass. But that doesn’t mean they threw all caution to the wind at every chance they could, that they were drunks and disorderly, living only for the weekend, and that they didn’t condemn Franklin personally for his immorality. You see, there’s a principle of responsibility paired with freedom. The Founders understood this. But left it mostly to God (except for those “few rules” in which society needed to get involved to prevent damage to others) to take care of the consequences for people’s poor choices. They believed that hard work gave the consequence of success. They believed, for the most part, that staying chaste gave the consequence of lasting joy. They believed that alcoholic loss of control was not in keeping with the kinds of measured decisions, of responsible actions, that tended to increase freedom. They gave freedom to Libertines and Puritans alike. But they based their civil code more along the lines of the Puritans than the Libertines, because increased responsibility increases liberty, inevitably, and decreased responsibility decreases liberty, inevitably. It’s a natural law. The Founders placed SO MUCH confidence in this natural law that even though they WERE mostly the kind that “engaged in nearly Holy activities”, they STILL very much conceived of “establishing a nation of liberty where each man is free to do as he wills as long as he harms no other”. It’s a false notion that it takes a man who has engaged in sinful activity (however “sin” is defined, but let’s take the most extremely puritanical perspective just for argument) to understand how much “fun” sin can be, or that only the experienced can really “know” what it’s like. I, for one, would rather trust a man who has resisted most effectively to be my leader. (You are free to choose based on whatever other criteria you establish, although I encourage you to seek for leaders with moral integrity).
“There is a false dichotomy that‘s developed since the Victorian era that says you’re either some chaste moral Puritan, or you’re for no-rules hedonism.”
When you claimed that “Fun loving types are the opposite of moral Puritans” it was YOU who set up the dichotomy. You were right the second time that it’s a false one. Your language betrays your assumption that this dichotomy exists and operates in the real world. In the very same paragraph you denounce the dichotomy, you assert: “You should do what’s right, you should be a good person, but that doesn’t mean that you should abstain from all fun in life.“ And by opposing the very concept of ”fun in life“ with ”good person“ and doing ”what’s right”, you reveal your belief that it’s disobedience to moral rules that provides the “fun in life”; that it’s somehow the opposite of fun to stay on the straight and narrow. What *I’m* saying is that although we all fall short, those of us who can choose to stay as close to the straight and narrow as we can, aren’t missing ANYTHING valuable, and, if you would really get to know a few of us, are REALLY where the lasting “fun” is at anyway.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 11:12am@ KASMAN………..You realize that you argued against your own position? By stating no one has the right to apply their own moral code you are in fact applying your own moral code on everyone else and demanding they live by your views on this issue !!!!! All laws and all societies impose someones morality on others it is inescapable.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 11:19am@ KASMAN……….Your arrogant responses betray your understanding of anthropology and societies and civilizations and how they work. What you advocate is a form of anarchy. You will undoubtedly deny it but I am afraid that is your factual position. Societies rise and fall. If you study history and anthropology you will see that “great” civilizations would typically crumble internally when the morally shared foundations that made that society great began to be challenged and divided from within by its very own citizens.
“No house divide against itself can stand” —– Jesus
Report Post »PrfctlyFrank
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 11:42amKasman, it’s a good thing you think so much of yourself, because after your little self aggrandizing rant I doubt many here think as much of you.. Calm down Mr. ” My idea of freedom is so superior to yours.” What you have is an opinion, and a butt load of arrogance..
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 11:46amKasman,
Report Post »I greatly respect Ghost, and have agreed, sometimes publicly, with his statements on the Blaze on a wide variety of issues. He’s an astute thinker and likes to deal in well-established facts when he opines. I’m pretty sure even now, he appreciates a challenge to his way of thinking, and I hoe he realizes there’s no personal malice in it on my end whatsoever.
And now I will also point out YOUR fallacies.
I said NOTHING about WHO is to decide the morality of anyone. Even the Founders who agreed that only a moral and religious people could work as a society under the kind of political system the Constitution set up agreed that the freedom of our nation depended on freedom of conscience. There needs to be a bare minimum of laws to protect people from their government, and from other evildoers, but aside from the basic Judeo-Christian base philosophy behind those bare-bones laws, neither the Bible nor the Qur’ an, nor any other group’s holy writ should form the basis for NATIONAL laws (the principle being to allow individuals, and groups of individuals, and groups of groups as large as an entire state the maximum freedom to determine for themselves what brand of morality to subscribe to). Please don’t twist my argument or that of the Founders. We don’t want to impose morality, BUT we WILL encourage you to note that there are consequences to thoughts, attitudes, words, and behaviors, and we WILL attempt to convince you that our version of morality, when adhered to, provides you the best natural consequences, and that all others tend to restrict the freedoms you hold so dear. If you want to remain free, you have to USE your freedom to choose the right.
As to the stop sign METAPHOR, the danger with all metaphors is that people can take them farther than their lesson is obviously intended to take people, and then interpolate that they don’t say what they obviously meant to say. Even when you do this, the contradictions within your philosophy become apparent. You claim that without stop signs, people share enough morality (even if it is only a reflex of self-preservation) for order to be established without any legal intervention or authority. Then a few posts later you claim that the success of society does NOT require a sharing of fundamental views on morality. Life should is valuable and should be preserved. That’s a moral value.
The stop sign example demonstrates a simple principle: when people organize to determine rules, even arbitrary ones, the existence of the rule removes confusion and creates order, thereby allowing people to be free from potentially life-threatening accidents, which is a huge freedom, in exchange for giving up a little speed. You counter that common sense can be trusted for people to establish that same kind of order in the absence of codified rules of the road. Fine. But even then, if a SINGLE selfish individual decided it was NOT his own morality to take turns fairly with others, many others would stop relinquishing their own advantages of position, size of vehicle, etc. and soon, at a busy intersection, only one direction of traffic would prevail. Do you understand WHY they even INVENTED such a thing as a street light? Don’t you think this kind of behavior was COMMON in major cities? I think YOU’RE the one that needs to re-think whether your attitude really reflects common sense.
Be free to choose your own moral compass. No one should impose it on you. But if you insist on anarchy as a viable model for society, you better hope you’re the biggest, strongest, smartest, and best armed, or you’ll be quickly stripped of everything you own within such a system. We DO share a common morality, and that’s what keeps us civil.
tobywil2
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:16pm“PREPONDERANCE OF PROPAGANDA”!
Report Post »Another example of the “preponderance of propaganda”! The wannabe tyrants and their cronies are publicizing lies, half-truths and the irrelevant to avoid a discussion of the issues. Pay no attention to the smokescreen.
When the premise is false the only arguments that can be used are fear mongering, emotion, sarcasm, ridicule, attacking the messenger and misrepresentation of the facts (lying). Those who expect to reap huge profits from our misery caused by tyranny are experts at these tactics.
The only relevant issue is freedom or tyranny!!!! http://commonsense21c.com/
black9897
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:32pmHm..I see his point, and is somewhat is true. But, people shouldn’t take this as theses drunks and prostitutes are some heroes. Big deal if they wore makeup and stuff, they still shouldn’t get that big of praise, they still had no self-respect and spread diseases, not even to mention the moral aspect.
Report Post »Kasman
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:43pm@watchtheotherhand
I neither implied nor applied my morals to another human being. If you re-read my statements you will see clearly, I completely believe everyone to have the right and ability to live in any manner they see fit in all situations. And no, all societies do NOT impose on others.
As to me being arrogant, meh, I probably sound it I am sure… just part of my abrasive/caustic nature i spose….
And now about Anarchy…. I’ve had this conversation with many, many, many…. people. Anarchy does not mean what you have been trained to think it means. This is simple fact. Just spend some time researching the word and it’s origin.
Anarchy is good. plain and simple, it means one very simple thing in reality -> Self Rule or Governance… The right to freely associate or NOT, with anyone or anything you so choose. The absolute freedom for any form of coersive govenernance/governemnt/entity….Anarchy does NOT meant Chaos, Lawlessness, Confusion…. and such. All those descripters were added centuries AFTER the term Anarchy was coined, and those were added by governments and people that would seek to scare you from the path and reality of freedom. They seek to subjugate you and you don’t even know it.
Thanx, and have a nice day.
Report Post »ltb
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 12:48pmThis guy is a liar and he reveals the absurdity of his claim when he acknowledges that hedonists were not tolerated in 1700s America. What this liar is expecting you to believe is that the moral people who founded the United States took council from the irreligious people they routinely incarcerated for immorality. That’s like saying the capitalists in 1920s Russia had an important seat at the table when the Soviet Union was formed. If your children are in school or college, I hope you are requiring them to read books written by our founding fathers so they can intelligently refute the lies of clowns like this.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 1:07pmKasman,
Report Post »Self rule works for individuals. Getting as close to self-rule as possible works for societies. Name me any society anywhere that has tried to PRACTICE even your lofty “pure” and “good” form of anarchy, and I’ll show you a rapid decline and ignominious and violent end. It’s not scaremongers who wrote against the evils of anarchy, it’s realists and historians (I mean real ones, not like the author of this silly book).
For a quick read which gives a fictitious, but very compelling representation of what happens to anarchical societies, have a look at the short story “Cloak of Anarchy” by Larry Niven.
jblaze
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 1:21pmAnd the truth that will truly set you free—in your family and sex life—is an understanding of the real God-ordained purpose for sex and family. This is truly a dimension completely ignored by the “experts” in health and family planning; and it is their ignorance on this subject that leads them to advocate—even in the face of overwhelmingly contrary facts and logic—behaviors that are destroying the very people they have pledged to help.
Report Post »bobby535
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 2:45pmI agree with Ghost 100%
Report Post »gman46
Posted on March 15, 2011 at 5:21pmMost of this wasn‘t even popular back in the 1950’s, Let alone back 2oo years. Oh wow this guy blows things out of proportion.
Report Post »