Sinperium

George Washington was a barbaric warmonger who led a revolt over taxes which in today's standards were incredibly mild. For the most part, Washington was a fearful idiot who let others make his decisions for him. He blindly followed the rest of the founding fathers (many of whom owned slaves and were adulterers) into a monetary war under the false pretense of political oppression. I like his foreign policy, but domestically his presidency was a joke.

Our "values" have not been lost; there is no such thing as moral decay, only the changing perspective of a generation as it ages. 

Patriotism is a sham, it is a facade created by politicians to strip us of personal freedoms and lead us into war. Every other president prefaces demands with: if you love this country, then surely you will support insert something we shouldn't do here. 

I  know my post seems takes somewhat of a pessimistic viewpoint, but it's closer to the truth than our romanticized views of Washington, the founding fathers, and the history of America. I'd go into more detail, but I'm too lazy at the moment.

On a positive note: Washington was a pretty good writer and I learned a few new vocabulary words from your post

Actually, I have sort of an opposite view.  I think he rightly revolted over taxes, where as we revolt over absolutely nothing these days.  Send millions of our jobs overseas?  No problem.  Uncontrolled immigration?  No problem.  Bail out mega-corporations with public money?  No problem.  Eviscerate the Constitution?  No problem.

On and on.  Yes, we've lost any values that were once known as "American."  Actually, I don't think we have anything that could be called "values."  I mean, what do we value?

Ah, yes, age. I'm such an incompetent being that should bow down before your 48 years of nose picking, TV watching, and other useless experience that comes with age. PROTIP: Your intelligence goes down after 25, you need experience to compensate for the difference, but it cannot and will not make you a smarter person.  You know what they do with engineers when they turn 40, don't you? Go somewhere else with your insecurities and irrational prejudices. 

The problem was supposedly taxation without representation. So few people could vote, even in Britain, so America wasn't missing out on much, there still was no true representative democracy at this point. (and there still isn't) If we waited 25 years, the problem probably would have been resolved diplomatically without sending our children to die for our greed. Britain has a good record of slow and deliberate change for the better in my opinion, especially when compared to their unstable neighbors. 

I'm pretty sure we haven't had any revolutions in the past couple years 

I don't argue that we are immoral today, I just refuse to believe that anything has really changed. People have always been immoral; they have always acted against the "values" that we are supposed to hold as Americans. The main difference is the loss of privacy; when you do something now, everyone will know about it. 

Life is better guys. Look at the life expectancy over the past four hundred years and tell me you wouldn't like to live in this current time period. Look at the entertainment options available to you. We romanticize the past as a simpler time where people were moral and life was easy. We think this way because it is what we want to believe.

I didn't mean to imply that Washington was the absolute definition and personification of pure virtue.  I used him as a well known and documented example of men of his day.  Washington's peers speak more highly of him than any modern day admirer but you are of course entitled to any re-interpretation you wish to believe.

The point is, in looking at Washington's public writings which were widely admired and accepted, you gain some insight to the sort of people who made up the nation at that time.  We are not the same sort of people.  The heavy-handed response to this post makes the point entirely. 

It wasn't meant to be insulting, controversial, partisan or political--just to point out the distance and change from then to now.  The biggest change I see is the shift from a set of commonly held values and standards (which appear to be more present in Washington's day than our own) to the present mindset that we pursue any morality we desire it and it's all valid.  Today I can be a polite moralist or a vulgar anarchist and a notable portion of the population will see a superior value in neither position.

You can read Dickens or ancient accounts of Rome or Greece or a dozen other cultures to know human nature has not changed.  But you can also look at individual nations at particular points in history and see trends of change that portended the future of those nations in that time.

I grew up in the South and saw racial prejudice as a societal norm.  I could point back to that time and say there would be consequences and effects that followed the acceptance of such prejudice which allowed it to be enforced as a legal and moral norm...and there were such consequences.  It's always appropriate to look at past generations as an indication of the measure of the current one.

But again...this was not meant to be a flame fest or insult match or moral debate.  Simply a pointing out of contrast.  It's interesting how some have found that offensive.  You can't just study Washington.  You have to study him in context to his times to appreciate what he represented.

Bang on the money. People used do get famous for being heroes. Now people are heroes for being famous. This is BS.

You should post some of the other founding fathers writings. 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure". TJ

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the american people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs". TJ

"Give me liberty or give me death" PH

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. -DoI

This is one of the best posts I have ever seen on this site! +1 Karma!

Modern day government reminds me of an Democratic Version of Absolute Monarchy.

are women people? blacks? slaves? non land owners?

and if you think the media had no impact back then you are woefully wrong. the media has changed that is all (i admitt it gained more influence but it was still there "then").

i know, but he did not say what time he meant exactly with "then". i could add the whole 19th century and it would not change anything. also keep in mind that the slavery issue did collapse the nation it was only dragged along until the civil war and i bet if the slavery issue would have been resolved in the beginning or at least when jefferson made the luisanna purchase (and would not have slavery allowed in the new founded states) the civil would not have taken place.

Nope, I'm not. I was born in Virginia.

Agreed. The South totally misread the situation and ended up causing what they feared the most.

This is just wrong. Almost no states in the North had outlawed slavery before the Civil War. It was much less common there because they just weren't economically viable. You could make much more money selling your slave to a plantation owner in Virginia than using them on your fishing boat for 10 years.

The first step was to ban the importation of slaves, which came pretty early. It was more of an economic decision on the part of our government; blacks were taking jobs in the South, which caused pretty high unemployment amongst the lower classes. We were also fearful of blacks, (especially after the slave revolt in Haiti) which is why most of the violence against blacks started around this time. The internal slave trade became even more lucrative because we banned the importation of slaves. There were free blacks in both the South and North who could vote an own property before the Civil War. Funny story: slaves in South Carolina were only required to work for about 10 hours, and then they were allowed to basically allowed to do whatever they wanted. So, a smart slave worked part time and actually bought himself from his master and was thereafter a free man. Most of the anti-black legislation in the South started after the Civil War because of the rather oppressive Republican rule.

There has never been any Democracy in the United States. We barely have a representative Democracy. If you vote for president, you might as well be peeing in the ocean. Your vote counts for 1/the population of your county, so if the majority of the people in your county vote for the opposite candidate, your vote is totally useless. Then, if you have enough counties that have voted with you, your state will vote for that candidate. Then, your vote goes to the electoral college, where your state's representative takes your state's public opinion into consideration. (He can still vote against the popular election, so it's pretty much pointless) Then, if by some miracle, he votes for your candidate, then the candidate will get some points based on how populous your state is. (If you live in a small or rural state, your vote is totally useless) The number of electoral college points your guy scores from each state is pretty arbitrary, so even if 80% of the map is red, the blue candidate can still win, or vice versa. (most of the common red states are worth less though). It amazes me that people wonder why voter turnout is so low in our country. Your vote has a negligible effect on the outcome of your state's vote, which has a negligible effect on which candidate is elected, which has a negligible effect on world politics. The president's power is pretty much limited to the veto, so I consider direct election of senators more important considering the have some active power instead of just being a blocking agent like the president.

Oh and there really was no media until the invention of the penny paper. Until advertisements were more common, there really was no incentive to create a newspaper. Many people still couldn't read when the first newspapers came out, so the media didn't really have a great effect on the country until the invention of the radio. 

Wrong, dead wrong.

The President is commander in chief of the military, so that's some important power there.  Presidents are able to send troops places and start conflicts without Congressional approval (there is tension here since while Congress has the explicit power to declare war, the President is charged with the defense of this country).

The President also controls the executive branch, meaning the IRS, FBI, CIA, SEC, FCC, FTC, and all those other TLA's take orders from POTUS.

An example of Presidential power is when ol' Andrew Jackson sent some troops to round up those Cherokee and force them on the Trail of Tears in direct disobedience of a Supreme Court ruling.

Guess what in this time and day the president cant start a war unless congress says who cares what offices he hold power over if someone where to do a trail of tears type stunt now they would be thrown out of the presidency.

Second if he does have that power why don't they got off there pussyfoot and go stop all these dam genocides and shit oh wait they needed congress say so to do it.

And it wouldn't be an act of war to go and stop genocide it would be compassion and would actually show that the people of this country care theirs allot of us who would die fighting for other people against machete wielding genocides then sit back and do nothing but congress says no so we cant do shit.

Now that tells u just how much power our president has

And its also why FDR had to get congress approval for war after the bombing of pearl harbor

funny how alot is misspelled by the spellchecker lol

and not one thing i said in there was to flame or  anything if u wanted me to flame i would call u something like a eccentric little pric who doesn't know his history or the world history