Davy Crockett vs Welfare

[Lakhota]

I thought this thread was debunked in post #2...

 

[S.J.]

I thought this thread was debunked in post #2...

You mean you actually had a thought?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, it is typical for 'Conservatives' to get their history from dime novels.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberals can't argue against what Crockett said, so they go straight to slander and shit-slinging, like monkeys in a zoo.

What did Crockett say?

That the government does not have a role in looking out for the General Welfare of the people?

He was wrong then......wrong now

GENERAL welfare, not INDIVIDUAL welfare, but you libs hear the word welfare and you think it means "handouts".

If an elected Congress determines that helping Americans who need help is good for the General Well-being of the country then it is allowable. Notice how public welfare has withstood 75 years worth of challenges?

 

[S.J.]

What did Crockett say?

That the government does not have a role in looking out for the General Welfare of the people?

He was wrong then......wrong now

GENERAL welfare, not INDIVIDUAL welfare, but you libs hear the word welfare and you think it means "handouts".

If an elected Congress determines that helping Americans who need help is good for the General Well-being of the country then it is allowable. Notice how public welfare has withstood 75 years worth of challenges?

Of course, who wants to give up their free shit? The Democratic Party has systematically been encouraging segments of society to get on welfare so they can harvest their votes. The result is that the greatest nation in the history of the world has become a nation of freeloaders, and the Democratic Party seems proud of their accomplishment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

S.J. is entitled to his mistaken views.

 

[rightwinger]

GENERAL welfare, not INDIVIDUAL welfare, but you libs hear the word welfare and you think it means "handouts".

If an elected Congress determines that helping Americans who need help is good for the General Well-being of the country then it is allowable. Notice how public welfare has withstood 75 years worth of challenges?

Of course, who wants to give up their free shit? The Democratic Party has systematically been encouraging segments of society to get on welfare so they can harvest their votes. The result is that the greatest nation in the history of the world has become a nation of freeloaders, and the Democratic Party seems proud of their accomplishment.

I get my free shit. You get your free shit. It is part of belonging to a society. Our nation has a workforce as productive as any on earth. Only Conservatives call them freeloaders and fight to hold down their pay

 

[JakeStarkey]

rightwinger has the right of it.

We all receive the benefits, perks, and obligations (which some lefties, reactionaries, and libertarians) resent, in this country.

Our productivity is the best in the world, and our economy is coming back slowly from self-inflicted wounds that could have very well put us into a a terrible depression.

 

[S.J.]

If an elected Congress determines that helping Americans who need help is good for the General Well-being of the country then it is allowable. Notice how public welfare has withstood 75 years worth of challenges?

Of course, who wants to give up their free shit? The Democratic Party has systematically been encouraging segments of society to get on welfare so they can harvest their votes. The result is that the greatest nation in the history of the world has become a nation of freeloaders, and the Democratic Party seems proud of their accomplishment.

I get my free shit. You get your free shit. It is part of belonging to a society. Our nation has a workforce as productive as any on earth. Only Conservatives call them freeloaders and fight to hold down their pay

Yes, the half of us who work are as productive as any on earth. The other half are freeloaders, and they don't get pay, they get welfare in exchange for their vote. How much do YOU get?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course, who wants to give up their free shit? The Democratic Party has systematically been encouraging segments of society to get on welfare so they can harvest their votes. The result is that the greatest nation in the history of the world has become a nation of freeloaders, and the Democratic Party seems proud of their accomplishment.

I get my free shit. You get your free shit. It is part of belonging to a society. Our nation has a workforce as productive as any on earth. Only Conservatives call them freeloaders and fight to hold down their pay

Yes, the half of us who work are as productive as any on earth. The other half are freeloaders, and they don't get pay, they get welfare in exchange for their vote. How much do YOU get?

What "other half"? SS: we earned it. Medicare: we paid into it. VA: we paid for it the hard way. Are you talking about the mothers and children?

 

[OriginalShroom]

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor.

Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? — On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent.

The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependance on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness.

In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.

Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.



Benjamin Franklin, On the price of Corn

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, quoting one of the founding slave-rapers as a source.

Guy, here's the problem. Franklin lived in a time when most of the very poor lived to keep the very rich in style. That's what the American Revolution was about- rich assholes who didn't want to pay their fair share.

Then we had a labor movement and working folks got their fair share. We abolished slavery, we abolished child labor... and guess what, the rich actually got to live better, too.

But as Herbert Hoover observed, the problem with capitalism is capitalists- they're too damned greedy.

 

[rightwinger]

Of course, who wants to give up their free shit? The Democratic Party has systematically been encouraging segments of society to get on welfare so they can harvest their votes. The result is that the greatest nation in the history of the world has become a nation of freeloaders, and the Democratic Party seems proud of their accomplishment.

I get my free shit. You get your free shit. It is part of belonging to a society. Our nation has a workforce as productive as any on earth. Only Conservatives call them freeloaders and fight to hold down their pay

Yes, the half of us who work are as productive as any on earth. The other half are freeloaders, and they don't get pay, they get welfare in exchange for their vote. How much do YOU get?

I see you get your data from Mitt Romney

He was embarassingly wrong....so are you

 

[S.J.]

 

[rightwinger]

Your point?

Food stamp usage goes up in an economic recession?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

In the case of "Not Yours to Give," this episode of Crockett's life was first published in the January 1867 issue of Harper's Magazine as "Davy Crockett's Electioneering Tour" by James J. Bethune, a nom de plume used by Edward S. Ellis (1840-1916). ("Bethune" published another piece in Harper's, "Walter Colquitt of Georgia" which is also about a wonderful speaker whose speeches were not recorded, except in Bethune's later memories. Ellis was most well known for his dime novels, "Deerhunter" and other Wild West tales for boys.) The 1867 Bethune piece was reprinted by Ellis in his 1884 edition of The Life of Colonel David Crockett, but it does not appear in his original 1861 book on Crockett (available at GoogleBooks). Clearly, Ellis could not have heard Crockett give a speech that took place 12 years before Ellis/Bethune's birth.

James R. Boylston published an article in 2004 in The Crockett Chronicle debunking the "Not Yours to Give"/Horatio Bunce story, and also addresses the speech in his new book, David Crockett in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Poor Man's Friend (October 2009). Gale and Seaton's Register of Debates for the House on April 1, 1828, records there was indeed a lengthy debate on whether to award funds to a Widow Brown (wife of a general, not Ellis's widow of a naval officer); however, although Crockett cast a vote against the bill, he was not present for the discussion. Crockett did demand a roll-call vote. Contrary to what the Harper's article claimed, however, the bill passed the House and the Senate. Ellis states that Bunce's opposition to Crockett originated in a vote Crockett made in favor of relief for victims of a Georgetown fire. However, the fire was in Alexandria, not Georgetown, and the vote was taken on January 19, 1827 - while Crockett was not elected to Congress until late 1827. All evidence points to the Bunce/"Not Yours to Give" story as a fabrication - as are so many tales about Crockett, including many he told himself.


Again thank you for your responses, and the next time you hear Glen Beck or Ron Paul quote the Crockett speech, you'll know the back story.

Ann Toplovich

Executive Director
Tennessee Historical Society


Stop reading chain email from your con friends they are almost always full of fabrication. It took me 5 minutes to debunk this.

Not Yours To Give

Busted!!!!!!!!!!

Well DONE!!!!

*

.

.

.

.

 

[S.J.]

Your point?

Food stamp usage goes up in an economic recession?

Do you see Romney's name on that chart anywhere?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Of course, who wants to give up their free shit? The Democratic Party has systematically been encouraging segments of society to get on welfare so they can harvest their votes. The result is that the greatest nation in the history of the world has become a nation of freeloaders, and the Democratic Party seems proud of their accomplishment.

I get my free shit. You get your free shit. It is part of belonging to a society. Our nation has a workforce as productive as any on earth. Only Conservatives call them freeloaders and fight to hold down their pay

Yes, the half of us who work are as productive as any on earth. The other half are freeloaders, and they don't get pay, they get welfare in exchange for their vote. How much do YOU get?

Excuse me, but are you trying to argue that half of Americans don't work? That half of Americans receive welfare?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Crockett can best be described as a tool of the Whigs, and a sore loser. His parting words, after having lost his relelction bid were:

"Since you have chosen to elect a man with a timber toe (wooden leg) to succeed me, you may all go to hell and I will go to Texas." They set off the next day. (Frankly, I think that there is little difference between hell and Texas, but I digress).

Having arrived, he managed to get himself killed , being as how he was an illegal immigrant in Mexico. This made him a hero, although your typical Mexican illegal immigrant today does not seem to reach that rarified atmosphere. Perhaps, if we killed him, Jose could become a hero, too, but he will have to wait until the grape harvest is in.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This would be the same Davy Crockett who died at the Alamo fighting for the right of Texans to own slaves in violation of Mexican law?

Is that actually what you Obamunist believe, Comrade Stalin?