Why do Americans idolize the founding fathers?

...

Seems it's one they reposted for free here you go

patreon.com/radiowarnerd/posts?tag=Founding Fathers

This. I think they were based for their time but not by modern standards. That's just the dialectic of history

A bunch of fourth rate lawyers

Thanks my dude.

Your posts are getting more and more angry. Stop studying psychiatry and see a psychiatrist.

Because it was a bourgeois liberal revolution to get rid of the outdated feudalist system they had back then ?

As said in

Daily reminder that Paine died penniless in France because no one cared enough about his bullshit to support him

nah

You know, I try REALLY hard not to hate Nazbols because I know some of you guys are pretty cool and have good aesthetics, but I swear sometimes you make that job harder than it's worth.

He died penniless but it was back here in the states. Also he became pretty close to a proto mutualist towards the end of his life. He wanted a universal land and resource tax and he wanted public gardens and factories to be available to the unemployed.

He and all the anti-Federalists deserve more attention.

He was a deist who thought elements of Christianity were superstitious. Hardly really anti-religious.

Not the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and some other "Founding Fathers" opposed the Constitution. It was the FRAMERS who created the Constitution, and they were primarily Federalists. Hell, even some of the Framers ultimately regretted it and moved to the Democratic-Republican party to undo some of the crap that the Federalists were doing.

Wrong. Most represenatives in the US government actually were farmers, artisans, or wealthy merchants past the Revolution. It was mostly the South that had slave-owners dominate the representatives.

Also, most whites didn't own slaves and slavery was quickly abolished in the North. So no, it doesn't represent white America. Thus, go fuck yourself, Hamiltonian SJW Tory-loving trash. I hope you get lynched, tarred, then feathered, foreign chink scum.

(Ironically enough, Ho Chi Minh actually admired the American revolutionaries and based the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence off the American Declaration of Independence.)

Who cares about your shitty nigger. Seriously, they're a minority who don't fucking matter. Go hang yourself. If you're going to betray the revolution for "muh niggers", then you can gladly step into my guillotine. Ironically enough, the entire North abolished slavery before Britain did,.

On a separate note, get the fuck out of leftypol, you fucking redditor, SJW, and feminist cunts. You're all trash and probably colossal normies and faggots as well. We need a wall here to keep you faggots out.

Go kill yourself faggot.

Honestly, the same is true for me. Well, my IRL circumstances have gone down the shitter, and I'm quite frustrated with the direction that political discourse has gone towards recently.

Not all Nazbols are the same. They vary a whole lot.

By the way, Thomas Paine is based, but the best of them all is Daniel Shays and David Bradford.

Holy shit, I actually agree with an anfem poster. Yes, the antifederalists need more attention. Seriously, they predicted lots of problems with the form of government that we have.

Paine died in the United States.

He was exiled from France because Robespierre saw him as a political rival.

Also, I fail to see how anti-religious leaning are in any way "reactionary" in and of themselves, but you're a nazibol so i suppose I shouldn't expect you to be too steeped in theory.

what is a federalist in the american context?

Also, you folks were quick to jump on this thread.

shut up lol

kys

Can you please give more examples of bizzare shit in American culture and history that is somehow normalised today?

The federalists, as I understand it, supported the ratification of the US constitution to supplant a "failed" articles of confederation (the so-called framework for the successor document, which sharply limited central and coercive powers before). The anti-Federalists however believed that the constitution, if ratified, would develop into tyrannical rule, much like what they had just warred over with the Anglos for.

Religion was a core element of feudal oppression. Under capitalism it is often a vital form of resistance, especially among Catholic and (non-sunni) Islamic populations.

You really shouldn't be talking, Reactionary Guy That Pretends Not To Be Reactionary. You're whole worldview is based on trying to re-envision the Burger Revolution as anything but a conservative war of independence, which is what it actually was, and early American history as some sort of bold progressive experiment rather than a fully porky land grab.

I actually agree with you here Nazbol but I don't get why anyone would sperg out over Paine.

Federalists were people who wanted a strong federal government, protectionism in economics and larger national military to scare off the UK and Spain.

Some went as far to argue for a king. They were accused of being the Brit's 2.0 by their rivals. They "won" the debate as history rolled on.

Anti-federalists wanted stronger state government and a weak federal government, "free markets" and state militias instead of a federal army.

Seen as weak and idealistic. Jefferson based most of his economic knowledge on how nice the people were on his farm and thought the world could trade just as easily as that. their only real contribution to the constitution was the Bill of Rights which was great for the time but was hardly acknowledged even by it's strongest supporters in a practical sense when they were in office.

There is more to both but those are the main positions.

American politics were a lot more interesting and prone to criticism of capital.

Now you can't even criticize slavery without getting chastised by 'practical' thinkers.

“The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatever.”

“…The rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is always low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries, which are going fastest to ruin.”

“The interest of the dealers . . . in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public… (They) have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and accordingly have upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.”

Guess who said these? Adam Smith, who many retards now think was an early right-libertarian/free market fanatic because of the phrase 'invisible hand'.

To be honest I like him but I dislike how people use his anti-clerical writings as an excuse to perpetuate atheism (specifically new atheism) under capitalism.

Thomas Paine even held French proto-communist Gracchus Babeuf in high regards.

But frequently it isn't, and is one of the biggest shills for the capitalist order.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

Federalists were the supporters of the Constitution. The Antifederalists wanted a revised Articles of Confederation though some of them wanted more democratic local governments as well. Note that the issue was more with the lack of a Bill of Rights, the existence of single powerful executive authority (The President), the large districts for Congress, and the Supreme Court. The antifederalists wanted no president, small districts for Congress, representatives to be more like delegates/mouthpieces for the voters, and state courts to determine Constitutional questions. They thought that republicanism worked only on the small-scale and that it is through federation that a real democratic republic can be sustained. It wasn't really individualist or libertarian in the modern sense, being more based on classical republicanism. Even the state militias were supposed to be based on citizens being conscripted to defend the republic against foreign threats.

Basically, America is not really a republic and is actually a Polish-style constitutional monarchy feigning as one. The President is just an elected king, and Congress is just Parliament. Every liberal democracy since then has been the same thing.

Not really. The antifederalists cared little for free markets. Free trade was supported only because they DIDN'T want industrial growth. Jefferson wanted a republic based on small farmers and to stop capitalism from forming within the United States. You can say that they delayed it quite a bit. Otherwise, the antifederalists cared more about political questions and questions of property ownership than free markets vs government intervention. They opposed powerful property owners and generally wanted property ownership to be evenly distributed.

First pic is my reaction, second picture is a book that you should read.

I hope you mean read the wikipedia page

We could give examples and counter examples all day.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Dhar_al-Ghifari

Guess we know whose behind this 🍀🍀🍀Micks🍀🍀🍀

You do realize that America represented a society were the vast majority of people owned their own plot of land. Most of the land grab was by small farmers. The Midwest and Appalachia had terrible land for plantations and the massive expansion of land practically crippled the supply of cheap labor that capitalism needed to grow. It wasn't until immigrants were dumped into America and we ran out of land that we got sweatshops and industrialization.

Note that this wasn't even due to the American Revolution. The revolution happened BECAUSE most people owned land and thus can mobilize themselves easily to overthrow the British appointed elites. (Almost overthrew the lower rung elites as well, and neutered them temporarily with Jefferson's revolution of 1800.)

ever notice how all the banks are run by micks?

You know when american went downhill right… potatohead immigration.

Some of them did like noted Paine earlier but as a synthesized series of arguments they are most remembered for being anti-protectionism and anti-hamiltonian economics which is protectionism by another name. You might not call it a "free market" in the sense we think of today but the point is they believed in an "open market" which is almost just as pie in the sky. Domestically Jefferson's beliefs were one thing but his real folly was believing America should end all tariffs and believe Europe in good faith would try not to butt fuck are early republic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_of_Irish_descent#Politicians

This is some spooky shit. At least 22 Irish presidents…

#justrightwingproblems

Again, this is due to their concern with the creation of industrial manufacturing in the United States, since that would create Capitalism or wage labor. This would destroy the yeoman farmer basis of American democracy.

Basically, porkies want tariffs to be able to compete with European porkies and sell their products to American farmers. American farmers just want to buy the cheapest goods. Thus, the American farmers were pro free-trade. It wasn't delusional.

Basically, Jefferson wanted to keep America agrarian, so he purposely avoided policies that benefited industry. It's really as simple as that.

Note that there were no worker's movements or alternatives to the developing industrial capitalism that was happening in Britain, so the Jeffersonians figured to simply avoid the problem by keeping America rural and agrarian. To pardon my repetition, of course.

Actually the founding fathers wanted free or cheap public transport and communication methods. They also wanted the workers to have stock ownership where they work. They also criticised someone owning too much capital. If they had just known what socialism was they might have been socialists.

Well yeah. Classical liberalism is the intellectual forebear of communism and socialism. Locke himself claimed that propriety stemmed from labor rather than muh property rights (i.e. mixing one's labor with the elements.)

The extended problem with this belief aside from what I have already said and the obvious like that technological isolationism never works for long is that without developing factories we would make ourselves even more prone to be economically fucked over. The cat was already out of the bag you either adopt mass production or get rolled over by the competition.

I get in your repeated statements and from my own readings that Jefferson saw this as a short term good because it kept his ideal vision of America going a few more years, but that is the problem with the anti-federalists economic views in general. They make for a nice picture of what economics should be like in a fair world but unfortunately that wasn't a possibility given the circumstances the nation found itself in. Hamilton was a snake but he was the right snake for the right time.

you say the founding faders were gommunists, but look here they are with a Amergian flag
they can't be gommunists if they love Ameriga
:DDDDD
praise jesus

Because they're our founding fathers you retard. I don't even agree with their classical liberal ideology yet I still respect the fact that if it wasn't for them, my country wouldn't exist. It's retarded threads/statements like this ostracize the working class.

They were pretty based for opposing the king. Jefferson was a huge faggot though.

That wasn't even the issue. It was less technological isolationism and more wanting to be an agrarian country that buys products from other countries. You can theoretically have a modern agrarian economy based on small farmers trading with industrial countries.

Additionally, America's distance from foreign powers basically gave it the luxury to avoid confrontations with other powers. (That's why they won the Revolutionary War.)

It was very much possible to have an isolationist rural America that could develop into something that resembles today's Switzerland, which is another example of a mostly rural repubic based on small farmers.

The anti-federalists also varied quite a bit. They didn't really have a solid position on economics. Jefferson did, but not the anti-federalists. The only unifying factor was opposition to economic elites.

So yes, Hamilton's policies are good if you want to create manufacturing, but this leads to capitalism unless you try to go straight to worker's self-management or a guild system.

Source? I've heard the exact opposite, that before the Louisiana Purchase, , land was largely owned by by a small clique of landowners.

Because all americans are white supremacist sinners that want to lynch upstanding afro-american citizens for being who they are. Of course they would worship a bunch of old white racists, and elect fascist pigs to be their president.

They weren't all "classical liberals". At least, not purely so. You can say that the repubicanism of Rome influenced them as much if not more than John Locke's liberalism. It wasn't free markets or individualism that were the concerns of the revolutionaries as much as citizens' political participation and preventing the concentration of power into one person or a small group of people.

In a sense, the Federalists were the bourgeois liberals and the antifederalists were the revolutionary republicans. It's the same relationship between the liberal constitutional monarchy and the revolutionary republic in the French Revolution.

Name one good thing that came out of American independence.

Protip: You can't.

wew
can you stop being so mad ad r riche ammurigan guldure?

It varied by location actually. New England and Pennsylvania were more equitable, land ownership wise. (New England did have powerful cities/merchant elites though)

The South, especially in the east, was owned by large owners. As, you've said. The terrain was perfect for plantations.

There was an enormous area of land between the Mississippi and the Appalachian mountains that got settled right after the revolution. Also, the Western areas of the original 13 colonies overwhelmingly were owned by small farmers. (This is why the Americans really wanted remove the Proclamation Line.)

The porkies were in the cities in New England and represented mostly by the Federalists. The planters took a centrist position, supporting the Constitution but then the Democratic-Republican party.

(I would bring up sources, but I have to go to sleep. An interesting thing to note is that wealth inequality was actually at it's lowest during the Revolution and the aftermath. I think leftypol actually posted the infograph that had that statistic earlier.)

it's so bad the capital building has a mural of the founding fathers in heaven with god and his angels.

The war of 1812 leads me to believe otherwise that we were facing real threats I mean the Brits made to the capital building and burned it and they were only half halfheartedly pursuing the effort of retaking their former colony. That is the general broader point I have to make about this, that America was lucky Europe was pursuing destroying itself when it went for independence and then tried to retake the north. A constant fear of of FF writing is that some European nation would turn it's attention toward us again Spain, The UK, France etc. For one reason or another it never happened, but it wasn't due to naval technology, are distance from ye olde lands or a lack of strength on the part of European empires It was mostly dumb luck and American posturing.

I don't think realistically America could have survived the broader extended age of imperialism throughout the 1800's without protectionism and a stronger military. Switzerland has a lot of factors to it that made it 's neutrality sustainable, they had key alliances with religious organizations and world finance, they would buy their way and loan food out to governments during wars, basically they would make themselves more useful as a client state than as something directly owned. They learned how to play the part of whore state early and well.

At some point realistically American manufacturing would have to take off, partly because we are too big of a nation and have so many resources in a condensed area just cant be processed on agrarian yeomen economic level. If assembly lines and manufacturing hadn't been invented we would need to just to sort through all the shit. Not to mention all the things i already did mention about how not doing this would basically be suicide economically and militarily.

Because any brain dead worthless loser idolizes the past and blindly follows it instead of thinking for himself

...

He was not well-educated, but he didn't think he needed to be since he had the power of Reason. He published a series of pamphlets during the American Revolution which consisted mainly of platitudes and regurgitated concepts taken from superior thinkers, topped off with condescending appeals to "Common Sense" and violent rhetoric against its supposed enemies. They were not taken seriously by the philosophers or political theorists of the day, but they nonetheless made Paine wildly popular among the general literate population.
After the Revolutionary War began, he went to France, where he immediately began criticizing their form of government despite not speaking a word of their language. When he was imprisoned during the Reign of Terror, he came to believe that George Washington had convinced Robespierre to imprison him, and promptly denounced Washington as a traitor to Liberty. Unsurprisingly, this caused Paine's reputation in the United States to sour; but not because Paine was a smug, self-important jackass–oh no. His reputation suffered because he was a Martyr for Reason and the Americans had become reactionary.
He initially supported Napoleon's military rule, and even encouraged him to invade England and overthrow its government. When Napoleon didn't take his advice and began to actually rule like the Praetorian he clearly was, Paine denounced him as "the completest charlatan that ever existed." So now he had worn out his welcome in the United States, France, and Great Britain. But none of that was his fault. Nothing was ever his fault. He was a Martyr for Reason!
After a completely frivolous and mismatched "debate" with Edmund Burke in the form of an indirect exchanging of polemics (Reflections on the Revolution in France vs. Rights of Man), an exchange which Paine was completely unprepared for, as he did not really understand the position of his opponent, he was allowed to return to the United States thanks to a special invitation from Thomas Jefferson. There he died, and only a handful of people came to his funeral.

Dude was basically old timey Sam Harris, he's not bad for being an atheist, he's bad for being kind of an insufferable tool

Those faggots deserved it for being lazy hippy do nothings with their land tbh. :v)

don't worry i'd be ashamed too

Nice history, dumbass.

Fuck the founding fathers. Lysander Spooner was the only good thing (aside from John Brown) to come out of revolutionary America. Pic related.

Some are pretty cool for their time. We should look at all people in their historical context and through the development of history.

you're right, how could anyone ever puzzle out the meaning?

TIL Spooner was more than a mere tumble of the stung.

sounds like he was probably a cunt tbqh

That doesn't change anything. The states would have been free to outlaw slavery if they were still colonies. Many British colonies had no slavery.

Sounds like a pretty cool guy.

Paine doesn't deserve to be placed among the authoritarian cunts known as the Founding Fathers. He was basically the only decent and principled guy among them, and kept pissing them off with his demands for legitimate democracy and such.

I think Hamilton is pretty cute based on his dollar portrait

spooked as FUUUUUCK

no, that simply means he made no friends among the ruling class.

...

On that note, what DID the Russian Revolution do? The Bolsheviks reversed every gain made for the peasantry during the revolution and removed worker's self-management. In fact, Kronstadt is very similar to the Whiskey Rebellion. In fact, the deportations of ethnic minorities done by Stalin also is quite eerily similar to a certain other deportation. (Without opening up free land in Stalin's case and involving larger numbers of people.)

Basically, the Federalists betrayed the American Revolution and the Whiskey Rebellion was the last song of that revolution, just as the Bolsheviks betrayed the Russian Revolution and Kronstadt was the last song of that Revolution.

It was by accident actually. I usually fly the Gadsden flag.

Kek, I said just the North. Actually, Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, but technically it was its own republic, allied with the United States against Britain. Most of the Northern states abolished slavery from the 1790s-1800s.

Note that a lot of rich loyalists had slaves, including Northern merchants or Governors who use them as domestic servants. So, it makes sense that when middle class merchants and small farmers took over the North that slavery would shortly be abolished.

Honestly, to say that the American Revolution was elitist and did nothing is to say the same of the Russian Revolution or even the French Revolution. It was the liberal bourgeois constitutional monarchy that abolished guilds and worker's organizations, and the Directory was a porkfest.

The main difference is that America took a centrist path and appeased both the radicals and moderates with something. Free land, a Bill of Rights, and Jefferson's reforms for the radicals and the shitty Constitution for the moderates. This is due to the revolutionary class of small farmers having political/economic influence due to owning land.

(The Whiskey Tax was abolished by Jefferson by the way.)

The natives were purposely killed off. We kept getting into "treaties" with them and within a few moments broke them and pushed them further west, migrations helped kill off a lot of them either. Also when renegade Natives attacked US villages we pretended it was whole communities that were behind it and used it as an excuse to wipe off entire tribes. Sort of like "terrorism" today. Also we purposely traded clothing infected with smallpox to many different tribes and that killed them off even further. Its simply immoral and wishful thinking to believe that we purposely killed off the natives.

they were the bourgeois revolution the British never had.

*Immoral and wishful thinking to believe we didnt

The smallpox blankets are a lie passed on by SJW-tier academic faggots, with faulty citation and blatant misinterpretation of documents. The smallpox reached the tribe in question before the blankets were even sent.

Also, native tribes often WERE aggressive towards settlers. It wasn't renegades. Hell, they were even aggressive with each other. (The Beaver Wars were just as bloody as any colonial reprisal against native attacks if not more so.)

The migrations only were deadly for the Cherokee and that was due to random attacks during their migration and a harsh winter. Most of the other migrations were bloodless.

Never mind the fact that most of the tribes lived inefficiently and hogged up tons of land for their primitive existence. (And, attacked the western settlers because they weren't willing to change their lifestyle to use less land per person.) The ones that didn't were the slave-owning tribes, the Cherokee being one of them. Ironically enough, certain niggers who were descended from slaves of the tribe want to be considered Cherokee and kiss the asses of the tribe that enslaved them. (It's like a black man supporting the Confederates because his ancestor was owned by a staunch supporter of Dixie.)

I see an awful lot of people projecting sins of ancestors onto people in the present in this thread.

I'm confused over what this sentence is supposed to say. Do you mean "they had small pox before the small pox blankets were sent" or "the blankets were never supposed to spread small pox". I'd also like a source.

Why do you say that about Kronstadt?

Also. could you rec a book on American colonization and Russian Revolution?

Cause they're stupid.
Death to america tbqh fam

Sounds familiar.

African Americans do it to the whites there constantly

It's pathetic

This had literally nothing to do with feudalism. There was never feudalism in English North America outside of perhaps patroonships (which still existed after the war).

stop

Its traditionalism for a country who's traditions were made relatively recently

You're forgetting about somebody mate

They don't idolize the past though, they want more technological advancement, more rockets to space, more surveillance cameras, more dew-dads and more thing-a-mabobs to keep them entertained, happy, and controlled.

quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/--did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main&view=fulltext

See below. I explained it earlier. The Bolsheviks put down the working man by abolishing worker's self-management and enforcing grain requistions against the peasants. Kronstadt was the last revolt based on those factors, as was the Whiskey Rebellion against the Federalists.

That may have been true for the English Civil War and the French Revolution, but for the American Revolution it was only half true. It was an alliance between the colonial merchant bourgeoisie and slaveholding planter elite to separate from the mercantile policies of the British empire towards its colonies. It was probably more anti-imperialist than anything else. The real revolution doesn't really get going until the American Civil War and the Reconstruction in the aftermath

They do idolize the power relations of the past and want whatever is necesary to maintain their stable, if not comfortable or predictable, moral station of salt-of-the-earth, as abuse containers for the deserving

I haven't had time to read the whole thing, but doing a quick Google search it seems like this is talking about a completely different Fort than the one cited in this paper and Ward Churchill was far from the first to research this, it has been discussed from the 19th century. The article doesn't mention Fort Pitt once, it only talks about Fort Clark which is in a completely different state from Fort Pitt. Pitt is the one I see cited at the most glaring example of attempted biological warfare. I'll give it a closer read later but as of now, it seems like it's beating down a strawman. Maybe you can clarify.

Also I would contest that Makhno was some great warrior of the working class. Why do you think that?

Fort Pitt only had letters DISCUSSING the possibility of sending the blankets, as well as sending in dogs. There was no evidence that any of the plans in those letters were actually executed. And, the smallpox plagues were already happening before the letters were made.

I never mentioned Makhno (though I admired the rank-and-file sentiments of the Black Army. Makhno was decent in my eyes.) Stepan Petrichenko "led" the Kronstadt revolt, and Antonov "led" the Tambov rebellion. Most of those "Green" army rebellions were highly decentralized and lack any sort of real leadership. (The same thing is true for Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.)

My main admiration for the Black Army is for their pro-peasant stance and being, in a sort of way, the successor to the Zaporozhian host. The anarchist intellectuals involved denied it and tried to suppress the Ukrainian nationalist tendencies of the rank-and-file peasants, but still I admire the peasant fighters of the "Green" and Black armies.

Of course, you're going to spout the bullshit myths made by the Bolsheviks, just like how the Federalists made myths about the "antifederalists".

I like Thomas Jefferson overall aside from his owning slaves. He is a very interesting guy and was pretty cool, honestly.

Benjamin Franklin is a pretty interesting guy too, and John Adams did a decent amount of good for everyone. His defense of the Redcoats wrongfully accused of the Boston "Massacre" was a good thing since it showed true equality when everyone else called for heads to roll.

I know Lafayette isn't a founding father, but I like him too since he kicked some serious British ass.

Same for Benedict Arnold. Without him, America probably wouldn't have had the military support of the French necessary for the revolution. Fuck Gates. I understand why Arnold did what he did.

based nazbol does it again

Oh sorry, I just totally goofed. I mixed up Kronstadt with Free territory wew.

I'm having a hard time finding something to corroborate this. I'm reading through something that discusses the debate by an Oxford historian right now, and will get back to you. I think what you're implying you're asking for (documentation confirming Amherst gave them to Native Americans). We don't have a lot of documentary evidence pertaining to many genocides, the letters are very incriminating.

Also, I'm not a Bolshevik apologist even though I like Lenin's theory. I feel no need to "justify" the actions of Trotsky in 1917.

...

Sorry, I ain't buyin it.

The idea that an epistemology limited to two competing autistic performances could possibly embody justice is spooky af. Common law is a bourgeois mess and a hindrance to redistribution, just as it was meant to be.

...

You've yet to prove that there was anything genuinely "revolutionary" about the American Revolution for it to actually be "betrayed".

...

Spooky

because of the classic "traditional values" spook.

Most of them don't realize that their "nation" was "founded" by people who commited treason / didn't follow the laws that were established at the time.

i'll agree with the tirpfag
and OP
in reality pretty much thats all they were in the end.

im more edgy and angry than what I was before too. this is what accelerationism feels like. I'm ok with it through.

He was the suavest founder of them all, Aaron Burr should have used some "protectionism" on his wife and stop sippin that hater aide.

You reactionary national-faggots need to get killed, state atheism all the way

...