Posted on 09/25/2013 9:48:26 AM PDT by ru4liberty
Do you have 22 1/2 minutes to invest in this reminder of how we have gotten so far off-course from the original founding of our nation?
P.S. I know this information has been posted on FR before, but I couldn't find a video version. This posting is for those who learn and retain information better by way of a visual/audio presentation.
I didn’t watch the video. But I noticed “Davy Crockett” as the author.
If it’s saying Davy Crockett made a speech on the floor of congress denying Congresses ability to help the poor, it’s probably fake. There is no such speech recorded in the annals of Congress. That speech didn’t show up for 70 years after Crocketts death. And is believed to have been propaganda created by the Whigs party.
And then some idiot congressman, believed it was real, and read it into the Congressional minutes a few years ago.
I didn’t watch the video. But I noticed “Davy Crockett” as the author.
If it’s saying Davy Crockett made a speech on the floor of congress denying Congresses ability to help the poor, it’s probably fake. There is no such speech recorded in the annals of Congress. That speech didn’t show up for 70 years after Crocketts death. And is believed to have been propaganda created by the Whigs party.
And then some idiot congressman, believed it was real, and read it into the Congressional minutes a few years ago.
And he wasn't born on a mountaintop in Tennessee, either.
Mr. niteowl77
He was born in TN though, just not on a mountaintop.
If you had watched the video, you would have seen and heard that addresses in the opening statements.
addresses = addressed
So what did they do? Acknowledge Davy didn’t say it and then use it anyway?
Or did they try to claim Davy actually did say it?
So what did they do? Acknowledge Davy didn’t say it and then use it anyway?
Or did they try to claim Davy actually did say it?
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re an intelligent person. I’ll let you figure it out.
But as to the "not yours to give" speech, it is odd that nobody can find any contemporary evidence of it, and I suspect that if Crockett had actually come up with such an appealing bit of oratory, he'd have gotten water out of that particular well on a regular basis.
Mr. niteowl77
It’s entirely possible, Crockett wouldn’t have agreed with it.
In any event, Crockett’s not here to defend himself and to use his name to promote a position is wrong. Even if you do disclaim it in the introductory remarks.
It’s entirely possible, Crockett wouldn’t have agreed with it.
In any event, Crockett’s not here to defend himself and to use his name to promote a position is wrong. Even if you do disclaim it in the introductory remarks.
Am I to understand that you don’t agree with the premise of the story? Whether it’s historically accurate or simply a parable demonstrating what’s constitutional and what’s not, surely you understand the wisdom and warning imparted in the story. Do you also discount the truths taught in Biblical parables because they’re only allegorical in nature?
If you want to equate that reply with a perceived lack of scriptural scruples, then cast that stone. I'm done with the topic, and I bid you a good day.
Mr. niteowl77
No I don't agree. I see a Biblical mandate to Kings to help the poor. I see a Biblical mandate to individals, to churches and to rulers. And the existence of one or two of the other mandates does not negate the third.
I see it in the story of Nebuccanezzar, where the King was ordered to give to the needy.
I see it in Jer 22 where the length of the king's rulership is related to how he treats the poor. And I take from that a warning that if "We the People" wish to continue our rule, we better use our power of rulership to help the poor.
I also logically reject the argument because it's government policies, specifically the lowering of the import tariffs, that have caused our current high unemployment. If government is the cause, then government should help alleviate the hardship.
No I don't agree. I see a Biblical mandate to Kings to help the poor. I see a Biblical mandate to individals, to churches and to rulers. And the existence of one or two of the other mandates does not negate the third.
I see it in the story of Nebuccanezzar, where the King was ordered to give to the needy.
I see it in Jer 22 where the length of the king's rulership is related to how he treats the poor. And I take from that a warning that if "We the People" wish to continue our rule, we better use our power of rulership to help the poor.
I also logically reject the argument because it's government policies, specifically the lowering of the import tariffs, that have caused our current high unemployment. If government is the cause, then government should help alleviate the hardship.
They are best helped by a job. Thus, they are best helped by policies that promote and protect our free market, such as the import tariffs, our founding father's set up.
But direct help is sometimes necessary and I'm supportive of those programs. I'd like to see more fraud prevention and the border closed to lower the supply of labor.
They are best helped by a job. Thus, they are best helped by policies that promote and protect our free market, such as the import tariffs, our founding father's set up.
But direct help is sometimes necessary and I'm supportive of those programs. I'd like to see more fraud prevention and the border closed to lower the supply of labor.
This story is in his autobiography.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.