Commifornia (Page 3): WHY would anyone think to tell me I can't use ANY words?? Read some history, Sir (please).

rebob14

PaulPisces wrote:

Why would anyone have an issue using "founders" instead of "founding fathers"?

WHY would anyone think to tell me I can't use ANY words?? Read some history, Sir (please).

robmull Loc: florida

oldroy wrote:

I think I read the answer to your question further... (show quote)

I believe Rush refers to the "feminist" movement as "feminazi's," oldroy. I never wondered why.

chiefg

rebob14 wrote:

WHY would anyone think to tell me I can't use ANY words?? Read some history, Sir (please).

Dare I say it? People easily offended by the words of others to the point of curtailing their first amendment rights are "pussys".

DamnYANKEE

PaulPisces wrote:

Why would anyone have an issue using "founders" instead of "founding fathers"?

why are you such a stupid libturd :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

crackerjack

PaulPisces wrote:

As far as I can tell from your post, the only objection to using "founders" instead of "founding fathers" is that the latter is the way it's been for a long time.

Your "purple penguin" conversation is a separate one and not relevant to my question. Nice try for a diversion, but I would still like a better reason than that founding fathers "..has been used for two hundred years..."

Some people have too much time on their hands.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

DamnYANKEE wrote:

why are you such a stupid libturd :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Paul is not stupid. He believes that by distorting the language Americans can be brainwashed into believing 2+2=5 and 1984 is just a little late,he apparently wishes it had come already. After all, to him marriage can mean any group of people of what ever sex who want to be"married" to each other. He also believes that you are which ever gender you think you are on that particular day. He is dead set in those beliefs and no amount of discussion will change his concept, so don't try.

chiefg

DamnYANKEE wrote:

why are you such a stupid libturd :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

For the record, I am far from being liberal. I did not serve 38 years in the army only t become a liberal.

Spankem Loc: NJ

PaulPisces wrote:

Why would anyone have an issue using "founders" instead of "founding fathers"?

Duh, why would anyone have an issue using "founding fathers" instead of "founders" ?

Do tell me, sometimes I need education.

Onelostdog Loc: Restless Oregon

chiefg wrote:

As an immigrant from Canada as a child, California... (show quote)

I'm with you sir, I was born in Ca. and moved away 30 years ago as the state went to hell long before that. The State of Jefferson is a needed area but this has been in the works since the 40s. Both Commifornia and Oregon must sign off on allowing a new state and then the Feds must ratify such an agreement none of which will ever happen. Liberal progressive Communists will not give up the power and cash flow coming from No. Cal or So. Oregon, they could not afford to loose the Federal dollars infused to the states by allowing a more or less third party into their corrupted system. Kinda the same thing with a third electoral party ever being allowed to come into power, the Dems and Rino Repubs would never allow another to destroy all their graft and corruption incomes. Sick bastards they all are.

Carol Kelly

chiefg wrote:

As an immigrant from Canada as a child, California... (show quote)

As the wife of a military retiree, I can understand what you re feeling. He does, too. I am heartbroken at the path so many Americans have taken. If everyone feels that he or she is the only person, thought ,opinion that matters, how can we stand together. And if we aren't together, we fall.

TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!

PaulPisces wrote:

Why would anyone have an issue using "founders" instead of "founding fathers"?

After reading three pages of different comments and opinions, what's wrong with just sticking with the whole truth or the actual truth in all of these instances. When we add a word here or there, or omitt a word, it leaves it open to a different interpretation. If we continue to try to please everyone, after a time, the whole truth will be lost, then we all lose. This is just my opinion.

TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!

Carol Kelly wrote:

As the wife of a military retiree, I can understand what you re feeling. He does, too. I am heartbroken at the path so many Americans have taken. If everyone feels that he or she is the only person, thought ,opinion that matters, how can we stand together. And if we aren't together, we fall.

And how many times must we learn this lesson! America is always at her very best when we are together.

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

nwtk2007 wrote:

Lord Reagan started the demise of California when he granted amnesty to those millions of Mexican immigrants.

Right! Now you political party want to just let us have open borders. Is that fine with you?

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

TexaCan wrote:

After reading three pages of different comments and opinions, what's wrong with just sticking with the whole truth or the actual truth in all of these instances. When we add a word here or there, or omitt a word, it leaves it open to a different interpretation. If we continue to try to please everyone, after a time, the whole truth will be lost, then we all lose. This is just my opinion.

I agree in principle TexCan. Especially when adding or omitting a word materially changes the meaning of what we are saying.

In this particular case I really have no vested personal interest one way or the other. But I am aware that for some, removing the word "fathers" creates a description that is devoid of patriarchal overtones and thus more comfortable. It's certainly no skin off my nose to remove "fathers". In no way does doing so suggest the framers of the Constitution or Declaration of Independence were not men. We all know they were. But we all also know that women have been systematically excluded from getting credit for their contribution to the early formation of our country, and I think anything that furthers recognizing the value of women is a good thing.

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

PaulPisces wrote:

As far as I can tell from your post, the only objection to using "founders" instead of "founding fathers" is that the latter is the way it's been for a long time.

Your "purple penguin" conversation is a separate one and not relevant to my question. Nice try for a diversion, but I would still like a better reason than that founding fathers "..has been used for two hundred years..."

Give one good reason it should be changed. I see nothing wrong with "founding fathers", unless fathers is not a political correct term now.