Thursday, November 11, 2004


New topic:

Not many people know this, but during our revolution the patriots were NOT in the majority. About 1/3rd of the colonists supported independence, about 1/3rd supported the crown, and about 1//3rd were "undecided."

Many "tories" who supported the crown did so out of loyalty to their nation - Great Britain - and despised the radicals who dared to suggest a civilized nation could be ruled without a king.

So here is my question: if George W. Bush were alive in 1775 and living in America, would he be a Tory and support the crown, or a revolutionary? And why do you choose one or the other? there is also the "undecided" option here.

And what about Kerry? Clinton? Bush sr? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon? Throw in what you want and leave out what you want. we'll see if this is a topic people want to discuss.

My take:

Bush: Tory - because he has never been progressive, always been conservative, and believes exactly what he learned in West Texas as a youth and has never questioned those beliefs - or bothered to learn about the world around him. That sounds like a tory to me. This is NOT a dig at Bush. And he would NOT sit it out like he did Vietnam, but would probably fight for the Crown against those rag-tag patriots. He would believe he was doing it for crown and country - and he would be, becasue the tories in our revolution weren't traitors, but loyalists. They were loyal to the form of government they grew up with and were willing to take up arms to defend it, and unlike the South when it seceded, I don't see anything dishonorable about tory behavior during our revolution. I am just glad they lost. And at the end of the war Bush would have refused to accept the loss of his king and moved to England to remain loyal to his beliefs. Some of the tories lost everything but their lives in our revolution, and some lost that as well - and they did it becasue they believed they were on the side of right. Bush would have been such a true believer.

Kerry? I think he would have joined the patriots. From an early age he questioned authority and the world around him, and served in Vietnam for all the right reasons. He volunteered, and his anti-war activities when he returned shows that he was willing to stand up and fight for what he believed in, but would come to his own conclusions what it is he believed. Rational, independent thinkers joined the revolution because they dared to think that men could govern themselves, and he is certainly rational and independent.

Clinton? I honestly think he would be undecided. Unlike the "flip-flop" BS thrown at Kerry, I think Kerry has been willing to take a stand, even unpopular ones, many many times. He could have been Joe Lieberman and been enthusiastic about invading Iraq, but he wasn't. He could have been Kean and been anti-war all the way. He wasn't. Kerry was rational and willing to wage war, but only as a last resort. That made his campaign harder, not easier, and he knew it. He knew the "flip-flop" charges would come, but he still did what he believed to be right, and even said he would cast his vote the same way again if a president asked for such authority - knowing that Bush would twist it and call it more flip-flopping. Strangely enough, the "flip-flop" charge came about because Kerry was willing to take a stand - for war when necessary, against it when not. That was apparently beyond most people's understand and beyond a 30-second sound bite. It sounds wishy-washy even though it isn't. Clinton? He would have waited it out and then enthusiastically supported whomever won, and then probably convince people he had always been on their side. I call him undecided.

Bush sr? Revolutionary patriot all the way.


vrangel said...

Bush.Jr would have stayed on his ranch/plantation. Not interested in all that revolutionary nonsense.

Kerry would have married rich widow of a slain revolutionary/loyalist and moved to France.

Clinton would have joined a revolution with a vengeance. That's where passion and adoration of a crowd were.

Bush.Sr would have remained loyal to the king to the end.

R said...

Bush II would have died of alcohol poisoning before his thirtieth birthday. It was all homemade back then, none of this watered down crap. A drunk could be a drunk back in the day. Plus it kept you warm. Maine is cold without central heat.

Bush the first would have TOTALLY been a tory. Read his biography. He ain't kissin ass unless it's royal ass.

Reagan..wait..what was the question?

Clinton would have sided with whoever had the hot wenches. He and Benjamin Franklin would have been best friends and roommates in Paris. Hillary would have seen him only four times in her lifetime. Like Franklins wife. Oh wait..that is her life NOW.

free0352 said...

Clinton would have said "Fighting? Me? Oh hell no!" then moved to france, and found an attractive hooker to bang while he ate fried food.

Kerry would have sided with the British, betrayed them, sided with the States, then gone back to the British acusing the states of war crimes, all his friends from the continental army would publish a newspaper on how he was a coward, Kerry would escape a treason trial in England and some how make it back to the States, and be hung as a traitor by both.

GWB would get confused as to where "England" was, he'd then attack Spain (TWD, you know it took a lot for me to tell that joke--...must support...hero of... Republicans!)

George senior would have started a massive covert army of insurgents through his intelligence contacts, launder money, and use Spanish weapons to defeat the hated invaders. All Republicans hate taxes, he'd have been on board with the states.

Hillary Clinton would be burned at the stake as a witch

Ted Kennedy would eat George Washington at the 2nd Continental Congress.

Aron Bur would then shoot him

Zell Miller would burn down Charlstown on general fucking principle...surrener my ass!

The remainder of the Democratic Congress would flee screaming into the wilderness to die of starvation (Democrats don't hunt you see)

Michael Moore would call the colonists stupid fat rich white men, then die in an ill advised, poorly planed slave revolt (Can't win a revolt without guns) killed at the hands of the very slaves, when they discover he couldn't give a rats ass about them, and only want to secure a personal place in history.

George W Bush would attack England mistaking it for Spain, win, and take over the world.

Karl Rove O'Brien said...

Interesting stereotypes that I see here. I applaud the good work of my minions in spreading such stereotypes. Remember, lies are the workhorse of the Party. The human animal has a need for meaning in his life, and that is a void that is so easy to fill with lies and hate and deception, so easy to fill... all that is necessary, all that we in the Party must do, is fill that void with the lies that people *want* to believe, lies that are soothing and cool, while the truth is horrible and gruesome and would make people feel bad. No no, far better to give people the lies they desire, the lies they want in their heart of hearts, the lies that allow them to deceive themselves that hey, they are virtuous, hey, they are the Chosen, hey, they are free...

I applaud all Liars, for without lies, society would collapse tomorrow. Lies are the lubricant of society. Truth... but what is truth, anyhow, other than what the Party proclaims it to be through its puppets in the media and elsewhere? When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But the Party knows better. The Party knows that what people see, what people believe, is what they want to see, what they want to believe. We give them the lies, the beautiful bright and shining lies, that they want to believe. And is that so bad, in the end?

War is Peace. Freedom is Tyranny. Ignorance is Strength. Welcome to 1984+20.

Orwellianly Yours,

vrangel said...

TWD, check this out :

Snave said...


Thanks for being straightforward and honest with us Americans. It is an admission we have all needed to hear from your party for some time now.

But now that you have laid the truth out there for Americans to see, will they even care?

Concerned Citizen,



As for which modern-day pol would have belonged to which group back in Revolutionary times, I would bet every one of them today would say they'd have been a Patriot. I think that in reality, most of them would have gone with whoever had the money in those days. I doubt that any of them besides Kerry (in his younger years) would be into joining an army, into physically fighting an enemy, or interested in taking a cannonball in the gut for freedom.

As for the non-politicians, Ms. Coulter and Hillary would have lived earlier during the 1600's and would have been burned at the stake. During Revolutionary times, Rush Limbaugh might well have been publishing anti-England pamphlets... he would probably have still been in the media, anyway. I can picture Robertson, Falwell, Ken Starr, Santorum, Hannity and O'Reilly with British accents, wearing white powder wigs and presiding over witch trials, but that would have been earlier, like in the 1600's... so luckily for the cause of freedom, that would mean those six would have been dead by the time the Revolution came around.

I liked the comment about Clinton and Ben Franklin being roommates, womanizing and clogging artieries in France. That conjures up some humorous images! I can just see them drinking massive quantities of wine, eating all kinds of fattening food, belching and farting out loud, and engaging in generally depraved bacchanalia.

As for some people saying Clinton or Kerry would have run off to France, is this just more France-bashing? If it is, and if we're talking about the late 1700's, then we shouldn't forget the great degree to which the French helped us in the Revolutionary War. As obnoxious as some of us may find the French today, I think we should remember that we might not have gained independence, or that it might have taken much longer, without their help. Regardless of how much some might perceive them as having a sneering attitude today, we have to at least give them credit for playing a part in our independence.

Snave said...

Clarifications to my previous post:

I DO realize Hillary is a politician, and I apologize to readers from both parties for having mentioned her name and Ms. Coulter's name in the same sentence.

Also, because I suggested that Limbaugh would have been a Patriot re. the likelihood of him having anti-government sentiments for England, that doesn't mean I endorse much at all of what he says today.

Finally, pairing Bill Clinton and Ben Franklin as partiers should not suggest that I view Ben Franklin as a "bad" man. (I can just hear some readers seething.... "Ooooooh! How could Snave mention Clinton in the same breath as Ben Franklin?!") I merely believe that both men were extremely intelligent, and that both liked women and good food. I think they might have gotten along well! I also think I might have gotten along well with Franklin. He did write a nice piece about farts, after all.