Thanksgiving: The rest of the story

[NYcarbineer]

By the OP's logic, the Indians should have never helped the colonists, because helping the poor and needy just encourages them to stay poor and needy.

That's a bizarre interpretation, but common for you. The settlers shared their bounty with the natives after they got their act together. So all prospered!

The conservative belief, well established, is that help for the poor does more harm than good - it makes them lazy and dependent.

Eh?

 

[Moonglow]

Another year has yet passed, and this bullshit is repeated...Saints be praised...

The only ingredient missing is the one jack ass that insists the Pilgrims came straight to this land to escape religious persecution.

It isn't Thanksgiving until someone say that.

They were fleeing political persecution, the way the Pilgrims ran the govt. after the execution of the king, they were tyrants...

They weren't fleeing anything.

yet needed a charter to leave, so they must have been leaving for some reason...

They spent a decade in Holland before leaving. They left for opportunity. It was about cash.

And the US was a rich nation..

 

[Moonglow]

By the OP's logic, the Indians should have never helped the colonists, because helping the poor and needy just encourages them to stay poor and needy.

That's a bizarre interpretation, but common for you. The settlers shared their bounty with the natives after they got their act together. So all prospered!

The conservative belief, well established, is that help for the poor does more harm than good - it makes them lazy and dependent.

Eh?

yet, that is what Jesus spoke of was helping those in poverty....These hard hearten folks remind me of those most heinous of creatures which pray to God and do the best at breaking his rules..

 

[Disir]

The only ingredient missing is the one jack ass that insists the Pilgrims came straight to this land to escape religious persecution.

It isn't Thanksgiving until someone say that.

They were fleeing political persecution, the way the Pilgrims ran the govt. after the execution of the king, they were tyrants...

They weren't fleeing anything.

yet needed a charter to leave, so they must have been leaving for some reason...

They spent a decade in Holland before leaving. They left for opportunity. It was about cash.

And the US was a rich nation..

Nobody said they were brilliant.

 

[guno]

we should atone for the genocide that was incited -- and condoned -- by the very men we idolize as our 'heroic' founding fathers.

No Thanks for Thanksgiving

 

[Moonglow]

They were fleeing political persecution, the way the Pilgrims ran the govt. after the execution of the king, they were tyrants...

They weren't fleeing anything.

yet needed a charter to leave, so they must have been leaving for some reason...

They spent a decade in Holland before leaving. They left for opportunity. It was about cash.

And the US was a rich nation..

Nobody said they were brilliant.

Was they under the guidance of the Lord?

 

[Moonglow]

They weren't fleeing anything.

yet needed a charter to leave, so they must have been leaving for some reason...

They spent a decade in Holland before leaving. They left for opportunity. It was about cash.

And the US was a rich nation..

Nobody said they were brilliant.

Was they under the guidance of the Lord?

If they can pardon a turkey, they can pardon this joint I am smoking..

 

[Anathema]

yet, that is what Jesus spoke of was helping those in poverty....These hard hearten folks remind me of those most heinous of creatures which pray to God and do the best at breaking his rules..

Please remember that not all Conservatives believe Jesus, Christianity, or the Bible are the proper source for determining Right and Wrong.

 

[Moonglow]

yet, that is what Jesus spoke of was helping those in poverty....These hard hearten folks remind me of those most heinous of creatures which pray to God and do the best at breaking his rules..

Please remember that not all Conservatives believe Jesus, Christianity, or the Bible are the proper source for determining Right and Wrong.

Why yes, there is the Kama Sutra.

 

[Unkotare]

Another year has yet passed, and this bullshit is repeated...Saints be praised...

The only ingredient missing is the one jack ass that insists the Pilgrims came straight to this land to escape religious persecution.

It isn't Thanksgiving until someone say that.

They were fleeing political persecution, the way the Pilgrims ran the govt. after the execution of the king, they were tyrants...

They weren't fleeing anything.

yet needed a charter to leave, so they must have been leaving for some reason...

They spent a decade in Holland before leaving. They left for opportunity. It was about cash.

Not that simple either way.

 

[Anathema]

Why yes, there is the Kama Sutra.

That would almost be funny, if I had a sense of humor.

The Christian Way is not the Only Way. Nor us it necessarily the Right Way.

 

[owebo]

yet needed a charter to leave, so they must have been leaving for some reason...

They spent a decade in Holland before leaving. They left for opportunity. It was about cash.

And the US was a rich nation..

Nobody said they were brilliant.

Was they under the guidance of the Lord?

If they can pardon a turkey, they can pardon this joint I am smoking..

We need you stupid and harmless.....

 

[Moonglow]

They spent a decade in Holland before leaving. They left for opportunity. It was about cash.

And the US was a rich nation..

Nobody said they were brilliant.

Was they under the guidance of the Lord?

If they can pardon a turkey, they can pardon this joint I am smoking..

We need you stupid and harmless.....

That's what I need from my govt. cops and neighbors..

 

[edthecynic]

The settlers shared their bounty with the natives after they got their act together. So all prospered!

Again that is the obvious lie, and you missed it again.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The Indians that saved the Pilgrims lived in a communal society.

No they didn't. And not even that close to it.
Each tribe or nation had different forms of governance, from outright totalitarian to even ones that had constitutions and elections. For most, forms of capitalism certainly existed, Indians heavily relied on trade and were "allowed" to keep their own property. There were "wealthy" Indians and poor Indians that were directly related to their own production and work.
Of course they did things for the common good, but few existed with all benefit of production going into a communal coffer.
Having said that, Indians were unsuccessful because of their constant in-fighting and tribal wars. Their inability to get along was why it was so easy for them to be overtaken.

 

[Iceweasel]

By the OP's logic, the Indians should have never helped the colonists, because helping the poor and needy just encourages them to stay poor and needy.

That's a bizarre interpretation, but common for you. The settlers shared their bounty with the natives after they got their act together. So all prospered!

The conservative belief, well established, is that help for the poor does more harm than good - it makes them lazy and dependent.

Eh?

No, that's a liberal lie. Liberals always lie, they have to or no one would listen. Conservatives aren't against helping people, we are against robbing you to care for my needs and desires. And if you go the socialist route, as the pilgrims found out, you'll encourage laziness.

When you go the capitalist route, you encourage the go getters to better themselves. And when the go getters create goods or services, all can benefit. It's blasphemy to the left because it works every time it's tried so they have to lie instead.

 

[Iceweasel]

The settlers shared their bounty with the natives after they got their act together. So all prospered!

Again that is the obvious lie, and you missed it again.

An obvious lie because some idiot on the net doesn't like the truth that rubs his religion the wrong way?

 

[2aguy]

The Indians helped the Pilgrims, for which they gave thanks. That is true... but it's not the only thing that happened.

After a very bad start, the Pilgrims also helped themselves... by realizing that their form of government was destroying the colony. And they got rid of it, just in time.

We'll have the usual bevy of liberal socialists insisting that since what the Pilgrims did at first, didn't meet 100% of the dictionary definition of "socialism" (it only achieved 90% ), they don't want us to call it that.

But the fact is, what these liberals are pushing today, has never worked... including the first time it was tried on this continent in 1623. Then, as now, it caused only division, discontent, starvation, and death. Not until they got rid of it, did prosperity begin.

-------------------------------------------

http://www.post-journal.com/page/content.detail/id/545415.html?nav=5071

Thanksgiving: Deliverance From Socialism

November 21, 2009
By Daniel McLaughlin

In the fall of the year 1623, William Bradford and the pilgrims who resided in Plymouth Plantation sat down for a thanksgiving feast. It was a celebration of a plentiful harvest. It hadn't been so in the preceding couple of years.

They had arrived in the new world in 1620. After the death of John Carver, the first governor of the colony, in April of 1621, Mr. Bradford was chosen as the second governor. From the start of their journey from England, he had kept a diary of their activities. They had early on decided on communal living and agreed to work all together for a common store of provisions and share equally in its use. He wrote that this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent. It retarded employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. "For the young men that were most able and fit for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to worke for other men's wives and children, with out any recompence." The strong and productive didn't get any more food or provisions than the unproductive, and that was thought injustice. The older and weaker thought it indignity and disrespect to them to have to do the same amount of work as the younger and stronger. He wrote, "for men's wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brooke it."

In other words, people produced less and were discontented when they were forced to work for the benefit of others, at the expense of their own well-being. Plymouth Colony had a first hand taste of the effects of socialism on a community. As Bradford described it, few crops were planted or harvested. For a couple of years, the people languished in misery, and many died.

In 1923, they decided to try something different to get a better crop and raise themselves up. The solution was to give each family its own plot of land, and to hold them responsible for their own welfare. The idea was that, if each family was allowed to prosper according to its own efforts, each person would have the incentive to work harder to plant and harvest more. Again in the words of Governor Bradford: "This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other ways would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now wente willingly into the field, and tooke their little-ones with them to set corne, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

William Bradford and the colonists had made a profound discovery. They had, in effect, conducted a controlled experiment in political organization. In everything other than property rights and personal responsibility, they continued as before. Under socialism, or communal living, or the Marxist philosophy of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need," the community languished. There was little incentive to produce more than the average. Thus the average declined and starvation and deprivation resulted.

Under conditions of private property, where families trusted in their own abilities, and "every man to his own particular," the people began to prosper. Bradford wrote in his journal several decades later that from that time on, they never suffered from deprivation, but rather the community improved and flourished.

That experiment has been conducted many times over the course of centuries, and indeed the whole of human history. The results are always ultimately the same. Where people are free to enjoy the benefits of their own labors and property, there is progress and plenty. Where property is subject to arbitrary confiscation, there is no incentive to produce. There is no incentive to try to accumulate wealth against unforeseen hardships of the future, and there is dependence, degradation and, ultimately, slavery.

This Thanksgiving season is a good time for reflection. Americans are traveling down a road toward the first Plymouth, the collectivism that leads to misery. As for me, I think we should be turning back toward the second Plymouth, toward personal responsibility and the resulting prosperity. Then we can join Governor Bradford in Thanksgiving for deliverance from the catastrophe called socialism.

The Indians that saved the Pilgrims lived in a communal society.

Yeah....now they live on reservations, drunk and in poverty and their kids have no hope.....

How did that communal society work out for them.....?

 

[SmokeALib]

There's no fool like an old fool.

 

[owebo]

By the OP's logic, the Indians should have never helped the colonists, because helping the poor and needy just encourages them to stay poor and needy.

That's a bizarre interpretation, but common for you. The settlers shared their bounty with the natives after they got their act together. So all prospered!

The conservative belief, well established, is that help for the poor does more harm than good - it makes them lazy and dependent.

Eh?

Teach a man to fish, and they will never vote democrat again.....