Comments on: RANKING THE PRESIDENTS: #’s 19-17 >>>>>>>>> “The Bar-Raisers” (With A Surprise At #17) http://www.thirstyquill.com/2009/01/22/ranking-the-presidents-s-19-17-the-bar-raisers-part-1-with-a-surprise-at-17 Sun, 20 May 2012 02:48:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: The Thirsty Quill http://www.thirstyquill.com/2009/01/22/ranking-the-presidents-s-19-17-the-bar-raisers-part-1-with-a-surprise-at-17#comment-126 The Thirsty Quill Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:36:13 +0000 http://www.thirstyquill.com/?p=675#comment-126 Andy, Agreed, Adams had a solid resume. I think I pointed that out. And yes, MAYBE he wanted to defend the Lobster-Backs (Redcoats or British) out of a true love for liberty, the rule of law, kumbaya, and Enlightenment Milk and Cookies... But the man wanted to be KING. I can't get away from that. Adams also thought that normal Americans (like you and I) were too stupid, unorthodox, and uneducated to have a role in our daily lives, handling our own money, and more importantly, participation in politics. He wanted to restore the monarchy here in America, after we had just defeated it...in the name of liberty. As for the British being "indefensible," check out my reply to the debate between you and Jenny. The "Massacre" was actually our fault, and Sam Adams, Paul Revere, and the boys used it as political propaganda to stir up the rebellion. The two soldiers on trial got off with nothing more than being branded on their hand. They were just doing their job. WE (the patriots) started the whole mess. Maybe I should do a post one day telling the story behind The Boston Massacre that the history books never told us. Andy,

Agreed, Adams had a solid resume. I think I pointed that out. And yes, MAYBE he wanted to defend the Lobster-Backs (Redcoats or British) out of a true love for liberty, the rule of law, kumbaya, and Enlightenment Milk and Cookies…

But the man wanted to be KING. I can’t get away from that.

Adams also thought that normal Americans (like you and I) were too stupid, unorthodox, and uneducated to have a role in our daily lives, handling our own money, and more importantly, participation in politics.

He wanted to restore the monarchy here in America, after we had just defeated it…in the name of liberty.

As for the British being “indefensible,” check out my reply to the debate between you and Jenny. The “Massacre” was actually our fault, and Sam Adams, Paul Revere, and the boys used it as political propaganda to stir up the rebellion. The two soldiers on trial got off with nothing more than being branded on their hand. They were just doing their job. WE (the patriots) started the whole mess.

Maybe I should do a post one day telling the story behind The Boston Massacre that the history books never told us.

]]> By: Andy McGee http://www.thirstyquill.com/2009/01/22/ranking-the-presidents-s-19-17-the-bar-raisers-part-1-with-a-surprise-at-17#comment-124 Andy McGee Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:00:36 +0000 http://www.thirstyquill.com/?p=675#comment-124 That's tough man, tough, you deem his defending the British troops as loving the spotlight, and that may be partially true. But could it be that he was showing the beauty of a free establishment to honor the rule of law by defending the indefensible? Was it his love for the hope of a new way to take on the persecution, which I am sure he faced, to take on such cases? Adams deserves more credit for what it took to get to his inauguration than what he did in office. More than 38 of the Presidents don’t even have the Revolution as a factor. I'm just saying. He was a great thinker and a great writer, and yes, a great President. That’s tough man, tough, you deem his defending the British troops as loving the spotlight, and that may be partially true. But could it be that he was showing the beauty of a free establishment to honor the rule of law by defending the indefensible? Was it his love for the hope of a new way to take on the persecution, which I am sure he faced, to take on such cases?

Adams deserves more credit for what it took to get to his inauguration than what he did in office. More than 38 of the Presidents don’t even have the Revolution as a factor. I’m just saying. He was a great thinker and a great writer, and yes, a great President.

]]>