Talk:Founding Fathers

Ack. Ack...so much wrong...ack. Researcher 23:54, 14 November 2007 (EST)
 * Eh, well, you fixied, so, so much better now! Thanks! human  01:25, 15 November 2007 (EST)
 * Perhaps a mention that most of them were freemasons? Totnesmartin 05:46, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Shhhhhh!  ħ uman  21:34, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Rule #1: We don't talk about the Freemasons' Club. -- 21:38, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Damn, that's what I meant to say :)  ħ uman  23:06, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Leotardo, I didn't delete your text, you idiot. I rearranged it. Look at the whole diff. 03:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, idiot, I know, that's why I'm reverting - it looks completely stupid to have lists start an article, particularly when you haven't given any sense of the significance of the lists. I thought the edit summary spelled that out, but apparently it went over your head.  You deciding to move something is not "cleanup" as much as you making an editorial choice.  "Cleanup" infers you had to fix my errors. --Leotardo (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah, you just suck at playing with others. I had to start the talk page comments here and at that other place you are endlessly reverting.  I was "cleaning up" because there were probably typos you ignored in your reversion.  It's your opinion that the ordering sucked, just as it was my opinion that it was better the other way.  You simply argued by reverting, rather than coming here to make your point.  The fact is, I suspect, you want your meandering section ab out some guy no one has ever heard of to come first.  Other people might think listing a few well-known "mommies and daddies" shoudl come first.  Chances are, both/all three sections should simply go bye bye.  03:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've only had an issue with you, and that doesn't seem out of the ordinary around here. Oh, the burden you bear, having to create talk pages, clean-up typos and deal with all the people who just can not get things write.  Oh woe, what a burden you have.  If you want the changes as you propose, get someone else to agree with you, but they don't make a lot of sense from an organizational or an educational standpoint.  You can easily replace Iredell with any number of other people--be my guest!--to point out that the founding fathers includes a lot of people.  I thought that illustrated it nicely, but the idea of just getting rid of it is pretty dumb, particularly given what the article looked like before.  The lists themselves make clear they were randomly thrown on there. --Leotardo (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree with Leotardo on the lists issue. They need an introduction or they don't flow well at all.  And Human, you're not really someone who should get huffy about others not playing well, you know? --Kels (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, Kels, I agree, the problem is the article is highly unfocussed. Anyway, my last edit left the section order the same as Leotardo prefers, leaving his section about some guy first.  As far as the second point, I may have had issues with virtually everyone here at one time or another, but that is the price to pay for active editing over some time.  What I get tired of is Leotardo simply reverting any edit he doesn't like to his edits.  Etc. Etc.  04:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

George Carlin?
I kinda skimmed that reference about invoking the original founders on the Seven Dirty Words skit, and I can see lots of references to the Constitution but nothing about originalism. Can someone enlighten me how the ref backs it up? --Kels (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Good source
http://www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race 151.80.56.16 (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)