For One Julie theres a big difference between sailing to America vs sailing to Mars. Second it did cost most of the pilgrims everything they owned plus the lives of family members to make the crossing, then they had to scratch a living out of the earth in a race against the seasons and elements. So I think the comparison is very reasonable.
The "Pilgrims" (Leiden Separatists) voyage was granted a patent under the auspices of The London Virginia Company, a merchant group that had a charter to colonize in America. King James I had refused to grant a charter to the seditious Separatists. Thomas Weston, a prominent English ironmonger and associate of the Merchant Adventurers, his Holland agent, Edward Pickering, married to a Separatist, agreed to arrange financing for the voyage. The Merchant Adventurers were trading capitalists, first chartered in 1407 by Henry IV, claiming liberties back to 1216. Their interests in the early 17th Century included beaver pelts. They were very anxious for cash flow. They had used off-shore ownership and a merry-go-round of corporate addresses to avoid import duties and tariffs. They were being sued by a multitude of jilted treasuries. The Separatists were under obligation to pay back the Merchant Adventurers' investment. Ultimately, the Plymouth Colony produced a surplus of corn which was traded to Native Americans for furs and transferred to the financiers to erase the debt. Additionally, some of the Separatists may have entered into seven-year indenture contracts with The London Virginia Co. to offset the expense. Some of the passengers on the Mayflower were not Separatists. Those passengers reimbursed the Separatists for passage.
LOL CM A lil more detail than needed but like I said it did cost the pilgrims to get here. I believe the debts were astronomical for their day. But speculation paid off in spades so here we are today.
“For One Julie theres a big difference between sailing to America vs sailing to Mars.”
OMG….really?! You don’t say, Kyle, I’m astonished. I guess I should cancel that boat trip to Mars, eh?
Maybe you should try reading the linked article so you maybe possibly have a teeny idea of what I’m referring to.
“Second it did cost most of the pilgrims everything they owned plus the lives of family members to make the crossing, then they had to scratch a living out of the earth in a race against the seasons and elements. So I think the comparison is very reasonable.”
Do you really think the people paying were the ones making the dangerous trips?
Okay, so I suppose there won’t be ANY taxpayer money funding these trips to Mars, or any of the expenses associated with it like rockets and fuel and such….just multi-zillionaire “pilgrims” clawing and scratching a life out of Mars in a race against the hostile Martians or whatever.
But, oops…. Aldrin says “it’s too expensive even for a tycoon.” Bummer.
I do give you points for the melodrama, though, always entertaining.
So CM I guess in a way you could say Americans owe their existence to beavers.
If given the choice: whether to blow over a trillion dollars on two ineffectual wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) or blow over a trillion dollars on a manned mission to Mars, I wouldn't hesitate. Go for the Mars trip. Why? (Given the same contractors who profited from the wars would likely profit on the Mars trip.) Primarily, it would create jobs. Second, we'd be firing a rocket with no intent of killing people. Third (with a peaceful project) other countries would be rooting for us instead of jeering us. And, fourth, it would result in a rush of new spin-off technology, creating more markets and jobs. Too bad the choice wasn't offered.
I would, especially since they were Puritans…or at least dressed that way.
They just don’t teach history like this in school. :]
I would also vote for Mars trips over wars, however; Aldrin wants Americans to live on Mars, thereby saving oodles of money by not making repeated or return trips. It’s a one way trip, exactly like that Twilight Zone episode where the Martians lure human earthlings up to Mars to eat them, so now his motives are totally suspect.
It’s a macabre symbiosis – except this time the pilgrims get skinned.
Actually, there is a difference between Puritans and Pilgrims. Both were protestants, and both were unhappy with the Church of England. If you recall Henry VIII was displeased because the Roman Catholic Church refused to grant annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. For that reason (among others), he started his own church (Church of England). Henry was a devout (if not human) Catholic. Initially, aside from Rome, the Pope and who's treasury got the church taxes, the Church of England differed little from the Church of Rome. This was about 1530. Bibles were being printed, and with half-or-less of the population able to read, a sizable number of people had their own Bible. Martin Luther had nailed his "95 Theses" to the church door. John Calvin was yet to establish his colony of Protestant exiles in Geneva, but the sermons of Ulrich Zwingli which inspired Calvin were resounding on the continent. Reformation was in the air- even in England. The split from the RC Church in England caused expectations among those who envisioned a Reformation like that heralded by Calvin and Luther. When in practice, the CoE failed to distance itself from RC doctrine and practice as anticipated, some of England's Protestants were displeased. The degree to which England's Protestants were displeased marks the distinction between Puritans and the so-called Pilgrims. The Pilgrims were known in England as Leiden Separatists. Leiden being a location they removed themselves to, and Separatists denoting that they wanted to separate themselves from the CoE. The Puritans were not so radicalized that they wanted to dissolve their relationship with the CoE. They merely wanted the CoE to come more toward the principles of the Protestant Reformation. The two groups did not get along and did not share locales in the New World. The Separatists had Plymouth Colony. The Puritans had the Massachusetts Bay Colony and Connecticut Colony.
Julie, pay no attention to Kyle, he can't comprehend what he reads, look at a lot of his posts.,you'll see what I mean.He gets off on misquoting, and putting words in others posts that are his, and fit his agenda. He's not worth the time it would take
to tell him where to go.
I won't be responding to any thing he posts from this day on. I can't tell what is, or
what isn't, fiction, made up, imagined, misquotes, or just bs.
Did it cost the “pilgrims”
Did it cost the “pilgrims” zillions of dollars to sail here? I think Mr. Aldrin’s comparison is a bit lame. But hey we beat the Russians to the moon.
It probably won’t take as long to trash Mars as it did to trash earth.
Only if the ship is big
Only if the ship is big enough to hold the president, his staff, and all of the Senate
and Congress.....not only yes....but hell yes !!
For One Julie theres a big
For One Julie theres a big difference between sailing to America vs sailing to Mars. Second it did cost most of the pilgrims everything they owned plus the lives of family members to make the crossing, then they had to scratch a living out of the earth in a race against the seasons and elements. So I think the comparison is very reasonable.
Uhmm Richard, the Senate is
Uhmm Richard, the Senate is one branch of Congress.
The other, FYI, is the House of Representatives!
The "Pilgrims" (Leiden
The "Pilgrims" (Leiden Separatists) voyage was granted a patent under the auspices of The London Virginia Company, a merchant group that had a charter to colonize in America. King James I had refused to grant a charter to the seditious Separatists. Thomas Weston, a prominent English ironmonger and associate of the Merchant Adventurers, his Holland agent, Edward Pickering, married to a Separatist, agreed to arrange financing for the voyage. The Merchant Adventurers were trading capitalists, first chartered in 1407 by Henry IV, claiming liberties back to 1216. Their interests in the early 17th Century included beaver pelts. They were very anxious for cash flow. They had used off-shore ownership and a merry-go-round of corporate addresses to avoid import duties and tariffs. They were being sued by a multitude of jilted treasuries. The Separatists were under obligation to pay back the Merchant Adventurers' investment. Ultimately, the Plymouth Colony produced a surplus of corn which was traded to Native Americans for furs and transferred to the financiers to erase the debt. Additionally, some of the Separatists may have entered into seven-year indenture contracts with The London Virginia Co. to offset the expense. Some of the passengers on the Mayflower were not Separatists. Those passengers reimbursed the Separatists for passage.
LOL CM A lil more detail than
LOL CM A lil more detail than needed but like I said it did cost the pilgrims to get here. I believe the debts were astronomical for their day. But speculation paid off in spades so here we are today.
“For One Julie theres a big
“For One Julie theres a big difference between sailing to America vs sailing to Mars.”
OMG….really?! You don’t say, Kyle, I’m astonished. I guess I should cancel that boat trip to Mars, eh?
Maybe you should try reading the linked article so you maybe possibly have a teeny idea of what I’m referring to.
“Second it did cost most of the pilgrims everything they owned plus the lives of family members to make the crossing, then they had to scratch a living out of the earth in a race against the seasons and elements. So I think the comparison is very reasonable.”
Do you really think the people paying were the ones making the dangerous trips?
Okay, so I suppose there won’t be ANY taxpayer money funding these trips to Mars, or any of the expenses associated with it like rockets and fuel and such….just multi-zillionaire “pilgrims” clawing and scratching a life out of Mars in a race against the hostile Martians or whatever.
But, oops…. Aldrin says “it’s too expensive even for a tycoon.” Bummer.
I do give you points for the melodrama, though, always entertaining.
So CM I guess in a way you could say Americans owe their existence to beavers.
You could say the Pilgrims
You could say the Pilgrims were in the beaver business, or more specifically, the skin trade. ...Kind of a double bind- wouldn't you say?
If given the choice: whether
If given the choice: whether to blow over a trillion dollars on two ineffectual wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) or blow over a trillion dollars on a manned mission to Mars, I wouldn't hesitate. Go for the Mars trip. Why? (Given the same contractors who profited from the wars would likely profit on the Mars trip.) Primarily, it would create jobs. Second, we'd be firing a rocket with no intent of killing people. Third (with a peaceful project) other countries would be rooting for us instead of jeering us. And, fourth, it would result in a rush of new spin-off technology, creating more markets and jobs. Too bad the choice wasn't offered.
I would, especially since
I would, especially since they were Puritans…or at least dressed that way.
They just don’t teach history like this in school. :]
I would also vote for Mars trips over wars, however; Aldrin wants Americans to live on Mars, thereby saving oodles of money by not making repeated or return trips. It’s a one way trip, exactly like that Twilight Zone episode where the Martians lure human earthlings up to Mars to eat them, so now his motives are totally suspect.
It’s a macabre symbiosis – except this time the pilgrims get skinned.
Actually, there is a
Actually, there is a difference between Puritans and Pilgrims. Both were protestants, and both were unhappy with the Church of England. If you recall Henry VIII was displeased because the Roman Catholic Church refused to grant annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. For that reason (among others), he started his own church (Church of England). Henry was a devout (if not human) Catholic. Initially, aside from Rome, the Pope and who's treasury got the church taxes, the Church of England differed little from the Church of Rome. This was about 1530. Bibles were being printed, and with half-or-less of the population able to read, a sizable number of people had their own Bible. Martin Luther had nailed his "95 Theses" to the church door. John Calvin was yet to establish his colony of Protestant exiles in Geneva, but the sermons of Ulrich Zwingli which inspired Calvin were resounding on the continent. Reformation was in the air- even in England. The split from the RC Church in England caused expectations among those who envisioned a Reformation like that heralded by Calvin and Luther. When in practice, the CoE failed to distance itself from RC doctrine and practice as anticipated, some of England's Protestants were displeased. The degree to which England's Protestants were displeased marks the distinction between Puritans and the so-called Pilgrims. The Pilgrims were known in England as Leiden Separatists. Leiden being a location they removed themselves to, and Separatists denoting that they wanted to separate themselves from the CoE. The Puritans were not so radicalized that they wanted to dissolve their relationship with the CoE. They merely wanted the CoE to come more toward the principles of the Protestant Reformation. The two groups did not get along and did not share locales in the New World. The Separatists had Plymouth Colony. The Puritans had the Massachusetts Bay Colony and Connecticut Colony.
Julie, pay no attention to
Julie, pay no attention to Kyle, he can't comprehend what he reads, look at a lot of his posts.,you'll see what I mean.He gets off on misquoting, and putting words in others posts that are his, and fit his agenda. He's not worth the time it would take
to tell him where to go.
I won't be responding to any thing he posts from this day on. I can't tell what is, or
what isn't, fiction, made up, imagined, misquotes, or just bs.
Yeah, I know, Frank. I was
Yeah, I know, Frank. I was tempted to post “black,” just to see if he’d post, “white.”
Unlike your creative editing
Unlike your creative editing huh Frank.