Thomas Paine on YouTube (Funbobbasso)

I watched these videos and I have to say he's a great orator in his words and intentions. I am neither Republican nor Democrat, I am a registered Independent, but I thought what he had to say was very interesting. He says we are not supposed to be intimidated by our Government, which is something I have always believed.

Bob Basso acting as Thomas Paine, one of the Founding Fathers in his oratory skills on YouTube is acting out as a means to stir up America out of it's apathy.

Common Sense : Rights, Essential Writing of Thomas Paine

What are your thoughts on either Funbobbasso or Thomas Paine?

You can link directly to Funbobbasso's YouTube Subscription if you like what he has to say like I do.

The Second American Revolution : July 31, 2008


We The People Stimulus Package : March 16, 2009


July 4th Tea Party in D.C. : April 10, 2009


Thomas Paine on to Washington : April 17, 2009


Open Letter To President Obama : May 20th 2009


Glen Beck On Funbobbasso (Thomas Paine YouTube)



[edit on 24-5-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

I think the world of 2009 and the world of 1776 are significantly different, and it's hard to say what many of the founding fathers views on current events would be in the light of over 200 years of history, politics, and technological advancement. To parody Thomas Paine in such a manner to make a political point, even if with utmost respect given to the man - ultimately, only serves to slander him. Better, I think, to offer one's thoughts or interpretations on what they MAY have though based on their actual words and ideals.

I also find it somewhat ironic that a radical social liberal is being rallied as... with at least a conservative leaning... to voice their dissatisfaction with the government. If nothing else, the conservative movement (being out of power) is certainly latching onto such acts. Yet, considering how much of the Conservative movement is made up of vocal Christian groups (the "religious right"); I have to wonder in amusement. Were Funbobbasso to read selections of Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, what would be the reaction of the Religious Right? Would Funbob face the same ridicule and suspicion that Paine did? Would he weather the slings and arrows of accusations of atheism and moral debasement?

My opinion: I highly respect Thomas Paine, not as a founding father, but as a champion of reason and critical inquiry. Paine was a man of deep insight, and it nearly cost him his life in France when speaking out against the beheading of the aristocracy. He recognized that they were not the problem, but that they were merely doing what any one of their executors would have done if born into that life. There were products of a system. While they should be held accountable for their actions, they should not be executed for living the life they were born into. He was abandoned by his friends and allies in the US, surviving execution himself by merest chance, before finally being brought home by the new ambassador to France which was installed when Thomas Jefferson won the presidency.

Funbob... I can't respect. He's using Thomas Paine's name and accomplishments to deliver his own political views. I merely see this as yet another chapter in Thomas Paine's sad unfortunate life. First his bones were exhumed and desecrated - and now his name and legacy are being desecrated.

It's one thing if you're playing the character for educational purposes, a movie production, or for entertainment... because it's generally assumed you're only presenting a character. The videos posted above.. though... ugh. I still think it would have been more respectful and tactful to quote Paine's own words and own arguments - and offer your own thoughts, and how you think they apply to the point you're trying to make. That way you're not pretending to be speaking FOR Paine. You're letting Paine speak for himself, and adding your own input.

reply to post by Lasheic


I have to say I appreciate your comments here and I can see your point of view.

While I can see where you're coming from, I will respectfully disagree, and agree to disagree.

As I stated in my opening post within the thread here I created, I am neither Republican nor Democrat, neither Conservative nor Liberal.

My personal take on what Funbobbasso is doing, is that he's doing nothing different than any politician who compares themselves to Lincoln, J.F.K., or is compared to the new "Savior" who is nothing more than a political shill for the Bilderberg Group.

I thank you though for your thoughts and views on this thread.

Wow, I couldn't make it through even 2 of those videos.

Thomas Paine, I believe, would literally vomit on this guy for spewing so many ideas in contrast to his views while using his name.

One nation, one culture, one language? Bah, what a huge load of garbage. Obviously some have rose colored glasses when American History is concerned.

It would seem I am a bit in error. I mistakenly assumed that this man would at least attempt to resemble Paine's philosophies and convictions - since he is using Paine's name and likeness. A short while ago I had the opportunity to watch a few of the videos with audio and I was shocked at the contrast. Indeed, in many ways, this guy is a polar opposite of Paine's convictions. He's donning Paine's visage and reputation to whip up nationalistic fervor and spread what.. appears to me... to be propaganda. He appears to be a bad stereotype of multiple various "Founding Father Archetypes" and dressed up with a dash conservative spice. Now, this may be because the founding fathers were the vanguards of the old America - and structure and tradition tend to be favored by the conservative party. Call it a natural affinity, not a conspiracy and it's necessarily a right wing movement even if they have picked up on it for various reasons.

A few things of note:

1. Funbob makes reference to taking god out of government. God is a generic blanket term, and it's found in our Declaration of Independence - not Constitution which is an official governmental document. The insertion of "God" into our currency and pledge happened many many years after the nation's founding, starting I think during the Civil War - then deemed unconstitutional. It would later be adopted again in the 50's, I believe.

While it's true that Paine evoked scripture and biblical examples in his pamphlet "Common Sense", given Paine's attitudes towards the institutions of religion I can only see this as being a case of Paine "Talking to the level of his audience". There's a reason why farmers in the fields were stopping to read his pamphlet. Paine had a wonderful way of speaking directly to his audience in words they would understand, leaving out intellectual jargon and references only the highly educated would be familiar with, yet still talking to them as intellectual equals. When he sought publication of "The Rights of Man", it met with heavy criticism for being written in "Vulgar language". Vulgar meaning, in words the common man could understand and relate to. Paine didn't want his dissertation to be mused in the intellectual circles and applauded, then ignored. He wanted to speak to everyone. This worried the Monarchy, of course, as they saw him attempting to incite revolution against the crown by inciting the public.

His biblical references and quotations in Common Sense do not reflect an America as a Christian nation - or his own beliefs. They represent an argument tailor suited to a population who were predominantly Christian. Any confusion regarding an apparent respect for the establishment of religion is cleared up in Age of Reason. There's a reason why he wrote it in prison while awaiting the gallows. He knew that work would destroy his reputation... and he was unfortunately right. Paine forever since has been ignored, or slanted as to remove AoR - promoting instead only those works which reflected well on or were influential to the Revolution.

2. Funbob talks at great length about the unification of America under single banners, principals, and languages. Paine was against this, as he saw diversity as a strength. Perhaps it was because his homeland executed him symbolically, France tried to execute him literally, and he was increasingly marginalized and forgotten by his former friends and associates... but Paine seemed to consider himself not a citizen of America - but a citizen of the Earth, and all men of all nations were his brothers. Paine believed in life on the edge of revolution and change to prevent new tyrannies from taking root after spending much of his digging out the cancer of monarchies by debasing challenging the absurdity that is the right of kings. I don't think he would have supported the rigid "Americanism" or form of patriotism which is now being promoted. I think he would have soiled himself at the thought of the Bailout Bills and our national debt, but I also think he would have seen the ensuing Tea Parties and calls to revolution as pedantic and shallow.

It's also interesting to note that while Funbob claims America should have ONE language, the English language... in all the years Paine spent in France and after being given honorary citizenship... Paine never learned to speak French. The history of Paine's life betrays the very assumptions that Funbob asks that we make of Paine in order to parade around his political agenda in Paine's image.

I'll end this here, but when I have more time I may revisit the thread and compile a comprehensive list of the differences between Paine's words and his actions - and this mockery of him.


SpartainKing - I'm not concerned with your political affiliations or lack thereof, and I don't make assumptions as to it that invite a stereotype. My comments only reflect my observation of the movement. While Funbob is likely not pandering to any political party for support, I still seem to notice a heavy slant towards conservative support. As said, this is likely for two reasons. It speaks to the beginnings of the traditions and structures our society was founded upon - which I noticed conservatives tend to gravitate towards. There's also a tendency among some within the right-wing affiliation who are terrified of being out of power. They are concerned that public disapproval of Bush's administration will lead to carte blanche authority for the liberals to run roughshod over the nation with their policies - having no checks or means of balance. I think there's a definite strategy within the right-wing leaders to align the Republican party with anything that has to do with anti-government slander, uber-patriotism, and ultimately calls of revolution. I think that some irresponsible idiots are trying to set up the image, now, that the government is a corrupt and bloated tyranny that must be tore down so that they will appear to be the heroes and liberators of America. It's a way to recover the loss of face and public trust after the abuses of the Bush Administration dealt them before mid-term elections.

Obama is not a savior, and he's not even particularly well qualified for the job. (Though, it can be argued, that no job can adequately prepare you for the pressures of the White House) Yet some within the conservative party seem to be laying an undue amount of the blame for our current situation on his shoulders. He's only been in office since the middle of January, going having to face the realities of two ongoing wars and an economic crisis that NOBODY knows how to deal with. Yet we're seeing him blamed for the collapse of America - the antithesis position of those who project savior complexes upon him. We are increasingly seeing conservative alignments with the NWO/FEMA conspiracy crowd, the ultra-patriots, and with the obvious promotion of nutcases like Glenn Beck on an admitted conservative mouthpiece network.

Those caught in the middle are just being played, happy they can get some "rising support" for their ideas - but not really seeing (I think) that should the movement prevail you will just see a return to the status quo.

Ultimately - The jury is still out on Obama for me. He hasn't really had enough time, but some of his decisions thus far do not inspire confidence. I can at least see the rationale behind it being - we're either screwed now, or screwed later. Pushing it off till later at least might afford the luxury of time to try to sort the mess out. It reminds me a bit of Kennedy during the October Crisis with the bogus idea of floating the possibility of a trade - pull out Cuba's missiles and we pull back Turkey's missiles. Yet that move had devastating potential to promote appeasement and force us into a war later. It was a risk, to avoid the assurance of a war which would come as a result of invasion.

Sorry for going OT. We can pursue this further via U2U or a new thread if you wish.

reply to post by KrazyJethro


I can see your point of view here.

I both agree and disagree with some of what he has to say.

My point in creating the thread was to get ATS'ers opinion.

Thanks for your post.