I figured it out.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Tell you what, Stan, in the future (because *I* will not be any different than I am today), why don't you point this out when it happens (not that it ever will).
OK. Although, I think I have on numerous occassions.
Ilíon wrote:
I don't give a fig for "the movement."
I do.
Ilíon wrote:
Apparently, people like me are supposed to shut up ... but be sure to turn out on election day.
No, I consider you to be a guite useful ally. You represent a natural reaction to the rise of secular humanism, which is currently the greatest threat to Jeffersonian democracy.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
OK. Although, I think I have on numerous occassions.
Oh, you do not. You engage is question begging ... I just let it drop with you sooner than I do with the Moron Brigade.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, I consider you to be a guite useful ally.
I refuse to be useful. But, more importantly, if one does not respect one's "allies," then, of course, one considers them in terms of utility. While I'm one the subject, do you really think I didn't already understand where you stand on this?
Stan Shannon wrote:
which is currently the greatest threat to Jeffersonian democracy.
"Jeffersonian democracy" is another of those myths with *no* basis in reality. Thank God that America-as-it-is was shaped by Hamilton, rather than by Jefferson. Have you actually read any biographies of Jefferson? Do you have any idea what his politics was actually like?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
OK. Although, I think I have on numerous occassions.
Oh, you do not. You engage is question begging ... I just let it drop with you sooner than I do with the Moron Brigade.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, I consider you to be a guite useful ally.
I refuse to be useful. But, more importantly, if one does not respect one's "allies," then, of course, one considers them in terms of utility. While I'm one the subject, do you really think I didn't already understand where you stand on this?
Stan Shannon wrote:
which is currently the greatest threat to Jeffersonian democracy.
"Jeffersonian democracy" is another of those myths with *no* basis in reality. Thank God that America-as-it-is was shaped by Hamilton, rather than by Jefferson. Have you actually read any biographies of Jefferson? Do you have any idea what his politics was actually like?
"Jeffersonian Democracy" does not refer specifically to Thomas Jefferson, it refers to the entire intellectual momentum than culminated in the establishement of our constitutional republic. Jefferson's name is merely attached to it because he was a man of such enormous intellectual energy, authored the Declaration of Independence and all. I would actually prefer to refer to it as "Madisonian" democracy, but that would just be so pendantic. I'm not a big fan of Hamilton, and I am somewhat surprised that you are. He was a rabid federalist and would probably have been quite comfortable with the modern democrats in many ways. Jefferson and Madison ultimately became the proponents of the anti-federalists in opposition to Hamilton (thank God for Burr), which became the controlling principle of American society until about the time of FDR. It is what allowed the people to control their local schools and establish laws governing their local society without being subverted by the federal courts. It was the very basis of 'States Rights', something Hamilton would have vehemently opposed.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
modified on Monday, February 04, 2008 6:48:47 PM
-
I always found Red to be very astute in his observations. Ilion can occassionally make some valid points, more frequently than the leftist horde here does, but he does represent a facton of conservatism that does the movement a great deal of harm. His reasoning, in fact, is very similar to that generally associated with the left, his conclusions are merely different.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
the leftist horde
PETERCHENtries to make grunting Ghengis Khan noises, and look intimidating and mongolian, but can't control the childish giggleWe are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Stan Shannon wrote:
the leftist horde
PETERCHENtries to make grunting Ghengis Khan noises, and look intimidating and mongolian, but can't control the childish giggleWe are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
tries to make grunting Ghengis Khan noises, and look intimidating and mongolian, but can't control the childish giggle
For a real laugh, think of me as knight in shining amour riding out to meet them. :~
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
"Jeffersonian Democracy" does not refer specifically to Thomas Jefferson, it refers to the entire intellectual momentum than culminated in the establishement of our constitutional republic. Jefferson's name is merely attached to it because he was a man of such enormous intellectual energy, authored the Declaration of Independence and all. I would actually prefer to refer to it as "Madisonian" democracy, but that would just be so pendantic. I'm not a big fan of Hamilton, and I am somewhat surprised that you are. He was a rabid federalist and would probably have been quite comfortable with the modern democrats in many ways. Jefferson and Madison ultimately became the proponents of the anti-federalists in opposition to Hamilton (thank God for Burr), which became the controlling principle of American society until about the time of FDR. It is what allowed the people to control their local schools and establish laws governing their local society without being subverted by the federal courts. It was the very basis of 'States Rights', something Hamilton would have vehemently opposed.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
modified on Monday, February 04, 2008 6:48:47 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not a big fan of Hamilton, and I am somewhat surprised that you are. He was a rabid federalist and would probably have been quite comfortable with the modern democrats in many ways.
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Again, have you actually *read* any biographies of either man? May I be so bold as to suggest, as a starter, "His Excellency," which is about Washington, but from which one may learn quite a bit about both Jefferson and Hamilton.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not a big fan of Hamilton, and I am somewhat surprised that you are. He was a rabid federalist and would probably have been quite comfortable with the modern democrats in many ways.
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Again, have you actually *read* any biographies of either man? May I be so bold as to suggest, as a starter, "His Excellency," which is about Washington, but from which one may learn quite a bit about both Jefferson and Hamilton.
Ilíon wrote:
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
I'm actually pretty sure I do. Are you disagreeing that Hamilton was a federalist, and opposed Jefferson and Madison's increasing association with the anti-federalists which was the foundation of our legal traditions until well into the 20th century? Granted it has been decades since I've read any biography of any of them (I'm not a big fan of biographies, none are unbiased), but I'm pretty sure that basic history has not been redefined. I'm aware that Hamilton was a very couragious junior officer in Washington's command, but that says nothing about the man's politics. He was a leading proponent of power, especially economic power, being concentrated in the hands of a powerful central government. His economic reforms certainly helped the young nation gain its footing, his financial views were very advanced, but I am curious what you could possibly otherwise find attractive about the man politically. Madison was the original flip-flopper, originally siding with Hamilton he changed to Jeffeson's views based upon the merits of Jefferson's reasoning. Hamilton would have completely eliminated the states altogether and replaced t hem with one single federal government.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ilíon wrote:
I criticize your (plural) refusal to *think*
If you had any capability to *think*, you would realize what a fool you have made yourself to be and slink off with your tail between your legs.
The world is flat or it isn't, visibility is what it is or it isn't. What the hell does perception have to do with it?!? Do I think they knew that back then? They had eyes didn't they? Moron. - BoneSoft on whether or not the Bible says the earth is flat
DemonPossessed wrote:
slink off with your tail between your legs
Don't be silly, that place is already taken by his "thinker"
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
DemonPossessed wrote:
slink off with your tail between your legs
Don't be silly, that place is already taken by his "thinker"
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
I got it: The greatest troll ever has returned. Capable of twisting any argument, circling any logic, evading any question and yet people to hold onto his every word... Red Stateler = Ilion. Suddenly the universe makes sense.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
peterchen wrote:
tries to make grunting Ghengis Khan noises, and look intimidating and mongolian, but can't control the childish giggle
For a real laugh, think of me as knight in shining amour riding out to meet them. :~
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
:laugh: I'd imagine a very proud and very dedicated, very shiny knight, riding down some village people on the way. But this mission is to important to hesitate.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Ilíon wrote:
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
I'm actually pretty sure I do. Are you disagreeing that Hamilton was a federalist, and opposed Jefferson and Madison's increasing association with the anti-federalists which was the foundation of our legal traditions until well into the 20th century? Granted it has been decades since I've read any biography of any of them (I'm not a big fan of biographies, none are unbiased), but I'm pretty sure that basic history has not been redefined. I'm aware that Hamilton was a very couragious junior officer in Washington's command, but that says nothing about the man's politics. He was a leading proponent of power, especially economic power, being concentrated in the hands of a powerful central government. His economic reforms certainly helped the young nation gain its footing, his financial views were very advanced, but I am curious what you could possibly otherwise find attractive about the man politically. Madison was the original flip-flopper, originally siding with Hamilton he changed to Jeffeson's views based upon the merits of Jefferson's reasoning. Hamilton would have completely eliminated the states altogether and replaced t hem with one single federal government.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you disagreeing that Hamilton was a federalist,
You know, you're really not much different from the kiddies; a different in degree, rather than in kind. EDIT: There is at least one important difference between you and the kiddies, for which I am grateful. While you are not above doing what you did in making the statement quoted above, you do generally avoid throwing the childish rants they love to engage in.
Stan Shannon wrote:
and opposed Jefferson and Madison's increasing association with the anti-federalists
Jefferson *was* the leading anti-Federalist. The man was such a dishonorable sneak-cheat that rather than resigning from Washington's cabinet when he found himself constantly opposed to Washington's policies, and rather that faithfully carrying out Washington's policies (even though he thought other policies would have been better), he used his position to undermine Washington, the man and the president, and the policies. Jefferson set the initial tone at the State Department, and it seems to be still operating that way.
Stan Shannon wrote:
... the anti-federalists which was the foundation of our legal traditions until well into the 20th century?
This is so incorrect. Just one example: the historical "sanctity" of freely-made contracts in US law (and culture) is due to Hamilton's effort. Had Jefferson had his way, we'd have started where we are now: "do-overs" whenever one party with enough clout later decides they should have held out for a better deal.
Stan Shannon wrote:
He was a leading proponent of power, especially economic power, being concentrated in the hands of a powerful central government.
This isn't true. Hamilton would have seen that as tyrany, and opposed it for that reason. Hamilton's two chief bugaboos were tyrany and disorder/social chaos. He did, at least early on, think that "partnerships" between government and commerce were reasonable and efficient. But, I'm fairly certain that he can around to "free-market capitalism."
Stan Shannon wrote:
... but I am curious what you could possibly otherwise find attractive about the man politically.
He hated and worked against both tyrany and social chaos. What better could one wish for in a politician
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you disagreeing that Hamilton was a federalist,
You know, you're really not much different from the kiddies; a different in degree, rather than in kind. EDIT: There is at least one important difference between you and the kiddies, for which I am grateful. While you are not above doing what you did in making the statement quoted above, you do generally avoid throwing the childish rants they love to engage in.
Stan Shannon wrote:
and opposed Jefferson and Madison's increasing association with the anti-federalists
Jefferson *was* the leading anti-Federalist. The man was such a dishonorable sneak-cheat that rather than resigning from Washington's cabinet when he found himself constantly opposed to Washington's policies, and rather that faithfully carrying out Washington's policies (even though he thought other policies would have been better), he used his position to undermine Washington, the man and the president, and the policies. Jefferson set the initial tone at the State Department, and it seems to be still operating that way.
Stan Shannon wrote:
... the anti-federalists which was the foundation of our legal traditions until well into the 20th century?
This is so incorrect. Just one example: the historical "sanctity" of freely-made contracts in US law (and culture) is due to Hamilton's effort. Had Jefferson had his way, we'd have started where we are now: "do-overs" whenever one party with enough clout later decides they should have held out for a better deal.
Stan Shannon wrote:
He was a leading proponent of power, especially economic power, being concentrated in the hands of a powerful central government.
This isn't true. Hamilton would have seen that as tyrany, and opposed it for that reason. Hamilton's two chief bugaboos were tyrany and disorder/social chaos. He did, at least early on, think that "partnerships" between government and commerce were reasonable and efficient. But, I'm fairly certain that he can around to "free-market capitalism."
Stan Shannon wrote:
... but I am curious what you could possibly otherwise find attractive about the man politically.
He hated and worked against both tyrany and social chaos. What better could one wish for in a politician
Well, fine, you're a federalist, I'm an anti-federalist, what else is there to discuss?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Well, fine, you're a federalist, I'm an anti-federalist, what else is there to discuss?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, fine, you're a federalist, I'm an anti-federalist,
I'm a constitutionalist.
Stan Shannon wrote:
... what else is there to discuss?
How about some very specific claims you'd made about Hamilton which certainly seem to me to be baseless slander.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, fine, you're a federalist, I'm an anti-federalist,
I'm a constitutionalist.
Stan Shannon wrote:
... what else is there to discuss?
How about some very specific claims you'd made about Hamilton which certainly seem to me to be baseless slander.
Ilíon wrote:
I'm a constitutionalist.
As am I. But the anti-federalist ultimate won the battle for the constitution even if they did previously fail with the articles of confederation.
Ilíon wrote:
How about some very specific claims you'd made about Hamilton which certainly seem to me to be baseless slander.
It is not slander to say that Hamilton was the leader of the federalist view. He was. That is a simple historic fact. I have no issue with his personality. I really don't care if he was a better man than Jefferson. I didn't personnally know either of them and could not care less. If you are for small government, low taxes, divided government, for local political control, than you are a Jeffersonian. Your views on this subject support my earlier contention that you share many philosophical points of view with the secular left, you merely arrive at a different set of conclusions.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization