Riggo-toni Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Thew- When did Hamilton ever try to become President? Do you even know what the duel was about? Hamilton denounced Burr for trying to usurp the Presidency from the rightfully elected Jefferson. He did this even though he and Jefferson were staunch rivals. It was a tremendous display of principles over politics Adams did campaign against Jefferson and slandered him as being an "atheist" and "godless" to try and win re-election. The tactic failed, as Adams was tremendously unpopular following the Alien and Sedition Acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 As we look back we can smile at what Ronnie did. As we look back we can smile at what Bush did. The removal of Terrorism as it exists today is just as important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Rigitoni Thew- When did Hamilton ever try to become President? Do you even know what the duel was about? Hamilton denounced Burr for trying to usurp the Presidency from the rightfully elected Jefferson. He did this even though he and Jefferson were staunch rivals. Actually Burr was Jefferson's Vice President. The duel was about Hamilton suggesting Burr was sleeping with his daughter ( burr sleeeping with his own daughter) in a newspaper editorial. Burr freaked and challenged Hamlilton to defend his words on the field of honor. The war hero Hamilton didn't take the dandy Burr seriously when challenged. They got to the dewling ground and Hamilton discharged his weapon into the air. Burr shot him dead which ended both political careers. I never said Hamilton tried to become President. I said he very likely might have become one of the early presidents because he was one of the leaders in his party. I also said that he tried get himself appointed to the head of an American army and he then stated in a coorespondence that he would use that army to overthrow the American government headed at the time by President John Adams. Adams did campaign against Jefferson and slandered him as being an "atheist" and "godless" to try and win re-election. The tactic failed, as Adams was tremendously unpopular following the Alien and Sedition Acts. Actually Adams did not campagne for President. It was seen as unseemly to do so following the Washington example. One must be seen as coming to the office reluctantly, having power thrust upon them rather than seeking it. Campagning was done by leitenanants the candidates themselves were seen as being drafted into office. I don't doubt that Adams had some choice words for Jefferson over the years maybe even those exact words; What I take issue with is that Jefferson was the wronged party or was more malingned than Adams. Jefferson was a first class muck raker and thrashed Adams when he was president most historians would say, unfairly. Jay's treaty with Britain for example where America agreed to stay out of the Nepolionic wars and allow the British to board and draft American seaman. Jefferson wanted America to side with the French who he believed were brother republicans and not monarchists.. Adams knew Britain was the world's leading naval power and was a more natural alli. Jefferson also denounced Adams as a person who wanted to be king. He claimed Adams suggested herieditary titles.. Which was false and Jefferson knew it at the time he made the accusation. Adams did not involve himself in defending his name when President because he thought it beneith him. When Jefferson was President after Adams, it was and is considered bad form for a former President to critisize a sitting one. I would agrue not that your words are incorrect only that they paint a one sided and wrong sided view of what happenned... Jefferson was the hungry junior upstart who used his words to upset the older more respected man of his time Adams. Adams might have defended himselve on the rare occassions but mostly he got thrashed in the press by the more willey and verbose Jefferson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Comparing the Liberalism of today, which in most cases refers to one's politcal bent, with the Liberalism of our founding fathers which refers more to the philosphy of how we should live, is like calling Marx a capitalist. The appellation of Liberal today comes down from the same phillosophy that underpinned both communism and facism. It is the culmination of the philsophy of Rationalism and was identified as Gallic or Continental Liberalism in the early 1800s. The philosphy underlying the beliefs of most of our founding fathers was Classical Liberalism which is based on British Empiricism and could be identified as Anglo-Liberalism. If you compare the attributes of a Conservative as defined by Kirk with the attributes of a Classical Liberal (at least as viewed by Burke, De Tocqueville and Madison), you would find an amazing correspondence. So is this author saying that our founding fathers generally hated freedom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by thew Yes there were no such things as a modern liberal or a modern conservative. This is mostly because all of the pressing issues of the day were different. Yet there were liberal polititians and there were self identified conservative polititions even in the revolutionary government. Conservative polititians who wanted to elect a king to replace King George. Conservative polititians who wanted to retain the rights which the crown had granted them. Conservative polotitians who wanted a strong central government which had the power to countermand states rights. And there were liberals. Liberals who wanted to change the way things worked, ban slavery for instance. Liberals who wanted to align us with France against Britain in the coming great Nepolionic wars. I think we're comparing apples to oranges. Your definition of liberal and conservative don't match mine. You think someone is a "conservative" who wants to go back to the old ways; it's a regressive, pejorative use of the word. Interestingly, though, Hamilton wouldn't even be considered a conservative under this sense of the word. He was fairly radical to be sure. Your characterization leaves a lot to be desired. Painting abolitionism somehow as a "liberal" view is disingenuous. It was regional more than anything. And the federalists (who you seem to paint as conservatives) tended to draw far more from the North, and therefore had more abolitionist tendencies than the anti-Federalist aristocrats of the South. You are blurring party lines, ideology, and modern political characterizations. Hamilton wasn't pro British at all. He was one of Washington's lietenants during the revolution and became part of Washington's cabinent after the revolution in the first administration. Hamilton fought against the british and almost died on several occassions. He was a decorated hero of the revolution. Hamilton was considered a conservative because he argued against change of the institutions which worked so well for Britain. This should not be confused with being pro-british. Hamilton like all conservatives wanted to stick with what he knew worked rather than reach for something better which he was unsure off. Don't get me wrong, conservatives don't have a problem with something better, they just don't believe in the promise of something better over experience. Hamilton desired strong government and central banking just like Britain and America under Britain because he knew it would work. That's what makes him a conservative, not that a modern conservative looking back with 20/20 hind site would agree with him.... All of this does not change the fact that he was pro-British. You can have personal hatred of the British and still be pro-British. And no, the fact that he desired a strong government and central banking does not make him conservative. It makes him a mercantilist/nationalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by Thiebear I sure as hell can...[/Quote] Please let us know how you can change the fact people are gay. Originally posted by Thiebear So any satanish or Nambla religion can do whatever they want.. You have to take out Creed for you arguement to even stand a chance at a trouncing.... Where has anyone argued that any group can do whatever they want? Also you are AGAIN comparing homosexuality to child rape. I thought we already had this talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 chiefhogskin48 Your definition of liberal and conservative don't match mine. You think someone is a "conservative" who wants to go back to the old ways; it's a regressive, pejorative use of the word. Not necessarily go back but sometimes. Conservatives want to stick with what is known to work over what might work better, or not at all. www.dictionary.com Conservative Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit. liberal Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. Hamilton wouldn't even be considered a conservative under this sense of the word......... All of this does not change the fact that he was pro-British. You can have personal hatred of the British and still be pro-British. Perhaps, but you can't fight a war and be a hero, a leader, and an outspoken proponent on your own side and be categorized as being pro the other side. I know where you're getting this from. Years latter when the country was trying to decide which global power to side with it is true that Hamilton choose Britain over France. Which I guess is the genisis of your Pro-british statement. So I guess it is me who now suggests we are arguing apples and oranges because I am talking of an younger Hamilton during the revolutionary war days... Still Hamilton wasn't Pro British in the sense as choosing Britain over America. He was Pro British in choosing British over France. Something different entirely. Your characterization leaves a lot to be desired. Painting abolitionism somehow as a "liberal" view is disingenuous. It was regional more than anything. And the federalists (who you seem to paint as conservatives) tended to draw far more from the North, and therefore had more abolitionist tendencies than the anti-Federalist aristocrats of the South. The reason why anti slavery was considered a liberal cause was because it was a new idea. It was change. Change and setting off into the unknown is considered a liberal philosophy. Staying pat, or changing back to what worked is a conservative idea. Those are the definitions of the ideologies. Untrue that liberal and conservatism was regional, in fact it was the South who would emerge as the leaders of the the liberals call for change for a generation ( Jefferson, Madison). Rember while Jefferson and Madison were both slave holders from Virginia they were both outspoken against the policy who called for changing even abolishing the institution. They called for change and they tried to influence change from within and they failed. This dynamic of both being slave holders and being against slavery is what made them both acceptable candidates for President in a country which was torn by the issue. It was through their dealings that the issue was tabled by the New England abolitionists for a generation later to errupt in the civil war when these men weren't there to dominate and persuade the two oposing sides. I would say that Jefferson was indead a reformer, a person with vision who wanted to dramatically alter the relationship between government and the people. Likewise Adams I would argue was also a liberal reformer. I would argue that idealism was not totally regional but rather did reflect idology. Hamilton certainly was a conservative who was more concerned with getting something which worked. Hamilton didn't fight a revolution to form a republic so much as to get rid of the British. Once gone he saw no problem with their institutions which he believed worked pretty well. These two sides and parties framed the arguments for the early debates. Liberals lead by Adams, Jefferson and Madison are seen as the ones who gave us a new form of government which up until that time had never been seen before. Conservatives such as Hamilton are the ones who are credited with the fact that it worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J33Edwards Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by Thiebear You do realize Hate seems to only come out of the mouth of "really, really, really, really, really far leaning leftist types". 99% of the people don't HATE because of a differing of opionion on something as trivial as "Politics" and "Politicians". yeah because far leaning rightest types love all kinds of people... :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 why can' t we all just get along Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Anti-slavery is definitely a conservative position when the term is used in the political relm as a descendent of Classical Liberalism. Conservatism in the US (and maybe in most nations founded in Classical Liberalism I suppose) finds its political philsophy in people like Edmund Burke, who strongly reviled slavery, and John Adams, who had abolitionist leanings (though, those leanings probably were more due to the fact that he had no perceived need). While it is true that conservatives do not favor change, they do not revile it in all cases (and, in some, welcome it), especially if that change is based on personal action. When one chooses actions that are non-traditional, conservatives may warn him about his/her unwise course, but will not cry over his/her success although generally, they will moralize over his/her failure (but then thats a condition of all human society). However, unlike modern Liberals, Conservatives do not march in lock step heiling the latest incarnation of Hitler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by RC However, unlike modern Liberals, Conservatives do not march in lock step heiling the latest incarnation of Hitler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by Destino Please let us know how you can change the fact people are gay. Where has anyone argued that any group can do whatever they want? Also you are AGAIN comparing homosexuality to child rape. I thought we already had this talk? Sorry Destino, I was refering to Chermics belief that you cant discriminate again *ANY* creed.... Creed by defination is Any group that has the same belief. You omiited the part about creed and used it as I was against a specific group even though I put creed in there. Ohh well... hopefully you will quote better in the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 RC However, unlike modern Liberals, Conservatives do not march in lock step heiling the latest incarnation of Hitler. You see this is just a bad analogy. Hitler was in fact all about Conservatism. Hitler wanted to return Germany to it's greatness. He and Fasism are considered extreme right positions. It's true he nationalized production late in the war but so did FDR. Hitler wanted to perserve the German way of life not change it. Sure he wanted to get ride of the jews who he saw as poluting Germany but even in this he was about returning to what once was, not in creating something new. The Extreme left position is Comunism. Folks on this board will argue this point back in forth which I don't understand. Their positions are that their is no negitive extreme right form of government which is just oposite from the American experience. The American experience is that extremism in either direction is bad. That's why America has been ruled mostly by moderates or left or right leaning folks like FDR and Reagan. Where Europe has had the more extreme right and left leaders such as Hitler and Stalin. Now we have Ashcroft and Bush so it's important everybody understands this point about extremism being bad except when rooting for the Skins... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 That's why America has been ruled mostly by moderates or left or right leaning folks like FDR and Reagan. Right leaning folks like FDR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Thew That's why America has been ruled mostly by moderates or left or right leaning folks like FDR and Reagan. luckydevil Right leaning folks like FDR? FDR was a left leaning polititian. Reagan was a right leaning polititian. Both were moderates when compared to the real extremists of Stalin and Hitler. FDR is often catagorized an an extreme left polititian which is incorrect. Comunism is the extreme left position. FDR was to the right of Communism and even socialism although he did advocate mixing socialism with free market morphing pure capitalism into the mixed market capitalism which we have today. Pure capitalism doesn't work and as evidenced by the fact that it doesn't exist anywhere on the planet. Pure socialism also doesn't work as communism also doesn't exist anymore not even in China which has introduced capitalistic reforms to bring their economy more in line with our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 I agree that far leaning politicians are no good for our country. I guess that is why I am nervous about the most liberal leaning senator being leader of the free world. Think of that, more left leaning than Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton in historic Senate votes. But I guess he is not Bush so that is all that Democrates care about. Maybe independants will listen to the issues... :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 I agree that far leaning politicians are no good for our country. I guess that is why I am nervous about the most liberal leaning senator being leader of the free world. Think of that, more left leaning than Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton in historic Senate votes. But I guess he is not Bush so that is all that Democrates care about. Maybe independants will listen to the issues... Actually Kerry isn't the most left leaning Senator. That was just another muck raking rumor paid by Bush's 200 million war chest. Kerry most left leaning senator Kerry took more political action money than any other senator Kerry wasn't really a war hero.. All wrong. Kerry is a liberal but he's far from the most liberal in the Senate. Kerry took zero political action money in his senate campagn, it was part of what he ran on. Contrasted with Bush who broke his own record for collecting funds this year.. Old Record 120million for Bush in 2000. New Record 200 million for Bush in 2004 Kerry did in fact win three purple hearts, 1 bronze star and 1 silver star which does make him a legitimate war hero Problem is Bush can't run on his record so he's spending 200 million to bash Kerry. Shouldn't supprise anybody that he's streching the truth.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 The face of Bush 2004... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma why can' t we all just get along The best post I've read all day. . .:point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Kerry took zero political action money in his senate campagn, it was part of what he ran on. Contrasted with Bush who broke his own record for collecting funds this year.. Old Record 120million for Bush in 2000. New Record 200 million for Bush in 2004 I have no problem with a politician getting so much money from sooo many individuals... It points to for the people by the people... Am I wrong on the fact that most of bushes 200mil are from a huge amount of individuals??? (its a question) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by thew Let me just step in here and defend my boy Ronnie. Everything you say about him is true. He did cut taxes and he also increased spending on the military dramatically. I would argue though that Ronald Reagan won the cold war without fireing a shot by doing so. I would argue that Ronnie drove our economy hard but it made the Russians do likewise. The red lined Russian economy gave out first. Thus Russia was faced with either going to war to save themselves though conquest against an American juggernaught military. Or seeking compromise, which they did. Also while Ronnie's economy might not have outpaced the economy of the last four decades I would argue that that is a bogus comparison. The late 40's, 50's and 60's the economy was really on a high post WWII. Ronie inheirited a basket case from Jimmy Carter. 10% unemployment! 11% inflation. and America getting worked internationally by backwater Iran. Ronnie came in and scared the hell out of everybody and did a pretty good job of chaning the way the nation saw itself and the world. He made America proud again. Ronnie was a stud.. I would further argue that Ronnie was big tent Republican who wanted to be the American President. That Bush is a small minded xenophobic idiot who only wants to be the republican president. Ronnie was the great communicator. George says things that even makes dan Quayle wince. We got something for Ronnies spending, Victory over the Evil Empire! and The first verifiable arms agreements with Russia!. America isn't getting anything from George's spending... Ronnie wanted to build the American military into the strongest in the world.. George wants to use the strongest military in the world to create a PAX Americana.. Not the same at all... George is No Ronnie. Thew, the post war about Reganomics and supply side theory, not Regan as a president. You're all over the map man, you can't say Bush is running the economy into the ground then say Reganomics is great, it doesn't work. You do see this don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 3, 2004 Share Posted June 3, 2004 I agree with chromerics thew... and I believe that is a first... But I'm guessing we agree with different outcomes as the end... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted June 3, 2004 Share Posted June 3, 2004 When did Hamilton ever try to become President? Do you even know what the duel was about? Hamilton denounced Burr for trying to usurp the Presidency from the rightfully elected Jefferson. He did this even though he and Jefferson were staunch rivals. It was a tremendous display of principles over politics That is wrong. Thew has it right in theory. Hamilton saw Burr as an agressive threat to oppose him.... Hamilton wanting the presidency very badly. Hamilton dissed him continually on the political stage.... which was acceptable as long as it was of a professional nature. The mistake Hamilton made was injecting Burr's personal life into the attack..... making remarks about Burr's personal character, associates, and dealings. An editorial written in the Albany Register intimated that Hamilton had so disparraged Burr both personally and professionally that the paper could not disclose the specifics because it found it "to despicable for print"... Thus started the steamroll to the "Code Duello" Hamilton was a true federalist, or democrat today. He wanted a strong federal govt. with a presider similar to a King.. although he'd take just the strong Fed. Look no further than the Assumption Act to see his agenda. Have the federal govt. assume the state's debt and thus providing the slippery slope for control over the states. Jefferson, and later James Madison (TJ protege) were utterly opposed to the Assumption tax.. seeing the writing on the wall. The Act was only passed when Jefferson negotiated the capital being moved to Washington on the banks of the Potomac as a compromise. Madison agreed to not feverishly oppose the Assumption Act on the floor of Congress, while Hamilton agreed not to argue the moving of the Capital. Jefferson/Madison were true Virginians, and they believed the moving of the capital closer to Va. was ultimately good for Va.... the Assumption Tax a small price to pay to see that happen. Jefferson later regretted the negotiation... thinking he opened the door for more devious things to come from the Federalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted June 3, 2004 Share Posted June 3, 2004 Thew, the post war about Reganomics and supply side theory, not Regan as a president. True enough but you did color my hero grey.... Just making sure the man had his props.. You're all over the map man, you can't say Bush is running the economy into the ground then say Reganomics is great, it doesn't work. You do see this don't you? Sure I can. We got something for all of Reagans spending. We destroyed the evil empire. I believe this was a direct result of the Reagan revolution. Likewise when Reagan took over our economy and our foreign policy were both basket cases. Remember the misery index of 21%!! unemployment + inflation. Bush took over a booming economy. Eight straight years of growth, first surplus in four decades, low intrest rates, low inflation, and low unemployment... We had finally turned the corner on the deficite spending and Bush takes over and Boom back to record deficits. And that's not even including the war spending!! Bush blew it. I think Reagan had the right idea for his time. Bush I don't think he does. Bush isn't spending for any good reason. Wanting a war with Iraq isn't good enough reason for spending two hundred billion dollars. America had lived under the fear of imminent nuclear attack for almost 30 years and Reagan lifted that. I don't see Iraq as threatenning America from what we know now and from what folks were telling Bush pre War.. Bush must be held responsible for screwing up on a global scale for 3 years of his administration... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 3, 2004 Share Posted June 3, 2004 Originally posted by thew True enough but you did color my hero grey.... Just making sure the man had his props.. Sure I can. We got something for all of Reagans spending. We destroyed the evil empire. I believe this was a direct result of the Reagan revolution. Likewise when Reagan took over our economy and our foreign policy were both basket cases. Remember the misery index of 21%!! unemployment + inflation. Bush took over a booming economy. Bush took over from eight years of prosperity and we had finally turned the corner on the deficite spending. Bush blew it. I think Reagan had the right idea for his time. Bush I don't think he does. Bush isn't spending for any good reason. Wanting a war with Iraq isn't good enough reason for spending two hundred billion dollars. America had lived under the fear of imminent nuclear attack for almost 30 years and Reagan lifted that. I don't see Iraq as threatenning America as what I know now. Bush must be held responsible for screwing up on a global scale for 3 years of his administration... WOW, you are so misguided Thew to even think Reagan was the reason for the end of the cold war. I know it's a common thought by neo-cons, but it's so far from the truth. Do you actually think we had no idea the Soviet Union was going to collapse? Do you actually think his economic policy actually led to the downfall of the Soviet Union and communism? I know there are people out there that believe this, but seeing how anti-Bush you are, I just assumed you weren't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.