[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Hey look! Sparky’s back!!! His comprehension hasn’t improved though[/quote]
And you still have avoidance issues.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Hey look! Sparky’s back!!! His comprehension hasn’t improved though[/quote]
And you still have avoidance issues.
[/quote]
As soon as you tell me how goes your readings in Gill to answer the burning questions you had in the other thread, I might find it useful to address slavery, the gospel and early America with you now here. (but probably not. I have avoidance issues ya know) After all this has never ever come up before until you chimed in here to mention it. Thanks.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…Jefferson, like Franklin, suffered from chronic “do as I say not as I do” syndrome. They both recognized Christian morality as essential for the survival and flourishing of the fledgling nation while exempting themselves by their whoredom and fathering of illegitimate children. They knew that their personal morality practiced en masse would lead to… what we have today. They counted on others carrying the moral load for them. No purer definition of hypocrisy exists.
[/quote]
You really are out of your league when it comes to history. Your “systematic approach” that insists preconceived notions must be made true whatever the cost to the actual truth may be is laughable. I don’t know how you keep the egg out of your eyes and off your face long enough to type five coherent sentences in a row.
Do your homework, Sam, or stay the fuck out of threads where history is discussed or better yet just stick to Calvinism.
http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/mar98nl.html
[/quote]I don’t care what they said. I care what they did and as usual, our standards are different.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…Jefferson, like Franklin, suffered from chronic “do as I say not as I do” syndrome. They both recognized Christian morality as essential for the survival and flourishing of the fledgling nation while exempting themselves by their whoredom and fathering of illegitimate children. They knew that their personal morality practiced en masse would lead to… what we have today. They counted on others carrying the moral load for them. No purer definition of hypocrisy exists.
[/quote]
You really are out of your league when it comes to history. Your “systematic approach” that insists preconceived notions must be made true whatever the cost to the actual truth may be is laughable. I don’t know how you keep the egg out of your eyes and off your face long enough to type five coherent sentences in a row.
Do your homework, Sam, or stay the fuck out of threads where history is discussed or better yet just stick to Calvinism.
http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/mar98nl.html
[/quote]I don’t care what they said. I care what they did and as usual, our standards are different.
[/quote]
You’re a dunce, Sam. You swaggered into this thread promoting discredited ideas about Jefferson and Franklin to try and make your point. Your point MAY even have been a good one but it goes for naught when you build your case on lies.
You simply do not know what you are talking about when history enters the discussion. It’s not even close to being your forte. Cease and desist. Stay in your pasture and quit wiggling through the fence to go somewhere you don’t belong.[/quote]Franklin and Jefferson did not father illegitimate children?
EDIT: He’s probably busy checkin like I admittedly have not for several years.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And on the original questions - no, libertarianism isn’t classical liberalism. Look at the barons of classical liberalism that influenced the United States - Adam Smith, David Hume, Locke, etc. - there’s nothing in their writing or thoughts that the one true rule is absolute maximum individual liberty and a society that doesn’t promote that is presumed to be suspect. They thought very differently - they were realists about human behavior and recognized important natural tensions between order and liberty in a healthy, free society.
No, libertarianism is the child of Rousseau and other continental philosophers who have a fondness for shredding society’s blueprints and starting anew with abstractions. Libertarians are descendants of the French Revolution, not the American one.[/quote]
Pffft.
Lost me at Rosseau…[/quote]
Orion, you are quickly becoming my favourite T-Nation poster.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…Jefferson, like Franklin, suffered from chronic “do as I say not as I do” syndrome. They both recognized Christian morality as essential for the survival and flourishing of the fledgling nation while exempting themselves by their whoredom and fathering of illegitimate children. They knew that their personal morality practiced en masse would lead to… what we have today. They counted on others carrying the moral load for them. No purer definition of hypocrisy exists.
[/quote]
You really are out of your league when it comes to history. Your “systematic approach” that insists preconceived notions must be made true whatever the cost to the actual truth may be is laughable. I don’t know how you keep the egg out of your eyes and off your face long enough to type five coherent sentences in a row.
Do your homework, Sam, or stay the fuck out of threads where history is discussed or better yet just stick to Calvinism.
http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/mar98nl.html
[/quote]
Part of a series on the founding fathers from the National Center for Constitutional Studies - One reviewer quips it should be called “The Saintly Series, since these are biased glorifications of complex figures who would have been scandalized to see themselves so prettified and defanged.”
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Pffft.
Lost me at Rosseau…[/quote]
Why would I care?[/quote]
Why would you indeed…
Some do it with weed, you do it with words…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I of course agree with Thunderbolts assessment EXCEPT, I view everything he said as symptomatic of a nation abandoning the God whose providence even Jefferson declared as necessary.[/quote]
You do?
Rousseau as a a champion of libertarianism?
Like, really?
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This country was founded on what amounted to Christian libertarianism.
[/quote]
Christianity/classical liberalism. Not libertarianism.
[/quote]
The difference being what?[/quote]
Classical liberalism = small government
Libertarianism = no government utopianism.[/quote]
Your terms are confused.[/quote]
False. The Democratic Party was originally founded on what is the current Republicans’ party platform, a.k.a., small government.
CS[/quote]
What is this Republican party that has a platform of small government and where can I learn more about it?
AS IF Madison, Jefferson et al, did not shred a lot of societies blueprints by denying the divine right of kings, the supremacy of the church in spiritual matters in any given territory and whatnot.
That these ideas had taken root long before in the colonies matters little, they codified it.
What sets them apart from Rousseau f.e. is that they had no decidedly un-libertarian illusions as to the nature of mob rule, i.e. democracy.
Ah, fuck it, this whole line of thought is just asshattery and unworthy of any serious reply…
[quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< Part of a series on the founding fathers from the National Center for Constitutional Studies - One reviewer quips it should be called “The Saintly Series, since these are biased glorifications of complex figures who would have been scandalized to see themselves so prettified and defanged.”
[/quote]Push’s problem is with me personally. That’s why I’m a “dunce” who can’t “keep the egg out of my eyes and off my face long enough to type five coherent sentences in a row.” and who should “stay the fuck out of threads where history is discussed”. It was a simple point. Jefferson and Franklin relied on a morality in others that they themselves did not see fit to practice.
Hypocrisy? I won’t for the moment quote from other threads where Push is decrying what even quick Ben recognized as false accusations of personal attacks by me against he and his wife, but it should be pretty clear here that he is not above personal attacks against me. I very sincerely do not care until it’s something like plagiarism… nevermind, different thread, different guy. Same crap though.
[quote]orion wrote:
Why would you indeed…
Some do it with weed, you do it with words…[/quote]
Super, I’ll have to take your word for it.
Meanwhile, it as Rousseau who preached that but for the corrupting influence of all these oppressive institutions in society, humans would all be peaceful, cooperative. Society is a kind of prison and the shackles need to be destroyed so we can liberate people into living freely. That’s the philosophical wellspring of the libertarians (but not the classical liberals).
Hayek himself wrote on the two “strains” of what he called classical liberalism - one being the “English” strain emanating through Smith and gang, and the other being the “French” version, which included as a forefather, Rousseau. One listen to the preachings of the libertarians makes it clear where libertarianism gets its origins lie.
The “English” classical liberals liked the traditions and institutions that had evolved with society, and they were not presumed to be suspect; libertarians, quite obviously, reject them out of hand as artificial and irrational impositions on liberty. The libertarian stance is right from the lap of Rousseau.
[quote]orion wrote:
AS IF Madison, Jefferson et al, did not shred a lot of societies blueprints by denying the divine right of kings, the supremacy of the church in spiritual matters in any given territory and whatnot.
That these ideas had taken root long before in the colonies matters little, they codified it.[/quote]
Incorrect - society stayed largely the same. English common law remained an authority in the states after the Revolution, property was not upheaved in the name of reorganization, churches maintained the same basic authority they had before, cultural norms didn’t budge.
No question the shift toward republicanism was grand and experimental, but it was never designed to re-design a society around Reason and radical (and incorrect) views of human nature…which is, incidentally, what libertarianism, properly understood, proposes and seeks.
Maximum individual liberty! Freedom to do whatever I want, whenever I want! No church, state, family, other person, or authority outside of myself should be able to tell me differently!
Yeah, Rousseau.
Fine, the supreme and final authorities of the libertarian philosophy and its roots are the intellectual history experts, Herr Professors Thunderbolt and Sexmachine.
This debate just got easier.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This debate just got easier.[/quote]
Well, given that reading your posts is like wading through a junior high schooler’s bad poetry written tearfully in response to getting grounded by his parents, you need all the assistance you need in the debate, so you’re welcome.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This debate just got easier.[/quote]
Well, given that reading your posts is like wading through a junior high schooler’s bad poetry written tearfully in response to getting grounded by his parents, you need all the assistance you need in the debate, so you’re welcome.[/quote]Ok, this is really funny, but I always feel bad when folks go beatin up ol Lifty. I’ve got a soft spot for the lad. He’s not nasty or malicious most of the time and besides. I think he’s sensitive and his feelings get hurt. LOL. I know how corny that sounds, but I really think that.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Hey look! Sparky’s back!!! His comprehension hasn’t improved though[/quote]
And you still have avoidance issues.
[/quote]
As soon as you tell me how goes your readings in Gill to answer the burning questions you had in the other thread, I might find it useful to address slavery, the gospel and early America with you now here. (but probably not. I have avoidance issues ya know) After all this has never ever come up before until you chimed in here to mention it. Thanks. [/quote]
Sad that you’re still avoiding answering the questions that I asked of you in the previous thread. Yet I find it even more sad that when you’re pressed on the issue, you elect to assign a shitty reading list instead of thinking for yourself, and just answering the fucking question.
But back to this thread.
So, I check into T-Nation, and I’m not surprised to see you pimping the the same shitty meme about how the whole world is going to shit because it doesn’t subscribe to your version of christianity, and in particular that we’d all be better off if we’d return to the christian beliefs held at the time of the founding fathers. Well, consider that it was white christians that assigned black people only 3/5 of the value normally reserved for god fearing white folks in the constitution. And why wouldn’t they? I’ve already shown you in previous threads that christianity’s “good book” clearly supports the institution of slavery, and since our founding fathers were god fearing christians as you say, it would serve that they drew their inspiration from their bible.
My comment about “civilization follows the sun” is taken from a book I’m currently reading called “The Imperial Cruise”. In it, the author details well how white christian upper class leaders viewed all of the other races as far superior to the white race, and how the misguided, yet popular view of white christian domination was viewed as divinely inspired. It was literally believed that for real peace on earth to come to fruition, the lesser races had to be either subjugated or exterminated. It was widely believed, and taught in the universities at the time, that [real]civilization only finally took hold in Europe, which then traveled to western Europe, which then traveled west to the Americas, then finally would reach the Pacific, and then cross over back to the heathen east where they may also be brought into their glorious fold of divinely inspired white civilization.
But anyways, I must say that I still truly, BREATHLESSLY, await your honest response to my questions and comments from the previous thread. I’m sure you’re just taking time to think about it.