alt.education

In article ,
Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> Gunny Freedom wrote:
> >In article <7o1as3hi13qi2ph78rsp2mi2tf9o13sj26@4ax.com>,
> > Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >
> >> Gunny Freedom wrote:
> >> >Why is it 'crazy' to be a strict Constitutionalist?
> >>
> >> Because "We the people" want none of it.
> >
> >Well, we can help ignorance, but we can't fix stupid. Fortunately, most
> >Americans are simply ignorant of Ron Paul's positions and candidacy
> >rather than actually being stupid enough to think that the government
> >envisioned by the Founding Fathers is a bad thing...
>
> Ron Paul has nothing to do with "the government envisioned by the
> Founding Fathers". Ron Paul is after the government envisioned by
> libertarian ideologists.

Ron Paul's concept of federal government is identical to that of Thomas
Jefferson. Every position he holds precisely reflects the political
philosophy of Thomas Jefferson as revealed by his COPIOUS writings which
survive to this day.

> >> It is crazy to be wedded to any ideology. And the more solidly
> >> wedded, the crazier.
> >
> >So the whole Thomas Jefferson / Liberty thing should be considered crazy
> >then huh?
>
> Actually, in a sense, yes.

Does that also mean that you believe we should still be English Colonies
today?

> Especially since Jefferson himself
> demonstrated that his words were false by keeping slaves.

Actually, Thomas Jefferson was a strong abolitionist. Indeed, he was
probably one of the ten strongest abolitionists in the first 100 years
of our nation. His philosophy was to retain the slaves that had been
handed down through his family until the government abolished slavery
and therefore created a program to teach them self sustainability in the
American society.

He was concerned that without a method of education and sustainability,
they would not be able to sufficiently care for themselves and therefore
would become homeless in short order. He believed that they were more
than intelligent enough to become productive and free members of
society, and indeed, spent most of his life working to abolish slavery
in the United States.

It seems that you don't actually know very much about the writings and
political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson.

> The Constitution was to an extent a counter-revolution against the
> government system based on the Declaration, which was the Articles of
> Confederation. We then had a later revolution, called the "Civil War"
> which resulted in a stronger central government (and made
> constitutional changes to that effect).

No, the Articles of Confederation were not based on the Declaration of
Independence. The Articles of Confederation were hammered out in the
Continental Congress, and when they turned out to be a failure the
Continental Congress went back, formed a Constitutional Convention, and
so produced the US Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson, who authored the Declaration of Independence, (and
who, by the way, attempted to abolish slavery in the Declaration, but
was rejected by several states) had no part in the Articles of
Confederation as he was in France at the time. Indeed, he only had a
minor part in the creation of the US Constitution -- the same states
which had rejected the first several drafts of the Declaration did not
want Thomas Jefferson to participate in creating the Constitution
because they were opposed to his strong position on the abolition of
slavery.

> >> >For how many years have the American people begged and pleaded for a man
> >> >with integrity and a record of opposing corruption in Washington to run
> >> >for President?
> >>
> >> How many times have we actually chosen one when they were running?
> >
> >Calvin Coolidge pops immediately to mind. Taft, Jefferson... Actually,
> >until around 1930, I would say *most* of them, with a few notable
> >exceptions.
>
> You obviously are not well-read in history.

Haha! Ok, that's some amazing chutzpa on your part there. You who it
seems would not know history if it bit you on the backside accuse me of
not knowing my history?

Sorry buddy, but you can't just make this stuff up as you go and then
claim that everyone else is ignorant.

Fortunately, American history is so short that we (in most cases) have
primary sources for history. This, of course, has not the stopped
federal government sponsored school system from substituting propaganda
for history; but we DO still have the original documents upon which the
truth of history can be discerned.

> >> George McGovern? Jimmy Carter, anyone? Morality in the White House
> >> doesn't get a lot of reward.
> >
> >Not since around 1930, no. But prior to that time yes.
>
> Not before 1930 either. Jackson, who is often compared to Jefferson
> in his support of "liberty" was a master of immorality. I've been
> reading about him and he makes Richard Nixon seem nice.

Jackson? ANDREW Jackson? You mean the ANDREW Jackson that Thomas
Jefferson wanted to SHOOT? The same Andrew Jackson who created the
first centralized private bank? The same Andrew Jackson of whom Daniel
Webster wrote that Jefferson told him in December of 1824 that Jackson
was a dangerous man unfit for the presidency?

How in the world do you justify this practice of just making it up as
you go and calling it 'history'? Are you some kind of Orwellian relic
involved in the revision of history?

> >And GW Bush was elected on a platform of morality. turns out he was
> >lying mind you, but that's what he was elected on.
>
> We seem to be dealing with multiple sorts of definitions of
> "morality". Political morality has rather little to do with "family
> values".

The only two kinds of morality, are 'moral' and 'immoral.'

> >> But America won't do so.
> >
> >They had better, if they want to save our nation from total collapse, or
> >from the coming police state.
>
> [yawn]

Well, if I were you I wouldn't worry either. You are just the kind of
establishment shill who will be supporting and defending the coming
police state, and therefore are not in danger from it.

> >> >Hillary Clinton will make the nation collapse in bankruptcy.
> >>
> >> Her hubby was the one who brought the budget back into balance after
> >> Reaganomics, and I'm sure she was involved in the decision-making.
> >> Realism in governance is her strong suit, whether you like her
> >> liberalism or not.
> >
> >And we are going to pay for an $8 Trillion universal health care
> >program....HOW exactly?
>
> We won't have an $8 trillion universal health care plan. We will have
> what we can afford.

ROFLOL! Since 1913 we have been spending millions, billions, and
eventually trillions more than we could afford. The Democrat Bill
Clinton presided over the single largest increase in Federal Reserve M3
volume since Woodrow Wilson created the system in the first place.

Do you REALLY think all of this is going to magically change simply
because you say it will? BOTH Clinton and Obama are establishment
candidates who will continue the practices of the last 100 years.

> >Nobody wants to invest in T-Bills anymore. T-Bills have lost 96% of
> >their value since 1913, and the decline is ACCELERATING.
>
> Silly games.

The fact that treasury bonds have lost 96% of their value since 1913 is
"silly games?"

> >If the global market dumps their T-Bills,
>
> The global market won't dump their T-Bills because there isn't any
> safer investment.

Problem is, most smaller nations are ALREADY dumping T-Bills. Why do
you think there were noises a couple years ago about going to war
against Venezuela? Those noises eventually moderated themselves into a
call for the assassination of the Venezualian President, but it all
started when they started selling oil in Euros instead of Dollars.

Currently, the only people left who sell oil in dollars anymore, is
OPEC. And even THAT is in danger -- as evidenced by Iran shifting oil
sales from dollars to euros only weeks before Bush started beating the
war drums against Iran.

And why do Obama and Hillary both support military action against Iran
today? Is it because they have dumped the dollar as their international
reserve? yes. It is.

> >> >I am a former Marine, and a graduate of the most conservative Southern
> >> >Baptist Seminary in the United States,
> >>
> >> That's another strike against you. The political opinions of a
> >> preacher are less than trustworthy, a fundy-trained preacher even more
> >> so.
> >
> >Never said I was a preacher,
>
> Is there some other reason to graduate from a seminary than to be a
> preacher?

There are any number of dozens of reasons to attend Seminary other than
to become a preacher.

> >It is no different than what you are doing with Ron Paul.
>
> I am ignoring Ron Paul because he is as inconsequential as all of the
> other nutcases who have run for president as libertarians. He did it
> within the 2 party system, but demonstrated just about the same
> vote-getting potential as the typical libertarian - 3% of the entire
> populace.

Haha! Just making stuff up as you go again? Indeed, the support
registered at the polls was closer to 9%, but don't let the FACTS ruin a
perfectly good spin-job.

Not to mention, most voters who supported Ron Paul voted for other
candidates because Fox News told them that Ron Paul couldn't win, and
they believed the drek that the media was feeding them.

> >It reveals your own moral fiber
> >than it does any kind of logical premise based argument.
>
> That's your problem. You think that "logical premise based argument"
> has any meaning in politics. But premise based argument relies on
> shared acceptance of the premises. Most of the country rejects your
> premises as having nothing to do with reality, so no conclusion that
> you logically reach based on those premises has any real meaning.

The fact that logic, consistency, integrity, and truth have no place in
modern politics is precisely what is wrong with America today. And it
is not "America" which rejects the premises of our need for integrity
and an end to special interest influence in Washington, it is you, and
the media that has brainwashed you into believing that integrity is
passe.

> Of course, it also happens that most ideologists choose the premises
> that lead to the conclusions that they want to reach, which makes
> their premises even more laughable.
>
> lojbab

OK, in addition to taking a course in Constitutional law, it would seem
that you also need to register for "Logic 101" at your earliest
convenience.
--
Gunny Freedom's Blog: http://libertyline.blogspot.com/
Gunny's Hangout: http://www.rwva.org/yabbse/index.php "Liberty's Price"
Become a Rifleman: http://appleseedinfo.org/