Posted on 05/27/2010 8:06:18 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) -- The Libertarian Party is considering running a candidate in Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, saying GOP nominee Rand Paul -- the son of a former Libertarian presidential candidate -- has betrayed the party's values.
Party Vice Chairman Joshua Koch said Wednesday that Paul has been a black eye for Libertarians because of stands he's taken on issues, including his criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Koch said Paul is not a Libertarian. He called Paul and his Democratic opponent, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, "faces of the same bad coin."
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
Note that it was just a part of Ayn Rand. Her atheist beliefs and actions negates her free market philosophy. In order for the free market to work, you MUST have Christian Judeo ethics involved.
” “Those who embrace libertarianism (or Objectivism), believe that there is no ultimate authority to which men and their civil society must answer other than themselves and the words of their own constitutions and laws. Men are “free,” and there should be as few restrictions on “freedom” as possible.” “
That quote does not answer the question, it just restates your former assertion, but does not answer the question of the contradiction inherent in the idea that an atheist is “his own God.” If an atheist does not believe in God, then it is not possible for him to be his own God. That’s simple reason.
“Everyone is “governed” by something”
That is a true statement.
“when you only have to answer to yourself, you are in essence your own “god” “
That statement is only true if you accept the premise that if you don’t have to answer to God, then you only have to answer to yourself.
However, this premise if false. If you don’t have to answer to God, it does not necessarily follow that the only thing you have to answer to is yourself. So therefore your statement is lacking a logical base. It is drawing a cause and effect relationship that does not exist.
“On your second point, ask yourself this question: If there were no God, how would I behave?”
“You have to answer that question”
No I don’t. It’s a question that I asked you. If you choose not to answer it, that’s fine, but you are choosing to ignore a reasonable line of inquiry in order to assert your own point again.
“as my behavior is based on the laws of God.”
I know.
“What doctrine do you follow for your “moral behavior”? (I can’t wait to hear the “where my fist ends and your nose begins” rant for the millionth time).”
Well you must wait. If you are not interested in answering my questions, I’m not interested in answering yours.
“Be careful, as many of your behavior patterns and belief systems when it comes to morality are already documented somewhere (wink wink)”
Do you want to debate ideas, or do you want to talk about documenting my behavior patterns? You’ve spent a lot of time dodging my questions, and now you are changing the subject to my behavior patterns. If you are unwilling to debate ideas, just be honest that you find my questions too disturbing to answer, and we can break off the debate.
Your choice.
“Specifically, I was asking how a person not having children rendered their philosophy invalid, which is the concept that your post stated.”
“Note that it was just a part of Ayn Rand. . . . In order for the free market to work, you MUST have Christian Judeo ethics involved.”
So are you confirming that you are going to dodge this question?
“Her atheist beliefs and actions negates her free market philosophy.”
No they don’t. There you go again drawing causal relationships where none exist.
Your question was taken out of context: (and now, for the rest of the quote)
"Ayn Rand was a known adulterer and intentionally chose a child-free marriage. Rand was pro-abortion and an atheist. A born Russian Jew, she abhorred altruism, one of the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian faith. She didn't believe in the morality of charity and don't even mention the handicapped and the poor. She thought selfishness was good virtue. "Rights," in Ayn Rand's words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."
So tell me NYCslicker, how can the free market operate efficiently without the moral guidance of Christian/Judeo ethics? If you don't have Christian/Judeo ethics, you have things like trade with the butchers of Communist China (something that the libertarians at the pro Ayn Rand stink tank, the Cato Institute have no problems with).
Without Christian/Judeo ethics involved in the free market, you'll need MORE government to oversee it so that people aren't always cheated (they'll only put up with so much "buyer beware").
But doesn't mesh at all with the laws in the states at the time or the vision of the framers. They had a word for libertarianism: Jacobinism. "Democrat" was also used (before Jefferson's faction finally stopped hiding behind the republican label and admitted they were in favor of ochlarchy).
It was not taken out of context, it was asked specifically in the context that you posted it, and it was clearly posted directly after your question, right in the context that you stated it.
But like I said before, if you do not want to answer it, that is your choice. But its hard to say that you truly want to debate the issue, if you refuse to answer the question. But again, your choice.
“So tell me NYCslicker, how can the free market operate efficiently without the moral guidance of Christian/Judeo ethics? If you don’t have Christian/Judeo ethics, you have things like trade with the butchers of Communist China (something that the libertarians at the pro Ayn Rand stink tank, the Cato Institute have no problems with).”
And how is trade with China inefficient? It may not be ethical, but its not “inefficient” as you’ve stated.
“Without Christian/Judeo ethics involved in the free market, you’ll need MORE government to oversee it”
Not really. Its apples and oranges. It the market lacks ethics, government won’t fix it. More government is one answer that people try to use for a lack of ethics, but it is not a true substitute for a lack of ethics. More government is a false substitute for ethics, but not one that works. Ethics are ethics and laws are laws. The have different functions in society.
However, there are examples of free markets that work just fine without *Judeo-Christian* ethics. Free markets need ethics, but the ethics do not have to be Judeo-Christian in order for the free market to work.
There is a free market in India, in China, Japan, in Europe. None of these people have primarily Judeo-Christian relgions as a whole. Now before you go saying that one or more of these places is not a completely free market, I would say that’s true, but neither is this country.
Modern China, Singaport, Honk Kong, Tokyo, all have free markets to some degree, and they have some Jews and Christians there, but they are by no means the majority.
So your argument doesn’t really hold up to reasonable inquiry.
You’re trying to hard to be an intellectual NYCslicker. A friend wrote the following words regarding your “disease”:
“The reason I condemn intellectual pride is because intellectualism is the emotional motivation of Humanism. After the Evolutionists planted the “scientific” lie that God is not needed for existence and the Bible is false, young seminarians and even veteran ministers left the pulpit en masse. It was no longer “intelligent” to be religious. Hence, “atheists are bright,” and “religion must be destroyed.” (http://www.freewill-predestination.com/atheists.html) It does not seem to be an effective reply that we are bright too. I rather advocate that intellectual pride is contemptible. (1Co 4:7, 1Co13:4)
So no NYCslicker, I’m not really interesting in debating your atheistic ideas, as I live in the “real world”.
“You’re trying to hard to be an intellectual NYCslicker.”
I’m making a logical argument against your ideas. That’s all. If that’s being an intellectual, then I guess I’m being an intellectual.
” A friend wrote the following words regarding your “disease”:
“The reason I condemn intellectual pride is because intellectualism is the emotional motivation of Humanism. After the Evolutionists planted the “scientific” lie that God is not needed for existence and the Bible is false, young seminarians and even veteran ministers left the pulpit en masse. It was no longer “intelligent” to be religious. Hence, “atheists are bright,” and “religion must be destroyed.” (http://www.freewill-predestination.com/atheists.html) It does not seem to be an effective reply that we are bright too. I rather advocate that intellectual pride is contemptible. (1Co 4:7, 1Co13:4)”
You seem to be making the point that I think that atheists are “bright” and that non-atheists are “not bright.” However, I did not put forth that idea. You did. I actually think that reason and logic are a big part of any religion, and that religious people on the whole are a lot brighter than atheists.
“So no NYCslicker, I’m not really interesting in debating your atheistic ideas, as I live in the “real world”.”
That’s true. You are not interested in debating ideas. Have a nice day.
My gawd, you are an ignorant one.
Junk from China
We have heard much lately about dangerous Chinese products that have come to our shores, from the lead paint-laden toys to the poisoned food and toxic toothpaste. And it seems that most anything you buy nowadays has a “Made in China” label on the back. But I ask you, do we really need this junk?
You see, I’ve observed that it isn’t just the toxic products that make the news that are the problem; it seems to me that Chinese goods are shoddily made in general. For instance, there’s a certain brand of Chinese-made telephone headsets that I and two people I know had the misfortune of purchasing, a very common brand. I’m not exaggerating when I say that in every case the equipment malfunctioned (to the point where one couldn’t use it) within a few months of acquisition. The trash only has a 90-day warranty, too, which is not surprising since it seems to be loaded with a self-destruct mechanism that activates after about 90 days. To place this in further perspective, among the three of us we probably had about 10 of these headsets (owing partially to the fact that a few malfunctioned within the 90-day period and the fact that one or two kindly retailers were willing to replace them even beyond that short time frame), and, again, every one malfunctioned. It’s staggering.
In my mind, this is just another reason why I can do without “free trade.” How does it really benefit us? While we are enjoying cheaper goods over the short term, our manufacturing base has been destroyed; we’re filling the coffers of despotic, anti-American regimes; and we’ve introduced dangerous products into our market. As for the last point, when we buy produce grown abroad — in Mexico, South America or elsewhere — do we really know what chemicals it’s treated with? If the product is packaged food, do we know how hygienic these Third World factories are? Does anyone in government really care? We should remember that these Third World nations don’t have the regulations or standards we do and are rife with disease and corruption. If their packaging plants were infested with rats (a good bet, I’d say), would their governments really care?
I don’t propose that we eliminate foreign trade, but I do support the institution of high tariffs, a practice that accords with American tradition. So, no, I don’t believe in free trade — except within these 50 states.
Getting back to these shoddy products, I find it disheartening that modern Americans so readily accept low standards. Not that long ago, people had the expectation that a product might last a lifetime. Now, when you buy an appliance, the salesman will inquire as to whether you want an extended service warranty to cover the product after, let’s say, a year’s time. If you don’t have confidence that an expensive item you carry will last for at least a few years without breakdown, why are you selling it to me?
This is just another example of the complete breakdown in standards in the West. But, hey, in the same way that people get the government they deserve, I suppose they get the products and services they deserve, too. And there really is a connection there, as our products and politicians seem to decline at the same rate.
http://www.leftspeak.com/
But wait, there’s (so much) more!
“China never fails to top itself when it comes to human rights violations. Even as Michael Moore attempts to defend communist regimes, world-wide media networks continue to report on the harsh practices of the Communist Chinese government, most recently forced sterilizations of Puning County parents and the torture of Falun Gong practitioners.
Times online reports that China intends to sterilize nearly 10,000 parents in Puning County who have violated the one-child rule. Puning County, with a population of 2.2 million, is the most populated county in the country. Jane Macartney of The Times claims that the sterilization campaign was launched on April 7 and is expected to last 20 days.
A Daba village doctor reported that he and his team would be in charge of completing the sterilizations, beginning at 8 am every morning and lasting until approximately 4 a.m. the next day.
Under current regulations, families in Puning County who break the one-child rule are already punished in a variety of ways. They are not permitted to buy homes, and the “illegal” children are not permitted to receive residency registration, which in turn denies them healthcare and education as well. Macartney writes, “Authorities have discovered, however, that those methods have less success than rounding up relatives.”
Zhang Lizhao knows something about this favored method. He and his wife were forced to rush home to undergo sterilization in order for Lizhao’s brother to be freed from detention. While in detention, detainees are exposed to government rhetoric on the necessity of adhering to family-size laws. Currently, 1,300 people are held in detention as a means to force families to succumb to sterilization. Thousands of Puning County residents have undergone this treatment by authorities.
While Chinese government officials claim to be investigating this matter, asserting that authorities are not permitted to punish families without authorization, or detain residents as pressure tactics, the strict “one couple, one child” government policy has led to a variety of human rights’ violations, though the number of incidents have reputedly decreased in recent years. These include forced late-term abortions, and the murder of newborn babies.
It’s likely that the officials’ promises of investigation are false, as an official from the Puning Population and Family Planning Bureau has admitted to Macartney, “It’s not uncommon for family planning authorities to adopt some tough tactics.”
Until now, Puning was a “refuge” of sorts for families who have more than one child, since it is rural and generally outside of government surveillance. Unfortunately, the increased number of large families in the county has prompted Puning officials to adopt such harsh measures in order to remain eligible for their “bid for promotion to a second-tier county.” One of the measurements for this desirable status is whether the county meets the government limit for family size.
Despite the shocking nature of these abuses, policies like these are reminiscent of American eugenics supporter Margaret Sanger. Her decision to open Planned Parenthood was motivated by principles similar to that of the Puning authorities. Yet, Sanger’s motivations and the Puning sterilizations have remained relatively unreported in the American mainstream media.
Of course, human rights violations in China are nothing new. For 20 years, the religious group known as the Falun Gong has undergone suppression, even torture, at the hands of the Chinese government, who claim that Falun Gong is a cult in order to justify the government’s crackdown on the organization. (The American mainstream media have taken at least a paragraph from the same playbook, painting the Tea Party movement as extremists, likely with the same intent of silencing the group.)
In truth, the Chinese government is aware that Falun Gong is not a cult, but the governmentis threatened by the large number of Falun Gong practitioners, as it is the only group whose membership outnumbers that of the Communist Party in China, according to a 1999 U.S. News and World Report. In addition to the overwhelming size of the organization, the Communist Chinese government has a reputation for religious intolerance. The Globe and Mail wrote, “Any group that does not come under the control of the Party is a threat”.
To counter this threat, the government resorted to psychiatric torture of Falun Gong members, using nerve-damaging chemicals. They have utilized starvation of imprisoned practitioners, forced abortions, and other physical abuses like burning with irons. The Washington Post, in a 2001 article written by John Pomfret and Philip Pan, exposed torture of Falun Gong members.
The United Nations Human Rights Council and the Falun Gong Human Rights Working Group are working together with the Conscience Foundation to stop the torture of the Falun Gong practitioners. The success of this alliance remains to be seen.
The Chinese government continues to commit human rights abuses regularly. Yet Michael Moore has not been inspired to create a documentary criticizing the Communist Chinese government. He continues to assert “capitalism is evil.” Go figure!
http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/asia-mainmenu-33/3378-continued-human-rights-violations-in-china-wheres-michael-moore-on-this
You really don’t want to come and play with me NYCslicker; I’m told that I don’t “play fair”.
Violent means of maintaining control of the populace? Thomas Jefferson?are you insane? Or have you been drinking heavily tonight?
Jefferson talked a lot about liberty but it was talk. He was the Bill Clinton of his day. He pandered to Baptists to get their support in breaking the congregational Federalist power structure in New England, then turned around and invited Thomas Paine to the WH after Paine almost lost his head trying to steal Spanish property during the French Revolution. Jefferson represented a corrupt slave owning aristocracy which allied itself with an ignorant underclass and was propped up by a venal press. The reason he and others didn't sell their slaves was slaves were property on which they could borrow money. Jefferson liked money and the high life more than liberty for all. He was regularly in debt.
But all that said, he was useful for a while. Until he became President and launched a quiet Second American Revolution (much like his descendent FDR did).
Fisher Ames best summed up what Jefferson and his faction were all about in 1805:
Federalism was therefore manifestly founded upon a mistake, on the supposed existence of sufficient political virtue, and on the permanency and authority of the public morals. The party now in power committed no such mistake. They acted upon what men actually are, not what they ought to be . . .They inflamed the ignorant; they flattered the vain; they offered novelty to the restless; and promised plunder to the base. The envious were assured that the great should fall; and the ambitious that they should become great . . . we are descending from a supposed orderly and stable republican government into a licentious democracy . . .
If it sounds as if Ames is speaking of the Democratic Party of today it is because he was.
I thought you didn’t want to debate?
“You really don’t want to come and play with me NYCslicker; I’m told that I don’t “play fair”. “
Wow. You must be really scarry.
I’m not sure how posting an entire article answers the question of how trading with China is “inefficient”.
However, I think I’m going to take you up on your offer to end the debate, because you’re not really answering answering any question, but rather side stepping the issues, and its become tiresome. So good night.
But wait, there’s more! (you responded, so you must want to “play”).
“Thousands of officials have fled China over the past 30 years with some 50 billion dollars in public funds, state media said Monday, as the government scrambles to stem the tide of corruption.
As many as 4,000 officials have disappeared, using criminal gangs, mainly in the United States and Australia, to launder their ill-gotten gains, buy real estate and set up false identities, the Global Times said.
A joint task force involving 15 Chinese ministries has been set up to choke off graft in government ranks, the paper said.
In 2009, authorities investigated 103 cases involving the outbound travel of more than 300 officials, the paper said, citing a party official tasked with disciplinary issues.
In one case, the disappearance to France in 2008 of Yang Xianghong, a top Communist Party official in Wenzhou city, led to the arrest of his wife, who was charged with trying to launder 20 million yuan (2.9 million dollars), it said.
The paper did not detail how the 50 billion dollars were funneled overseas, or how the officials were linking up with criminal gangs abroad.
Chinese President Hu Jintao has for years made fighting official corruption a priority, saying that the scourge is a matter of life and death for the ruling Communist Party.
In recent years, China has sought to negotiate more extradition treaties with Western nations to help it repatriate and punish officials fleeing overseas with public funds.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5d946b06d1504d59eb2b0f21a6a9d808.221&show_article=1
And more...
Gendercide: The War on Baby Girls
The reality has been known for years now, though the Western media have generally resisted any direct coverage of the horror. That changed this week when The Economist published its stunning cover story — “Gendercide — What Happened to 100 Million Baby Girls?”
In many nations of the world, there is an all-out war on baby girls. In 1990, economist Amartya Sen estimated that 100 million baby girls were missing — sacrificed by parents who desired a son. Two decades later, multiple millions of missing baby girls must be added to that total, victims of abortion, infanticide, or fatal neglect.
The murder of girls is especially common in China and northern India, where a preference for sons produces a situation that is nothing less than critical for baby girls. In these regions, there are 120 baby boys born for every 100 baby girls. As The Economist explains, “Nature dictates that slightly more males are born than females to offset boys’ greater susceptibility to infant disease. But nothing on this scale.”
In its lead editorial, the magazine gets right to the essential point: “It is no exaggeration to call this gendercide. Women are missing in their millions—aborted, killed, neglected to death.”
In its detailed and extensive investigative report, the magazine opens its article with chilling force. A baby girl is born in China’s Shandong province. Chinese writer Xinran Xue, present for the birth, then hears a man’s voice respond to the sight of the newborn baby girl. “Useless thing,” he cried in disappointment. The witness then heard a plop in the slops pail. “To my absolute horror, I saw a tiny foot poking out of the pail. The midwife must have dropped that tiny baby alive into the slops pail!” When she tried to intervene she was restrained by police. An older woman simply explained to her, “Doing a baby girl is not a big thing around here.”
The numbers of dead and missing baby girls is astounding. In some Chinese provinces, there are more than 130 baby boys for every 100 baby girls. The culture places a premium value on sons, and girls are considered an economic drain. A Hindu saying conveys this prejudice: “Raising a daughter is like watering your neighbor’s garden.”
Midwives even charge more for the birth of a baby boy. But the preference for a boy rises with both economic power and the number of children born to a couple. The imbalance of boys to girls is no accident — it reflects a prejudice that runs throughout the societies where the abortion and killing of baby girls is considered both understandable and routine.
Add to this the widespread availability of ultrasound imaging services. Even though the governments of China and India have officially declared sex-selection abortions to be illegal, they persist by the millions. (And, interestingly, the magazine notes that Sweden actually legalized sex-selection abortions in 2009.)
This sentence from the investigative report is particularly horrifying: “In one hospital in Punjab, in northern India, the only girls born after a round of ultrasound scans had been mistakenly identified as boys, or else had a male twin.”
In other words, even as the spread of ultrasound technology has greatly aided the pro-life movement by making the humanity of the unborn baby visible and undeniable, among those determined to give birth only to baby boys, in millions of cases the same technology has meant a death warrant for a baby girl in the womb.
There are multiple factors that lead to the preference for boys over girls. In China, the government’s draconian “one child only” policy has led to both forced abortions and an effective death sentence for baby girls when a couple is determined that, if their children are to be so drastically limited, they will insist on having a son. As the magazine explains, “For millions of couples, the answer is: abort the daughter, try for a son.”
Consider this:
In fact the destruction of baby girls is a product of three forces: the ancient preference for sons; a modern desire for smaller families; and ultrasound scanning and other technologies that identify the sex of a fetus. In societies where four or six children were common, a boy would almost certainly come along eventually; son preference did not need to exist at the expense of daughters. But now couples want two children-or, as in China, are allowed only one-they will sacrifice unborn daughters to their pursuit of a son. That is why sex ratios are most distorted in the modern, open parts of China and India. It is also why ratios are more skewed after the first child: parents may accept a daughter first time round but will do anything to ensure their next-and probably last-child is a boy. The boy-girl ratio is above 200 for a third child in some places.
The social consequences of this imbalance are vast and uncorrectable. China and India now face the reality of millions of young men and boys who have absolutely no hope of a wife and family. In China, these young men are called guanggun or “broken branches.” Just consider this — the 30 to 40 million “broken branches” in China are about equal in number to the total number of all boys and young men in the United States.
These young men represent a looming disaster on the societal level. Young males commit the greatest number of criminal acts and acts of violence. Marriage has been the great taming institution for the social development of young males. Without prospect for marriage and a normal sex and family life, these multiple millions of unmarried young men are becoming a significant social challenge in China and India. Some observers even argue that this may lead to an increased militarism in the region.
Of course, the greatest disaster is personal for the young men and boys who face the future as “broken branches.” The parents who insist on having boys are dooming their own sons to lives of brokenness, frustration, and grief.
And the future looks even more ominous for baby girls. Nick Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute points to “the fatal collision between overweening son preference, the use of rapidly spreading prenatal sex-determination technology and declining fertility.” As the magazine adds, “Over the next generation, many of the problems associated with sex selection will get worse. The social consequences will become more evident because the boys born in large numbers over the past decade will reach maturity then. Meanwhile, the practice of sex selection itself may spread because fertility rates are continuing to fall and ultrasound scanners reach throughout the developing world.”
While imbalances such as now found in China and India are unknown in the West, the practice of sex-selection abortion is found here as well. Indeed, there is no current law against the practice in the United States, where abortion is legal for any reason, at least in earlier stages of pregnancy. In reality, sex selection abortions happen here, too. After all, proponents of abortion in the United States infamously insist on a woman’s unrestricted right to an abortion “for any reason, or for no reason.”
The Economist is right to call this tragedy gendercide — the targeting of baby girls for death and destruction simply because of their gender. The magazine deserves appreciation for its no-holds-barred report on this tragedy, and for forcing the issue to be faced. Furthermore, The Economist ends its editorial with the right message, “The world needs to do more to prevent a gendercide that will have the sky crashing down.”
Will reports like this awaken the conscience of the world to the unspeakable crime and global tragedy of gendercide? If not, what will it take? The blood of millions of murdered and missing baby girls cries out to the world’s conscience. Will we hear?
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100311/the-scandal-of-gendercide-war-on-baby-girls/index.html
Let’s just say that the Chinese Communists are “efficient” at brutality shall we NYCslicker?
“blah blah blah”
LOL
I haven read any of your little copy and post articles.
I stopped being interested when you got stumped trying to debate ideas and starting posting articles to cover for your inability to articulate with reason.
/yawn
As I said, consider the debate over.
The guy who inherited the Family Plantation and worked to end slavery?
You ARE insane...
While you waste your time (and attempt to waste other people's time) with your foolish logic game, millions of baby girls are being murdered (solely for their gender) in Communist China. Shoddy and often times unhealthy products are being produced through slave labor via the atheist butchers and sold to Americans. 50 BILLION dollars is stolen from the chi-com coffers by the unscrupulous communist officials, but you just ignore it because you want to play little pseudo intellectual games and show people how smart you are.
Thank you for allowing me to show others the FRAUD behind Ayn Rand and the Objectivist/Libertarian movement.
Yeah...just like Oliver Wolcott, Fisher Ames, John Adams and the only man to sign all four great founding documents--Roger Sherman. The first three despised Jefferson, the last was more tactful about it but on the same page and for the same reasons. Put aside the fact he didn't free his slaves because he had mortgages on them and was in debt up to his eyeballs living the high life, Jefferson's comment on Shay's rebellion says it all:"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion". He was for the mob. Same way Democrats are today. Those NACA, SEIU, ACORN and Working Families mobs Obama uses to protest wall street in order to hid his party's involvement with the banksters can trace their origin to Shay and his mob. Deadbeats. People who want something for nothing and think inflating the currency and easy money will accomplish that. There is always a corrupt aristocracy which finds those mobs useful. May I suggest you "move on" past the cartoon history public schools teach and read some original sources? There was not harmony in the early Republic, everyone did not grovel at the feet of Thomas Jefferson. Unfortunately, Jefferson's faction carried the day, the vision of the Federalists was extinguished and the mob, Democrats, writes the history.
Epic fail on your part.
I post specifics about Sherman, Ames, Shay, Wolcott, John Adams, why Jefferson was in debt, who he used for collateral and the Federalist position in general. The retorts consist of: Epic fail. I’m stupid. I’m insane. Nice spin. Bad conclusions.
Uh...huh...we know who is fond of this type of reply.
To say a radical Individualist like Jefferson is pro-mob rule meets the very definition of "insane" as you have completely lost touch with reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.