REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Yay, our propaganda is working!

POSTED BY: KPO
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 05:33
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1567
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, December 4, 2012 9:50 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


As Geezer would say...

Chart of the Day: Public Blames GOP for Fiscal Cliff by 2:1 Margin: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/12/chart-day-public-blames-
gop-fiscal-cliff-21-margin


Seriously, how can Obama lose this fight?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 4, 2012 9:55 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
As Geezer would say...

Chart of the Day: Public Blames GOP for Fiscal Cliff by 2:1 Margin: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/12/chart-day-public-blames-
gop-fiscal-cliff-21-margin


Seriously, how can Obama lose this fight?


Watch closely- he'll compromise , and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 4, 2012 10:10 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Ok, we'll see.

A good article: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/john-boehner-fiscal-cliff-
tea-party


There is a way Obama can lose, and that's if all parties lose (including the country, and the economy) via the austerity bomb going off. Republicans will lose either way; the only question is whether they're willing or stupid enough to lose *harder* in order to make Obama, and the country lose as well.

It's something like,

A compromise deal on the fiscal cliff:
Obama +2
GOP -1
U.S. economy + 3

No deal on the fiscal cliff:
Obama -3
GOP -5
U.S. economy -5

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 4, 2012 2:01 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Agreed.

It seems to me "Boner" is playing out his string to show the Tea Party folk that he fought until the bitter end, then he'll have to cave. But you're right that it seems that the GOP is willing, at least right now, to let the country go down in flames to prove how much they hate Obama. Muddy up the waters is their strategy.

It shows just how patriotic these SOBs are.

He's taking a great risk, because voters remember. To me, the Tea Party and their kissing cousins, the Neo-Cons, have done more to mobilize democrats and independents than the president himself. My hope is that they continue to live in that bubble, it will ensure that we get responsible people leading the country into the future.

Let them secede!!!


SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Ok, we'll see.

A good article: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/john-boehner-fiscal-cliff-
tea-party


There is a way Obama can lose, and that's if all parties lose (including the country, and the economy) via the austerity bomb going off. Republicans will lose either way; the only question is whether they're willing or stupid enough to lose *harder* in order to make Obama, and the country lose as well.

It's something like,

A compromise deal on the fiscal cliff:
Obama +2
GOP -1
U.S. economy + 3

No deal on the fiscal cliff:
Obama -3
GOP -5
U.S. economy -5

It's not personal. It's just war.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 8:20 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Well said, KPO, and that is the danger in the situation. Unfortunately, given the past four years of their freely-admitted determination to obstruct, despite the harm it's done the country, my fear is they will continue to do so, to the further harm of the country. Their spite seems to know no bounds, and despite their belief that doing what they did would put them in power four years later having been wrong, I fear they will continue along that same path. They've certainly shown quite a willingness to harm their constituents to further their agenda thus far.
Quote:

To me, the Tea Party and their kissing cousins, the Neo-Cons, have done more to mobilize democrats and independents than the president himself.

I agree, and I think that's one reason they lost the election. I heard one of them last night complaining that fewer "white males" got out to vote than in even the previous election and being confused as to why that was th case. What I don't think they realize is that even those white males who would have voted for them were so disgusted with their words and actions the past four years that they simply stayed home.

It took me a long time to accept that these people WERE actually willing to "let the country go down in flames to prove how much they hate Obama", but in the end even I couldn't ignore it, much as it shocked me. Tho' I think it was more to get power in the next election than to prove their hatred of the President, they just played on that to get what power they did.

I can't hope they continue on this path, however, as it would harm so many, and the country itself. In a way I wish I COULD, because it would herald their demise, whereas if they give in, they can continue to obstruct and harm the country in other ways. But the consequences of not compromising might be so dire for the country, and so many of its people, that I can't willingly wish they'd continue. The global repercussions also worry me.

I think 2014 will tell us a lot. If the people toss MORE of the radicals out in the midterm (as they did in this election), maybe that will send yet another signal, possibly a stronger one, which the rational people on the right have already gotten: that they've been too extreme. Maybe. Hopefully.

Currently, Boener taking those four plum committee assignments from the more radical members of their party further illustrates the internal divide within the party. It's pissed off the Tea Party folk, which will cause him further problems down the line with them. But unless he can get the Tea Party and radical conservatives to learn the word "compromise", the GOP is going to become less and less a viable party in this country.

I've been hearing conjecture about the ultra-right-wing breaking off into its own party, which I think would be the best solution. I believe they would quickly realize that their "base" isn't as big as they've convinced themselves it is, and would fade into obscurity, leaving the two more sensible (albeit FAR from perfect) parties to run the country. Bad as they are, they're worse in my view than these intractable ideologues, for whom it has unquestionably been "our way or the highway".

It's kind of funny to watch, in a sad way. It's always been the more independent-thinking Democrats who fight among themselves and about whom the joke is made that it's "like trying to herd cats", while those in the GOP have always toed the mark pretty consistently. For them to now be enduring in-fighting among their more rigid hard-core right wingers and what has to be called the more "moderate" elements (tho' the actual moderates are long gone by now, so maybe I should say the more "realistic") is personally satisfying, because it shows the danger they flirted with by backing the Tea Party and right-wing radicals, helping them get in office while believing they could mold them however they wished. Perhaps a case of "be careful what you wish for"? ...or maybe "be careful who you back". I think the efforts to support and back the fake "grass roots" movement of the Tea Party has proven to be a bad investment. For John Boehner especially, as the article KPO put up said, "You usually have to dance with the ones who brung ya—-even if they are lemmings running toward the edge." (Good article, by the way, KPO, and pretty accurate as I see it.)

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 9:34 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Further on that subject, there is this:
Quote:

Lines have been drawn between traditional “establishment” members – call them Dole Republicans – who tend to be more pragmatic and inclined to compromise, and tea party types determined to hold the line on taxes and spending.

President George H.W. Bush famously broke his “no new taxes” pledge in return for promised concessions from Democrats on spending and entitlement reform. That bill proved to be instrumental in reducing the deficit in coming years – though Mr. Bush never got credit, since he lost reelection to Bill Clinton, a fate conservatives have linked ever since to Bush’s tax heresy.

Since then, the party has shifted further to the right, with most Republican lawmakers signing on to Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes. But lately, there have been signs of a possible countershift, as more Republicans appear open to the notion of tax hikes in some form.

One after another, members of the old guard – like outgoing Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana and former Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah – have been ousted by challengers on the right, largely over fiscal matters. But in some cases (such as Senator Lugar’s), those primary challengers wound up leading the GOP into embarrassing losses – which has lately led to new cries for the reassertion of a stronger pragmatic wing.

In an opinion piece in Monday’s New York Times, former Republican National Committee research director David Welch wrote: “Republicans must now identify those who can bring adult supervision back to the party.... Dare I say it, or should I just whisper the word? We need 'the Establishment.' "

While conservative groups like the antitax Club for Growth are still threatening to fund primary challenges against lawmakers who don’t hold the line on taxes, those representing the more establishment wing – like GOP strategist Karl Rove – are now indicating they may play a bigger role in primaries as well, Mr. Welch notes.

House Speaker John Boehner’s decision Monday to strip several conservative House members of plum committee assignments may also reflect a new assertion of strength in the party’s pragmatic wing.

The intraparty battle is far from over, of course, and the ultimate winner may not be known for some time. But at the moment, there seems to be at least some political wind at the back of the Dole Republicans. And that in itself is not insignificant.More at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/1204/GOP-rif
t-over-fiscal-cliff-Are-Dole-Republicans-on-the-rise



Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 2:34 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I recently read a book about Thomas Jefferson, where he or one of the people he was corresponding with (I forget which- the book was rife with letters that were exchanged) were complaining about the Federalists.

Of them, it was said that they opposed everything for opposition's sake, regardless of the merit of the matter. This caused no end of frustration, as you might imagine.

It set my mind at some ease to read this. Apparently, the complaints of the present were here even in the early formative years of the country. It is reassuring to know that our turmoils are not born with us, and that they can be endured.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 5:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Personally I am rather sympathetic to Aaron Burrs solution to the Federalists, but not really compatible with our modern day legal system and good luck finding one with the guts... hell, even Hamilton freakin cheated.
(See Also: Smithsonian, Rigged Duelling Pistols)

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 6, 2012 7:52 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


I don't know anything about the Federalists, but if they're like the modern GOP they suck ass.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 6, 2012 8:58 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!




Dictator Hussein Obama borrowed more money than all other presidents combined for over 200 years.



Thanks to Hussein Obama paying jew banksters $1-billion/day interest plus $40-billion a month to foreign jew banksters who counterfeit all so-called US dollars out of thin air then loan them to the bankrupt federal govt. WAKE UP.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 6, 2012 9:55 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
I don't know anything about the Federalists, but if they're like the modern GOP they suck ass.


Well, despite the name they picked, the Federalists were for the most part would be Feudalists, simply using the same kind of doublethink labelling as "Healty Forests" or "Clean Coal" or "Patriot Act", yadda yadda...

See, they didn't so much have a problem with the Feudal system per se, as they had with the fact that THEY were not in charge of it.

Hamilton was a special case of bastardy, in that he tried to stage a coup on Washington, *did* rip off most of the officers who fought in the revolution, despite that revolution being over unfair and excessive taxes, just about immediately advocated and pushed along the same bullshit, resulting in a pair of pocket revolutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

For the record, Jefferson was sympathetic to the first, and saw such revolutions as a positive thing in that they were a check against the more outrageous abuses a government was capable of.

And the second, not only was it a completely dickheaded and malicious thing to do, it also revealed the Federalists complete lack of respect for the new Constitution, since marching the troops of one State into another was expressly UnConstitutional, a point even most history scholars overlook, and I tend to agree with Findley and Hogeland on their assessment of the matter.
Quote:

In 2006, William Hogeland argues Hamilton, Bradford, and Rawle intentionally pursued a course of action that would provoke "the kind of violence that would justify federal military suppression". According to Hogeland, Hamilton had been working towards this moment since the Newburgh Crisis in 1783, where he conceived of using military force to crush popular resistance to direct taxation, for the purpose of promoting national unity and enriching the creditor class at the expense of common taxpayers.

In fact it was before this, as the debates raged in the Federalist/Antifederalist papers show from a historical context, all the loopholes and flaws in the new Constitution that Hamilton, Madison and Jay were saying were nothing to worry about, that no one would ever dare exploit....
They planned on exploiting before the ink was even dry, because they despised the notion of sharing power with anyone, much less mere peons - the Bill of Rights was a sop to the Antifederalists and nothing more, something to get enough of them on-side to support it, or at least stifle their dissent, and Patrick Henry would have none of it, he "smelt a rat", and it's name was Hamilton.

But the crowning horror that showed what the Federalists really *WERE*, was the reign of John Adams, and the passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts - the first, but certainly not the last (Woodrow Wilson tried this crap too) attempt to make dissent outright illegal.

Hamilton blew a gasket at this, as it pulled the mask off too blatantly and too early - not to mention he and Adams had a bitter rivalry not so much over end goals, as each of them more or less wanted to be the king behind the throne - Madison being something of an idealist and initially unaware of the Federalists true goals, was in fact horrified and outraged by this, resulting in him immediately jumping over to Jeffersons side and helping draft the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.
This also started ANOTHER pocket revolt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_and_Kentucky_Resolutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fries%27s_Rebellion

Eventually this chain of policy would lead to the American Civil War, and the Federal supergovernment they really wanted, but while this was going on there was a spanner in the works, and its name was Aaron Burr.

Nobody really knows much about his true motivations or reasons, as he obfuscated them deliberately and what little is known paints a portrait of him as something of a schemer - most of the credit for building the Tammany Hall (originally a social club) political machine goes to him, not that I consider this any kind of a good thing, mind you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall
What is known is that he bitterly, passionately, utterly despised the Federalists and all they stood for - and Hamilton in particular after saving his ass from capture only to have Hamilton convince Washington not to commend him for it, and his friendship with fellow bad tempered bastard Andrew Jackson did him no favors amongst either party as even Jefferson hated both of them.

Jefferson himself would decline to discuss Burr, and shut him out as much as possible after the election of 1800 in large part due to various intrigues and manipulations he engaged in to swipe it out from under Jefferson, a claim much disputed but in my opinion probably true.

I think they saw him as another potential Robespierre, and while he was rigourously impartial (which won over some of the Federalists to his cause) he was also downright brutal, and an extremely convincing orator - and nobody wanted to see a Reign of Terror here, although in retrospect, I myself am not entirely sure it would not have been such a bad idea, but I digress...

Anyhows, eventually this came to the infamous duel, provoked in part by Hamilton being seriously pissed at Burr for subverting some of his own power base, and suspecting that Burr had secessionist intentions (which may have been true even then), and by Burrs notoriously bad temper and him bringing up the fact that Hamilton had been banging Maria Reynolds on the side (as if Burr had any room to talk about sleeping around..), and well, things went rodeo, in a political fashion.

Hamilton set down prior his supposed intent to "throw away" his first shot, but generally this is regarded as a backup plan to discredit Burr should the duel not go his way, and the fact that he brought a rigged pair of dueling pistols doesn't support the notion anyway - oddly enough that hidden hair trigger was quite possibly Hamiltons undoing, as it likely caused him to fire early while bringing the pistol in line, thus hitting a branch over Burrs head.
That secret (although there were rumors) remained so until 1976 when the Smithsonian x-rayed the pistols and discovered it for sure.
http://www.aaronburrassociation.org/Smithsonian.htm

Burr then shot Hamilton, and when asked later if he was aware of Hamiltons supposed intent to "throw away" his first shot, his reply was "Contemptible, if true." - not only was he dubious of the statements truth, Burr was of a mind if you were going to point a weapon at someone, you'd better mean it.
Some time after that, Jefferson had Burr hauled in for charges of Treason in regard to his moving out west and indulging in further political machinations, with Jefferson pressing the issue strongly despite a lack of evidence, but Burr was eventually aquitted.

Oddly enough for his time, and this set him apart from many of the Founders - Burr was VERY much in favor of gender equality, highly supported education for women and even submitted a bill that would have allowed them to vote, and he was also very much anti-slavery, two moral positions which had him at odds with many so-called better men - although Burr himself was no paragon of virtue.

Whenever anyone brings up the old saw about what might have happened if this or that Despot was killed before they came to real power, every single time the image that comes to MY mind is Aaron Burrs fateful shot, and what atrocities it probably prevented.
What Hamilton Has Wrought
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo151.html

See, the Federalist-Whig-Republicans... and most ESPECIALLY later on the Straussian Neocons, they have ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS, wanted a variation on NeoFeudalism, and around 1930 discovered they had a taste for Fascism as well, which is prettymuch the same thing dressed in shiny colors.
If pressed to the wall and forced to answer instead of evade the question, most Republicans will admit this fondness, too bad about (getting caught at) that final solution thing, yeah, right.

Worth noting here that ole Adolph took his cue directly from those self-same Founding Fathers and THEIR treatment of the Native Americans, so how on earth could anyone think their spiritual and political ancestors would not be capable of doing the exact same thing all over again - once again using the excuse of immigration, as Adams did, to justify their initial forays.

So if you follow the political chain of history behind this push for NeoFeudoFascism all the way back, it's one unbroken line all the way back to the original Federalists, most specifically Hamilton.

He would have VERY much approved of the reign of Shrub, if THAT tells you anything.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 6, 2012 6:22 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Oh, and don't get to thinking this "Tea Party" bullshit is any kind of new either.

Historically whenever the Feudo-Fascists usurpations and abuses became too much for the public to bear, they've bankrolled a third party, allowed it to gain some steam, and then pulled up short on the leash - nowhere was this more obvious than with the Libertarian Party, when they appointed obvious GOP troll Barr despite 90%+ of the LP being rabidly against it.

This has the added "benefit" of discrediting third parties altogether - what better way to ruin a foe than to run their support organisation, yes ?

Of course, it doesn't always work to their benefit, like their attempt to triple dip the pills locally around here.

See, there's the Republican Party, US Constitution Party, and Taxpayers Party - which are all bankrolled from the same building, with the same GOP prick signing the checks, so it's no secret to anyone with an IQ more than room temperature... which leaves out most GOP supporters.

This shotgun approach is a sneaky way to load the ballot with more candidates than normally allowed in hopes of diluting the vote and making it appear there are more choices than there are - often used in combination with either party submitting fake candidates for the other, something BOTH sides around here engage in on a regular basis, along with photocopying petition signatures.
(See Also: Thaddeus McCotter)

In practice it doesn't work thankfully, it simply splits and dilutes the religious nutbag vote as the two phony parties are more blatantly religious in nature, with expressed intent to violate the First Amendment at whim, which in my opinion should disqualify them from even being on the ballot.
I figure this year or next they'll have a lets-pretend "merger" to consolidate that vote under the appearance of being a viable third party, and eventually throw their support to the GOP blatantly when they think they have a chance to skew an election that way.

Of course, they'd have to pick up a lot more support for that to be an option, given that one of them got beat out edged out by the Evil Overlord Party by 23 votes, to my horrified amusement.
And THAT whole mess was only a front to bait local political canvassers into handing out snacks with their literature in hopes of using the otherwise useless gits to help feed the poor.

Anyhows, any time you see a third party, scratch and sniff - it's probably yet another GOP frosted turd.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:03 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
I don't know anything about the Federalists, but if they're like the modern GOP they suck ass.


Well, despite the name they picked, the Federalists were for the most part would be Feudalists, simply using the same kind of doublethink labelling as "Healty Forests" or "Clean Coal" or "Patriot Act", yadda yadda...

See, they didn't so much have a problem with the Feudal system per se, as they had with the fact that THEY were not in charge of it.

Hamilton was a special case of bastardy, in that he tried to stage a coup on Washington, *did* rip off most of the officers who fought in the revolution, despite that revolution being over unfair and excessive taxes, just about immediately advocated and pushed along the same bullshit, resulting in a pair of pocket revolutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

For the record, Jefferson was sympathetic to the first, and saw such revolutions as a positive thing in that they were a check against the more outrageous abuses a government was capable of.

And the second, not only was it a completely dickheaded and malicious thing to do, it also revealed the Federalists complete lack of respect for the new Constitution, since marching the troops of one State into another was expressly UnConstitutional, a point even most history scholars overlook, and I tend to agree with Findley and Hogeland on their assessment of the matter.
Quote:

In 2006, William Hogeland argues Hamilton, Bradford, and Rawle intentionally pursued a course of action that would provoke "the kind of violence that would justify federal military suppression". According to Hogeland, Hamilton had been working towards this moment since the Newburgh Crisis in 1783, where he conceived of using military force to crush popular resistance to direct taxation, for the purpose of promoting national unity and enriching the creditor class at the expense of common taxpayers.

In fact it was before this, as the debates raged in the Federalist/Antifederalist papers show from a historical context, all the loopholes and flaws in the new Constitution that Hamilton, Madison and Jay were saying were nothing to worry about, that no one would ever dare exploit....
They planned on exploiting before the ink was even dry, because they despised the notion of sharing power with anyone, much less mere peons - the Bill of Rights was a sop to the Antifederalists and nothing more, something to get enough of them on-side to support it, or at least stifle their dissent, and Patrick Henry would have none of it, he "smelt a rat", and it's name was Hamilton.

But the crowning horror that showed what the Federalists really *WERE*, was the reign of John Adams, and the passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts - the first, but certainly not the last (Woodrow Wilson tried this crap too) attempt to make dissent outright illegal.

Hamilton blew a gasket at this, as it pulled the mask off too blatantly and too early - not to mention he and Adams had a bitter rivalry not so much over end goals, as each of them more or less wanted to be the king behind the throne - Madison being something of an idealist and initially unaware of the Federalists true goals, was in fact horrified and outraged by this, resulting in him immediately jumping over to Jeffersons side and helping draft the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.
This also started ANOTHER pocket revolt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_and_Kentucky_Resolutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fries%27s_Rebellion

Eventually this chain of policy would lead to the American Civil War, and the Federal supergovernment they really wanted, but while this was going on there was a spanner in the works, and its name was Aaron Burr.

Nobody really knows much about his true motivations or reasons, as he obfuscated them deliberately and what little is known paints a portrait of him as something of a schemer - most of the credit for building the Tammany Hall (originally a social club) political machine goes to him, not that I consider this any kind of a good thing, mind you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall
What is known is that he bitterly, passionately, utterly despised the Federalists and all they stood for - and Hamilton in particular after saving his ass from capture only to have Hamilton convince Washington not to commend him for it, and his friendship with fellow bad tempered bastard Andrew Jackson did him no favors amongst either party as even Jefferson hated both of them.

Jefferson himself would decline to discuss Burr, and shut him out as much as possible after the election of 1800 in large part due to various intrigues and manipulations he engaged in to swipe it out from under Jefferson, a claim much disputed but in my opinion probably true.

I think they saw him as another potential Robespierre, and while he was rigourously impartial (which won over some of the Federalists to his cause) he was also downright brutal, and an extremely convincing orator - and nobody wanted to see a Reign of Terror here, although in retrospect, I myself am not entirely sure it would not have been such a bad idea, but I digress...

Anyhows, eventually this came to the infamous duel, provoked in part by Hamilton being seriously pissed at Burr for subverting some of his own power base, and suspecting that Burr had secessionist intentions (which may have been true even then), and by Burrs notoriously bad temper and him bringing up the fact that Hamilton had been banging Maria Reynolds on the side (as if Burr had any room to talk about sleeping around..), and well, things went rodeo, in a political fashion.

Hamilton set down prior his supposed intent to "throw away" his first shot, but generally this is regarded as a backup plan to discredit Burr should the duel not go his way, and the fact that he brought a rigged pair of dueling pistols doesn't support the notion anyway - oddly enough that hidden hair trigger was quite possibly Hamiltons undoing, as it likely caused him to fire early while bringing the pistol in line, thus hitting a branch over Burrs head.
That secret (although there were rumors) remained so until 1976 when the Smithsonian x-rayed the pistols and discovered it for sure.
http://www.aaronburrassociation.org/Smithsonian.htm

Burr then shot Hamilton, and when asked later if he was aware of Hamiltons supposed intent to "throw away" his first shot, his reply was "Contemptible, if true." - not only was he dubious of the statements truth, Burr was of a mind if you were going to point a weapon at someone, you'd better mean it.
Some time after that, Jefferson had Burr hauled in for charges of Treason in regard to his moving out west and indulging in further political machinations, with Jefferson pressing the issue strongly despite a lack of evidence, but Burr was eventually aquitted.

Oddly enough for his time, and this set him apart from many of the Founders - Burr was VERY much in favor of gender equality, highly supported education for women and even submitted a bill that would have allowed them to vote, and he was also very much anti-slavery, two moral positions which had him at odds with many so-called better men - although Burr himself was no paragon of virtue.

Whenever anyone brings up the old saw about what might have happened if this or that Despot was killed before they came to real power, every single time the image that comes to MY mind is Aaron Burrs fateful shot, and what atrocities it probably prevented.
What Hamilton Has Wrought
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo151.html

See, the Federalist-Whig-Republicans... and most ESPECIALLY later on the Straussian Neocons, they have ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS, wanted a variation on NeoFeudalism, and around 1930 discovered they had a taste for Fascism as well, which is prettymuch the same thing dressed in shiny colors.
If pressed to the wall and forced to answer instead of evade the question, most Republicans will admit this fondness, too bad about (getting caught at) that final solution thing, yeah, right.

Worth noting here that ole Adolph took his cue directly from those self-same Founding Fathers and THEIR treatment of the Native Americans, so how on earth could anyone think their spiritual and political ancestors would not be capable of doing the exact same thing all over again - once again using the excuse of immigration, as Adams did, to justify their initial forays.

So if you follow the political chain of history behind this push for NeoFeudoFascism all the way back, it's one unbroken line all the way back to the original Federalists, most specifically Hamilton.

He would have VERY much approved of the reign of Shrub, if THAT tells you anything.

-Frem


Interesting Frem, there's a lot of U.S. history I don't much about.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
As Geezer would say...

Chart of the Day: Public Blames GOP for Fiscal Cliff by 2:1 Margin: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/12/chart-day-public-blames-
gop-fiscal-cliff-21-margin




So what do you think I'd say?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:30 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


That the public's perception that the GOP is the problem is the result of liberal 'propaganda'.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:46 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by KPO:
That the public's perception that the GOP is the problem is the result of liberal 'propaganda'.

It's not personal. It's just war.



Hello,

I'm not Geezer, but I believe that's true. The poor public perception of the GOP is largely based on liberal propaganda.

But I also believe the liberal propaganda worked primarily by publicizing the questionable stances and statements made by various GOP members. The GOP is thus at the heart of the propaganda capmpaign against the GOP, which places them in an untenable position.

Now the GOP must re-brand and re-invent itself if it wishes to remain relevant. Either that, or they need a lot of Democrats to cleave to questionable stances and make ludicrous statements. I am beginning to believe this is why we've scarcely heard a whisper about guns from the Dems. They seem to understand better than their rivals what to embrace and what to avoid.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:33 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

But I also believe the liberal propaganda worked primarily by publicizing the questionable stances and statements made by various GOP members. The GOP is thus at the heart of the propaganda capmpaign against the GOP, which places them in an untenable position.

Now the GOP must re-brand and re-invent itself if it wishes to remain relevant. Either that, or they need a lot of Democrats to cleave to questionable stances and make ludicrous statements. I am beginning to believe this is why we've scarcely heard a whisper about guns from the Dems. They seem to understand better than their rivals what to embrace and what to avoid.


Well said, Anthony, and right on the mark. I weep for the sane members of the GOP, having to sit there and watch the crazies self-destruct their party.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:51 - 445 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:42 - 851 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:16 - 51 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL