State of the Union: In jeopardy

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Tuesday, January 20, 2004 | editorial

[Willie Green]

"The message of the president, by whatever motives it may have been dictated, is a performance which ought to alarm all who are anxious for the safety of our government, for the respectability and welfare of our nation. It makes, or aims at making, a most prodigal sacrifice of constitutional energy, of sound principle, and of public interest, to the popularity of one man."

[Who is John Galt?]

Still a falsehood and grasping at straws. Hamilton had no desire to create a King.

Of course, I never stated that Mr. Hamilton had a “desire to create a King.” Still a ‘straw man argument’ on your part – the only kind you have any hope of winning.

;>)

He had no tendencies toward monarchism or aristocracy those were rank lies spread by the Jefferson/Callender/Bache/Beckley stream of protoRAT scum. And parroted by moderns who wish to blacken Hamilton's name with malicious falsehoods.

LOL! Mr. Hamilton’s comments at the constitutional convention speak for themselves – which is no doubt why you consistently ignore them!

He saw his desire for a strong government with balanced powers come true when the Constitution created three branches with the Senate role emulating that of the House of Lords. They were to serve the permanent national interest and be outside democratic control.

ROTFLMAO! Mr. Hamilton’s plan of government was rejected by the convention, and you claim the Constitution represents his “desire...come true?” Oh, you betcha! Mr. Hamilton’s plan was for a ‘national government;’ the plan that was actually adopted established a ‘federal government.’ For example, why don't you tell us how Mr. Hamilton proposed that the members of the senate be selected? Was it by “electors” – or by the legislatures of the States?

... Washington resembled a King more than George the III did.

Are you always this delusional?

There was no "admiration for the Crown" expressed. The House of Lords is not a monarchical institution, it is Aristocratic...

Wrong again. Mr. Hamilton observed that “[a]s to the Executive, it seemed to be admitted that no good one could be established on Republican principles…The English model was the only good one on this subject.” He was referring to the “executive” (the Crown in “the English model”), not the House of Lords. Of course, you insist that labeling "the English model...the only good one" expresses no "admiration." It is always entertaining to watch you ‘Hamilton groupies’ attempt to dance around the man's own words. But by all means, please keep it up!

;>)

Tax cuts are not uniquely Republican so you offer a false analogy wrt J's cuts.

I never suggested that “tax cuts are...uniquely Republican.” I stated that “Thomas Jefferson’s First Annual Message was teeming with Republican principles: tax cuts, spending cuts, limited constitutional government, free enterprise – and a military response to the piratical actions of foreign governments.” The entire ‘package’ resembles traditional Republican priorities – despite your claims to the contrary.

There is no creditible argument that Jefferson's party was more like the GOP than the Federalist just the attitude towards slavery alone refutes any attempt.

The ‘slavery card:’ how predictable - and how futile. It may be news to you, but the Federalists advocated ratification of the Constitution, and the Constitution certainly did not prohibit slavery until it was amended approximately 75 years later. As for Mr. Jefferson, perhaps you can tell us who drafted the Ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery in the territories? Hmm? Did Mr. Hamilton draft the Northwest Ordinance – or did Thomas Jefferson? Answer up, sport.

And while Mr. Jefferson was successfully prohibiting slavery in the Northwest territories, what was Mr. Hamilton doing in the New York legislature? In 1787, was Mr. Hamilton abolishing slavery in New York? Or did his State wait a bit (like 40 years ;>)?

;>)

Since any appointment of Queen Hillary would run afoul of the Constitution and the Court would say so immediately that little red herring has no bearing on anything other than the immediate context it was within.

Then let’s review the context:

WIJG: What are you suggesting - that no law can be unconstitutional unless the high court rules it to be so?

j... : Of course it cannot.

WIJG: So, if the Democrats capture both houses of Congress, pass a law (by a veto-proof margin ;>) declaring Hillary ‘Queen for Life,’ and the high court refuses to consider the case, you would insist that the law (and the Clinton monarchy it established ;>) was constitutional?

j... : Until the Court has ruled on a law it is constitutional by default whether you or I like it or not.

So, even though the Constitution nowhere delegates to Congress the power to dispose of the constitutionally-elected federal government and replace it with a monarchy (or even to amend the Constitution to make such an action possible), you insist that such an act would be "constitutional by default” unless five (possibly D@mocrat ;>) political appointees decide otherwise.

You no doubt are unaware of the fact, but your point of view bears a remarkable resemblance to the “Nuremberg defense”...

;>)

It is like using a quote within a quote within a quote and never specifying just who was saying what and why.

That’s rather entertaining, given that I quote source documents, and you offer nothing but unsubstantiated opinion...

;>)

I don't equate the GOP with militarists as you falsely imply, the equation is GOP strong national security. Nor is a strong national security concern the equivalent to an aggressive policy of conquest like Hitler so don't even try with that.

“[T]he equation is GOP strong national security.” Thank you for proving my point. It is you, not I, who has attempted to adopt an untenable ‘single standard’ of Republican virtue – “strong national security.” You apparently believe that Mr. Jefferson’s call for “tax cuts, spending cuts, limited constitutional government, free enterprise – and a military response to the piratical actions of foreign governments” can all – ALL – be dismissed solely because you do not believe he promoted “strong national security.” It is your ridiculous ‘single standard’ that would promote comparisons such as Moveon.org recently attempted. Congratulations!

;>)

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

no, your link points out nothing more than theoRHETORICal conspiratorial hog slop. Which you base most of your own rhetoric on.

[eskimo]

Just for her votes...nothing more.

You mean like the present administrations tokens?

[inquest]

I was referring to base metals - copper, nickel, etc. Why couldn't we coin those?

[CWOJackson]

Naw...only pat buchanan would grovel to a Marxist and Al Sharpton for votes. I can't think of many other people who would go that low...but he was pretty desparate.

[eskimo]

It must be really bad to be you haunted as you are with hatred for someone named Buchanan.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Probably because the relative value would make coins of that nature impractical. Carrying around enough coins to transact business would be very difficult.

An interesting little historical sidelight came when I was reading a biography of James Polk and it quoted a letter from his wife complaining about the difficulty of carrying around gold money.

[justshutupandtakeit]

But there are sooo many good reasons to do so.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Yeah, of course you didn't you wouldn't say anything like that just imply it with stupid remarks about his "monarchist tendencies." An honest statement could not be expected from you.

I don't ignore anything he said at any time however I do take the pains to place them within perspective rather than glean them for ammo to use in blackening the name of one of our greatest Founders.

Madison's initial plan at the convention was that the States cease to exist, what does that make him? The whole point of secrecy at the CC was so that people would not be constrained in their brainstorming. The point was to have as many ideas discussed as possible without having them thrown in their faces later by people like you willing to distort and misunderstand their intentions. Hamilton's speech was designed to move the CC toward a stronger government and it did just that. He had no belief that it would be adopted rather that it would move in the direction he wished. He was correct.

When you use vague terms such as "resembled" don't be surprised by comments employing them in ways you didn't intend. Many people remarked upon Washington's Kingly appearance which "resembled" a King far more than the squat George III. Are you really so dense as to not understand that comment or just playing more games?

"Good one" meant just that and was a statement of fact unless you can show another example that was better. Of course you can't. "Hamilton groupies?" hilarious. The man has been systematically calumnated by pipsqueaks, the dishonest and screwballs for 200 yrs. He has no groupies unlike the wildly overrated Jefferson.

Jefferson was a Republican and his principles certainly reflected that with only accidental similarity to GOP principles. GOP principles have never been used to systemically weaken national security that is the role of the Jefferson descendents, the DemocRAT Party.

There is no doubt OR question that the democrat-republican party was the mainstay of the slavers nor that the federal-republican party was the home of anti-slavers except perhaps in the murky mists of your brain ever ready to distort historical truth. Jefferson's excellent job with the NW Ordinance was soon enough put into the past as he swung into the party of the defenders of slavery soon afterward. Hamilton was not in the Congress at that time but certainly would have supported J.'s effort AS YOU KNOW.
Federalist support for the ratification can only be twisted into support for slavery by the most devious and unprincipled of minds.

Only the USSC can declare an act of Congress unconstitutional AS YOU KNOW. You are apparently unaware that MY opinion or YOUR opinion as to constitutionality means NOTHING.

No you quote documents totally out of context to support false propositions when the context often shows that the intent of the authors was totally the opposite of your claim. That is not a sign of a good faith argument nor an honest man.

The last quote of mine completely proves the point of your inability to properly convey the meaning of the context of the quote. You were the one who brought up Hitler and military expenditures as being the equivalent of the GOP not I. My response was to the SPECIFIC comment about military expenditures NOT as the totality of the ideology of the GOP.
But who would expect you to NOT distort that discussion which led up to your distortion? If you cannot misquote, misinform or distort what would you do? Certainly an honest argument could not be expected.

[justshutupandtakeit]

As if you would know.

[tpaine]

Whatever..
You seem sober enough this afternoon.. Will it last?
We will see, after the ranting starts..

[eskimo]

Political groupies are a real hoot. Ever ready to screech out some distraction whenever their political idols in government break wind in public.

[inquest]

An interesting little historical sidelight came when I was reading a biography of James Polk and it quoted a letter from his wife complaining about the difficulty of carrying around gold money.

But that wouldn't have been such a difficulty when gold was scarce, as you say it was at the time of the first Bank of the U.S. And if efficiency of carrying was the only reason for paper money, then I would think private banks would certainly have been able to provide that.

[justshutupandtakeit]

That was around 1845-6 when there was not such a shortage.

They did. Unfortunately once the Bank of the United States was terminated many of these banks were just scam operations which wildly issued currency that became worthless pretty rapidly.

[justshutupandtakeit]

When I got married the preacher, a stern-looking Calvinist, told me to lighten up that I looked sober as a preacher.

Actually I rarely drink to excess.

Definition of a "rant" according to tpaine "Any comments which deflate, dismiss or defenestrate my favorite delusions."

[justshutupandtakeit]

Are you speaking of Buchanan? Breaking wind would be an improvement for him over his whacky ideas.

[browardchad]

Because he is the idiot that the media has portrayed him to be. He has no concept of how to lead and hold a party together. He does not understand that when 75% of society is against a proposal, chances are it is outright stupid. Bush is basically what happens when you get someone with the "punk rocker attitude" of "I don't care what you think, I'll do what *I* want to do" in the white house.

Don't underestimate this man. He is a politician to the core of his being, from a long line of same.

Back in 2002, when he rammed the steel tariffs through, there was a program on one of the cable news channels featuring the Wall Street Journal editorial board -- all Bush supporters, IIRC. For the sake of discussion, the moderator (not from the WSJ),, proposed the theory that Bush was naive or stupid -- at which point every one of the WSJ panel burst out laughing. The consensus was that whatever you might call Bush, or how much you might disagree with what he does (and the WSJ disagreed vehemently with the tariff) it would a dangerous underestimation to call him stupid.

The man is not stupid; but neither is he a conservative.

[tpaine]

Definition of a "rant" according to tpaine "Any comments which deflate, dismiss or defenestrate my favorite delusions."

Not true.. This is the post I thought looked like a drunken rant:

"Since any appointment of Queen Hillary would run afoul of the Constitution and the Court would say so immediately that little red herring has no bearing on anything other than the immediate context it was within. It is like using a quote within a quote within a quote and never specifying just who was saying what and why."
"I don't equate the GOP with militarists as you falsely imply, the equation is GOP strong national security. Nor is a strong national security concern the equivalent to an aggressive policy of conquest like Hitler so don't even try with that."
112 posted on 01/24/2004 11:24:55 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit

Feel free to revise & extend your remarks, now that your lucidity has returned..

[eskimo]

You know exactly what I was talking about.

[inquest]

many of these banks were just scam operations which wildly issued currency that became worthless pretty rapidly.

Hmm, sounds a little like the Bank of the United States circa 1819. The only difference being, that states had the power to regulate the indiscretions of private banks.