Posted on 10/17/2006 1:57:30 PM PDT by kiriath_jearim
You left off the "Barf Bag" alert.
Tell me again, how many children did Jefferson blow up? Were there English civilians murdered and burned upside down? Did the colonialists set off bombs to kill everyone just in order to agitate?
This guy is an idiot.
I don't recall much in the way of indiscriminate bombings and beheadings in my study of the Revolutionary war.
And what weird clowns went to your birthday parties? Are you really Keith Olbermoann?
Who is this punk?
In South Carolina and other parts of the Deep South, the Revolution had the character of a civil war, with Patriot and Loyalist gangs (militias) going at each other using guerilla tactics.
There were records of such atrocities on both sides.
Did not Thomas Jefferson initate a war against the Barbary Pirates shortly after Independence? The point is that a young Thomas Jefferson was given to a lot of high-minded ideals. An interesting debate would be Young Thomas Jefferson, member of the Virginia House of Burgesses versus the Old Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States.
Did you see the source on this? Here:
Ludwig von Mises Institute Home
The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism and the Austrian School of economics..
When I read this, my very first thought was "This guy is a liberal idiot who has probably spent a good deal of time in an ivory tower pontificating to himself because he enjoys the sound of himself speaking..."
Then, I thought, I should check the source first before I say that. Funny how you can just pick them out after a few words in the first paragraph.
If I hear one more LIBERAL MORON compare the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to our Founding Fathers, I am going to send out a team to revoke their right to have stupid speech issuing from their piehole, because they have just exceeded the limits of tolerance.
In case you did not know it, and this pathetic excuse for a handwringing Euroweenie clearly doesn't know it, the Founding Fathers DID NOT DELIBERATELY BLOW UP INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
The man who sent our military forces to attack the islamic terrorists of his day (the Barbary Pirates), would have been unlikely to submit to the Saddamites and Jihadis in modern-day Iraq.
Hogwash. They'd have been in there fighting against the tyranny of Saddam and the terrorists who are now attempting to take over his oppression of the Iraqi people.
Please provide links to such records.
Also, please prove that Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the others approved of massacre of innocent men, women and children, in contrast to the leaders of the terrorists who not only approve of it but brag about it.
Pap like this just irritates me to no end.
"No comment from you?
Did you see the source on this? Here:"
***
Classical liberalism is akin to libertarianism. It's primarily a pro-capitalist economic philosophy. Ludwig von Mises wrote an excellent book years ago titled "Socialism" which literally chews Marxism to pieces as an utterly unscientific economic system.
Just because the word "liberalism" is used by an institute doesn't mean it believes in the modern connotations of the word, i.e. socialism, leftism, etc.
Uh, not sure why you posted this to me.
True, but if this person is affiliated with the institution and this is at all indicative of its views, then there is no doubt about it, none whatsoever.
This writer wants to have it all ways. For Gun Control, against Gun Control. For government action. Against Government action.
Nothing personal, because you did not write it, but this is crap.
December 8.
A couple of curious war-monuments here at Wanganui. One is in honor of white men "who fell in defence of law and order against fanaticism and barbarism." Fanaticism. We Americans are English in blood, English in speech, English in religion, English in the essentials of our governmental system, English in the essentials of our civilization; and so, let us hope, for the honor of the blend, for the honor of the blood, for the honor of the race, that that word got there through lack of heedfulness, and will not be suffered to remain. If you carve it at Thermopylae, or where Winkelried died, or upon Bunker Hill monument, and read it again "who fell in defence of law and order against fanaticism" you will perceive what the word means, and how mischosen it is. Patriotism is Patriotism. Calling it Fanaticism cannot degrade it; nothing can degrade it. Even though it be a political mistake, and a thousand times a political mistake, that does not affect it; it is honorable always honorable, always noble--and privileged to hold its head up and look the nations in the face. It is right to praise these brave white men who fell in the Maori war--they deserve it; but the presence of that word detracts from the dignity of their cause and their deeds, and makes them appear to have spilt their blood in a conflict with ignoble men, men not worthy of that costly sacrifice. But the men were worthy. It was no shame to fight them. They fought for their homes, they fought for their country; they bravely fought and bravely fell; and it would take nothing from the honor of the brave Englishmen who lie under the monument, but add to it, to say that they died in defense of English laws and English homes against men worthy of the sacrifice--the Maori patriots.
The other monument cannot be rectified. Except with dynamite. It is a mistake all through, and a strangely thoughtless one. It is a monument erected by white men to Maoris who fell fighting with the whites and against their own people, in the Maori war. "Sacred to the memory of the brave men who fell on the 14th of May, 1864," etc. On one side are the names of about twenty Maoris. It is not a fancy of mine; the monument exists. I saw it. It is an object-lesson to the rising generation. It invites to treachery, disloyalty, unpatriotism. Its lesson, in frank terms is, "Desert your flag, slay your people, burn their homes, shame your nationality--we honor such."
Mark Twain
The insurgent's objective is domination. Their aversion to government and rebeliousness is a means to install their own brutal form of domination over their neighbors
Classical liberalism has nothing to do with today's perverted definition of "liberal". Friedrich Hayek was the epitome of a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is what conservatives like Goldwater were supposed to be trying to conserve.
Not saying I agree with anything written in this essay, far from it. Just making a point.
The Mises Institute is Lew Rockwell’s shop. Nuff said.
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.