PDA

View Full Version : If Thomas Jefferson Were Alive Today



Franco
11-27-2012, 07:36 AM
Which political party do you think he would be most inclined to belong to today if he were still around?

Jefferson was our most influential Founding Father. Not only did he write the Declaration Of Independence, he was our third President and served the new nation in several capacities.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/brief-biography-thomas-jefferson

road kill
11-27-2012, 07:40 AM
Which political party do you think he would be most inclined to belong to today if he were still around?

Jefferson was our most influential Founding Father. Not only did he write the Declaration Of Independence, he was our third President and served the new nation in several capacities.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/brief-biography-thomas-jefferson
IF he were alive, probably Republican, but since he is dead I am sure he voted Democrat in Chicago!!:cool:


The Wizard of Wisconsin

Ken Bora
11-27-2012, 08:07 AM
he would be sitting next to Bernie Sanders on the liberal / progresive / green party plank!!!

and the "Most Influential" comment should be up for debate ;)
He was a very smart man, yes. But he had his quirks and demons. As we all do.
Isnt he the feller who took Jesus out of the new testiment and knocked up his slaves?

Franco
11-27-2012, 09:11 AM
OK, I'm up for a debate on the most influential Founding Father. Jefferson wrote the D of I over one weekend sitting in a Philly hotel. It was the document most referenced during the writing of The Constitution. Though Jefferson was serving in France at the time as an Ambassador. Who would you say had more influence?

In Jefferson's Bible, he refers to Rabbi Jesus that his teaching are the foundation for Liberty. However, he disputes the Rabbi as being a god or son of a god.

Also, it was a common practice of plantation owners from the West Indies to Virginia in having sex with their slaves.

I don't see the similaritees between Bernie Sanders and Jefferson. And, if anyone were to take the time to read his writings or quotes, there is no way he could be paired with the Republican Party. The more likely dead Jefferson to vote in Chicago would be George Jefferson, not Thomas;-)

road kill
11-27-2012, 09:18 AM
OK, I'm up for a debate on the most influential Founding Father. Jefferson wrote the D of I over one weekend sitting in a Philly hotel. It was the document most referenced during the writing of The Constitution. Though Jefferson was serving in France at the time as an Ambassador. Who would you say had more influence?

In Jefferson's Bible, he refers to Rabbi Jesus that his teaching are the foundation for Liberty. However, he disputes the Rabbi as being a god or son of a god.

Also, it was a common practice of plantation owners from the West Indies to Virginia in having sex with their slaves.

I don't see the similaritees between Bernie Sanders and Jefferson. And, if anyone were to take the time to read his writings or quotes, there is no way he could be paired with the Republican Party. The more likely dead Jefferson to vote in Chicago would be George Jefferson, not Thomas;-)

A sense of humor is a good thing!!

It is really difficult to interpret what the meaning and intent was from such a different day.
Words had slightly different meanings.
Some of the differences and contrasts may well have been less ridgid than today.

example; the word gay has completely different connotations today than in the 20's say.

I am doubtful Thomas Jefferson would support Obama and his agenda, especially considering his involvement in the "Declaration of INDEPENDENCE!!!"
And Obama's agenda of making us all dependent.

The Wizard of Wisconsin

Ken Bora
11-27-2012, 09:23 AM
....... Jefferson wrote the D of I over one weekend sitting in a Philly hotel.......


well, he was a member of a 5 person committee tasked by congress to draft the document. he did put pen to paper and write it, for the group. and he, the committee, and then congress revised it a few times afore everyone signed the bottom. saying he did it alone is a history fib, first promoted by Jefferson himself.

Julie R.
11-27-2012, 09:31 AM
As a graduate of Mr. Jefferson's Academical Village, I can say with certainty he would most certainly not be a Democrat!

smillerdvm
11-27-2012, 09:34 AM
He would have nothing to do with either major party

Franco
11-27-2012, 10:40 AM
He would have nothing to do with either major party

Julie, he certainly wouldn't be a Socialist Democrat.

Doc, I'm with you!
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/15983_479062905477936_1789870281_n.jpg

huntinman
11-27-2012, 10:42 AM
He would have nothing to do with either major party

Maybe you should ask the Wizard?

BonMallari
11-27-2012, 10:50 AM
His personal life would probably make the front pages, would guess that on one side he would be called a sexual predator of the slaves on his plantation, and the other side would claim that he never had sex with that women...that scandal alone probably disqualify him as a viable and reliable voice

Becky Mills
11-27-2012, 10:57 AM
As a graduate of Mr. Jefferson's Academical Village, I can say with certainty he would most certainly not be a Democrat!

Aw come on Julie.
ROTFL

menmon
11-27-2012, 11:26 AM
He balanced the budget by cutting defense spending to nothing...he actually disassembled the navy and sold the lumber and nails to get out of debt. No republican would stand for that. This actually almost got us in trouble because the war of 1812 started and we had no navy. What saved us is that england and france were at war.

Furthermore, he was a man that believed in tolorance. As most of the founding fathers he came here to get away from oppression. In God We Trust and The ALL Seeing Eye on the Dollar is masonic not from the new testiment. He and the others wanted a country were men could have freedom to pray to God the way they wanted to...not the way the king did. Their intentions were to give freedom and liberty to all men as they knew it in that time, and if they were living today, they would be seeking the same for men today.

During that time, slaves were viewed as property and women were suppose to be submessive to their husband. They knew nothing different, but if they were asked to write the rule book today, they would have written it to be fair to all.

road kill
11-27-2012, 11:38 AM
His personal life would probably make the front pages, would guess that on one side he would be called a sexual predator of the slaves on his plantation, and the other side would claim that he never had sex with that women...that scandal alone probably disqualify him as a viable and reliable voice

Or "qualify" him, depending on party affiliation!!:cool:

Franco
11-27-2012, 12:01 PM
He balanced the budget by cutting defense spending to nothing...he actually disassembled the navy and sold the lumber and nails to get out of debt. No republican would stand for that. This actually almost got us in trouble because the war of 1812 started and we had no navy. What saved us is that england and france were at war.

Furthermore, he was a man that believed in tolorance. As most of the founding fathers he came here to get away from oppression. In God We Trust and The ALL Seeing Eye on the Dollar is masonic not from the new testiment. He and the others wanted a country were men could have freedom to pray to God the way they wanted to...not the way the king did. Their intentions were to give freedom and liberty to all men as they knew it in that time, and if they were living today, they would be seeking the same for men today.

During that time, slaves were viewed as property and women were suppose to be submessive to their husband. They knew nothing different, but if they were asked to write the rule book today, they would have written it to be fair to all.

The "In God We Trust" wasn't added to our currency until the 1950's by Pres. Eisenhower.

The all seeing eye has seveal speculations as to the reason it appears on our currency. One thought is that since several of our Founding Fathers were Deist and children of The Enlightement that they also had to be Illuminatti. I doubt that they were Illuminatti but don't doubt that they were heavily influenced by The Enlightenment. The Mosonic "eye" has its origins in the Illuminatti.

Ken Bora
11-27-2012, 12:09 PM
.... the war of 1812 started and we had no navy.


"Privateers" in New England and on the great lakes were runnin' British blockades with ease.
While our brothers in arms to the south let them burn our capital.
No Navy.... two words... "Old Ironsides".....
Great Britan had to re-fit a number of heavy ships 'cause of that one little boat.

menmon
11-27-2012, 12:22 PM
"Privateers" in New England and on the great lakes were runnin' British blockades with ease.
While our brothers in arms to the south let them burn our capital.
No Navy.... two words... "Old Ironsides".....
Great Britan had to re-fit a number of heavy ships 'cause of that one little boat.

Good response to my post....I brought up In God We Trust and The All Seeing Eye. To make the point that the constitution was written for all men of all faiths and backgrounds. Jefferson would have not accepted this republican party, because it is not tolarant of men.

Ken Bora
11-27-2012, 12:24 PM
we agree, see post #3
I am just taking your history of the second war of the revolution, to task.

road kill
11-27-2012, 12:25 PM
Good response to my post....I brought up In God We Trust and The All Seeing Eye. To make the point that the constitution was written for all men of all faiths and backgrounds. Jefferson would have not accepted this republican party, because it is not tolarant of men.
Please list the "men" the Republican party is not tolerant of...............

Ken Bora
11-27-2012, 12:29 PM
does that looser slimeball in that judge Judy vid, free money count as a "Man"?
oh wait... I figgered that one out on my own:cool:

menmon
11-27-2012, 12:29 PM
Muslims, gays, public workers, folks on entitlements, union workers.....these are the clear ones...the rest are grey but still obvious

Ken Bora
11-27-2012, 12:43 PM
a gay, muslim, city bus driver with a military pension who is his local union steward would be welcome with open arms by members of the republican party.
he has a job, serves his city and his country. Pays taxes! I'd take him duck hunting.

huntinman
11-27-2012, 12:46 PM
Muslims terrorists, militant gays, LAZY public workers, folks stealing entitlements, union Thugs.....these are the clear ones...the rest are grey but still obvious

Fixed it for you...

smillerdvm
11-27-2012, 12:59 PM
Maybe you should ask the Wizard?

Not that I would have expected you or your type to have picked up on this, but he has been exposed as a fraud, just like the original Wizard of Oz.

To those on here that pay attention, Toto has pulled the curtain back on your "Wizard" a number of times and revealed him to be something of a blowhard. What that celebrity politico Clint Eastwood, a hero to many of your type, would refer to as an empty suit



In the limited time that I spend here your buddy RK has more than once asked me questions and stated that he knew I wouldn't respond; implying that to do so would be embarressing to my side. Apparently many of your ilk are so biased and partisan you dont recognize the possibility of not having a "SIDE".

In all cases I answered the questions he said I wouldn't. However with my return questions to him he did exactly what he tauntingly suggested I would do & refused to respond. Not your typical pot calling the kettle black scenario; more like the pot calling the milk black:)
In response to your question as to why I dont ask your Wizard: I have found that asking the Wizard of Wisconsin questions is not very productive

The Wizard of Wisconsin likes to throw misguided posts and hope they'll gain traction and stick. Rush, Glen Beck & Fox must be proud of him. However as soon as he is questioned or confronted with factual cogent info & return questions he responds by questioning spelling or grammar {I left some in case he wants to respond; however people in glass houses}, tries to change the subject{those evil unionistas} or runs & disappears back behind his {star spangled RED WHITE & BLUE} curtain.

I do find it amusing on more than one level that your "Wizard" grabbed the bait and actually added my Wizard of Wisconsin moniker to his sig line:)
By the way hows that Benghazi impeachment thing coming for you "Fair & Balanced" type guys?

huntinman
11-27-2012, 01:04 PM
Not that I would have expected you or your type to have picked up on this, but he has been exposed as a fraud, just like the original Wizard of Oz.

To those on here that pay attention, Toto has pulled the curtain back on your "Wizard" a number of times and revealed him to be something of a blowhard. What that celebrity politico Clint Eastwood, a hero to many of your type, would refer to as an empty suit



In the limited time that I spend here your buddy RK has more than once asked me questions and stated that he knew I wouldn't respond; implying that to do so would be embarressing to my side. Apparently many of your ilk are so biased and partisan you dont recognize the possibility of not having a "SIDE".

In all cases I answered the questions he said I wouldn't. However with my return questions to him he did exactly what he tauntingly suggested I would do & refused to respond. Not your typical pot calling the kettle black scenario; more like the pot calling the milk black:)
In response to your question as to why I dont ask your Wizard: I have found that asking the Wizard of Wisconsin questions is not very productive

The Wizard of Wisconsin likes to throw misguided posts and hope they'll gain traction and stick. Rush, Glen Beck & Fox must be proud of him. However as soon as he is questioned or confronted with factual cogent info & return questions he responds by questioning spelling or grammar {I left some in case he wants to respond; however people in glass houses}, tries to change the subject{those evil unionistas} or runs & disappears back behind his {star spangled RED WHITE & BLUE} curtain.

I do find it amusing on more than one level that your "Wizard" grabbed the bait and actually added my Wizard of Wisconsin moniker to his sig line:)
By the way hows that Benghazi impeachment thing coming for you "Fair & Balanced" type guys?

Struck a nerve, huh. Wow... Didn't think it would get to you that bad.

smillerdvm
11-27-2012, 01:14 PM
Struck a nerve, huh. Wow... Didn't think it would get to you that bad.

Didnt get to me and didn't strike a nerve. I just explained why I wouldn't ask a question of someone like the "Wizard" who has no concept of how to participate in a productive discussion; and will in fact call out others as being afraid to answer a ? that may be "embarressing to their side"; yet do what he accuses others of doing in the same thread
Your emperor has no clothes

just sayin.........:)

helencalif
11-27-2012, 01:19 PM
Thomas Jefferson did sire 6 children with Sally Hemmings which was proven in 1998 by DNA testing. Some historians still think that perhaps some of the children were sired by one of Jefferson's male relatives. However, most historians agree that most of the 6 children were sired by TJ. He freed all of his children, but did not free Sally which has been a mystery. Google "Sally Hemmings" for the story.

While Sally was his slave and their children were considered slaves until they were freed when they became of age, none worked in the fields. They were "house" slaves.

For the curious, at least one book has been written about Sally Hemmings. If you go to Monticello for a tour, the tour guides will answer questions about Sally Hemmings.

Helen Graves

mngundog
11-27-2012, 01:28 PM
Thomas Jefferson couldn't live within his own means, seems like both parties would welcome him with open arms.

huntinman
11-27-2012, 01:35 PM
Didnt get to me and didn't strike a nerve. I just explained why I wouldn't ask a question of someone like the "Wizard" who has no concept of how to participate in a productive discussion; and will in fact call out others as being afraid to answer a ? that may be "embarressing to their side"; yet do what he accuses others of doing in the same thread
Your emperor has no clothes

just sayin.........:)

Now that sounds like a "productive discussion":rolleyes:

road kill
11-27-2012, 02:14 PM
Not that I would have expected you or your type to have picked up on this, but he has been exposed as a fraud, just like the original Wizard of Oz.

To those on here that pay attention, Toto has pulled the curtain back on your "Wizard" a number of times and revealed him to be something of a blowhard. What that celebrity politico Clint Eastwood, a hero to many of your type, would refer to as an empty suit



In the limited time that I spend here your buddy RK has more than once asked me questions and stated that he knew I wouldn't respond; implying that to do so would be embarressing to my side. Apparently many of your ilk are so biased and partisan you dont recognize the possibility of not having a "SIDE".

In all cases I answered the questions he said I wouldn't. However with my return questions to him he did exactly what he tauntingly suggested I would do & refused to respond. Not your typical pot calling the kettle black scenario; more like the pot calling the milk black:)
In response to your question as to why I dont ask your Wizard: I have found that asking the Wizard of Wisconsin questions is not very productive

The Wizard of Wisconsin likes to throw misguided posts and hope they'll gain traction and stick. Rush, Glen Beck & Fox must be proud of him. However as soon as he is questioned or confronted with factual cogent info & return questions he responds by questioning spelling or grammar {I left some in case he wants to respond; however people in glass houses}, tries to change the subject{those evil unionistas} or runs & disappears back behind his {star spangled RED WHITE & BLUE} curtain.

I do find it amusing on more than one level that your "Wizard" grabbed the bait and actually added my Wizard of Wisconsin moniker to his sig line:)
By the way hows that Benghazi impeachment thing coming for you "Fair & Balanced" type guys?
You are an extremely angry person.
Can't you take something for that.....oh, wait, sorry.

I have been around here for a while.
No one has exposed anything except their own anger and hypocrisy.

I have never let another person (angry or otherwise) post from my computer.
Have you??

You have displayed your anger for more posters than me.
Some very prominent.
You never add anything to any conversation, just personal cheapshots and insults.
Maybe MJH is telling you what to say.;-)

That would be my guess.

If my consistant fact based opinions bother you that much, please, by all means, put me on ignore.
Other wise, perhaps a new hobby is in order.
Your behavior here is unbecoming.

And again, it's WISCONSIN!!

road kill
11-27-2012, 02:17 PM
Didnt get to me and didn't strike a nerve. I just explained why I wouldn't ask a question of someone like the "Wizard" who has no concept of how to participate in a productive discussion; and will in fact call out others as being afraid to answer a ? that may be "embarressing:D to their side"; yet do what he accuses others of doing in the same thread
Your emperor has no clothes

just sayin.........:)

Often imitated, never duplicated..............you seem almost obsessed!
Sorry, I am married.:-P

roseberry
11-27-2012, 05:59 PM
if alive today,
Jefferson would not even live in the U.S.A.......unless he thought he could over throw it and start over!
he would know exactly how long it took for the wheels to run off the founders plan for freedom and government!
he would say, "how did white men get to be such wussies?"
he would wonder why people who are not working are so damn fat?
on and on..........

mngundog
11-27-2012, 09:34 PM
if alive today,
Jefferson would not even live in the U.S.A.......unless he thought he could over throw it and start over!
he would know exactly how long it took for the wheels to run off the founders plan for freedom and government!
he would say, "how did white men get to be such wussies?"
he would wonder why people who are not working are so damn fat?
on and on..........
I'm not so sure that a man that spent his way into bankruptcy would be that judgmental, however I could see him a Slick Willy kicking back smoking cigars and talking about the interns. :D

road kill
11-28-2012, 08:49 AM
If I am he;
http://i548.photobucket.com/albums/ii347/caddwg2000/Wizard-of-Oz.jpg


Then who is she?
http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b630/taylor1658/wickedwitchofthewest.jpg

And her follower is?
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n247/xoJaKeBaBeox/Wizard%20Of%20Oz/thkifmToysAllMattel_Wizard_Of_Oz_Po.jpg

Just askin'..........:D

Ken Bora
11-28-2012, 09:00 AM
.....By the way hows that Benghazi impeachment thing coming for you "Fair & Balanced" type guys? did you see the hearings yesterday on the news?

Pete
11-28-2012, 09:57 AM
QUOTE] The all seeing eye has seveal speculations as to the reason it appears on our currency. One thought is that since several of our Founding Fathers were Deist and children of The Enlightement that they also had to be Illuminatti. I doubt that they were Illuminatti but don't doubt that they were heavily influenced by The Enlightenment. The Mosonic "eye" has its origins in the Illuminatti. [QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure that the Illuminati started in 1776. coincidence ? I don't know. I do know it means the enlightened,,,I do know that satin was the angel of light,,,,, I do know some of the Illuminati are or were luciferians,,,, what does it mean,,,,I don't know.
There is a lot of history on the mason's. if you compile it doesn't shed very good light on them. Lots of secret society stuff.
such as CFR,,,,, tri lateral committie,,,scull and bones,,,bilderburgers,,,ect ect.

Do a search on some of the members and those who sing praises to them and see what you come up with. I'm not the guy to do it. I'm the UFOTV guy remember.(smiley face)

Franco
11-28-2012, 10:16 AM
QUOTE] The all seeing eye has seveal speculations as to the reason it appears on our currency. One thought is that since several of our Founding Fathers were Deist and children of The Enlightement that they also had to be Illuminatti. I doubt that they were Illuminatti but don't doubt that they were heavily influenced by The Enlightenment. The Mosonic "eye" has its origins in the Illuminatti. [QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure that the Illuminati started in 1776. coincidence ? I don't know. I do know it means the enlightened,,,I do know that satin was the angel of light,,,,, I do know some of the Illuminati are or were luciferians,,,, what does it mean,,,,I don't know.
There is a lot of history on the mason's. if you compile it doesn't shed very good light on them. Lots of secret society stuff.
such as CFR,,,,, tri lateral committie,,,scull and bones,,,bilderburgers,,,ect ect.

Do a search on some of the members and those who sing praises to them and see what you come up with. I'm not the guy to do it. I'm the UFOTV guy remember.(smiley face)




Though the Illuminati did have a lot of influence with many of our founders and later on with our Presidents, I think it was a satire of the religious right of that time than actual Lucifer worshippers. Remember, many of these men did not believe in heaven/hell, angels/demons etc.

Also, the Iluminatti existed long before 1776 in Europe.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/uspresidentasmasons.htm

Pete
11-28-2012, 10:47 AM
http://www.delusionresistance.org/christian/masonry.html

here is some stuff on the masons. Almost every thing is foot noted. It could have been the masons that started in 1776. I don't have the time to look up everything I say .That's my fault. But gee's I would be behind this dam thing all day if I did.
I guarantee you they are all related and have intimate connections

duk4me
11-28-2012, 11:06 AM
http://www.delusionresistance.org/christian/masonry.html

here is some stuff on the masons. Almost every thing is foot noted. It could have been the masons that started in 1776. I don't have the time to look up everything I say .That's my fault. But gee's I would be behind this dam thing all day if I did.
I guarantee you they are all related and have intimate connections

I did a little google search it was the Bavarian Ilumminati that originated in 1776.

menmon
11-28-2012, 11:47 AM
QUOTE] The all seeing eye has seveal speculations as to the reason it appears on our currency. One thought is that since several of our Founding Fathers were Deist and children of The Enlightement that they also had to be Illuminatti. I doubt that they were Illuminatti but don't doubt that they were heavily influenced by The Enlightenment. The Mosonic "eye" has its origins in the Illuminatti. [QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure that the Illuminati started in 1776. coincidence ? I don't know. I do know it means the enlightened,,,I do know that satin was the angel of light,,,,, I do know some of the Illuminati are or were luciferians,,,, what does it mean,,,,I don't know.
There is a lot of history on the mason's. if you compile it doesn't shed very good light on them. Lots of secret society stuff.
such as CFR,,,,, tri lateral committie,,,scull and bones,,,bilderburgers,,,ect ect.

Do a search on some of the members and those who sing praises to them and see what you come up with. I'm not the guy to do it. I'm the UFOTV guy remember.(smiley face)




There are equally as many pro mason websites as there are anti mason....obviously you chose the anti one. Does not surprise me.

The reason I brought it up was to highlight most of the founding fathers were not christians. Not to imply that christianity is wrong just that Jefferson would have looked at the republican party very differently.

Ken Bora
11-28-2012, 11:59 AM
[QUOTE=Pete;1038221]......most of the founding fathers were not christians........


Oh? what religions did they follow?
OR, how narrow is your definition?
were the pilgrams Christian? How about the Quakers, Shakers, Calvinists????


they werent Wicken now were they :D

Ken Bora
11-28-2012, 12:01 PM
thats a Menmon quote not a Pete quote
My computer must be a Universalist!

menmon
11-28-2012, 12:04 PM
They were deist. Believing in god but not religious.

Ken Bora
11-28-2012, 12:11 PM
and witch God ????

road kill
11-28-2012, 12:13 PM
and witch God ????
"The One God!!":cool:

Ken Bora
11-28-2012, 12:16 PM
"The One God!!":cool:


SSShhhhh Stan! I am a leadin' this horse to the water. Lets see if I can make him drink ;-)!

Pete
11-28-2012, 02:43 PM
There are equally as many pro mason websites as there are anti mason....obviously you chose the anti one. Does not surprise me

You will find this to be true in any walk of life. Whether you are discussing politics,religion, or selling plastic widgets at the 5 and dime. There will always be someone that says yes it is ,or ,no it's not concerning the same subject.
I run most of what I have learned in life through a biblical filter. because I believe it to be absolute truth that doesn't change. and the bible covers a great multiple of sciences
Some peoples base lines are Socrates ,Obama, this religion ,that religion,, you name it people come at things from different perspectives in life. And that helps formulate their opinions.

If things don't contradict what I have learned in life then I consider them plausible. May be it is or may be it isn't . That sort of thing.
It interesting to study how the systems of the world operate from a biblical point of view and be able to see things develop in my day and time. I'm not saying the Illuminati is. I'm saying may be it is and may be it isn't

2tall
11-28-2012, 03:00 PM
and witch God ????

Ken, I think you meant "which" God. Unless you are into a whole 'nother thing here. In "which" case I think you are talkin' bout "wiccans" not wickens! Now, having been the spelling marm for a minute, just think how many things may have gone awry in the Bible due to all the translations. It is a great book. But I never will take it literally, because we do not know what it says.....literally.

As far as TJ goes, he was just a brilliant man with an eye to the big chance. All he had to do was steal the big available land mass from the indians, and bring his slaves with him to tame it. Ta Da! Can you imagine one of our current politicians having the forethought, wit, planning ability and people skills necessary to launch the Lewis and Clark expedition?

huntinman
11-28-2012, 04:06 PM
Ken, I think you meant "which" God. Unless you are into a whole 'nother thing here. In "which" case I think you are talkin' bout "wiccans" not wickens! Now, having been the spelling marm for a minute, just think how many things may have gone awry in the Bible due to all the translations. It is a great book. But I never will take it literally, because we do not know what it says.....literally.

As far as TJ goes, he was just a brilliant man with an eye to the big chance. All he had to do was steal the big available land mass from the indians, and bring his slaves with him to tame it. Ta Da! Can you imagine one of our current politicians having the forethought, wit, planning ability and people skills necessary to launch the Lewis and Clark expedition?

Even if one was smart enough to do that, they would never get by all of the environmental impact studies required of such an imposition on the environment.

Franco
11-28-2012, 04:20 PM
They were deist. Believing in god but not religious.

More correctly, they believed in a god of nature but not the Christian God nor that Jesus was a god or son of a god.

Most of the early colonist were of one Christian sect or another. Deist were generally found among the men of higher education and were student/children of The Enlightenment. Men such as; Jefferson, Paine, Adams and to a lesser extent Washington. Washington vasilated between Deism and Christianity.

Franco
11-28-2012, 04:27 PM
Ken, I think you meant "which" God. Unless you are into a whole 'nother thing here. In "which" case I think you are talkin' bout "wiccans" not wickens! Now, having been the spelling marm for a minute, just think how many things may have gone awry in the Bible due to all the translations. It is a great book. But I never will take it literally, because we do not know what it says.....literally.

As far as TJ goes, he was just a brilliant man with an eye to the big chance. All he had to do was steal the big available land mass from the indians, and bring his slaves with him to tame it. Ta Da! Can you imagine one of our current politicians having the forethought, wit, planning ability and people skills necessary to launch the Lewis and Clark expedition?

More accurately, be purchased that land from Napoleon including the home the General had built but never lived in, on the corner of Charter and Conti. Today, one of my favorite bars.

At that time, the island of Haiti was much more valuable to the French than the N American wilderness. The reason the French Fleet's Carribean Port was located in Haiti and not New Orleans was because of the value of sugar!

WRL
11-28-2012, 04:44 PM
As far as TJ goes, he was just a brilliant man with an eye to the big chance. All he had to do was steal the big available land mass from the indians, and bring his slaves with him to tame it. Ta Da!

Steal from the Indians? Come on now......that is bunk.

Its called CONQUESTS.....The Indians did it, the Africans did it, EVERYONE did it. Same with Slavery. Please, get over it and get on with it. The "early Americans" didn't invent either. They used what was available for the time and place and did what everyone else during the time did.

WRL

Pete
11-28-2012, 05:59 PM
http://vigilantcitizen.com
Speaking of napolian men like Stalin , Marx,,George Washington napolian and ,any more posed with their hand hidden in their coat

I do believe Marx Stalin Napolian had their feet in secret societies. Reminds me of the little rascals secret hand shake. Washington may have flirted with it to. It doesn't mean they were bad. Some time people don't really know what their doing is destructive. All those serial killers were really nice. Just ask their neighbors Who knows what lurks in the hearts and minds of people.
Its not normal for people to want to rule over each other.
oopps the link didn't work all the way.
Pete

Ken Bora
11-28-2012, 11:17 PM
Ken, I think you meant "which" God.

nope:cool: it was a "New England" poke.
branching off....
for quite a few years now my Dad has let the feller who lives next door to him go up to our family deer camp on the vernal and atumnal equinox and and winter solstice. He and his friends are Druid and it seems, in Vermont anyway ther are not many places left to dance naked round a bonfire!! Talk about "Got That Old Time Religion!!!" And they are wonderfull folks and always split a big pile of wood for us after and totaly clean up after themself.

but I digress

so Menmon, your horse aint thirsty?? :D

M&K's Retrievers
11-28-2012, 11:22 PM
Ken, I think you meant "which" God.



Ah geeze. How thin is that air in NM? :rolleyes:

Ken Bora
11-28-2012, 11:34 PM
More correctly, they believed in a god of nature but not the Christian God nor that Jesus was a god or son of a god.

Most of the early colonist were of one Christian sect or another. Deist were generally found among the men of higher education and were student/children of The Enlightenment. Men such as; Jefferson, Paine, Adams and to a lesser extent Washington. Washington vasilated between Deism and Christianity.

So why is it that Ben Franklin, for example who was also on the 5 man committee along with Jefferson to draft the declaration of independence was raised an Episcopalian and was a founding member of the protestant Church of Boston ( of all places) and purchased (as many wealthy folk did) his own pew?
BTW I have taken the tour and sat upon it.

huntinman
11-28-2012, 11:46 PM
So why is it that Ben Franklin, for example who was also on the 5 man committee along with Jefferson to draft the declaration of independence was raised an Episcopalian and was a founding member of the protestant Church of Boston ( of all places) and purchased (as many wealthy folk did) his own pew?
BTW I have taken the tour and sat upon it.

That's just Franco's way of telling us he is really intelligent because he's a non- believer.

Pete
11-29-2012, 12:34 AM
The reason I brought it up was to highlight most of the founding fathers were not christians. Not to imply that christianity is wrong just that Jefferson would have looked at the republican party very differently.[/COLOR]]

That's not so. There were 50 somethin framers of the constitution and forty somethin were christian. I remember that . it was on the history channel not UFOTV (smiley face)
Also thanks for correcting my 1776 goof up.




Kennedy had a false flag sitting on his desk ,It was about the Cuban missile crises. There is an audible of John F defying the powers that be ,,,, Pretty interesting stuff. There is a 2 and a half hour fact finding movie. about the Illuminati,,,,,,, they mention that in there.

Grassy knoll regards.

Franco
11-29-2012, 08:01 AM
So why is it that Ben Franklin, for example who was also on the 5 man committee along with Jefferson to draft the declaration of independence was raised an Episcopalian and was a founding member of the protestant Church of Boston ( of all places) and purchased (as many wealthy folk did) his own pew?
BTW I have taken the tour and sat upon it.

Where did I say "all" were Deist? Earlier in the thread I did say "most influential". Who was more influential than Jefferson, Adams and Paine? Paine's "Common Sense" was the most read publication of that time.

Ken Bora
11-29-2012, 08:26 AM
we need an RTF dentist 'cause I feel like I'm pullin' teeth here.:D

Franco
11-29-2012, 10:19 AM
we need an RTF dentist 'cause I feel like I'm pullin' teeth here.:D

I feel the same way;)

But, a little clarification is in order. Franklin did sit on the committee but The Declaration Of Independence is too perfect a document to have been written by a committee! Jefferson locked himself in his hotel room and hammered it out over one weekend. All the other four members did was approve it for presentation.

Also, Franklin's Poor Richard Almanac was an informative and entertaining read of that time. Paine's Common Sense inspired men to take up arms and fight for their Liberty!

Pete
11-29-2012, 10:23 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

I contend that if this could be proposed and even considered and signed by many in 1961 then may be it could be considered in the 21st century (wink emoticon)

And we wonder why we have conspiracy theories.
The solution---- Don't give us a reason to wonder why
Pete

Ken Bora
11-29-2012, 10:35 AM
in one of the Jefferson bio's I read a hundred years ago he was quoted as saying how unhappy he was to have had to work with the 4 others and wished he could have done it alone. I think it was Livingston (sp?) who years later doubled the size of the U.S. for Jefferson was a burr in the shorts. Everyone agrees Jefferson held the quil. He "Wrote" the document.

Ken Bora
11-29-2012, 10:41 AM
.....I don't see the similaritees between Bernie Sanders and Jefferson. ....


while none of us know Jefferson except for what we can read. I actualy know Bernie. His Burlington office is one block away from were I work. I feed him about 2wice a month. He calls me Ken, I call him Bernie..... but so does everybody in Vermont. He is an odd duck.

menmon
11-29-2012, 11:28 AM
nope:cool: it was a "New England" poke.
branching off....
for quite a few years now my Dad has let the feller who lives next door to him go up to our family deer camp on the vernal and atumnal equinox and and winter solstice. He and his friends are Druid and it seems, in Vermont anyway ther are not many places left to dance naked round a bonfire!! Talk about "Got That Old Time Religion!!!" And they are wonderfull folks and always split a big pile of wood for us after and totaly clean up after themself.

but I digress

so Menmon, your horse aint thirsty?? :D

The point is...they were not loyal to any religion...they wanted freedom of religion...meaning that you could or not worship god or gods anyway you wanted to. Now today there are folks that believe what they believe so strongly that they want to force it on others and have the rules made in away not to offend their religion. This is exactly what they didn't want. There is a reason you should not talk religion and that is folks feel differnt about it and take strong offense to it and more the reason our laws should not be muddied with religious rights.

M&K's Retrievers
11-29-2012, 11:32 AM
If TJ were alive today, I bet he would be a little ripe.

road kill
11-29-2012, 11:35 AM
The point is...they were not loyal to any religion...they wanted freedom of religion...meaning that you could or not worship god or gods anyway you wanted to. Now today there are folks that believe what they believe so strongly that they want to force it on others and have the rules made in away not to offend their religion. This is exactly what they didn't want. There is a reason you should not talk religion and that is folks feel differnt about it and take strong offense to it and more the reason our laws should not be muddied with religious rights.

Are you referring to the "secularists" that ARE forcing all of us to accept their beleifs?????:cool:

Ken Bora
11-29-2012, 11:38 AM
The point is...they were not loyal to any religion...they wanted freedom of religion...meaning that you could or not worship god or gods anyway you wanted to..

you are correct, I agree. and this is the crux of seperation of Church and state for the masses. they did not want the state dictating what church. sad many flip that upside down
and the point I am making is those that were Diest, the Dietie in question was The Christ.

You know, your head will not explode if every now and again you and I agree on something. For real.... give it a try :cool:

menmon
11-29-2012, 12:10 PM
He is know as the "Great Architect of the Universe" not Christ, not to say Christ is not the Architect of the Universe, but to say there is a Master of us all and how you refer to him or worship him is between you and God. There are three great lights in masonary and one of them is the Bible...that bible can be the tora, the karan, the holy bible, etc.

my great light or rule and guide is the Holy Bible but another mans can be the karan

As someone who has studied masonary for a long time, the thinking behind the constitution was based on sound proven principals of masonary. Masonary is not a religion but it is based on sound moral principals of how men should live and it has stood the test of time. These men had seen how relgion had been used against men and didn't want it to happen in America. This is not to say they were not men of God, but men that knew that religion would destroy our liberty and freedom if given the opportunity.

huntinman
11-29-2012, 12:12 PM
He is know as the "Great Architect of the Universe" not Christ, not to say Christ is not the Architect of the Universe, but to say there is a Master of us all and how you refer to him or worship him is between you and God. There are three great lights in masonary and one of them is the Bible...that bible can be the tora, the karan, the holy bible, etc.

my great light or rule and guide is the Holy Bible but another mans can be the karan

As someone who has studied masonary for a long time, the thinking behind the constitution was based on sound proven principals of masonary. Masonary is not a religion but it is based on sound moral principals of how men should live and it has stood the test of time. These men had seen how relgion had been used against men and didn't want it to happen in America. This is not to say they were not men of God, but men that knew that religion would destroy our liberty and freedom if given the opportunity.

You are a bricklayer?

menmon
11-29-2012, 12:19 PM
You are a bricklayer?

You might say so

Pete
11-29-2012, 02:23 PM
He is know as the "Great Architect of the Universe" not Christ, not to say Christ is not the Architect of the Universe, but to say there is a Master of us all and how you refer to him or worship him is between you and God. There are three great lights in masonary and one of them is the Bible...that bible can be the tora, the karan, the holy bible, etc.

my great light or rule and guide is the Holy Bible but another mans can be the karan

As someone who has studied masonary for a long time, the thinking behind the constitution was based on sound proven principals of masonary. Masonary is not a religion but it is based on sound moral principals of how men should live and it has stood the test of time. These men had seen how relgion had been used against men and didn't want it to happen in America. This is not to say they were not men of God, but men that knew that religion would destroy our liberty and freedom if given the opportunity.

Here is where my head scratching begins.
If I worship The almighty one way,,,and lets say someone worships mother nature and calls it the almighty,,,and some one worships Lucifer and calls him the almighty,, and someone worships a golden calf and calls it god,,,,,, and ect. x over 6000 now Then why come up with the word "idolatry"
If they are all the same just different ways of giving worshiping the same god,,,,, then why on earth is there so much written about it in the bible and who ever came up with the word idolatry any way, it can't exist as a concept..

when some one dies does the family come up with their own interpretation of the will ,,, or does some one who has legal knowledge go over the legalities of it.

Lets at least try to get it right for Gods sake. MHO

Pete

menmon
11-29-2012, 02:35 PM
Christians are not the only ones that don't like adultry. The old testiment that belongs to the jews in their tora. I'm sure muslims have a problem with it too.

The rule and guide is the holy bible but does not have to be. The Pope turned on the Templars who were the protectors of the holy land. Why because some king did not want pay them the money he owed. This is where you got the skull and bones that someone mention before, because once proud men had to go underground because of the lies of the Pope. Some of these Templars became pirates.

menmon
11-29-2012, 02:40 PM
See there is a lot more to the story than is in the Bible. No saying the Bible is not true...just there is more if you want to know more.

Franco
11-29-2012, 02:58 PM
Here is where my head scratching begins.
If I worship The almighty one way,,,and lets say someone worships mother nature and calls it the almighty,,,and some one worships Lucifer and calls him the almighty,, and someone worships a golden calf and calls it god,,,,,, and ect. x over 6000 now Then why come up with the word "idolatry"
If they are all the same just different ways of giving worshiping the same god,,,,, then why on earth is there so much written about it in the bible and who ever came up with the word idolatry any way, it can't exist as a concept..

when some one dies does the family come up with their own interpretation of the will ,,, or does some one who has legal knowledge go over the legalities of it.

Lets at least try to get it right for Gods sake. MHO

Pete

Man has always worshipped idols. They erected statutes of how they saw thier gods and paid their homage.
It was the only concept ancient man could comprehend. One of my favorite stautes is of the Greek god Prometheus, who created man from clay then stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mankind. For the theft, Zeus bound him to a huge rock and allowed vultures to eat a small piece of his liver daily as punishment so as to live in pain for all eternity for mankind.

Back to Thomas Jefferson.

Losthwy
11-29-2012, 03:20 PM
Christians are not the only ones that don't like adultry.

A whole lot of them seem to like it.

Pete
11-29-2012, 07:12 PM
I will contend that if you do not know much about God,,,then will you build the idols.
I will admit that its tough for man to not give in to idolatry,,,,its the nature of body and soul.
Pete

BOtterness
11-29-2012, 10:35 PM
Just joining the discussion now.
As far as Jefferson with the Declaration, he wrote the original document that was then revised by the committee--he was upset with the changes. He had denounced slavery in his original version, but in order for Southern states to agree to signing it, that portion was struck out. Read below if interested in his original wording.

Some of the Founding Fathers were deist--they believed that God was part of existence but they did not tie God to a specific religion so they were often mistaken in current times to be atheist. At this time, philosophically, the idea was still that "God" existed--not necessarily a Christian God, but a spiritual being that was part of human existence.
he [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Cody Covey
11-30-2012, 12:35 PM
Just joining the discussion now.
As far as Jefferson with the Declaration, he wrote the original document that was then revised by the committee--he was upset with the changes. He had denounced slavery in his original version, but in order for Southern states to agree to signing it, that portion was struck out. Read below if interested in his original wording.

Some of the Founding Fathers were deist--they believed that God was part of existence but they did not tie God to a specific religion so they were often mistaken in current times to be atheist. At this time, philosophically, the idea was still that "God" existed--not necessarily a Christian God, but a spiritual being that was part of human existence.
he [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Which I have always found interesting considering he also owned hundreds of slaves and had a couple babies with Sally Hemings. lol

charly_t
11-30-2012, 02:21 PM
Which I have always found interesting considering he also owned hundreds of slaves and had a couple babies with Sally Hemings. lol

Do I remember correctly that Sally was a relative of his deceased wife ? Half sister or niece perhaps ?

charly_t
11-30-2012, 02:37 PM
Sally was a 14 year old slave girl when he started raping her, at least that was the info I have read.

Yes, she was a slave. Short family tree explanation was interesting reading. Don't ask me where I read the explanation for the family tree though. If I remember correctly it was said that she looked a little like the deceased wife of Jefferson. Just a sidelight to things that I found interesting.

Franco
11-30-2012, 02:43 PM
If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would certainly support the only political party that supports these basic principles of Liberty;

"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose"

"A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society."

"
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes."

"We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain"

"
Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education."

"
We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines."

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups."

If anyone cares to read more...
http://www.lp.org/platform

"

Cody Covey
11-30-2012, 05:05 PM
If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would certainly support the only political party that supports these basic principles of Liberty;

"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose"

"A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society."

"
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes."

"We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain"

"
Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education."

"
We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines."

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups."

If anyone cares to read more...
http://www.lp.org/platform

"
Does that mean he would have no influence just like the Libertarian Party?

huntinman
11-30-2012, 05:14 PM
Does that mean he would have no influence just like the Libertarian Party?

Post of the day!!!!!!!!!!!

From the Echo Chamber

Franco
11-30-2012, 05:55 PM
Does that mean he would have no influence just like the Libertarian Party?

Only if one has given up and is comfortable with ceding one's Liberties. THe GOP would have to go through a major transformation to ever be relative in the present or future.

Cody Covey
11-30-2012, 06:42 PM
Only if one has given up and is comfortable with ceding one's Liberties. THe GOP would have to go through a major transformation to ever be relative in the present or future.

I know you keep saying this but it is simply not true. The presidential vote came out 51 - 49 and the GOP controls one branch of the legislature, actually adding to its lead in the house. It did lose some seats in the Senate but to say it has no relevance (I assume that is what you meant) is garbage and you know it. You may not like it, hell I don't even disagree with most of what you say, but the libertarian party MIGHT have captured ALMOST 1% of the vote in the national election and its poster boy doesn't even want to identify himself as a Libertarian because he knows people would take him less serious than they already do.

Franco
11-30-2012, 06:57 PM
I know you keep saying this but it is simply not true. The presidential vote came out 51 - 49 and the GOP controls one branch of the legislature, actually adding to its lead in the house. It did lose some seats in the Senate but to say it has no relevance (I assume that is what you meant) is garbage and you know it. You may not like it, hell I don't even disagree with most of what you say, but the libertarian party MIGHT have captured ALMOST 1% of the vote in the national election and its poster boy doesn't even want to identify himself as a Libertarian because he knows people would take him less serious than they already do.

First, my poster boy has retired though his message has inspired a movement. Just look at the number of Libertarian candidates running at the state level at lp.org

Second, how and where will the GOP grow support; South Carolina, Texas, Mississippi etc? The GOP brand is severly damaged. The party is not attractive to the vast majority of youth. Again, though they are slightly better than the Dems on the economyand spending, their stand on social issues will continue to hold them back.

Jon Huntsmen was on one of the news channels today and he was saying exacly what the Libertarian Party has been saying. Now, we all know Huntsmen is not popular with the GOP base. Yet, he was probably the most intelligent of the lot that ran for the GOP ticket!

Obama is taking his 1.6 trillion tax hike, new Stimulus program, no cuts to entitlements, abolishing the Debt Ceiling on the road, to the people. What do the Repubs have? A bunch of old stuffy political hacks like Boehner, McConnell, Chambliss etc.talking to Fox. Who do you think is going to win their way? Obama is going to run this country so far left and take away so many of our Liberties that hopefully, people will understand what Liberty really means! Because the GOP and the vast majority of thier supporters are clueless about what real Liberty means. The real Conservative movement and Liberty's salvation is with our youth because the old folks just don't get it!

Here is an interesting piece from the CATO Inst. How many Libertarian voters are there.
http://www.libertarianism.org/media/libertarian-view/how-many-american-libertarian-voters-are-there

When people are asked if they are Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal, they get a 55% plus positive response!

Golddogs
11-30-2012, 07:07 PM
we need an RTF dentist 'cause I feel like I'm pullin' teeth here.:D

Ken maybe this might help. I highlighted an interesting paragrqph.

The America Ben Franklin saw

By Walter Isaacson

When he was a young man, Benjamin Franklin wired together a set of batteries he had just invented and used them to shock turkeys slated for a Thanksgiving feast. Thus he added yet another invention to his list: the fried turkey. “The birds killed in this manner eat uncommonly tender,” he wrote.

After election seasons such as the one past, and when facing “fiscal cliffs” like the one looming, it’s therapeutic to gaze back through history’s haze and catch the eye of Franklin, the Founding Father who winks at us. The twinkle behind his bifocals reassures us that things will turn out all right.

Franklin’s optimism about the American experiment is reflected in an essay he wrote about our first Thanksgiving. The early settlers, “their minds gloomy and discontented,” frequently fasted to seek relief from their distress, he recounted. Just when they were about to declare another day of fasting, “a farmer of plain sense” pointed out that “the inconveniences they suffered, and concerning which they had so often wearied heaven with their complaints, were not so great.” Instead of another fast, the farmer argued, they should have a feast to give thanks. Writing a century later — in 1785, a period when both the economy and political system looked fragile, rather like the present — Franklin assured his fellow citizens that thanksgiving was still warranted. “Let us take a cool view of the general state of our affairs, and perhaps the prospect will appear less gloomy than has been imagined,” he wrote.

One of the glories of America is that there are two strands in its national character. One is that of the liberty-loving individualist who flies a flag proclaiming, Don’t tread on me. The other is that of the civicminded citizen who sees our nation’s progress as a common endeavor. Tocqueville wrote that these strands were often in conflict. But Franklin realized that these strands were interwoven and related, part of the warp and woof of the tightly knit American fabric.

Franklin was the first great embodiment of that American archetype: the spunky, self-made Horatio Alger who rises from rags to riches by aspiration and grit, then dedicates himself to creating a society where others can do the same. He believed the business of America was not merely to celebrate success but also to ensure each generation had the opportunity to achieve it.

These Rotarian instincts were nurtured in a civic-improvement club that Franklin founded as a young printer in Philadelphia. The Leather Apron Club was composed of enterprising tradesmen, artisans and shopkeepers, what he proudly called “we the middling people.” Instead of replicating the rigid hereditary class system of England, America should have as its backbone, Franklin believed, a middle class whose success came from hard work.

The Leather Apron Club discussed civic and political issues, devised schemes for self-improvement and formed a network dedicated to “doing well by doing good.” Its members helped launch a flotilla of civic associations, including militia and street-sweeping corps, volunteer firefighters, tax-supported neighborhood constables, health and life insurance groups, a library, a hospital, an academy for educating youth, a society for sharing scientific information and a postal system to help connect everyone.

Franklin believed that civic and military service were enriching. If he were around today, he would probably be encouraging business groups and trade associations to form organizations similar to Teach for America, to allow people the opportunity to be part of legal, financial, health, technology and other service corps.

He also believed that compromisers may not make great heroes but that they do make great democracies. Even he did not always get right the balance between compromise and principle. At the Constitutional Convention, he was willing to go along with the compromises on slavery. But he tried to right himself when he got the balance wrong. At age 81, he became an outspoken advocate of abolition.

Over the years, America has been pretty good at regaining its balance. Albert Einstein fretted deeply about the anti-communist witch hunts of the early 1950s and told friends that America seemed to be on a course similar to Germany’s in the 1930s. A few years later, as the frenzy subsided, Einstein discovered what was fundamental about America: It can be swept by waves of seemingly dangerous political passions. But those sentiments pass, absorbed by its democracy and righted by its constitutional gyroscope. “Somehow they manage to return to normality,” he marveled about Americans in a letter to his son.

Franklin had the vision to see America as made up of rugged individualists who valued their freedom but also cared about the aspirations of others. In his will, Franklin left the bulk of his wealth to create revolving loan funds so that aspiring young tradesmen and shopkeepers could borrow a little money to get started, then pay it back so that subsequent young entrepreneurs could get a helping hand. These loan funds worked for more than two centuries.

Franklin also understood the beauty of diversity. During his lifetime, he donated to the building fund of every church constructed in Philadelphia. When a hall was being built to accommodate visiting preachers, Franklin urged his fellow citizens to donate “so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.” On his deathbed, he made one of the largest donations for the first synagogue built in Philadelphia.

It was that type of America — built on freedom, liberty, opportunity, shared aspirations and diversity — that Franklin and his fellow founders helped create. I suspect he would be confident that we today can still balance those ideals.Walter Isaacson is chief executive of the Aspen Institute. He has written biographies of Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Steve Jobs and Henry Kissinger. He wrote this column for the Washington Post.

One of the glories of America is that there are two strands in its national character. One is that of the liberty-loving individualist who flies a flag proclaiming, Don’t tread on me. The other is that of the civic-minded citizen who sees our nation’s progress as a common endeavor. ocqueville wrote that these strands were often in conflict. But Franklin realized that these strands were interwoven and related, part of the warp and woof of the tightly knit American fabric.

JDogger
11-30-2012, 07:14 PM
Good post.



JD

Franco
11-30-2012, 07:39 PM
Good post Golddogs but, I am not as optimistic as you.

Franklin never envisoned as 16TRILLION dollar debt and growing. A Federal government that has ceded its monetary policy to International banking and an over-bearing, over-grown Federal government that is taking away our Liberties, controlling our opportunites and promotes Crony Capitalism.

"It was that type of America — built on freedom, liberty, opportunity, shared aspirations and diversity — that Franklin and his fellow founders helped create. I suspect he would be confident that we today can still balance those ideals."

Ken Bora
11-30-2012, 09:24 PM
I have always been more of a Franklin fan than a Jeffersonic, that was a very good post.

Cody Covey
12-01-2012, 12:44 AM
When people are asked if they are Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal, they get a 55% plus positive response!Thats all well and good but it doesn't change the fact that the big problem we have is the federal government and by and large the Libertarian Party is not taken at all seriously by the nation. They are not seen as a real contender. We live in a two party system and if you are living "off the grid" in that system you are not actually helping the country with your take your ball and go home attitude. I will however say that you should be able to vote for who ever the hell you like and not be restricted to the system if it is outside your ideals.

BonMallari
12-01-2012, 12:58 AM
I have always been more of a Franklin fan than a Jeffersonic, that was a very good post.

I am too, but only because Franklin is on a C Note ($100 bill) and TJ is on the twenty :D

Franco
12-01-2012, 12:16 PM
Thats all well and good but it doesn't change the fact that the big problem we have is the federal government and by and large the Libertarian Party is not taken at all seriously by the nation. They are not seen as a real contender. We live in a two party system and if you are living "off the grid" in that system you are not actually helping the country with your take your ball and go home attitude. I will however say that you should be able to vote for who ever the hell you like and not be restricted to the system if it is outside your ideals.

Don't know if you looked at that link I post to the CATO Inst survey? 55% responded that they are Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal. What that 55% hasn't recognized yet is that they are Libertarians! Remember, the Dems and Repubs control the media as well as the debates, they don't want another voice to be heard. Which brings me back to the rapid grow of the Libertarian Party, especially with the under 40 year olds. That's because neither the Dems or Repubs represent them. Again, where and how will the GOP grow in hopes of taking the White House back with a platform that appeals to so few?

I did vote my conscience, which didn't include the big spending. big goverment Republicans or Democrats. I can't support this new Conservatism, Reagan/Bush Conservatism of Deficit spending, big intrusive goverment, limited Liberties via their Social Conservatism. That's because I believe in Liberty for all Americans. Just as I can't support the Dems with their big spending, big government Socialist ways.

Americans that are Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal now have a party. The third oldest Party is America is in an awareness/growth mode because quite frankly, the Dems and the Repubs do not represent the trend in voter preference. They have become the party of the Socialist and the party of the Christian Right.

Pete
12-01-2012, 01:17 PM
What I find interesting is that so many of our political leaders have been members of a secret society, or consult with members of secret societies.


It seems that the ratio of normal people getting in office is almost nill compared to a small number of secret society members who's portion of society is incredibly small,,yet in the political arena it seems like they are every where, representing or influencing both parties
Both bush and keary (spelling) were skull and bones. What a choice we had in 2004. Something isn't right here.


I'll bet if you studied the private life of a good portion of out presidents you will find many were masons. It sure seems like a religion to me. The religion of politics. So many symbols many steeped in catholicism and ancient mystery relgions.

may be this should be a new thread.

Marvin S
12-01-2012, 01:27 PM
Americans that are Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal now have a party. The third oldest Party is America is in an awareness/growth mode because quite frankly, the Dems and the Repubs do not represent the trend in voter preference. They have become the party of the Socialist and the party of the Christian Right.

Therein lies the issue :confused:. Those who are fiscally conservative & socially moderate are the folks that need a party, which the Libertarians do not provide.

Franco
12-01-2012, 01:47 PM
Therein lies the issue :confused:. Those who are fiscally conservative & socially moderate are the folks that need a party, which the Libertarians do not provide.

Not according to the CATO and Gallup surveys that I posted! And, what the hell is Socially Moderate? Someone that believes in Liberty for all just some of the time or when it suits them? Or would that be like Fiscally Moderate, just big spending government some of the time? Crony Capitaism when they see fit?

Marvin S
12-01-2012, 02:23 PM
And, what the hell is Socially Moderate?

They are the folks who do not condone behavior that does not set a good example for youth - in case you wonder, it is about future generations :confused:.

BonMallari
12-01-2012, 03:03 PM
And, what the hell is Socially Moderate? Someone that believes in Liberty for all just some of the time or when it suits them?

maybe someone that is anti abortion, but pro death penalty...someone that is ambivalent to gay marriage, legalization of marijuana,someone who is anti immigration.....

There are lots of different stances on social issues...probably many more people that are socially moderate than you might imagine, its not a one size fits all scenario

Franco
12-01-2012, 04:41 PM
maybe someone that is anti abortion, but pro death penalty...someone that is ambivalent to gay marriage, legalization of marijuana,someone who is anti immigration.....

There are lots of different stances on social issues...probably many more people that are socially moderate than you might imagine, its not a one size fits all scenario

I would say that most folks outside the POTUS "echo chamber" would consider your view as Socially Conservative and not moderate. The words "anti' and "ambivalent" aren't exactly positive nor supports Freedom.

You are pro death penalty as I am. However, the Libertarian Party's stance on capital punishment is that it is up to the individual states to decide.

BTW, I think you have every Right to be Socially Conservative.

Franco
12-01-2012, 05:07 PM
They are the folks who do not condone behavior that does not set a good example for youth - in case you wonder, it is about future generations :confused:.

Interesting that you think that the State is responsible for raising children and that it does not ultimately fall on the parents. Libertarians believe that values are taught at home and is the responsibility of the parents and not the government.

It doesn't take a village to raise a child but their parents.

BonMallari
12-01-2012, 05:50 PM
I would say that most folks outside the POTUS "echo chamber" would consider your view as Socially Conservative and not moderate. The words "anti' and "ambivalent" aren't exactly positive nor supports Freedom.

You are pro death penalty as I am. However, the Libertarian Party's stance on capital punishment is that it is up to the individual states to decide.

BTW, I think you have every Right to be Socially Conservative.

you give me way too much credit in thinking I am socially conservative...my brother and I got into a heated argument about MJ because I have MANY friends that choose to partake, which is fine by me...well lo and behold one of his former business practice partners has applied for a medical MJ practice which could potentially make it a million dollar bonanza, I say more power to him...

I am all in favor of each state deciding the social issues...its the way it should be, because we can all pick and choose what state we live in

road kill
12-01-2012, 06:10 PM
I would say that most folks outside the POTUS "echo chamber" would consider your view as Socially Conservative and not moderate. The words "anti' and "ambivalent" aren't exactly positive nor supports Freedom.

You are pro death penalty as I am. However, the Libertarian Party's stance on capital punishment is that it is up to the individual states to decide.

BTW, I think you have every Right to be Socially Conservative.

Ironically, the only echos on POTUS are YOUR posts.

Over and over and over the same thing.

We get it, you are the "sole possesor of the truth!!"

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j145/Jvchequer/numcreio.gif

Marvin S
12-01-2012, 08:08 PM
Interesting that you think that the State is responsible for raising children and that it does not ultimately fall on the parents. Libertarians believe that values are taught at home and is the responsibility of the parents and not the government.

It doesn't take a village to raise a child but their parents.

I can now see why you are a Pinochio disciple :p. Anyone who can make that out of what I posted doesn't have a full deck. But your boy got his 3 lines of fame in Forbes - he was praised for his stance on the Fed, nothing else :cool:.

Franco
12-01-2012, 08:10 PM
you give me way too much credit in thinking I am socially conservative...my brother and I got into a heated argument about MJ because I have MANY friends that choose to partake, which is fine by me...well lo and behold one of his former business practice partners has applied for a medical MJ practice which could potentially make it a million dollar bonanza, I say more power to him...

I am all in favor of each state deciding the social issues...its the way it should be, because we can all pick and choose what state we live in

I wouldn't suggest he run out and buy that 78ft Bertram anytime soon. The Pharmaceutical Companies are pouring millons into their lobbying efforts to keep it illegal since the Washington and Colorado votes to legalize. Next to Statin drugs, pain killers are their biggest profit makers.

Gerry Clinchy
12-01-2012, 09:58 PM
The author of a new book on Jefferson doesn't think much of him. The NY Times headline for this op-ed piece was "The Monster of Monticello".
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121201

A sample of what was quoted from the book in this article in the Times:

Rather than encouraging his countrymen to liberate their slaves, he opposed both private manumission and public emancipation. Even at his death, Jefferson failed to fulfill the promise of his rhetoric: his will emancipated only five slaves (http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/slaves-who-gained-freedom), all relatives of his mistress Sally Hemings, and condemned nearly 200 others to the auction block. Even Hemings remained a slave, though her children by Jefferson went free.

Nor was Jefferson a particularly kind master. He sometimes punished slaves by selling them away from their families and friends, a retaliation that was incomprehensibly cruel even at the time. A proponent of humane criminal codes for whites, he advocated harsh, almost barbaric, punishments for slaves and free blacks. Known for expansive views of citizenship, he proposed legislation to make emancipated blacks “outlaws” in America, the land of their birth. Opposed to the idea of royal or noble blood, he proposed expelling from Virginia the children of white women and black men.

Jefferson also dodged opportunities to undermine slavery or promote racial equality. As a state legislator he blocked consideration of a law that might have eventually ended slavery in the state.

As president he acquired the Louisiana Territory but did nothing to stop the spread of slavery into that vast “empire of liberty.” Jefferson told his neighbor Edward Coles not to emancipate his own slaves, because free blacks were “pests in society” who were “as incapable as children of taking care of themselves.” And while he wrote a friend that he sold slaves only as punishment or to unite families, he sold at least 85 humans in a 10-year period to raise cash to buy wine, art and other luxury goods.

Destroying families didn’t bother Jefferson, because he believed blacks lacked basic human emotions. “Their griefs are transient,” he wrote (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h490t.html), and their love lacked “a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation.”