The musings of an American Conservative in London. "The Bloggings will continue until Morale Improves!"
Friday, November 9, 2012
A Bi-Partisan (though perhaps not Tri-partisan) Joke!
Unconditional Surrender!
Question: What do FDR and Ron Paul have in common?
Answer: They both called for Unconditional Surrender; FDR by the Axis, Ron Paul by the Allies.
Spirit of Chartwell, Triumphant
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Actually, you are wrong. We are not ending Tyrants, we are electing them. We are not stopping dictators, unless they prevent us from accessing their oil. We have had two presidents in a row that have taken away most of the Bill of Rights, like they are merely privileges and not "inalienable rights". Ron Paul only wanted to get our troops out of these wars, and end this spider web of alliances. Washington wanted that, Madison wanted that, Jefferson wanted that. Franklin warned us. The fame that Ron Paul achieved is because people are becoming aware of these truths, and seeing that being blindly lead into battles may not be in our best interest. After all there is no end to a war on a tactic, which "terrorism" is.
Thanks for reading and posting Mr. anonymous Paul-bot!
Madison had a de facto alliance with Napoleon when he declared war on England in 1812. Jefferson encouraged Madison his protege in that war and clearly favored the French and despised the English. Franklin and Jefferson serving as Ambassadors helped forge the alliance with France, Holland and Spain that allowed us to win our independence. (see earlier posts on War of 1812, Madison, etc.)
Read your history!
The less said about Ron Paul's alleged "fame" the better.
Are ou for real, or just too ignorant of history to formulate a coherent argument. So, war is peace, up is down, and murder of innocent people is okay as long as they are brown and foreign. You, sir, are a disgrace.
It is true that Jefferson in his inaugural address advocated "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none". Jefferson also helped along with Franklin and Adams negotiate the alliance between the American colonies and France. French troops fought alongside Americans at Yorktown and the French fleet was critical in challenging the Royal Navy for naval supremacy off the American coast. Lafayette was almost like a son to Washington.
Holland helped to bankroll the American rebels as did Spain. Had it not been for these "entangling alliances" there might never have been a USA.
Jefferson also supported Madison's declaration of war on Britain in 1812 and assumed that the subsequent invasion of Canada would be a walkover; it wasn't. Napoleon was a de facto ally of the USA in the war of 1812. (see my earlier post Madison's USA and Tojo's Japan).
When Ron Paul or his supporters cite Madison or Jefferson as supporters of his neo-isolationism they are displaying a remarkable ignorance of history.
"It is true that Jefferson in his inaugural address advocated "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none". "
Yes, because despite the reality of any "realpolitik" day2day dealings, he recognized the necessity of protecting the citizens from the metastatic nature of centralized, unchecked, imperial power. He recognized that a growing presence of an unchecked, unaccountable, and unlimited central government would result in Empire, something Jefferson wished to preclude. Unfortunately he was unaware of the limited ability of simple words on paper to constrain men who lusted for power, control and glory.
"Jefferson also helped along with Franklin and Adams negotiate the alliance between the American colonies and France."
And the people of the Midwest during the "Civil(sic) War" often pledged allegiance with the faction that they felt would further their own desire to be independent of DC. So what? It was individual Human Action (if you're of the intellectually curious bent, and I guess you are from your response to my comment, and the fact that you have this blog, you should google those two words. Be warned, though, what you read might break your world, and it is not for the faint of heart) that lead them to decide whether to be "Blue" or "Gray". Many Midwesterners died because they chose one side over the other and their families killed them. Does that sound civilized?
"French troops fought alongside Americans at Yorktown and the French fleet was critical in challenging the Royal Navy for naval supremacy off the American coast. Lafayette was almost like a son to Washington."
Once again, who cares. If you REALLY want to understand why your whole worldview is perverted by TPTB, read "Democracy: The God That Failed" by H H Hoppe. His argument that monarchy is superior to democracy (and not the faux-monarchy of today, but a real monarchy where the sovereign has a proprietary interest in the function and future of his kingdom) is compelling.
"Holland helped to bankroll the American rebels as did Spain. Had it not been for these "entangling alliances" there might never have been a USA."
Again, who cares. Do you think that the US, UK, and EU will ever be able to "colonize" Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan? Can you not understand that the hostility that these regions have towards "The West" is a result of a century of attempts to "modernize" them, covertly overthrowing their leaders, killing their children, covertly installing radical Islamist dictatorships (as long as they were "friendly" to US/UK/EU interests) and how it hurts the average person? As your "Bête Noir" Ron Paul says, foreign aid is just stealing money from poor people in rich countries to give it to rich people in poor countries so they can follow the orders of their benefactor.
It is pointless to continue- if the previous facts don't make you reconsider your prejudices, nothing will. You will never recognize that Lincoln's destruction of the delicate balance of power between the states and DC was destroyed by his invasion of The South, and that all of the ills of a powerful central government can be laid at his feet.
I can only assume you support the Federal Reserve and unlimited bailouts of the banks?
Evidently you do not care how or why the US was created. Call me old-fashioned if you like, But I still do. History is all around us and it matters.
You claim that Jefferson wished to "preclude Empire" for the USA. Jefferson, in fact, had an expansionist Westward-facing vision for America's future. Jefferson dispatched Lewis and Clark to the West coast blazing the path for American expansion. The Jefferson administration negotiated a deal for the Louisiana purchase from Napoleon despite the fact that the US Constitution makes no provision for such an action. (See earlier post. "Napoleon Relevant for American in 2012?")
Jefferson wrote that the conquest of Canada would be a "mere matter of marching" in encouragement of Madison's declaration of war on Britain in 1812 (see earlier post "Madison's USA and Tojo's Japan").
Jefferson's Republican party was supported by farmers who needed more land for their growing population.
In sum, there could never have been an American "Empire" without Jefferson; he did not preclude it--he did more than almost anyone to build it.
Many libertarians try to torture the facts of history to suit their theories just as Marxist scholars try to explain history through economic determinism.
Real history does not always lend itself to these Procrustean approaches; it is much more complex and much more interesting.
I have ordered the Hoppe book you suggest and will read and, perhaps, review in future.
I note your apparent preference for Kings. Mel Brooks thought that it was "good to be the King" too. I personally prefer Churchill who said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." (See earlier post, "Churchill Quotes")
7 comments:
Actually, you are wrong. We are not ending Tyrants, we are electing them. We are not stopping dictators, unless they prevent us from accessing their oil. We have had two presidents in a row that have taken away most of the Bill of Rights, like they are merely privileges and not "inalienable rights". Ron Paul only wanted to get our troops out of these wars, and end this spider web of alliances. Washington wanted that, Madison wanted that, Jefferson wanted that. Franklin warned us. The fame that Ron Paul achieved is because people are becoming aware of these truths, and seeing that being blindly lead into battles may not be in our best interest. After all there is no end to a war on a tactic, which "terrorism" is.
Thanks for reading and posting Mr. anonymous Paul-bot!
Madison had a de facto alliance with Napoleon when he declared war on England in 1812. Jefferson encouraged Madison his protege in that war and clearly favored the French and despised the English. Franklin and Jefferson serving as Ambassadors helped forge the alliance with France, Holland and Spain that allowed us to win our independence. (see earlier posts on War of 1812, Madison, etc.)
Read your history!
The less said about Ron Paul's alleged "fame" the better.
Great Non-Sequiters Batman!
Are ou for real, or just too ignorant of history to formulate a coherent argument. So, war is peace, up is down, and murder of innocent people is okay as long as they are brown and foreign. You, sir, are a disgrace.
Thanks Dale for reading and commenting.
It is true that Jefferson in his inaugural address advocated "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none". Jefferson also helped along with Franklin and Adams negotiate the alliance between the American colonies and France. French troops fought alongside Americans at Yorktown and the French fleet was critical in challenging the Royal Navy for naval supremacy off the American coast. Lafayette was almost like a son to Washington.
Holland helped to bankroll the American rebels as did Spain. Had it not been for these "entangling alliances" there might never have been a USA.
Jefferson also supported Madison's declaration of war on Britain in 1812 and assumed that the subsequent invasion of Canada would be a walkover; it wasn't. Napoleon was a de facto ally of the USA in the war of 1812. (see my earlier post Madison's USA and Tojo's Japan).
When Ron Paul or his supporters cite Madison or Jefferson as supporters of his neo-isolationism they are displaying a remarkable ignorance of history.
"It is true that Jefferson in his inaugural address advocated "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none". "
Yes, because despite the reality of any "realpolitik" day2day dealings, he recognized the necessity of protecting the citizens from the metastatic nature of centralized, unchecked, imperial power. He recognized that a growing presence of an unchecked, unaccountable, and unlimited central government would result in Empire, something Jefferson wished to preclude. Unfortunately he was unaware of the limited ability of simple words on paper to constrain men who lusted for power, control and glory.
"Jefferson also helped along with Franklin and Adams negotiate the alliance between the American colonies and France."
And the people of the Midwest during the "Civil(sic) War" often pledged allegiance with the faction that they felt would further their own desire to be independent of DC. So what? It was individual Human Action (if you're of the intellectually curious bent, and I guess you are from your response to my comment, and the fact that you have this blog, you should google those two words. Be warned, though, what you read might break your world, and it is not for the faint of heart) that lead them to decide whether to be "Blue" or "Gray". Many Midwesterners died because they chose one side over the other and their families killed them. Does that sound civilized?
"French troops fought alongside Americans at Yorktown and the French fleet was critical in challenging the Royal Navy for naval supremacy off the American coast. Lafayette was almost like a son to Washington."
Once again, who cares. If you REALLY want to understand why your whole worldview is perverted by TPTB, read "Democracy: The God That Failed" by H H Hoppe. His argument that monarchy is superior to democracy (and not the faux-monarchy of today, but a real monarchy where the sovereign has a proprietary interest in the function and future of his kingdom) is compelling.
"Holland helped to bankroll the American rebels as did Spain. Had it not been for these "entangling alliances" there might never have been a USA."
Again, who cares. Do you think that the US, UK, and EU will ever be able to "colonize" Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan? Can you not understand that the hostility that these regions have towards "The West" is a result of a century of attempts to "modernize" them, covertly overthrowing their leaders, killing their children, covertly installing radical Islamist dictatorships (as long as they were "friendly" to US/UK/EU interests) and how it hurts the average person? As your "Bête Noir" Ron Paul says, foreign aid is just stealing money from poor people in rich countries to give it to rich people in poor countries so they can follow the orders of their benefactor.
It is pointless to continue- if the previous facts don't make you reconsider your prejudices, nothing will. You will never recognize that Lincoln's destruction of the delicate balance of power between the states and DC was destroyed by his invasion of The South, and that all of the ills of a powerful central government can be laid at his feet.
I can only assume you support the Federal Reserve and unlimited bailouts of the banks?
R Dale Fitzgerald
R Dale Fitzgerald,
Evidently you do not care how or why the US was created. Call me old-fashioned if you like, But I still do. History is all around us and it matters.
You claim that Jefferson wished to "preclude Empire" for the USA. Jefferson, in fact, had an expansionist Westward-facing vision for America's future. Jefferson dispatched Lewis and Clark to the West coast blazing the path for American expansion. The Jefferson administration negotiated a deal for the Louisiana purchase from Napoleon despite the fact that the US Constitution makes no provision for such an action. (See earlier post. "Napoleon Relevant for American in 2012?")
Jefferson wrote that the conquest of Canada would be a "mere matter of marching" in encouragement of Madison's declaration of war on Britain in 1812 (see earlier post "Madison's USA and Tojo's Japan").
Jefferson's Republican party was supported by farmers who needed more land for their growing population.
In sum, there could never have been an American "Empire" without Jefferson; he did not preclude it--he did more than almost anyone to build it.
Many libertarians try to torture the facts of history to suit their theories just as Marxist scholars try to explain history through economic determinism.
Real history does not always lend itself to these Procrustean approaches; it is much more complex and much more interesting.
I have ordered the Hoppe book you suggest and will read and, perhaps, review in future.
I note your apparent preference for Kings. Mel Brooks thought that it was "good to be the King" too. I personally prefer Churchill who said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." (See earlier post, "Churchill Quotes")
Post a Comment