Originally Posted by Brutus

can you say more directly what your point is?

Which of you is the lesser of the evils, because I can't figure it out?

Originally Posted by poet

Which of you is the lesser of the evils, because I can't figure it out?

Whats new?
Hes a right wing republican sweetpea

Originally Posted by gansao

Can you say what yours is?

in OP silly goose liberal

Originally Posted by Brutus

in OP silly goose liberal

Are you gay?

Originally Posted by Brutus

perfect example of liberals hating America

of course if there was proof Jefferson raped his slaves I would pay the liberal liar $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal tail between your legs.

Nitwit, Sally Hemmings was his slave...who he not only repeatedly raped but fathered children with. This was proven beyond any doubt using DNA evidence from Sallys descendents.

Thomas Jefferson: The Face of a Rapist ? Feministe

When Jefferson first met Sally Hemings, his slave through inheritance, she would have been no more than 15 or 16 years old. It is rumoured that when she returned from France with him, that she was already pregnant with his child.

It was widely suggested within his own life time that he kept a light skinned negro concubine. You see, Sally was 3/4 white and was described as a handsome light skinned woman with long dark hair in one of the few known descriptions of her.

There are those that to this day vehemently deny that Jefferson fathered Sally’s six children despite the DNA evidence. It is my belief that such denial is not based in the simple fact that it would prove that he was a lecher but that he chose a woman of color.

On the other side of the coin are those that believe the oral, written, and DNA evidence.

This is a well known part of American history.

Did you think for some reason that he was willing to OWN another human being but not rape them????

Imbecile.

Originally Posted by daewoo

This[that liberals hate America] is a well known part of American history.

1) a liberal will always have a low IQ

2) it is well know that Liberals will hate American principles and its Founders because they lack the IQ to understand them.

3) If Jefferson had relations with Sally it may have been in course of a loving relationship

4) IF DNA evidence proves Jefferson was Father I will pay low IQ liberal $10,000. Bet or run away again with your liberal tail between your legs.

Originally Posted by daewoo

Did you think for some reason that he was willing to OWN another human being but not rape them????

Imbecile.

more of the liberal IQ:

1) were all slaves raped??? Yes or no????
2) Jefferson was not willing to own, he was born owning
3) manumission was illegal
4) his Declaration first draft was more about slavery than
taxes
5) Jefferson invented freedom on earth and most recently was responsible for freeing 2 billion from communism.

6) those who hate him are stupid beyond belief. It would be like hating doctors who bled George Washington 4 times before he died. All you have to do is be a liberal and lack the brains to take into account the times in which people lived. Slavery was normal for 2 million years but the incredible liberal will hate the revolutionary who ended it!! Nothing could be more stupid than a liberal!!

Originally Posted by Brutus

1) a liberal will always have a low IQ
2) it is well know that Liberals will hate American principles and its Founders because they lack the IQ to understand them.
3) If Jefferson had relations with Sally it may have been in course of a loving relationship
4) IF DNA evidence proves Jefferson was Father I will pay low IQ liberal $10,000. Bet or run away again with your liberal tail between your legs.
more of the liberal IQ:
1) were all slaves raped??? Yes or no????
2) Jefferson was not willing to own, he was born owning
3) manumission was illegal
4) his Declaration first draft was more about slavery than
taxes
5) Jefferson invented freedom on earth and most recently was responsible for freeing 2 billion from communism.

6) those who hate him are stupid beyond belief. It would be like hating doctors who bled George Washington 4 times before he died. All you have to do is be a liberal and lack the brains to take into account the times in which people lived. Slavery was normal for 2 million years but the incredible liberal will hate the revolutionary who ended it!! Nothing could be more stupid than a liberal!!

The fact that you post such XXXXXXXX is all the proof one needs to see where the true ignorance lies. You're not even worth the time it took to type this ..

Originally Posted by Brutus

1) a liberal will always have a low IQ

2) it is well know that Liberals will hate American principles and its Founders because they lack the IQ to understand them.

3) If Jefferson had relations with Sally it may have been in course of a loving relationship

4) IF DNA evidence proves Jefferson was Father I will pay low IQ liberal $10,000. Bet or run away again with your liberal tail between your legs.

Retard, this is well known:

Sally Hemings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because Jefferson descendants had identified Carr relatives as the father(s) of Hemings' children, few academic historians credited the paternity allegation or examined the possible relationship closely before the third quarter of the 20th century. Analysis of the historical evidence was bolstered by 1998 DNA testing that showed a match between the Jefferson male line and at least one of Sally Hemings' children. It disproved any Carr connection, and Jeffersonian scholarship has changed to reflect wide agreement that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children.

IF you dont like wikipedia, here it is from the Monticello web page (jeffersons home...and now his museum):

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

The study - which tested Y-chromosomal DNA samples from male-line descendants of Field Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson's uncle), John Carr (grandfather of Jefferson's Carr nephews), Eston Hemings, and Thomas C. Woodson - indicated a genetic link between the Jefferson and Hemings descendants. The results of the study established that an individual carrying the male Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Eston Hemings (born 1808), the last known child born to Sally Hemings.

What makes this particularly weird is that Sally was inherited from Jeffersons wifes father, and Sally was his wifes half sister...thats right....Jeffersons father in law ALSO raped his slaves.

Then to make matters even weirder, he kept his OWN CHILDREN as slaves. The older 2 he did finally release in 1822. The other 2 that we know of were released in his WILL...so he kept his own children as slaves until he died. There is some question of whether he was keeping them LEGALLY as slaves because at the time if you were 7/8 white, as Jeffersons children with Sally were, you were considered white and free....but he kept them as slaves.

Your hero worship of Jefferson is cute. It sucks when you realize that your heros were real, live, flawed people, doesn't it?

Did it not ever dawn on you that half the guys who wrote this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Were slave owners? Anybody who is willing to put that kind of hypocrisy down for posterity likely has other skeletons in their closet as well.

Originally Posted by Brutus

1) a liberal will always have a low IQ

Obama was the president of the Harvard Law Review. You can barely form a proper sentence.

Originally Posted by Brutus

2) it is well know that Liberals will hate American principles and its Founders because they lack the IQ to understand them.

By whom? Present the studies and your evidence to support this or the only place this is well known is in your own mind.

Originally Posted by Brutus

3) If Jefferson had relations with Sally it may have been in course of a loving relationship

And this, this is the cream. The guy who preaches FREEDOM telling us there was something loving about denying somebody else their's. The woman was a SLAVE. She had zero freedom of choice. There is nothing loving in that dynamic. NOTHING.

Originally Posted by daewoo

....
Also, for the last time, Jefferson was a liberal. There is no question of that. It is really not even debatable. The words "conservative" and "liberal" actually have meanings. Look them up, you look like an idiot misusing them.

The term liberal today and in Jefferson's day have dramatically differing meanings. A liberal in Jefferson's days was essentially a Libertarian by today's standards.
A modern liberal is a big-government statist. That's as far removed from Jefferson as you can get.

Originally Posted by Brutus

1) a liberal will always have a low IQ

Mine, at last count was 126...well above the national average.
2) it is well know that Liberals will hate American principles and its Founders because they lack the IQ to understand them.
Conservatism: The Politics Of Ignorance and Self-Interest

The Most Fundamental Fallacy of Conservative Philosophy
The conservative theorist and the right-wing Libertarian theories from whom his ideas are derived, love to rail against the power of the state. The obtrusiveness of government, especially in economic matters, are the basis of the conservative's complaints about government.
Yet the reality of life is that it is the economic power of corporations, which conservative theory ignores, that represents the greatest circumscription of personal freedom to the vast majority of people. As conservative principles are applied to government, the increasing restraint with which corporate activities are regulated means that corporations become increasingly free to tread on the personal freedoms of individuals who are powerless to stop them.

Suppose, for example, a major corporation wishes to buy up property across the street to build a shopping mall. Those who already live across the street from the proposed shopping mall are in a very poor position to prevent the mall from being built and have to watch helplessly while their property values are negatively affected. Why? Because they don't have the political muscle that fighting the large corporation would take. In other words, those with the gold make the rules, and the rights of the individual property owners in reality don't matter. So even though the small property owner has the theoretical right to object, his objection will make little difference. As the zoning regulations become increasingly watered down, individual property owners are finding they have fewer and fewer options for stopping the loss of value of their principal investment, because of the greed of a major corporation.

But the most serious circumscription of personal rights by corporations is in the workplace. The constitution and the bill of rights are essentially left at the workplace door. There is no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, no right of privacy, no right to petition for a redress of grievances, and little if any recourse for an unjust decision by management. And now, at least in Michigan and increasingly in other states, workers injured on the job are no longer entitled to compensation either for injuries or for lost income in any practical way.

The conservative argument is that the worker has the right to bargain for improved conditions; but if the worker has no bargaining power, that right exists in theory only. A father with hungry mouths to feed and a single job offer has far fewer options than does a huge corporation with a massive human resources department. And when the ability to organize a union is stifled by unfavorable labor law, it isn't possible for the worker to aggregate that power.


Dressing Up Intolerance As a Respectable Philosophy
Put yourself in the position of the conservative Republican:
I don't have any problem with conservatives teaching conservative Republicanism to their own kids. But I don't want them to advocate it in the public schools. And if their kids get beat up because they're conservative Republicans, that's their own fault, and they shouldn't expect any help from school officials, because conservative Republicanism is a choice, and if they want to avoid the beatings, they can quit being conservative Republicans any time they want.

And if conservative Republicans want to date each other, that's fine, but if they want to make love to each other, then that ought to be against the law. After all, we do have some moral standards in this country, don't we?

I think that we should allow conservative Republicans to be scout leaders and school teachers, but only of course, if we monitor them closely to make sure they don't recruit innocent young people into their foul brand of politics.

I resent the way Hollywood and the press present conservative Republicanism as a respectable way to live. After all, if a person is sincere and motivated enough, he can convert himself to being a liberal democrat, and he wouldn't have to go around offending everyone and asking for special rights.

And that's another thing. Special rights. I don't see why any conservative Republican should have his religious views protected by law. After all, being a conservative Republican is something I can distinguish only by behavior, and I don't see why simple behavior should qualify anyone for protected minority status. So we ought to do away with the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Their lifestyle offends my sense of right and wrong, so I cannot be indifferent to their claim to legitimacy. While there's some evidence that being born a conservative might be predisposed by inheritance, there's not any doubt that they could change if they want to enough, and so if they want the same rights as us liberal Democrats have, all they have to do is change.

Well, this is a democracy, so I guess I'm going to have to tolerate the presence of conservative Republicans in this country. But that doesn't mean I have to endorse or accept them. So if they want to live in this country, that's fine, but they should keep it to themselves. I don't want to have to watch.

Now, how does that rhetoric sound? Intolerant? Meanspirited? If you substitute 'gays' for 'conservative Republicans,' you have some common conservative rhetoric. How legitimate as a political philosophy does it sound to you? Of course I don't personally feel that way about conservatives, but aren't there more than just a few conservatives who feel that way about gays?

All too often, conservative theoreticians fail to consider how their philosophies would feel if the shoe were on the other foot. If they did, they would quickly begin to see how their ideas are really designed to benefit themselves, at the expense of others who have just as legitimate a claim to a piece of the American dream as they do.


Why Do Conservatives Believe What They Do?
As has been mentioned, conservatives often come to their views through personal experience and familial socialization. Seldom does a conservative arrive at that point of view through rigorous intellectual discourse. Here's why:
When you're hurt by someone, it is easy and natural to lash out at the person who hurt you. The same obviously holds true of being hurt by government. When you've been audited by the tax authorities, been fined for driving a polluting car or had difficulty getting a building permit, government is easy to blame. With government being a ubiquitous presence, it isn't surprising that large numbers of people end up being hurt by it at one time or another.

Government in your mind then becomes the problem, and if others tell you that you're right in assuming that government is the problem, it isn't hard to accept an economic or social theory that agrees with that point of view. Indeed, it even becomes "common sense" in that the synergy of components of the emerging world view become self evident.

Hence, the social theories that, on the face of it, decry "social engineering" (even though frequently engaging in it, usually in matters relating to sexuality or drug use), sound like a logical extension of this world view. Social problems, therefore, become the fault of a meddling government (hence the favorite conservative saying, "a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged"). Unfortunately, as we shall see, the world isn't quite that simple.

This is especially true of conservative economic theories. Capitalist free enterprise as a model is very appealing to those who entertain this anti-government bias. Adam Smith claimed in his classic, "The Wealth of Nations," that unrestrained accumulation of capital is good for the economy, because it allows the creation of large pools of investment capital. Thus, conservatives are given a reason for restraining government from intervening in the accumulation of wealth. Smith also argued that the most efficient way of arriving at the true value of a good or service is to see what price it will bring in an free and unrestrained market. Again, reason for keeping the meddling hands of government out of the market. But again, the world isn't that simple. No reasonable conservative would argue that the most efficient way to keep the price of paramedic service to a minimum, for example, is to allow the free market to set the price. When you're having a heart attack, you're not going to argue with the ambulance driver over the price of the ride to the hospital. Yet the reality is that this is what many conservatives unthinkingly propose.

Conservatives often ask me, what is the problem with personal experience? Well, nothing, actually. It's perfectly fine as far as it goes. It's useful, even neccessary. The personal experience of the upper-class privileged male is just as valid as is the experience of the poor, the woman, the minority. As far as it goes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is no accident that conservatism has arisen at the same time the public education system in the United States has declined.
It is also no accident that conservatism is strongest in the same parts of America where education is weakest."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is that personal experience is far too limited a basis on which to try to build a philosophy with which to run the world. It is my contention that no one, no matter how diverse his life experiences, is ever going to learn enough about the complexity of the world around him to build a coherent philosophy of politics in the absence of a good education. Indeed, it is the increasing rarity of good education, in my opinion, that is reason that conservatism is not only increasing in popularity, but increasing in influence as well. Liberalism, having been built over the centuries by the more educated, is more inclusive of this different knowledge, not gained by experience. And this is why conservatives have always been generally suspicious of institutions of higher learning.3) If Jefferson had relations with Sally it may have been in course of a loving relationship


Right. Like she had any choice in the matter.

4) IF DNA evidence proves Jefferson was Father I will pay low IQ liberal $10,000. Bet or run away again with your liberal tail between your legs.




more of the liberal IQ:

1) were all slaves raped??? Yes or no???? For most part, of course.2) Jefferson was not willing to own, he was born owning
3) manumission was illegal
4) his Declaration first draft was more about slavery than
taxes
5) Jefferson invented freedom on earth and most recently was responsible for freeing 2 billion from communism.

6) those who hate him are stupid beyond belief. It would be like hating doctors who bled George Washington 4 times before he died. All you have to do is be a liberal and lack the brains to take into account the times in which people lived. Slavery was normal for 2 million years but the incredible liberal will hate the revolutionary who ended it!! Nothing could be more stupid than a liberal!!

Indeed, something can. Your run-of-the-mill conservative.

Originally Posted by poet

But the most serious circumscription of personal rights by corporations is in the workplace.

A corporation has to offer the best jobs at the best pay with the best conditions or lose its best workers to corporations that offer more. To say that a corporation can offer bad jobs is like saying it can offer bad products. In truth, we are the richest people in human history precisely because capitalism makes corporations virtual slaves to consumers and workers.

A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism

Originally Posted by poet

As has been mentioned, conservatives often come to their views through personal experience and familial socialization.

actually, they come to it mostly from our Founders who were the greatest political geniuses in human history. They created the most successful country in human history with the Republican principle of freedom and liberty from government.

Do liberals ever wonder what the American Revolution was about??

Originally Posted by Brutus

actually, they come to it mostly from our Founders who were the greatest political geniuses in human history. They created the most successful country in human history with the Republican principle of freedom and liberty from government.

Do liberals ever wonder what the American Revolution was about??

The founders were liberals who were fed up with the robber barons of England and the court. You're confused.