Tweet
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
View Post
-
What do you mean by "individual mass conversions" ? Noone have said such.With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg -
I'm sorry, are you comparing me to the shooter or is Ben? Or is there some horrible misunderstanding? Classical liberalism doesn't strike me as the movement for terrorists.Originally posted by gribbler View PostIf there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:Comment
-
The killer's words were "am a supporter of an indirect collective conversion from the Protestant church to a Catholic one."Originally posted by BlackCat View Post
I took collective to mean mass (badoom tish). Don't know what he means by 'indirect'.Comment
-
WTF ??? Classical liberalism is terrorism by nature.Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostWith or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
...wait, what? Jeffersonian democracy is terrorism?If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:Comment
-
Yeah, what you wrote was understandable, I just wondered how Ben was able to convert it into "individual ..."Originally posted by Cort Haus View Post
By indirect, he probably meant that state religion should change to cat. - there are no hidden meaning in it.With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
No, of course not since Jeffersonian democracy is the opposite of Classical liberalismOriginally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
Edit: Actually, Jeffersonian democracy is comparable with socialism (there might be a minor dispute about government influence, but that is a detail).With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
Ahh, *that* makes sense. Thanks BC.state religion should change to cat.
Read too quickly scanned through and didn't think to check back because I didn't understand what he meant in the first place.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!Comment
-
Yes, his Indian removal policies and violation of treaties signed with the tribes could be viewed as state terrorism just like Stalin's forced relocations of various ethnic groups in the Soviet Union.Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostComment
-
Socialism is nothing like Jeffersonian democracy. Not even a little bit. Classical liberalism is small government and free markets.Originally posted by BlackCat View PostNo, of course not since Jeffersonian democracy is the opposite of Classical liberalism
Edit: Actually, Jeffersonian democracy is comparable with socialism (there might be a minor dispute about government influence, but that is a detail).If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:Comment
-
That's not Jeffersonian democracy, that's Jacksonian democracy.Originally posted by Riesstiu IV View PostIf there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:Comment
-
Here:
Since the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, America's policy had been to allow Native Americans to remain east of the Mississippi as long as they became assimilated or "civilized". His original plan was to guide the Natives towards adopting a sedentary agricultural lifestyle, in large part due to "the decrease of game rendering their subsistence by hunting insufficient".[1] Jefferson's expectation was that by assimilating them into an agricultural lifestyle, they would become economically dependent on trade with white Americans, and would thereby be willing to give up land that they would otherwise not part with, in exchange for trade goods.[2] In an 1803 letter to William Henry Harrison, Jefferson wrote:
When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in exchange for necessaries for their farms and families. To promote this disposition to exchange lands, which they have to spare and we want, for necessaries, which we have to spare and they want, we shall push our trading uses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands. At our trading houses, too, we mean to sell so low as merely to repay us cost and charges, so as neither to lessen or enlarge our capital. This is what private traders cannot do, for they must gain; they will consequently retire from the competition, and we shall thus get clear of this pest without giving offence or umbrage to the Indians. In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi. The former is certainly the termination of their history most happy for themselves; but, in the whole course of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them, and that all our liberalities to them proceed from motives of pure humanity only. Should any tribe be foolhardy enough to take up the hatchet at any time, the seizing the whole country of that tribe, and driving them across the Mississippi, as the only condition of peace, would be an example to others, and a furtherance of our final consolidation.[1]
There was a long history of Native American land being purchased, usually by treaty and sometimes under coercion. In the early 19th century the notion of "land exchange" developed and began to be incorporated into land cession treaties. Native Americans would relinquish land in the east in exchange for equal or comparable land west of the Mississippi River. This idea was proposed as early as 1803, by Jefferson, but was not used in actual treaties until 1817, when the Cherokee agreed to cede two large tracts of land in the east for one of equal size in present-day Arkansas. Many other treaties of this nature quickly followed. The process was used in President Andrew Jackson's policy of forced migration in the Indian Removal Act of 1830.[3]"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben KenobiComment
-
His original plan was to guide the Natives towards adopting a sedentary agricultural lifestyle
Human progress
Comment
-
Classical liberalism is a cutthroat, climb over the dead bodies of other, egoistic theory that has nothing to do with Jeffersonian democracy despite that they both think that small gov is goodOriginally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!Comment
Comment