Peter

Members
  • Posts

    10,338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    62

Peter last won the day on March 9

Peter had the most liked content!

About Peter

  • Birthday January 2

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Peter D. Taylor
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    solarwind47@hotmail.com

Recent Profile Visitors

24,200 profile views

Peter's Achievements

Veteran

Veteran (13/14)

  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

534

Reputation

  1. We really enjoyed “The Holdovers” with Paul Giamatti. It was $5.99 on Paramount but excellent at any price. NEW YORK – Paul Giamatti can’t stop thinking about the Roman Empire. It’s a lifelong fascination that found its way into “The Holdovers,” for which he earned a best actor Oscar nomination playing a cantankerous ancient history teacher. So when we meet at the Metropolitan Museum of Art on a recent frosty morning, the beloved star is eager to peruse the Greek and Roman galleries. He marvels at a serpentine bronze strigil – a fourth-century skin care tool – and stops to point out a flinty marble bust from the Julio-Claudian period.
  2. From Associated Press: WASHINGTON (AP) — Sitting at her kitchen table in Alabama, Sen. Katie Britt called President Joe Biden a “dithering and diminished leader” and warned of a bleak American future under his presidency in the Republican rebuttal to his State of the Union address Thursday evening. end quote I only saw the last few moments of it, but the Republican response to Biden’s address was very dramatic. If it were part of a movie, Katie would need to be played by Sally Fields . . . but I still liked what I saw. It was “different.”
  3. From FactCheck.com . . . In his final State of the Union address prior to the November general election, President Joe Biden focused on Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, the economy, reproductive rights, prescription drug costs and border security. Biden also criticized many of the policies of “my predecessor” — without naming former President Donald Trump. But he sometimes stretched the facts or left out important context. Biden boasted that under his leadership “wages keep going up.” But over the entirety of Biden’s presidency, wages are down when adjusted for inflation. Biden claimed that the more recent U.S. inflation rate of about 3% is the “lowest in the world!” But several nations reported lower rates than the U.S. in December. He again claimed to have “cut the federal deficit by over one trillion dollars” — although declining deficits have mostly been the result of expiring emergency pandemic spending. Biden said he had created a “record” 15 million new jobs. His 14.8 million new jobs is a record for any president in the first three years, but it’s not the highest job growth rate that any president has achieved in that period of time. He suggested that “many” of the new jobs in U.S. semiconductor factories will be “paying $100,000 a year and don’t require a college degree.” But an industry trade group previously reported that only workers with bachelor’s or graduate degrees make that much. Biden said that, “My policies have attracted $650 billion in private sector investment in clean energy [and] advanced manufacturing.” Those are announcements about intentions to invest, not actual investments. Biden highlighted recent decreases in murder and violent crime rates, but neglected to mention that they are still coming down from their pandemic peak. Biden omitted context of a Trump comment following an Iowa school shooting. The president said billionaires pay an average federal tax rate of only 8.2%, but that’s a White House calculation that includes earnings on unsold stock as income. Biden said that because of the Affordable Care Act, over 100 million people can no longer be denied health insurance due to preexisting conditions. But pre-ACA, employer plans covered many of those people and couldn’t deny policies. Biden said he was “cutting our carbon emissions in half by 2030.” That’s the U.S. goal, relative to 2005 emissions, but studies suggest current policies will not reduce emissions by that much.
  4. The current Real Clear Politics Electoral College Map has Biden 215, Trump 219, and Toss Ups 104. Will Donald Trump and Joe Biden debate? I doubt it. I just don’t think Biden could handle it . . . and his staff knows that. Hmmmm? Maybe Melania Trump and Jill Biden could debate, but what would they disagree about, “who ya gunna vote for?” The news is saying Melania is absent on the campaign trail, Jill is not absent and Joe seems to count on Jill for quite a lot. During the 2020 campaign Joe Biden spent a lot more on ads. From “The Week”: “In 2020, the presidential candidates alone are expected to spend a combined $2.75 billion or more on TV ads by Nov. 3, though most of that will be by Democratic candidate Joe Biden, who has "maintained a nearly 2-to-1 advantage on the airwaves for months," The New York Times reports. Cash-strapped Trump, notably, has spent the past several weeks retreating from the up-for-grabs states of Ohio, Iowa, and New Hampshire.” end quote Maybe it would be a good idea for your favorite candidate to do those soothing types of political ads starting now . . . like “It’s morning in America.” Some comical suggestions with a lot of food ads? Nike’s “Just do it.” "That’s the Power of Pine-Sol, Baby" "America Runs on Dunkin" - Dunkin Donuts. "Finger Lickin’ Good" – KFC "The Breakfast of Champions" - Wheaties" Save Money. Live Better.” – Walmart "Good to the last drop" - Maxwell House Coffee "Expect More. Pay Less” – Target "Relief is just a swallow away" - Alka Seltzer "Because You’re Worth It"- L'Oréal "Find New Roads” – Chevrolet "Diamonds Are Forever" - De Beers "Have it Your Way" - Burger King "They’re Grrreat!” - Frosted Flakes "What’s in Your Wallet?” - Capital One "All the News That's Fit to Print" - The New York Times.
  5. I found a reference or two concerning Machiavelli. I haven’t copied old stuff in a while so I thought it would be OK. The first bit is from me. Michael wrote in two places so this is cobbled together: In Tracinski's world, a person cannot ascend anywhere without the gatekeeping approval of him or others like him. He has decided that he must tell everyone what to think. And if they don't accept his pearls of wisdom as innately superior to what is in their own minds and souls, he wants to take his marbles and go home so nobody can play . . . . I believe this is the root of their visceral hatred of Trump. He is everything they should be but they wimped out on doing the hard stuff. And he doesn't even care because he's building something else right now. Something even bigger than before. end quote That has some truth in it. For a long time Robert was allowed into the ARI inner sanctum. He accepted the hierarchy and the orders given to him. But he revolted. I was looking up Machiavelli for another project and started with the easy Wikipedia search, looking for insights into Donald Trump. Many people have noticed his expression when giving to speech to that of Mussolini giving a speech. They both somehow purse and jut their lips out in a similar fashion. So I put one and one and one together, two Italians Machiavelli and Mussolini and one American Donald Trump. From Wikipedia, The Prince, by Machiavelli. Princes who rise to power through their own skill and resources (their "virtue") rather than luck tend to have a hard time rising to the top, but once they reach the top they are very secure in their position. This is because they effectively crush their opponents and earn great respect from everyone else. Because they are strong and more self-sufficient, they have to make fewer compromises with their allies. Machiavelli writes that reforming an existing order is one of the most dangerous and difficult things a prince can do. Part of the reason is that people are naturally resistant to change and reform. Those who benefited from the old order will resist change very fiercely. By contrast, those who stand to benefit from the new order will be less fierce in their support, because the new order is unfamiliar and they are not certain it will live up to its promises. Moreover, it is impossible for the prince to satisfy everybody's expectations. Inevitably, he will disappoint some of his followers. Therefore, a prince must have the means to force his supporters to keep supporting him even when they start having second thoughts, otherwise he will lose his power. Only armed prophets, like Moses, succeed in bringing lasting change. Machiavelli claims that Moses killed uncountable numbers of his own people in order to enforce his will. Machiavelli was not the first thinker to notice this pattern. Allan Gilbert wrote: "In wishing new laws and yet seeing danger in them Machiavelli was not himself an innovator,"[18] because this idea was traditional and could be found in Aristotle's writings. But Machiavelli went much further than any other author in his emphasis on this aim, and Gilbert associates Machiavelli's emphasis upon such drastic aims with the level of corruption to be found in Italy. From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: An aside with respect to capital punishment Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 01:35:54 -0500 a.d. smith wrote: "Machiavelli had a central role in articulating the central ethical teaching of republicanism, which was centered around his conception of "virtu." Machiavelli's definition of "virtue" as selfless service to state (either on the battlefield or in the council room) was shared by later classical republicanism thinkers. This definition of virtue has had a poisonous effect on Western culture--- almost as bad as the Christian definition of virtue." Like many Renaissance writers, Machiavelli used the term "virtue" loosely, but in general its meaning was distinguished from "fortune." Those things within our control depend on our virtues (powers, abilities, etc.), whereas those that are beyond our control are a matter of fortune, whether good or bad. Where Machiavelli writes "virtu" modern translators will typically use words like "willpower," "efficiency," etc., depending on the context. Only occasionally does Machiavelli use the term "virtue" in its traditional sense to mean moral goodness. And I am not aware of him ever using it to mean "selfless service to state" (though there may be some instances of this). On the contrary, Machiavelli often speaks of the "virtues" of the Prince, and here -- in radical contrast to the Republican tradition -- he had a purely instrumentalist conception. The virtues of a ruler consist of his willingness and ability to use whatever means -- however murderous or unjust by conventional standards -- that are necessary to achieve and maintain political power. This was about as far from the Republican conception of virtue as it is possible to get. Pocock's treatment of Machiavelli stresses the element of time, specifically, the tendency of republics to degenerate and become corrupt over time. (This is found in his *Discourses Upon Livy,* not *The Prince,* and it raises the age-old problem of the relationship between these two books.) And although the problem of republican corruption did indeed become a dominant theme in Radical Republican thinking, Pocock over-emphasizes Machiavelli's influence even here, for Aristotle discussed the same problem in his *Politics.* When 18th century Republicans discussed the virtues that are necessary to maintain a republic and save it from corruption, they relied far more on Montesquieu (*Spirit of the Laws*) than they did on Machiavelli. The apparent inconsistency (and it is only apparent) between *The Prince* and *Discourses* led some 17th and 18th century philosophers to suppose that *The Prince,* despite its appearance as a handbook on how to achieve and maintain political power by any means necessary, was really intended to be an expose of tyranny, in which the mechanism of brute, unjust power is revealed for what it truly is. It was partially owing to this mistaken interpretation that Radical Republicans would sometimes speak of Machiavelli in favorable terms. But they certainty did not endorse his conception of political virtue, which was nothing more than a recipe for tyranny. a.d. smith wrote: "I'm not sure how much of a connection between natural rights theory and seventeenth and eighteenth century republicanism existed. The fact that individual may be found who subscribed to both republican and natural rights ideas does not show that the two are logically connected; in fact, they may simply indicate the contradictory and confused nature of their ideas." Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, "republicanism" was typically associated with natural rights, social contract, and the rights of resistance and revolution. Today this is often called "Radical Republicanism" or "Real Whiggism." a.d. smith wrote: "I am not familiar with the term "Radical Republicanism" in this context. So when did Radical Republicanism emerge ? Who were its proponents ?" I would trace the emergence of Radical Republicanism to early decades of the 17th century, especially to Lilburne, Overton, and other Levellers and (to some extent) to English "Commonwealthmen" like John Milton. Its major spokesmen included Algernon Sidney and John Locke in the 17th century; and Richard Price, Joseph Priestley, John Cartwright, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, etc., in the18th century. These were proponents of the natural rights philosophy that is expressed in the Declaration of Independence (which Jefferson described as a reflection of the American mind) and in the French Declaration of Rights. In 19th century England, this tradition was continued by Thomas Hodgskin, Herbert Spencer, Auberon Herbert and other classical liberals who rejected the liberal utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and his followers. a.d. smith wrote: "Note that I said that militarism had derived from aspects of republicanism, not that republicanism was necessarily militarist (though republicanism and other forms of classicism did, in my opinion, contribute to a militarist ethos in early modern Europe). It is true that many forms of republicanism were opposed to standing armies. However, opposition to a standing army does not preclude ideas that can lay the basis for militarism, since the main alternatives to a standing army advanced by republicans (naval power and a citizen militia) can also be instruments of war. More importantly, republicanism's emphasis on the citizen's duty of military service laid the ethical and cultural foundation (patriotism-altruism) for modern day conscription." I agree with this assessment, or at least parts of it, but it should be pointed out that militias were frequently preferred over standing armies because they could only be used to fight defensive wars, to defend against cases of actual invasion, rather than being used for imperialistic adventures. It is true, however, that militias were sometimes linked to conscription (however lax by modern standards) and that professional armies were often viewed as voluntary (at least prior to the mass conscription of the French Revolution). a.d. smith wrote: "In looking at the central ethical message of republicanism, let's examine the roots of the term "res publica." What is the closest translation of this term in English ? 'Commonwealth' ? My point is that republicanism was an anti-individualist ideology. (Of course, so were many of contemporary value-systems.) Rather than dwelling on republicanism, present-day individualists should celebrate those who undermined the altruist ethos of republicanism and endorsed commercial society by pointing to the benefits to society that arise when individuals pursue their own self-interest (I am thinking of Adam Smith and the other Scottish Enlightenment thinkers as well as Mandeville). See: _The passions and the interests: political arguments for capitalism before its triumph_ by Albert O. Hirschman." There are a number of complex issues here, but suffice it to say that Radical Republicanism was an intensely individualistic ideology; how it could be called "altruistic" in any fundamental sense escapes me. The purpose of government, according to this ideology, was to protect individual rights so that people could pursue happiness in their own way. When Jefferson, in the Declaration, refers to the unalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" he was using an expression that had become a virtual cliché among Radical Republicans. Indeed, George Mason claimed that Jefferson had copied much of the Declaration from Locke's *Second Treatise,* and there are in fact many verbal similarities. The term "republic," then as now, was used in various ways. It literally means "the public thing," so a "republic" was generally conceived (at least by its champions) as a form of government in which a ruler's actions are constrained by considerations of the public good -- which, for Radical Republicans, was defined in terms of protecting natural rights. Thus it was not uncommon for "republicans" to favor some kind of constitutional monarchy, so long as the king was limited rather than absolute, i.e., so long as the king was himself subject to the fundamental laws and precedents of a constitution, whether written or unwritten. Any ruler in a "republic" was considered to be bound by the rule of law, not above it. The ultimate authority in a republic flowed from the bottom up, from the people to the rulers, not from the top down. Republicanism was therefore contrasted with the divine right of kings and other forms of political absolutism; it was sometimes characterized as a theory of divided, or mixed, sovereignty. Later (as we find, e.g., in *The Federalist Papers*) the term "republic" assumed a more specialized meaning; it came to denote a type of indirect and limited democracy -- where the people decide political matters indirectly, by voting for representatives, and where the power of the majority is limited by the constitutionally protected rights of the minority. One last thing: the merits and influence of Mandeville have been greatly exaggerated by some historians. He was generally disliked by Adam Smith and other figures of the Scottish Enlightenment, and, as a mercantilist, he was not the champion of spontaneous order that he is sometimes made out to be. Ghs From: Will Murphy To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Republicanism and Natural Rights Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:58:01 -0700 (PDT) --- a.d. smith wrote: > I'm not sure how much of a connection between natural rights theory and seventeenth and eighteenth century republicanism existed. The fact that individual may be found who subscribed to both republican and natural rights ideas does not show that the two are logically connected; in fact, they may simply indicate the contradictory and confused nature of their ideas. Although I believe George has done a fine job correcting the general thrust of what Smith has said, the above merits a few additional strictures. It unsettles me deeply to see the republicanism of the Radical Whigs spoken of as a "confused" philosophy composed of "contradictory" ideas. Nothing can be farther from the truth. I am constantly amazed and delighted to realize just how comprehensive and robust their libertarian vision was. In my eyes, the works of Algernon Sidney, Robert Molesworth, Trenchard and Gordon, James Burgh, Joseph Priestley, Richard Price, Jefferson, John Taylor of Caroline, et al contain within them the essential ingredients for a consistent, systematic libertarian social philosophy. Not only does their thought combine republicanism and natural rights, but it does so in such a manner that one is inclined to wonder why anyone would ever wish to cleave the two apart. Furthermore, I have long held that their thought is more finely and rigorously developed than the vast majority of modern libertarian political philosophers. The republicanism of Ayn Rand for instance, seems almost puerile in comparison. As an anarchist, I make no claim to be a republican myself. Nonetheless, one of the most endearing aspects of "Radical Whig" republicanism is its close proximity to libertarian anarchism. There is no better illustration of this than the magnificent "Enquiry Concerning Political Justice" by anarchist pioneer William Godwin. Godwin, despite the fact that his developed philosophy contained many elements alien to and often contrary to the "Whig" philosophy, was nevertheless a man whose early life and education was saturated by the culture, traditions, and ideology of Radical Whiggery. This is clearly evident in his great masterpiece, in which he pushed many key republican positions to their full anarchic potential. My own experience is further testament to the anarchic potential of the tradition, as I am now able to discern the direct link between my study of the actual works of 17th & 18th century Whigs/republicans and my gradual development as a full fledged, avowed anarchist. These works, along with a little help from Lysander Spooner and Albert Nock, allowed me to make the quantum leap from the dark pit of Randian minarchism to the golden fields of anarcho-capitalism. Even now "Whig" thought permeates my view of the world, and seldom does a day go by when I do not reflect upon its veracity, and all of the pain, indignity, and slavery that mankind could have been saved by its ascendancy. Will Murphy From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis"Subject: ATL: Re: Republicanism and Natural Rights Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:03:17 -0500 a.d. smith wrote: "How is republican discourse (with its emphasis on Cincinatus-like "civic virtue" and devotion to the common good) compatible with the doctrine of natural rights in its individualist form ? I would suggest that it is not (though republicanism might be compatible with the collectivist variant of natural rights theory represented by Grotius and other theorist of international law.) As I have said before, "republicanism" is an ambiguous label, one that has been applied to different political traditions, but there is nothing anti-individualistic about the tradition known as Radical Republicanism. Indeed, a central tenet of Radical Republicanism (as defended by Locke and others) is the insistence that all rights are ultimately the rights of individuals; there are no special rights that pertain only to groups, collectives, or institutions (such as government). This was the point of social contract theory, namely, to trace all governmental authority back to the voluntary consent of individuals. Government, in this tradition, has only those rights that are delegated to it by the governed. As for "the collectivist variant of natural rights," I'm not sure what Smith is getting at. Although not every proponent of modern natural law theory arrived at libertarian conclusions -- far from it – this approach contained an inner logic of individualism that was bound to emerge in one form or another. As Otto von Gierke noted in his magisterial *Natural Law and the Theory of Society, 1500-1800*: "[T]he guiding thread of all speculation in the area of [modern] Natural Law was always, from first to last, individualism -- an individualism steadily carried to its logical conclusions. Every attempt to oppose this tendency was necessarily a revolt, on this point or on that, against the idea of Natural Law itself" (p. 96). a.d. smith wrote: "At heart republicanism was a collectivist discourse grounded in a patriot-altruist ethos of public service. The classical republican dictim "Salus Populi Suprema Lex" is fundamentally anti-individualist -- a modernized variant is Bethamite utilitarianism. The fact that one can point to republicans in English-speaking countries who also displayed some individualist attitudes suggests that the harsh collectivism of their republican doctrines was modified by their surrounding individualist environment. Keep in mind Rand's belief that utilitarian/consequentialist arguments for freedom were strictly secondary to individualist ones." I find this very confusing, so perhaps Smith should name a particular theorist who defended the "patriot-altruistic ethos" to which he refers. I can think of no Radical Republican to which this description would apply. On the contrary, self-professed Enlightenment "republicans" like Thomas Paine would often proclaim themselves "citizens of the world," and this cosmopolitan attitude was far removed from the nationalistic patriotism of today. And such republicans argued again and again for the moral propriety of self-interested actions, in contradistinction to blind loyalty and sacrifice to a state or church Smith has repeatedly condemned the supposed "devotion" of Radical Republicans to the "common good," but he seems not to understand what they meant by this phrase. Government, in their view, should promote the "common good" -- i.e., it should protect the rights that humans share in common, and which are necessary for their happiness -- rather than being used to promote the *particular* good of any special person or group. In thus viewing the "common good" in universal and individualistic terms, Radical Republicans revolutionized this traditional concept by merging it with a demand for equal rights and individual liberty. What is soterrible about this? We should not be misled by terminology. Political theory has traditionally dealt with concepts like "the common good," "virtue," and the like -- but this does not mean that every person who used such terms meant the same thing by them. We must go beneath the surface of words and look for meaning. Such liberty as the United States has enjoyed in the past is largely owing to the efforts of Radical Republicans. This was no accident, nor was it the result of some altruistic ethos. The moral legitimacy of self-interest -- or "self-love," as it was often called -- was a major theme in 17th and 18th century moral and political philosophy. Again, since traditions can be rather amorphous, it would help if Smith would mention some specific philosophers to illustrate the points he wishes to make. Then we would at least know whether we are talking about the same people. I have immersed myself in this literature for nearly three decades, and I frankly don't recognize the thinkers Smith is referring to. Ghs From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Reply to a.d. smith, 1 (was An aside with respect to capital punishment) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:39:52 -0500 a.d. smith wrote: "And they [Radical Republicans] almost always define corruption as some form of the pursuit of individual self-interest. This was the major charge republicans levied against the ministry of Walpole --namely that Walpole ruled by appealing to the self-interest of individuals (placemen and the like). Selfishness was far from being a virtue in the eyes of the republicans, was source of all of society's problems. Luxury was a manifestation of this decadence (another key Radical Whig term), as were the growth of banking and international trade. "Contrast this ethical system with that of Voltaire, who endorsed luxury and economic hedonism, or with Scottish Enlightenment thinkers like Adam Smith, who worked hard to legitimate an ethos of individualism." This account of self-interest is very misleading. Radical Republicans generally defined a "tyrant" or "despot" as ruler who betrays his public trust and uses his immense power for personal gain rather than for the common good (i.e., protecting individual rights and liberty). And the Radical Republican critics attacked the corruption" of the Walpole administration for precisely this reason. Walpole was notorious for appointing friends and relatives to lucrative political offices, thereby stealing (via taxes) from the many in order to benefit these privileged few. Is the official who grows rich from money coercively expropriated from others to be praised, because he is motivated by self-interest? Is Bill Clinton admirable because he used his high office to further his own financial fortune? Radical Republicans did not condemn self-interest; they simply believed that self-interest should be pursued within the parameters of justice. I wrote: "Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, "republicanism" was typically associated with natural rights, social contract, and the rights of resistance and revolution." And a.d. smith replied: "By whom ?" Paine, Jefferson, Madison and many of their colleagues frequently called themselves "republicans," and they defended these very doctrines. This usage is common in the literature of the time. a.d. smith wrote: "I'm not sure to what extent modern secular-minded individualists would want to claim the Levellers of the Cromwellian era as our own. Modern scholars generally associate the Levellers with egalitarianism, hardly a central Objectivist trait. Their religious world-view is striking different than our own. Some historians associate the Levellers with the moral-economy tradition associated with bread riots and the notion of a just price (I haven't verified this claim myself --but if true, it points to a radically anti-individualist strain in lower-order Anglo-American political though that continues up past the American Revolution to the Luddites of the 19thc.)" The myth that Lilburne, Overton and other Levellers were egalitarians (in the socialistic sense) has not been defended by any serious scholar for decades. This was a popular view in the mid-20th century, when Marxist historians like Christopher Hill tried to incorporate the Levellers within the socialist tradition, but even Hill later recanted this mistaken interpretation. The libertarian individualism of the Levellers (in contrast to "Diggers" like Winstanley) is evident to anyone who reads their writings, and has been conceded even by Marxists like C.B. MacPherson in his book, *The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism* (though this book also contains its share of errors). And as other scholars like Richard Ashcraft have suggested, it is very possible that John Locke owed far more to the Levellers than has been previously understood. a.d. smith wrote: "Locke (I mean the later Locke) was a great thinker who advanced social contract theory and the doctrine of natural rights dramatically. As an aside, I came to anarcho-capitalism partially as a result of my reading of Locke. That being said, I don't think it is fair at all to label Locke as a republican." When modern historians speak of "Radical Republicanism," they are referring primarily to the tradition associated with John Locke. a.d. smith wrote: "In the Second Treatise, Locke's central concern was the individual's relationship with the state, rather than the internal workings of the state. By reducing the state to a form of contract, Locke left the English-speaking world a wonderful legacy --an attitude that sees the state as merely one instrument among many for the attainment of individual ends." This latter is why I admire Radical Republicans so much, for they followed Locke in this respect. a.d. smith wrote: "Contrast this with the republican idealization of ancient city states, with their (allegedly) altruistic citizenry (the myth of Cincinnatus represents this tradition)." Many people (including Locke) painted ideal portraits of ancient (or Renaissance) city-states. This appeal to historical ideal types cut across ideological boundaries, and is found in every political tradition. "John Cartwright (who defended the "rights of Englishmen," as opposed to the "rights of Man," with reference to the pre-Norman Conquest anglo-saxon constitution and who advocated Parliamentary Reform.) is much closer to the Norman-Yoke/Germanist tradition than the more universalistic, natural-rights approach of Thomas Paine." Paine also spoke eloquently (if inaccurately) of an ideal liberty prior to the conquest of "William the Bastard." The Norman Yoke theory was common fare at the time, and is found in Paine, Jefferson and many of their Radical Republican colleagues. These theorists did not see the "rights of Englishmen" as *opposed* to the "rights of Man." Although the former tended to constitute a more conservative approach than the latter (as we see in the ideological development of revolutionary opposition to England), the two were often seen as complimentary. Which was appealed to in a particular case was often a matter of strategy -- for to appeal to the rights of man, as they exist in a state of nature, was effectively to renounce allegiance to a sovereign and to institute a state of revolution. This problem was well understood and widely discussed during the early 1770s. It was therefore not at all uncommon for the same writer to appeal to both the traditional rights of Englishmen *and* to the rights of man. [To be continued] Ghs
  6. From the home of Walt Disney in Orlando Florida: Garsh! Those illegal alienz ain’t gunna vote for President Trump in the 2024 election. The demoncrats is setting it all up now. Thar going to vote for Biden. signed Goofie.
  7. Sorry. I must have seen "projected' stats for SC.
  8. I saw that President Trump nearly got double the delegates of Nikki Mouse's in her home state of South Carolina.
  9. Story by AP Associated Press: Canada’s government is preparing for the possibility that Donald Trump could reach the White House again and the “uncertainty” that would bring, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Tuesday at a Cabinet retreat. Trudeau said that Trump “represents uncertainty. We don’t know exactly what he is going to do,” but he said that his government was able to manage Trump previously by showing that Canada and the U.S. can create economic growth on both sides of the border.
  10. Would Rand Paul make an OK, good, or great VEEP candidate to run with President Trump in 2024? Well, here is an email message sent to me from Rand Paul. Peter – I’ve been watching the GOP Primary closely for a while now, and I like various aspects of several candidates. As I look over the field, I don’t have a first choice yet, but I do know one thing… NEVER NIKKI.
  11. CC was never phat. I think that means something. Doesn't phat mean cool? So when I say yadda yadda I mean . . . . Sorry. My brain is in sleep mode.
  12. A personal note. I have been taking Ambien to sleep for many years. But I decided to stop . . . but I still want to get a good night’s sleep. So. I listen to a lot of music. And I am doing OK. Want some good harmonies? Good guitar work? Exciting? Want to wake up on a dreary day? Play Chicago. This will do it. “25 or 6 to 4.” Or “Look Away.” Good video, etc. Yup. Them’s the song titles and others.
  13. 'Indiana Jones and The Dial of Destiny' Released 42 years after the very first film, 1981's Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny sees Harrison Ford return to his famous role for another treasure-hunting, tomb-raiding, wise-cracking adventure . . . . I watched it on Netflix for $5,99. It was money well spent.
  14. From USA TODAY: Who would Trump choose as vice president? Here's a list of potential candidates. . . . Some names being floated are lawmakers who’ve said in interviews they would be interested in the job. Other names are generated when Trump meets with a high-profile supporter, which happened this week when he was spotted at Mar-a-Lago with Rep, Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., according to aides . . . Trump himself said in an interview with NBC in September that he hasn’t thought too much about the role but added he “likes the concept” of a woman as vice president. "We're going to choose the best person," he said. (Also) . . . Tim Scott . . . Nikki Haley . . . Kristi Noem . . . Sarah Huckabee Sanders . . . Ben Carson . . . Marjorie Taylor Greene . . . Kari Lake . . . Vivek Ramaswamy . . .