Home Menu

Menu


Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

DIYbanter » Do - it - Yourself » Metalworking > OT - Christians defend GWB
Reply
Page 1 of 6 1 23456
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Christians defend GWB
http://www.christslove.com/gangbang/President/lie.htm

HTH
--
Cliff
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #2   Report Post  
John Scheldroup
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Cliff" wrote in message ...
http://www.christslove.com/gangbang/President/lie.htm

HTH
--
Cliff

chuckle I'll guess "It's Pat" by Pat Robertson approved SNL look a like ?
http://www.cbn.com/700club/guests/bi...ams_022105.asp


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #3   Report Post  
Tom Gardner
 
Posts: n/a
Default
Ahem, you can't use the word "Christian" in a public forum. The liberals
will hunt you down with torches and pitchforks...the modern version of what
they did to Jesus.


"Cliff" wrote in message
...
http://www.christslove.com/gangbang/President/lie.htm

HTH
--
Cliff


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #4   Report Post  
Dan Murphy
 
Posts: n/a
Default
Cliff wrote in news:vaqk11l03de1gubh4nbr3odqh99hg9bn76@
4ax.com:

http://www.christslove.com/gangbang/President/lie.htm

Hey Cliffie, you need to find smarter links. Lincoln and Madison were
Founders of the nation? PFFFT. Did you go to school? What did they teach
there?

Dan
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #5   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On 22 Feb 2005 07:27:06 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in news:vaqk11l03de1gubh4nbr3odqh99hg9bn76@
4ax.com:

http://www.christslove.com/gangbang/President/lie.htm

Hey Cliffie, you need to find smarter links. Lincoln and Madison were
Founders of the nation? PFFFT. Did you go to school? What did they teach
there?

What, you don't know who James Madison was?

Were you home skooled?

Hal


Dan

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #6   Report Post  
Joe AutoDrill
 
Posts: n/a
Default
First thing I thought when I saw this subject line was, "Why would
Christians be defending the George Washington Bridge?"

LOL...

Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
(800) 871-5022
http://www.AutoDrill.com
http://www.Multi-Drill.com

V8013


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #7   Report Post  
Dan Murphy
 
Posts: n/a
Default
wrote in news
On 22 Feb 2005 07:27:06 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
news:vaqk11l03de1gubh4nbr3odqh99hg9bn76@ 4ax.com:

http://www.christslove.com/gangbang/President/lie.htm

Hey Cliffie, you need to find smarter links. Lincoln and Madison were
Founders of the nation? PFFFT. Did you go to school? What did they
teach there?

What, you don't know who James Madison was?

Were you home skooled?

Hal

What's a founding father? Is it someone who signed the Declaration of
Independence, thereby putting themselves and their fortunes in grave peril?
Or is it someone that debated and voted on the Constitution after the war
was won? What do you consider the founding document of this country? Was
Lincoln fighting the Redcoats? Cliff seems to think so...

Dan

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #8   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On 22 Feb 2005 17:42:52 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

wrote in news
On 22 Feb 2005 07:27:06 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
news:vaqk11l03de1gubh4nbr3odqh99hg9bn76@ 4ax.com:

http://www.christslove.com/gangbang/President/lie.htm

Hey Cliffie, you need to find smarter links. Lincoln and Madison were
Founders of the nation? PFFFT. Did you go to school? What did they
teach there?

What, you don't know who James Madison was?

Were you home skooled?

Hal

What's a founding father? Is it someone who signed the Declaration of
Independence, thereby putting themselves and their fortunes in grave peril?
Or is it someone that debated and voted on the Constitution after the war
was won? What do you consider the founding document of this country? Was
Lincoln fighting the Redcoats? Cliff seems to think so...

Again, you don't know who James Madison was?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jm4.html

When delegates to the Constitutional Convention assembled at
Philadelphia, the 36-year-old Madison took frequent and emphatic part
in the debates.

Madison made a major contribution to the ratification of the
Constitution by writing, with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, the
Federalist essays. In later years, when he was referred to as the
"Father of the Constitution," Madison protested that the document was
not "the off-spring of a single brain," but "the work of many heads
and many hands."

In Congress, he helped frame the Bill of Rights and enact the first
revenue legislation. Out of his leadership in opposition to Hamilton's
financial proposals, which he felt would unduly bestow wealth and
power upon northern financiers, came the development of the
Republican, or Jeffersonian, Party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't have any right criticizing anyone when you don't even know
who James Madison was.

Hal

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #9   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:07:31 GMT, "Joe AutoDrill"
wrote:

First thing I thought when I saw this subject line was, "Why would
Christians be defending the George Washington Bridge?"

Some athiest or polythiest or moslem or agnostic wanted
to use it.
Next question.
--
Cliff
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #10   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On 22 Feb 2005 17:42:52 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

What's a founding father? Is it someone who signed the Declaration of
Independence, thereby putting themselves and their fortunes in grave peril?
Or is it someone that debated and voted on the Constitution after the war
was won? What do you consider the founding document of this country? Was
Lincoln fighting the Redcoats?

Actually, Lincoln seems to have extended the US Declaration of
Independence into the law of the land. AFAIK It was not so
intended.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9708/maier.html
[
It was Abraham Lincoln, author of the Emancipation Proclamation, she
said, who reinterpreted the Declaration of Independence and made it
applicable to all.

"Lincoln made blacks, immigrants and late-arrivers 'bone of my bone
and flesh of my flesh' with the Founders," she said.

Interpreting the Declaration of Independence, said Ms. Maier, has
become a quasi-religious exercise.
]

He's bound to have annoyed many wingers & conservatives.
--
Cliff
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #11   Report Post  
Guido
 
Posts: n/a
Default
Cliff wrote:


He's bound to have annoyed many wingers & conservatives.

Isn't Abe one of Gunner's heros?

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #12   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:20:13 +0000, Guido wrote:

Cliff wrote:


He's bound to have annoyed many wingers & conservatives.

Isn't Abe one of Gunner's heros?

Of course Gunner thinks Abe was a conservative because he was
REPUBLICAN !

ROFLMAO !

Hal


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #14   Report Post  
Dan Murphy
 
Posts: n/a
Default
wrote in :

On 22 Feb 2005 17:42:52 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

wrote in
news
On 22 Feb 2005 07:27:06 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
news:vaqk11l03de1gubh4nbr3odqh99hg9bn76@ 4ax.com:

http://www.christslove.com/gangbang/President/lie.htm

Hey Cliffie, you need to find smarter links. Lincoln and Madison
were Founders of the nation? PFFFT. Did you go to school? What did
they teach there?

What, you don't know who James Madison was?

Were you home skooled?

Hal

What's a founding father? Is it someone who signed the Declaration of
Independence, thereby putting themselves and their fortunes in grave
peril? Or is it someone that debated and voted on the Constitution
after the war was won? What do you consider the founding document of
this country? Was Lincoln fighting the Redcoats? Cliff seems to think
so...

Again, you don't know who James Madison was?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jm4.html

When delegates to the Constitutional Convention assembled at
Philadelphia, the 36-year-old Madison took frequent and emphatic part
in the debates.

Madison made a major contribution to the ratification of the
Constitution by writing, with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, the
Federalist essays. In later years, when he was referred to as the
"Father of the Constitution," Madison protested that the document was
not "the off-spring of a single brain," but "the work of many heads
and many hands."

In Congress, he helped frame the Bill of Rights and enact the first
revenue legislation. Out of his leadership in opposition to Hamilton's
financial proposals, which he felt would unduly bestow wealth and
power upon northern financiers, came the development of the
Republican, or Jeffersonian, Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

You don't have any right criticizing anyone when you don't even know
who James Madison was.


I know who Madison was. Can't you read? I said he took part in writing
the constitution. I'll type slower for you next time.

Dan

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #19   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
m...

Hal...you new here? Ive commented on more than one occasion that
Lincoln was a miserable rat ******* who deserved that pistol ball in
his skull.

Gunner


Yeah. 'Sumbitch stole all the slaves.

--
Ed Huntress


AND then he freed the Blacks!
Didn't free the white ones up north by any means.
Plenty of them - sold into denture for life or 40 years - a.k.a. life.

Ha! I only hope my dentures last that long.

--
Ed Huntress


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #21   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:37:53 GMT, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

AND then he freed the Blacks!
Didn't free the white ones up north by any means.
Plenty of them - sold into denture for life or 40 years - a.k.a. life.

A libertarian's dream.
They need to make gunner work off his health care ..
about 50 years at hard labor I'd guess, counting
interst at 50% per year .... and assuming he never becomes
ill again. IF he costs more to treat than he can pay for ... best
to aid him out of his misery & take the loss early.
--
Cliff
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #27   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:07:29 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Hmmm, sounds like the democrat party of the late 1900s, too.

pyotr filipivich

Comrade Stalin told you this?
--
Cliff
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #28   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:07:33 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Yeah. 'Sumbitch stole all the slaves.

Did he? Thats a new one on me. Got Cites?

Missed some you say?
How many do you wingers still have?
--
Cliff
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #29   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:23:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Read a history book instead of those right-wing blogs, Gunner. They're
turning your mind into a grilled-cheese sandwich.

The cheese is Swiss G.
--
Cliff
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #30   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:23:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Yeah. 'Sumbitch stole all the slaves.

Did he? Thats a new one on me. Got Cites?

Read a history book instead of those right-wing blogs, Gunner. They're
turning your mind into a grilled-cheese sandwich.

--
Ed Huntress

How so? From the looks of it...you are riding a skateboard full tilt
on your ride to the Far Left fringe.

Must be something in the water where you live. It is Joisey afterall

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #31   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default
"Gunner" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:23:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Yeah. 'Sumbitch stole all the slaves.

Did he? Thats a new one on me. Got Cites?

Read a history book instead of those right-wing blogs, Gunner. They're
turning your mind into a grilled-cheese sandwich.

--
Ed Huntress

How so? From the looks of it...you are riding a skateboard full tilt
on your ride to the Far Left fringe.

Go to a real history book and read about how Lincoln pushed the lame-duck
Congress to pass the 13th Amendment. Once he submitted the Emancipation
Proclamation, all of the border states except Kentucky fell into line and
banned slavery.

History isn't easy. You have to read accounts and interpretations from
conflicting sources to get the picture. Lincoln was the driving source
behind emancipation, ranging from the Proclamation, which was limited to
what he felt he had constitutional authority to enact, to the political
arm-twisting he did until the 13th was passed.

--
Ed Huntress


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #32   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:37:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:23:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Yeah. 'Sumbitch stole all the slaves.

Did he? Thats a new one on me. Got Cites?

Read a history book instead of those right-wing blogs, Gunner. They're
turning your mind into a grilled-cheese sandwich.

--
Ed Huntress

How so? From the looks of it...you are riding a skateboard full tilt
on your ride to the Far Left fringe.

Go to a real history book and read about how Lincoln pushed the lame-duck
Congress to pass the 13th Amendment. Once he submitted the Emancipation
Proclamation, all of the border states except Kentucky fell into line and
banned slavery.

History isn't easy. You have to read accounts and interpretations from
conflicting sources to get the picture. Lincoln was the driving source
behind emancipation, ranging from the Proclamation, which was limited to
what he felt he had constitutional authority to enact, to the political
arm-twisting he did until the 13th was passed.


The Real Lincoln

by Walter E. Williams

Foreword to The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His
Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas J. DiLorenzo (Prima
Publishing, 2002, xiii + 233 pgs., $24.95). Copyright © 2002 by Thomas
J. DiLorenzo. Reprinted with permission.

In 1831, long before the War between the States, South Carolina
Senator John C. Calhoun said, "Stripped of all its covering, the naked
question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a
constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the
basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of
a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in
which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail." The War
between the States answered that question and produced the foundation
for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and absolute,
based on the unrestrained will of the majority, with force, threats,
and intimidation being the order of the day.

Today’s federal government is considerably at odds with that
envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Thomas J. DiLorenzo
gives an account of how this came about in The Real Lincoln: A New
Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.

As DiLorenzo documents – contrary to conventional wisdom, books about
Lincoln, and the lessons taught in schools and colleges – the War
between the States was not fought to end slavery; Even if it were, a
natural question arises: Why was a costly war fought to end it?
African slavery existed in many parts of the Western world, but it did
not take warfare to end it. Dozens of countries, including the
territorial possessions of the British, French, Portuguese, and
Spanish, ended slavery peacefully during the late eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. Countries such as Venezuela and Colombia
experienced conflict because slave emancipation was simply a ruse for
revolutionaries who were seeking state power and were not motivated by
emancipation per se.

Abraham Lincoln’s direct statements indicated his support for slavery;
He defended slave owners’ right to own their property, saying that
"when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I
acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would
give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives" (in
indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).

Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a
political gimmick, and he admitted so in a letter to Treasury
Secretary Salmon P. Chase: "The original proclamation has no...legal
justification, except as a military measure." Secretary of State
William Seward said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by
emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in
bondage where we can set them free. " Seward was acknowledging the
fact that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in
states in rebellion against the United States and not to slaves in
states not in rebellion.

The true costs of the War between the States were not the 620,000
battlefield-related deaths, out of a national population of 30 million
(were we to control for population growth, that would be equivalent to
roughly 5 million battlefield deaths today) .The true costs were a
change in the character of our government into one feared by the likes
of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Calhoun – one where states
lost most of their sovereignty to the central government. Thomas
Jefferson saw as the most important safeguard of the liberties of the
people "the support of the state governments in all their rights, as
the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the
surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies."

If the federal government makes encroachments on the constitutional
rights of the people and the states, what are their options? In a
word, their right to secede. Most of today’s Americans believe, as did
Abraham Lincoln, that states do not have a right to secession, but
that is false. DiLorenzo marshals numerous proofs that from the very
founding of our nation the right of secession was seen as a natural
right of the people and a last check on abuse by the central
government. For example, at Virginia’s ratification convention, the
delegates affirmed "that the powers granted under the Constitution
being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by
them whensoever the same shall be perverted to injury or oppression."
In Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address (1801), he declared, "If
there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to
change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of
the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason
is left free to combat it." Jefferson was defending the rights of free
speech and of secession. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in Democracy
in America, "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the
States; in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality,
nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same
people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it
would be difficult to disapprove its right of doing so, and the
Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims
directly either by force or right." The right to secession was
popularly held as well. DiLorenzo lists newspaper after newspaper
editorial arguing the right of secession. Most significantly, these
were Northern newspapers. In fact, the first secession movement
started in the North, long before shots were fired at Fort Sumter. The
New England states debated the idea of secession during the Hartford
Convention of 1814–1815.

Lincoln’s intentions, as well as those of many Northern politicians,
were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the senatorial debates.
Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a
uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity
dictated by the central government" that would "place at defiance the
intentions of the republic’s founders." Douglas was right, and
Lincoln’s vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond
anything he could have possibly dreamed.

The War between the States settled by force whether states could
secede. Once it was established that states cannot secede, the federal
government, abetted by a Supreme Court unwilling to hold it to its
constitutional restraints, was able to run amok over states’ rights,
so much so that the protections of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean
little or nothing today. Not only did the war lay the foundation for
eventual nullification or weakening of basic constitutional
protections against central government abuses, but it also laid to
rest the great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence
that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed."

The Real Lincoln contains irrefutable evidence that a more appropriate
title for Abraham Lincoln is not the Great Emancipator, but the Great
Centralizer.

March 28, 2002
Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #33   Report Post  
John Scheldroup
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gunner" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:37:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


The Real Lincoln

by Walter E. Williams

Foreword to The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His
Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas J. DiLorenzo (Prima
Publishing, 2002, xiii + 233 pgs., $24.95). Copyright © 2002 by Thomas
J. DiLorenzo. Reprinted with permission.

If the federal government makes encroachments on the constitutional
rights of the people and the states, what are their options? In a
word, their right to secede. Most of today's Americans believe, as did
Abraham Lincoln, that states do not have a right to secession,

Why secede, what seems to be the problem ?

but that is false.

John


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #34   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default
"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:37:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:23:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Yeah. 'Sumbitch stole all the slaves.

Did he? Thats a new one on me. Got Cites?

Read a history book instead of those right-wing blogs, Gunner. They're
turning your mind into a grilled-cheese sandwich.

--
Ed Huntress

How so? From the looks of it...you are riding a skateboard full tilt
on your ride to the Far Left fringe.

Go to a real history book and read about how Lincoln pushed the lame-duck
Congress to pass the 13th Amendment. Once he submitted the Emancipation
Proclamation, all of the border states except Kentucky fell into line and
banned slavery.

History isn't easy. You have to read accounts and interpretations from
conflicting sources to get the picture. Lincoln was the driving source
behind emancipation, ranging from the Proclamation, which was limited to
what he felt he had constitutional authority to enact, to the political
arm-twisting he did until the 13th was passed.


The Real Lincoln

by Walter E. Williams

Foreword to The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His
Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas J. DiLorenzo (Prima
Publishing, 2002, xiii + 233 pgs., $24.95). Copyright © 2002 by Thomas
J. DiLorenzo. Reprinted with permission.

snip

That's a perfect example of what I mean. You get into an argument about
Lincoln and whether he was the force behind emancipation and you bring up
DiLorenzo -- a von Mises favorite and an off-the-wall, Austrian-school
economist/historian.

Was the Civil War "unnecessary"? Of course it was. Every schoolkid knows
that. All Lincoln had to do was to allow the South to secede. Every
schoolkid knows that the point is that Lincoln did NOT allow the South to
secede.

DiLorenzo makes the stupid statement that American schoolkids are taught
that the Civil War was fought to end slavery. I doubt if any schoolkid has
been taught that for close to 50 years. Like you, he sets up strawmen and
then shoots them down. But they're his own strawmen.

DiLorenzo is known mostly through the libertarian and right-wing blogs. In
the mainstream of real historical scholarship, he's a curious sidebar -- not
for his scholarship, which is substantial, but for his interpretations,
which are consistently right-wing.

So I'm not surprised you came up with this. It fits your pattern of...er,
"scholarship." You flit your way through history, politics, and economics,
Gunner, like a one-winged jaybird.

--
Ed Huntress


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #35   Report Post  
Guido
 
Posts: n/a
Default
Gunner wrote:


Hal...you new here? Ive commented on more than one occasion that
Lincoln was a miserable rat ******* who deserved that pistol ball in
his skull.


ROFLMAO. Too easy.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #36   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:20:58 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

The Real Lincoln contains irrefutable evidence

That you are nearly illiterate?
Missed the subject again, did you?
--
Cliff
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #37   Report Post  
Lew Hartswick
 
Posts: n/a
Default
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
(big snip)
- sold into denture for life or 40 years
Martin

Isn't that something to do with teeth?
...lew...
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #39   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:40:01 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


DiLorenzo is known mostly through the libertarian and right-wing blogs. In
the mainstream of real historical scholarship, he's a curious sidebar -- not
for his scholarship, which is substantial, but for his interpretations,
which are consistently right-wing.

So I'm not surprised you came up with this. It fits your pattern of...er,
"scholarship." You flit your way through history, politics, and economics,
Gunner, like a one-winged jaybird.

--
Ed Huntress

So on one hand you claim that he is a scholar of substance, but on the
other hand you are claiming he is full of ****?

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #40   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default
"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:40:01 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


DiLorenzo is known mostly through the libertarian and right-wing blogs.
In
the mainstream of real historical scholarship, he's a curious sidebar --
not
for his scholarship, which is substantial, but for his interpretations,
which are consistently right-wing.

So I'm not surprised you came up with this. It fits your pattern of...er,
"scholarship." You flit your way through history, politics, and
economics,
Gunner, like a one-winged jaybird.

--
Ed Huntress

So on one hand you claim that he is a scholar of substance, but on the
other hand you are claiming he is full of ****?

Nope. He has a lot of facts, and a twisted way of looking at them.

There's a school of thought in academic publishing (it has a sarcastic name,
but I can't remember it right now) that says the best way to gain notoriety
is to cherry-pick your way through evidence and put together a story that
goes against the grain of mainstream scholarship. It doesn't matter if you
really believe your conclusions or if they represent a fair and reasonable
analysis. What matters is if you could make a plausible defense of it on
strictly formal grounds. If you can, and if you have a big enough mouth and
a prolific enough pen, you can make a name for yourself in the academic
world.

There are LOTS of these people in academic circles today. DiLorenzo is just
one example. The "creation scientists" are others. Our old friend Mary Rosh
(Dr. John Lott) is another.

You could describe it in a variety of ways but the thing these people have
in common is that they work backwards from conclusions to evidence. They're
anti-scholars: instead of seeking the truth from evidence, they start with a
conclusion (their "truth") and work backwards to assemble a case. They work
like lawyers, in other words, rather than scholars.

So DiLorenzo, whose political views are easy to see if you ever read any of
his economic treatises, starts with the conclusions that the Reconstruction
Amendments destroyed American society, and that Lincoln was largely
responsible for those amendments; and that his assumption of wartime powers
began a precedent of presidential authority that has damaged the
Constitution. He never really proves his case for these things. They are
assumptions, and his audience of malcontents comes to the party believing
many of the same things, as part of their generalized, unfocused resentment
against government.

And then he assembles a story based on that premise and builds a case
against Lincoln from every possible angle, picking his examples to reinforce
the idea that everything we learned about Lincoln actually is a lie, that he
was politically corrupt and everything else that you can think of that's
really, really bad.

This has become quite easy to do with almost anyone and almost any issue, if
you put your mind to it and use the vast research resources that are
available today. Your favorite blogs thrive on it; it's the key to their
existence. And, in your own small way, you've become one of them yourself.
Like the blogsters, you're "Internet smart." You know how to gather data to
reinforce a case you've already concluded. What you don't do, or won't do,
is gather the data in a scholar's way, to turn that data into knowledge.
Instead, you turn it into ammunition. Like DiLorenzo.

--
Ed Huntress


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Reply
Page 1 of 6 1 23456
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Christ's Love to All MilkyWhy Home Repair 32 December 30th 04 03:16 AM
Early Education - A MUST HVAC IsFun Home Repair 3 May 29th 04 06:24 AM
this ought to get everybody fired up.... mel Woodworking 56 March 29th 04 03:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"

 

Contact Us DIY Banter Forum Home Privacy Statement