Creative gear photos - post 'em here

[Randy Myers]

His scorn for political parties? ... Maybe you can explain

I was referring to his dislike of political parties and his recommendations to avoid political parties. I also believe that political parties, and support of parties over country, is very bad for our democracy and have stated as such on numerous occasions.

About his view on traitors, I have no real knowledge of that aspect and was not referencing that in my statement.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

 

[MontanaJoe]

I was referring to his dislike of political parties and his recommendations to avoid political parties. I also believe that political parties, and support of parties over country, is very bad for our democracy and have stated as such on numerous occasions.

About his view on traitors, I have no real knowledge of that aspect and was not referencing that in my statement.

First, our Founders never formally addressed “political parties”, was barely on their radar and as much as I admire Washington, his perspective of differing opinions especially considering the pushback he constantly received against the views/actions of Hamilton, were naïve.

Yes, in the very nascent stages of our independence, most Founders “opposed” political parties strictly because their ONLY concern was the laser focused survival of this new nation, which was at this nascent stage, their only and unifying concern. You think they were considering states' rights, which weren't even created, how to pay for the debt they were incurring for the Revolution, where our capital was going to reside, etc.?

That changed almost immediately after Yorktown. Ratification set that stage, most poignantly exemplified by correspondence between Madison and Jefferson.

The fact that Madison, one of Washington’s closest advisors as well as Jefferson his SOS, had such opposing and hostile views to his own, first discovered in Callender’s missives (composed by Madison and Jefferson no less) is testament to Washington’s naivety. Jefferson QUIT as his SOS by the end of 1793 which pretty much formally established political parties, with the disparate views previously established in the Constitution.

To think a “monolithic” perspective could survive was very naïve and to endorse this perspective in the modern age, especially since we have witnessed what happens with monolithic rules as in the former USSR, current Russia, Cuba, China, etc. is incredibly naive. And whose “monolithic” rule wins out in your world? Your party? LOL. Yes, based on some of your responses here, I know how that dictatorial reign of your party would work.

As to how he dealt with traitors, spies and anarchists I recommend you read his dialogue regarding Benedict Arnold, how he handled Major Andre in Tarrytown, how he dealt with deserters from the army and the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 as just a few examples. He never would have accepted the seditious and traitorous acts and commentary, committed here and abroad, particularly while our military is engaged as they are now, by the likes of Chris Murphy, Walz, Obama, Omar, Talib, Kerry and so many more members of that “party” whose perspective you wished was the ONLY one allowed.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

First, our Founders never formally addressed “political parties”, was barely on their radar and as much as I admire Washington, his perspective of differing opinions especially considering the pushback he constantly received against the views/actions of Hamilton, were naïve.

Yes, in the very nascent stages of our independence, most Founders “opposed” political parties strictly because their ONLY concern was the laser focused survival of this new nation, which was at this nascent stage, their only and unifying concern. You think they were considering states' rights, which weren't even created, how to pay for the debt they were incurring for the Revolution, where our capital was going to reside, etc.?

That changed almost immediately after Yorktown. Ratification set that stage, most poignantly exemplified by correspondence between Madison and Jefferson.

The fact that Madison, one of Washington’s closest advisors as well as Jefferson his SOS, had such opposing and hostile views to his own, first discovered in Callender’s missives (composed by Madison and Jefferson no less) is testament to Washington’s naivety. Jefferson QUIT as his SOS by the end of 1793 which pretty much formally established political parties, with the disparate views previously established in the Constitution.

To think a “monolithic” perspective could survive was very naïve and to endorse this perspective in the modern age, especially since we have witnessed what happens with monolithic rules as in the former USSR, current Russia, Cuba, China, etc. is incredibly naive. And whose “monolithic” rule wins out in your world? Your party? LOL. Yes, based on some of your responses here, I know how that dictatorial reign of your party would work.

As to how he dealt with traitors, spies and anarchists I recommend you read his dialogue regarding Benedict Arnold, how he handled Major Andre in Tarrytown, how he dealt with deserters from the army and the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 as just a few examples. He never would have accepted the seditious and traitorous acts and commentary, committed here and abroad, particularly while our military is engaged as they are now, by the likes of Chris Murphy, Walz, Obama, Omar, Talib, Kerry and so many more members of that “party” whose perspective you wished was the ONLY one allowed.

Just remember (not aimed at you) - the people who loudly proclaim to possess a lot of "it" while lecturing others - "it" being religion or claiming to be a patriot as examples - typically are fakes and in fact have very little of "it" in them.

It's like when people claim to know what was intended in the Constitution yet have never read the Federalist Papers. Those are usually the people claiming "it's a living document".

 

[MontanaJoe]

Just remember (not aimed at you) - the people who loudly proclaim to possess a lot of "it" while lecturing others - "it" being religion or claiming to be a patriot as examples - typically are fakes and in fact have very little of "it" in them.

It's like when people claim to know what was intended in the Constitution yet have never read the Federalist Papers. Those are usually the people claiming "it's a living document".

Totally agree

When Mr Myers quotes some line he read about or heard about regarding “political parties” and our “Founders” taken out of context of course, to be interpreted into their current rationalizing world, it’s hysterical.

Again, you think when someone like that refers to eliminating “political parties” he is wanting for our side to reign OR a justification for our side to be eliminated??? Rhetorical question, Mr Myers had made his desires very evident in many of his posts.

 

[Randy Myers]

Totally agree

When Mr Myers quotes some line he read about or heard about regarding “political parties” and our “Founders” taken out of context of course, to be interpreted into their current rationalizing world, it’s hysterical.

Again, you think when someone like that refers to eliminating “political parties” he is wanting for our side to reign OR a justification for our side to be eliminated??? Rhetorical question, Mr Myers had made his desires very evident in many of his posts.

Again, doing a direct reference to me and with your assumptions is something that is really being very disrespectful. Yes, I read a lot about the dislike of political parties and about those that disagreed with Washington and a majority of the founding fathers, or more to the point, supporting a political party over supporting our country. I am country first, period. Do not "assume" you know anything about me. I tried to be respectful answering your direct question, so at this point, please leave it at that.

And honestly, I have in fact voted for folks for both major parties over the years. I vote for the individual and will not blindly follow a political party.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

Again, doing a direct reference to me and with your assumptions is something that is really being very disrespectful. Yes, I read a lot about the dislike of political parties and about those that disagreed with Washington and a majority of the founding fathers, or more to the point, supporting a political party over supporting our country. I am country first, period. Do not "assume" you know anything about me. I tried to be respectful answering your direct question, so at this point, please leave it at that.

And honestly, I have in fact voted for folks for both major parties over the years. I vote for the individual and will not blindly follow a political party.

Disrespectful? Hmmmmmmm......

 

[Randy Myers]

What is that, the 5th, 6th, 7th time you have copied a post, out of context. It was quite justified as replies to nonsense you were posting at the time. You and your side kick really need professional help, and I refuse to be a part of it. Both blocked.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

What is that, the 5th, 6th, 7th time you have copied a post, out of context. It was quite justified as replies to nonsense you were posting at the time. You and your side kick really need professional help, and I refuse to be a part of it. Both block.

Hmmmmmm......"Out of context". It's a screen shot of you melting down. You posted it. That's literally impossible to be "out of context".

You use the same wording as the third attempted assassin. How did that happen? What extremist groups have you been frequenting that fueled that extremist view that you used the same wording?

You are a repeatedly self-touted military patriot who claims to be neutral and claims to have a mental degree and claimed to work in audio retail who comes on here and lectures others about how they post.

Just stop being a phony intellectual and be honest. That's all - just stop being such a phony.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

Attempting to get it back on track. Randy - start your own separate post.