Thomas Jefferson...

[LegendKiller]

How was Jefferson a bad politician?


1. Railed against debt, banks, "money changers" and wanted fiscal responsibility. Yet he spent everything he made and far more his entire life. As mentioned above, he almost bankrupted the country along with his own personal financial stupidity. Massive hypocrite both on a personal and professional level.

2. Railed against "big government" and more executive powers yet during the LA Purchase he massively expanded the executive.

3. Deployed US forces to fight for private enterprise.

4. Explained away not giving blacks rights by saying they were intellectually inferior to whites, going very far in depth as to his reasoning.

5. Failed at almost every economic enterprise he undertook.

6. Handled things so poorly you can strongly attribute the War of 1812 to him.

I never understood why people adore him so much. The guy was smart, undoubtedly, but Americans have this hero-worship of him boarding on the insane.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I don't know why this is so difficult, "you assume" and "to assume" are different. I know they sound the same, but you know, in English lots of things do.

False continuum. Surely there must be something...? Like, I would have thought you'd be big on consistency and integrity.

Context plz.

Post 15: I give an example of an action that qualifies as bad politics as I see them.
Post 17: You state that "everyone else was probably" committing said action.
Post 19: I ask you to qualify that statement.
Post 20: You state that you never said that. Then you state that to assume what you said I said is fallacious.

In that context you are clearly implying that I was making such an argument.

And please elaborate on the other point further than "false continuum". How does that apply to my post? "Surely there must be something" what? What did I exclude from the realms of possibility?

 

[Eli]

Thomas Jefferson was a terrible big government hypocrite who spent way too much $$$ on the Louisiana Purchase, almost bankrupting the country, too concerned with smoking marijuana that his slaves picked for him. Today our politicians get degrees in political science, which is where they SHOULD focus their intellectual endeavors. Just look at what happens on the flipside when scientists try getting involved in politics; you get bastards like Mengele who don't understand the implications of their research.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. If Thomas Jefferson is what we get when people smoke marijuana, it needs to be legalized immediately.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Being overly concerned with being intoxicated is a bad thing.

HB is right in arguing that any politician can be seen as a bad one; even the best ones.

 

[Eli]

Is it though? Is a desire to be intoxicated really a bad thing if you can still achieve greatness in your life?

Kinda goes along with "Life life to it's fullest", ie: You're going to die at some point anyway, may as well enjoy it?

If you're a productive member of society, have at it I say.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Is it though? Is a desire to be intoxicated really a bad thing if you can still achieve greatness in your life?

Kinda goes along with "Life life to it's fullest", ie: You're going to die at some point anyway, may as well enjoy it?

If you're a productive member of society, have at it I say.

While I would agree that a life-work balance is necessarily there's so much more to life than Cheetos and cartoon network...

I guess I just don't see a lot of your condition of being a productive member of society being upheld amongst those I know that are rather concerned with obtaining intoxication of any kind.

And greatness... that comes from putting in 10,000 hours of dedication in to being amazing at a very specific task. So if you drop 60+ hours a week on being awesome: hell, party however doesn't hurt others or that potential to be awesome... but I've seen a lot of people go from burning it up then burning one to just burn-outs

 

[zinfamous]

Thomas Jefferson was a terrible big government hypocrite who spent way too much $$$ on the Louisiana Purchase, almost bankrupting the country, too concerned with smoking marijuana that his slaves picked for him. Today our politicians get degrees in political science, which is where they SHOULD focus their intellectual endeavors. Just look at what happens on the flipside when scientists try getting involved in politics; you get bastards like Mengele who don't understand the implications of their research.

Jefferson didn't smoke MJ.

political science? science?

lol. that's almost as bad as "business science."

lol

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Jefferson didn't smoke MJ.

political science? science?

lol. that's almost as bad as "business science."

lol

I wasn't even going to go there... I mean: is it worth it?

 

[rudeguy]

Is it though? Is a desire to be intoxicated really a bad thing if you can still achieve greatness in your life?

Kinda goes along with "Life life to it's fullest", ie: You're going to die at some point anyway, may as well enjoy it?

If you're a productive member of society, have at it I say.

most of the Founding Fathers could be termed raging alcoholics. Heck..most great figures in history had very serious vices. Struggling through madness to brilliance is a great way to change the world.

Jefferson had a vision and the stones to no back down. While I don't agree with all of his thoughts, I admire his determination to do what he felt was right. Politicians now are slaves to made up statistics and lobbyist's pockets.

 

[K1052]

Jefferson was a fair politician, a brilliant intellectual, and a mostly terrible president.

The whitewashed version of his accomplishments and persona that has been venerated as the embodiment of our national spirit little resembles the man.

If you want an real visionary architect of our future people should be looking at Hamilton instead. He knew what the US could become and how to put the nuts and bolts together to achieve it.

 

[BoomerD]

Presented a paper to the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, in 1797. The paper was entitled "A memoir on the discovery of certain bones of a quadruped of the clawed kind in the Western parts of Virginia", and it was about the Megalonyx, later appended jeffersonii in tribute to the man.



He was Vice-President of the United States at the time.



When was the last time a President or Vice-President contributed to the scientific literature in their entire life, let alone while they were in Office?

Excuses about hyper-specialization of science today are pathetic and not valid.

Hey, Al Gore invented the internets before he became vice-president...let's give credit where it's due...OK?

:biggrin:

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Context plz.

Post 15: I give an example of an action that qualifies as bad politics as I see them.
Post 17: You state that "everyone else was probably" committing said action.
Post 19: I ask you to qualify that statement.
Post 20: You state that you never said that. Then you state that to assume what you said I said is fallacious.

In that context you are clearly implying that I was making such an argument.

I don't see how I can qualify "everyone else was probably". If you don't know what that means, I'm not sure what I can do to help you.

And please elaborate on the other point further than "false continuum". How does that apply to my post? "Surely there must be something" what? What did I exclude from the realms of possibility?

Again, stop acting stupid. Even reading it again, my post seems perfectly clear. Besides which, you still haven't really answered the question.

 

[CPA]

Leaders led back then, and they also had a well rounded education that encouraged exploration and learning. Now we have followers that grovel for consensus, and diploma mills...

And Jefferson was a true bookworm. He and Adams loved books. When they were in Europe, they would just go out shopping for books. Can you imagine Presidents or Congressmen doing that today. LOL.

 

[CPA]

But he indebted the country and expanded the powers of the executive branch to do so. Therefore he was a hypocrite for pretending to be a proponent of small government.

He wasn't as a proponent of small government as say, John Adams, or even Washington, however. So, I'm not sure how much of a hypocrite he was.

 

[CPA]

Jefferson was a fair politician, a brilliant intellectual, and a mostly terrible president.

The whitewashed version of his accomplishments and persona that has been venerated as the embodiment of our national spirit little resembles the man.

If you want an real visionary architect of our future people should be looking at Hamilton instead. He knew what the US could become and how to put the nuts and bolts together to achieve it.

Yeah, but Hamilton was also a conniving and double dealing politician. John Adams was the true visionary. If it wasn't for John Adams, it is almost certain that the United States would be a far different country.

 

[K1052]

Yeah, but Hamilton was also a conniving and double dealing politician. John Adams was the true visionary. If it wasn't for John Adams, it is almost certain that the United States would be a far different country.

Hamilton, Adams, Madison, and Washington were who I would consider to be they keystones of the early republic. Remove any of them from the equation and the whole thing would have collapsed.

Hamilton's worst offenses would be his attacks on Adams and his strong support of the Alien and Sedition Acts. That said at the end of the day he almost always made the best choice for the country when faced with a critical decision. He paid for one of those choices with his life when he torpedoed Burr (who he knew was an extremely dangerous opportunist and had been blocking for years) in the 1800 election and made Jefferson president. Few US politicians have ever had to face those kinds of consequences.

 

[Printer Bandit]

why does all the credit go to the "founding fathers" instead of their puppet masters?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I don't see how I can qualify "everyone else was probably". If you don't know what that means, I'm not sure what I can do to help you.

Again, stop acting stupid. Even reading it again, my post seems perfectly clear. Besides which, you still haven't really answered the question.

"Everyone else was probably" in that context means that you believe that there is a high likelihood of all other members of that category (political candidates) were involved in the action of adultery. Now provide evidence for that claim.

That didn't clarify anything. You state that you would think I'd "be big on consistency and integrity". Sure, add those too. I don't have a defined set of parameters by which the quality of a politician is judged. I don't see what asking me for said parameters would accomplish anyways.

 

[darkewaffle]

This thread fucking sucks.