Worst Conspiracy Theorist in Media

[Crazyhole]

I can associate with part of John Adams' life, not all of it. In fact, I use John Adams as a lesson on how even Libertarian Americans can become Totalitarian with power.

At the same time, Thomas Jefferson wasn't exactly the anti-Adams, and he ended up becoming the far, far bigger hypocrite.

Like what for example? Jefferson was always way better on federalism than Adams starting in the very beginning. It seems like that would be the single most important factor that a libertarian would look to.

 

[UCFBS]

Like what for example? Jefferson was always way better on federalism than Adams starting in the very beginning. It seems like that would be the single most important factor that a libertarian would look to.

That's the fallacy.

Jefferson was actually anti-Hamilton and anti-Washington, so Adams, being a crony of both, became his target. While I can understand his anti-Hamilton, and Hamilton's northern-based views (which would plague the US for another 150+ years, well after the Civil War), his dislike of Washington's neutrality stance is what I really take a problem with, and still do now 210-230 years later.

As a result, yes, Adams finally went 'full totalitarian,' and Congress went along with his administration, wrongly so. I agree, he was dead, wrong, and that gave Jefferson all the 'justification' he needed. But Jefferson was totally machiavellian, right down to where he pushed Adams.

Because, of course, Jefferson then came in was completely hypocritical in the same regards, and worse in others. Jefferson was a 'war hawk' in the end, a result of his pro-France views (even though he undermined the monarchy), while Adams was non-interference.

Even post-administration, Jefferson was completely for the invasion of Canada, which resulted in the War of 1812. Oh, we teach it differently, and -- yes -- impressment was one of the reasons which was addressed in the treaty (which was signed before the Battle of New Orleans). But it was American Nationalism in the French-aligned sphere that led to it, right down to the second, attempted invasion of Canada.

It's still here, today, but now focused on the Russians (again). And that's what gets me about the Jeffersonian types ...

Domestically, they advocate 'stay out of my life,' but only where it suits them politically. All while they are totally interference, on matters of state, and tell other countries what they should do, an totally advocate for war against those they disagree with, and with regularity.

Thomas Jefferson is a great representation of the modern Progressive, right down to Hillary Clinton herself, including the US Media support.

And the way to stop the Russians was to do what Romney advocated -- while while the Obama administration was appeasing them and dismantling our capabilities. Just like Adams didn't want war, but he still advocated a strong US Navy -- along with engaging the British positively, the largest navy in the word -- so we didn't have to go to war.

It's amazing how history has been 're-written' in so many ways. I have many complaints about John Adams, but I have far, far more complaints about Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

Also recognize I'm not even bringing up Jefferson being from Virginia and owning slaves. Although that still applies too, the fact that one can see the same 'hypocrisy' in his other 'dealings' just showcases how 'wrong' he could be about many things.

John Adams is guilty of being a vindictive northerner, and it showed the worst of him at times. The British knew that well, with him going from being a staunch defender of the crown and its implements to the most pro-revolution voice in the early Continental Congress.

If it wasn't for Parliament using the crown to shut down the free press, followed by them outlawing militias, the US would have likely not come to be for another few decades, maybe even a century.

 

[Crazyhole]

That's the fallacy.

Jefferson was actually anti-Hamilton and anti-Washington, so Adams, being a crony of both, became his target. While I can understand his anti-Hamilton, and Hamilton's northern-based views (which would plague the US for another 150+ years, well after the Civil War), his dislike of Washington's neutrality stance is what I really take a problem with, and still do now 210-230 years later.

As a result, yes, Adams finally went 'full totalitarian,' and Congress went along with his administration, wrongly so. I agree, he was dead, wrong, and that gave Jefferson all the 'justification' he needed. But Jefferson was totally machiavellian, right down to where he pushed Adams.

Because, of course, Jefferson then came in was completely hypocritical in the same regards, and worse in others. Jefferson was a 'war hawk' in the end, a result of his pro-France views (even though he undermined the monarchy), while Adams was non-interference.

Even post-administration, Jefferson was completely for the invasion of Canada, which resulted in the War of 1812. Oh, we teach it differently, and -- yes -- impressment was one of the reasons which was addressed in the treaty (which was signed before the Battle of New Orleans). But it was American Nationalism in the French-aligned sphere that led to it, right down to the second, attempted invasion of Canada.

It's still here, today, but now focused on the Russians (again). And that's what gets me about the Jeffersonian types ...

Domestically, they advocate 'stay out of my life,' but only where it suits them politically. All while they are totally interference, on matters of state, and tell other countries what they should do, an totally advocate for war against those they disagree with, and with regularity.

Thomas Jefferson is a great representation of the modern Progressive, right down to Hillary Clinton herself, including the US Media support.

And the way to stop the Russians was to do what Romney advocated -- while while the Obama administration was appeasing them and dismantling our capabilities. Just like Adams didn't want war, but he still advocated a strong US Navy -- along with engaging the British positively, the largest navy in the word -- so we didn't have to go to war.

It's amazing how history has been 're-written' in so many ways. I have many complaints about John Adams, but I have far, far more complaints about Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

Also recognize I'm not even bringing up Jefferson being from Virginia and owning slaves. Although that still applies too, the fact that one can see the same 'hypocrisy' in his other 'dealings' just showcases how 'wrong' he could be about many things.

John Adams is guilty of being a vindictive northerner, and it showed the worst of him at times. The British knew that well, with him going from being a staunch defender of the crown and its implements to the most pro-revolution voice in the early Continental Congress.

If it wasn't for Parliament using the crown to shut down the free press, followed by them outlawing militias, the US would have likely not come to be for another few decades, maybe even a century.

Maybe this is where libertarians go awry. Jefferson is criticized for the French embargo as if it was some sort of overreach when it was simply a response for England and France both trying to punish us for not taking sides. On the flip side you're basically criticizing him for the Louisiana purchase and taking sides. Nothing that he did amounted to any level of tyranny against the American people, but I will concede that he probably did expand the powers of the presidency in ways that the framers didnt anticipate would happen. Adams on the other hand seemed to be totally ok with a unitary government and essentially billed the southern states for the revolution after they had already paid their debts. Sound familiar?

I guess I dont understand how as a libertarian you can possibly see Adams (a statist) being closer to your belief structure than Jefferson (an anti-statist).

 

[goodknightfl]

Thomas and John were friends of mine, and you know little of the real personalities of the two men.

 

[UCFBS]

Maybe this is where libertarians go awry. Jefferson is criticized for the French embargo as if it was some sort of overreach when it was simply a response for England and France both trying to punish us for not taking sides. On the flip side you're basically criticizing him for the Louisiana purchase and taking sides. Nothing that he did amounted to any level of tyranny against the American people, but I will concede that he probably did expand the powers of the presidency in ways that the framers didnt anticipate would happen. Adams on the other hand seemed to be totally ok with a unitary government and essentially billed the southern states for the revolution after they had already paid their debts. Sound familiar?

I guess I dont understand how as a libertarian you can possibly see Adams (a statist) being closer to your belief structure than Jefferson (an anti-statist).

Because I'm not looking at the troubling aspects of the Adams administration, just like I'm not looking at just the Jefferson Administration either.

In fact, one could say Adams became an issue because of what Jefferson was doing. Thomas Jefferson is like Hillary Clinton, ends justifies the means. John Adams at least had an ethic to what he did, and that wasn't just to undermine his opponents -- even if he finally 'struck too far' when Jefferson 'went too far.'

Adams was a leader. Jefferson was the ultimate politician. Also, don't blame Adams for Hamilton, like Jefferson did.

And Jefferson did Washington too.