Which Political Ideology Most Embodies the Alpha Male Mentality?

[SmedlyButler]

Classical Liberals, such as Washington and Adams and Jefferson and Paine and Allan and Monroe etc were Alpha Males.

Convert their ideology to todays standard they are conservatives.

From your uninformed vantage point, perhaps.

They would have nothing to do with the likes of a Mike Lee, Alan West, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, etc.

They wouldn't have anything to do with the Neocons either.

 

[Publius1787]

Convert their ideology to todays standard they are conservatives.

From your uninformed vantage point, perhaps.

They would have nothing to do with the likes of a Mike Lee, Alan West, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, etc.

They wouldn't have anything to do with the Neocons either.

Perhaps they wouldn't, however, we live in an age when both us and our enemies (Both economic and traditional) can be anywhere in the world within 24 hours. Though they operated under geopolitical spheres of influence as we do today, transpiration, information, and communication is much faster now. The battle field has changed and so have the means to do damage. Take this into account with the cold war and its reminisces and you've got a serious problem. Besides, I wouldn't be too quick to box those founders into a certain category when I take into account the Barbary wars, the War of 1812, The Monroe Doctrine, the Indian wars, and so on. You think of the way cons operate today. Place yourself in the founder shoes and adjust the scale for lesser technology and you will find a bunch of "founding cons." How exactly do you think we were able to make our way from the east coast to the Pacific? Timeline of United States military operations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SmedlyButler]

I do tend to put the blinders on when assessing historical figures who have been so instrumental in setting the soaring trajectory of human advancement. From the ancient Greeks to Hobbes or Rousseau or Marx or the FF. Just imagine that. A flaming Lib giving a hall pass to slave owners. My version of Realpolitik maybe. Anyway it's a demonstration of my respect for the giants of Progressivism. I don't believe there can be an argument about that, they were Progressives.

 

[aaronleland]

Selective photo searching are we? Pan out a little wider.

I already posted my reasoning for the pics I displayed. Selective post searching?

Also, if you want to prove a point on how "alpha male" a group is, don't post the Tea Party guy with a handlebar mustache and a fanny pack.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I do tend to put the blinders on when assessing historical figures who have been so instrumental in setting the soaring trajectory of human advancement. From the ancient Greeks to Hobbes or Rousseau or Marx or the FF. Just imagine that. A flaming Lib giving a hall pass to slave owners. My version of Realpolitik maybe. Anyway it's a demonstration of my respect for the giants of Progressivism. I don't believe there can be an argument about that, they were Progressives.

Anybody who thinks Marx was part of "the soaring trajectory of human advancement" is, indeed, wearing blinders.

 

[Publius1787]

I do tend to put the blinders on when assessing historical figures who have been so instrumental in setting the soaring trajectory of human advancement. From the ancient Greeks to Hobbes or Rousseau or Marx or the FF. Just imagine that. A flaming Lib giving a hall pass to slave owners. My version of Realpolitik maybe. Anyway it's a demonstration of my respect for the giants of Progressivism. I don't believe there can be an argument about that, they were Progressives.

Oh, my. A progressive that is actually educated on the works of Hobbs, Rousseau, or Marx? If true, you and I, despite being opposites in ideology, are going to have a blast in this forum. Many liberals/progressives have no clue of their ideological philosophy and where it comes from. I myself went to a very selective private ultra progressive liberal arts college, and so, I know the way they think and what they read. Indeed, conservative materials and arguments were both misrepresented and left out of the curriculum. Everything was about race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. Thus, I learned much about liberal/progressive ideology and in order for me to graduate with a BA in History 3.9GPA I had to hold my own against the Marxist/progressive/liberal interpretation of history, utilizing and researching conservative arguments that placed the professor in a position in that anything other than an A would have been academic malpractice. If you have studied the philosophy of the left, and don't engage in trolling/unsubstantiated claims, you and I will get along just fine despite your opposing views. I have been begging for a progressive that is educated enough to take an argument seriously and up to date on the academic areas of his own ideology.

 

[Publius1787]

I do tend to put the blinders on when assessing historical figures who have been so instrumental in setting the soaring trajectory of human advancement. From the ancient Greeks to Hobbes or Rousseau or Marx or the FF. Just imagine that. A flaming Lib giving a hall pass to slave owners. My version of Realpolitik maybe. Anyway it's a demonstration of my respect for the giants of Progressivism. I don't believe there can be an argument about that, they were Progressives.

Anybody who thinks Marx was part of "the soaring trajectory of human advancement" is, indeed, wearing blinders.

Anyone who fails to appreciate Marx and his impact on the world does not need to be taken seriously. -Coming from an ultra conservative-.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We see the reactionary willingness of Publius to distort and blunder and flounder in defense of his silly beleifs. He asked and was answered.

Yes, Madison & Jefferson supported the First national Bank in their own presidencies.

Yes, Madison was out of office during the chartering of the Second National Bank, which is a Publius red herring.

Yes, Madison and Jefferson supported Hamilton's financial legislation in exchange for certain legislation they wanted.

Publius has much more in common with John Randolph and the later John Calhoun.

Madison and Jefferson would scorn Publius in their day.

 

[Publius1787]

We see the reactionary willingness of Publius to distort and blunder and flounder in defense of his silly beleifs. He asked and was answered.

Yes, Madison & Jefferson supported the First national Bank in their own presidencies.

Yes, Madison was out of office during the chartering of the Second National Bank, which is a Publius red herring.

Yes, Madison and Jefferson supported Hamilton's financial legislation in exchange for certain legislation they wanted.

Publius has much more in common with John Randolph and the later John Calhoun.

Madison and Jefferson would scorn Publius in their day.

(The red highlighted phrase above represents yet another change in the wording of your argument: Concession by change/omission)

WHAT!!! I ask you for links for the these three claims and you cannot provide them? I see. So why are you still arguing here? You cant back your own argument with information, that if true, would be easy as hell to find on the web. I shall repeat my same response below. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

I asked for links to these three claims. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NONE! Why? I thought you went to college/university? Certainly you were asked to cite your information. Is this something new to you? Do you not know how? Or does the history you seek not exist?

Your false and unsupported claims and why they are both false and unsupported. THIS IS HOW YOU PROVE YOUR CASE WITH REFERENCES!!!

1. Madison & Jefferson supported the First national Bank --- WRONG SEE HERE >>>> http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=...title=875&chapter=63865&layout=html&Itemid=27 & http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp

2. Madison was out of office during the chartering of the Second National Bank WRONG SEE HERE >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States

3. The Dinner Table Compromise was a tradeoff for the 1st National Bank in exchange for the location of Washington DC. WRONG SEE HERE >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1790

Not a Red herring. It demonstrates that you have no idea of what your talking about and your are a historical incompetent, and thus, not credible to argue the Founders ideology! If you can't get the basics correct you have no right to dive into the more complicated.

Think the truth: all the named individuals did at one time or another support national banks.

All your wriggling does not change that, which sinks the OP.

Yes, Madison and Jefferson supported the 1st National Bank in return for the national capitol being built in the South. No way to get away from that, friend.

And Washington happily used the EO power to build the capitol.

Your revision of the Federalist period flounders Fact.

I have already proven otherwise through links and sources. NOW PRVIDE ME LINKS AND SOURCES OF YOUR OWN that prove the following three claims of fiction;

Your false claims

1. Madison & Jefferson supported the First national Bank
2. Madison was out of office during the chartering of the Second National Bank
3. The Dinner Table Compromise was a tradeoff for the 1st National Bank in exchange for the location of Washington DC.

Show me the money! Such history, if true, should be easily found, should it not?

Now lets see if you pretend that this post never exited, or, simply repeat the same three claims above without providing the facts to back them up, or revise your original claims as if you never made them. My vote is on the latter of the three.

 

[Publius1787]

And Starkey disappears once again. Every time he is pushed to present evidence on his claims he does the following.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgCq7oQ-dZE]Brave Sir Robin Fled - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Publius's claims were all shown to be false.

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, Clay, Webster, Calhoun all supported either or both of the national banks during their respective presidencies or times in national office.

Never, ever was Publius able to disprove the statement above.

Publius Revision gets a Fail.

 

[Publius1787]

Publius's claims were all shown to be false.

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, Clay, Webster, Calhoun all supported either or both of the national banks during their respective presidencies or times in national office.

Never, ever was Publius able to disprove the statement above.

Publius Revision gets a Fail.

I can provide links that prove you wrong. But you cannot provide me links that prove you right. Are you going to give me the evidence that the below is true? They are your claims, not mine. Where is your evidence?

1. Madison & Jefferson supported the First national Bank --- WRONG SEE HERE >>>> Online Library of Liberty - James Madison's Speech on the Bank Bill 2 February 1791 - Liberty and Order: The First American Party Struggle & Avalon Project - Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791

2. Madison was out of office during the chartering of the Second National Bank WRONG SEE HERE >> Second Bank of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. The Dinner Table Compromise was a tradeoff for the 1st National Bank in exchange for the location of Washington DC. WRONG SEE HERE >>> Compromise of 1790 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Two Thumbs]

Liberals

alpha males are leaders of a pack, the pack must follow the leader w/o question.

once the alpha can't lead, the pack kills it w/o any thought about it

 

[The T]

Publius's claims were all shown to be false.

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, Clay, Webster, Calhoun all supported either or both of the national banks during their respective presidencies or times in national office.

Never, ever was Publius able to disprove the statement above.

Publius Revision gets a Fail.

So where's YOUR evidence?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I do tend to put the blinders on when assessing historical figures who have been so instrumental in setting the soaring trajectory of human advancement. From the ancient Greeks to Hobbes or Rousseau or Marx or the FF. Just imagine that. A flaming Lib giving a hall pass to slave owners. My version of Realpolitik maybe. Anyway it's a demonstration of my respect for the giants of Progressivism. I don't believe there can be an argument about that, they were Progressives.

Anybody who thinks Marx was part of "the soaring trajectory of human advancement" is, indeed, wearing blinders.

Anyone who fails to appreciate Marx and his impact on the world does not need to be taken seriously. -Coming from an ultra conservative-.

What an odd reaction to my post. I did not say I didn't appreciate Marx's impact on the world. I have trouble, however, describing Marx's impact as a "soaring trajectory of human ADVANCEMENT". Anybody who cannot practice simple reading comprehension does not need to be taken seriously. - Coming from a non pompous conservative-.
p.s.
I can also appreciate fascism's impact on the world without referring to it as a "soaring trajectory of human advancement".

 

[kiwiman127]

Alphas aren't followers, they are leaders, hence the term alpha. Therefore a real alpha male would not ever belong to an ideology as a follower, they would have to be the leader.
Using that basic logic, I voted other.

 

[Publius1787]

Publius's claims were all shown to be false.

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, Clay, Webster, Calhoun all supported either or both of the national banks during their respective presidencies or times in national office.

Never, ever was Publius able to disprove the statement above.

Publius Revision gets a Fail.

So where's YOUR evidence?

I'm glad someone else has noticed that Starkey doesn't like to link his historical references on subject matter that supports his argument but is false on it's historical face.

 

[Vox]

I do tend to put the blinders on when assessing historical figures who have been so instrumental in setting the soaring trajectory of human advancement. From the ancient Greeks to Hobbes or Rousseau or Marx or the FF. Just imagine that. A flaming Lib giving a hall pass to slave owners. My version of Realpolitik maybe. Anyway it's a demonstration of my respect for the giants of Progressivism. I don't believe there can be an argument about that, they were Progressives.

Anybody who thinks Marx was part of "the soaring trajectory of human advancement" is, indeed, wearing blinders.

Anyone who fails to appreciate Marx and his impact on the world does not need to be taken seriously. -Coming from an ultra conservative-.

Impact does not equate with advancement.

 

[Publius1787]

Anybody who thinks Marx was part of "the soaring trajectory of human advancement" is, indeed, wearing blinders.

Anyone who fails to appreciate Marx and his impact on the world does not need to be taken seriously. -Coming from an ultra conservative-.

Impact does not equate with advancement.

I agree. But advancement also includes the advancement of knowledge.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Publius's claims were all shown to be false.

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, Clay, Webster, Calhoun all supported either or both of the national banks during their respective presidencies or times in national office.

Never, ever was Publius able to disprove the statement above.

Publius Revision gets a Fail.

So where's YOUR evidence?

I'm glad someone else has noticed that Starkey doesn't like to link his historical references on subject matter that supports his argument but is false on it's historical face.

The Board member are thinking, well, it The T and Publius, who have had the evidence placed before them above by JS, and they still don't get.

OP fail. They all supported the national bank idea.