Sanders or the Pope?

Ham Flower? wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Ham Flower? wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Oh my, my, my....  This is a tough one.   That darn bible and all its socialist teachings.


http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2016/04/us/bernie-sanders-pope-who-said-it/

What are those socialist teachings in the Bible ??? (you know, those specifically saying the able bodied lazy who refuse to work have a right to be provided for)

Matthew 25:31-46

Try reading what it actually says instead of what you want it to say.

Almost forgot to thank you Dr. Jones for your response.

IMHO, 2 Thessalonians 3, especially Verse 10 comes closer to the criteria I suggested .

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Now, please provide the reference to the able bodied lazy who refuse to work have a right to be provided for.

Next you should try reading Matthew 14:13-21. 5,000 people were fed without any mention of work. You really should study your Bible more.

Ham Flower? wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Rather than finding meaning of scripture, is it always more typical for you guys to stew and brood about everything that a passage doesn't mean ?

That's funny, isn't it. The teachings of Jesus are pretty simple and straight forward, yet Christians spend more time interpreting them to their own convenient needs than actually trying to follow them.

Jesus said in Matthew 25:26-28 wrote:“But his lord answered and said to him, ‘You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest. Therefore take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents.

Ham Flower? wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Ham Flower? wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Oh my, my, my....  This is a tough one.   That darn bible and all its socialist teachings.


http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2016/04/us/bernie-sanders-pope-who-said-it/

What are those socialist teachings in the Bible ??? (you know, those specifically saying the able bodied lazy who refuse to work have a right to be provided for)

Matthew 25:31-46

Try reading what it actually says instead of what you want it to say.

Almost forgot to thank you Dr. Jones for your response.

IMHO, 2 Thessalonians 3, especially Verse 10 comes closer to the criteria I suggested .

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Now, please provide the reference to the able bodied lazy who refuse to work have a right to be provided for.

Next you should try reading Matthew 14:13-21. 5,000 people were fed without any mention of work. You really should study your Bible more.

Dr. Jones wrote:If you guys don't think it's the government’s job to do God's will,  then why do you insist that we plaster his name on everything?  Why do you insist that laws be written in a way that reflects your perception of his teachings?

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:If you guys don't think it's the government’s job to do God's will,  then why do you insist that we plaster his name on everything?  Why do you insist that laws be written in a way that reflects your perception of his teachings?

Just when I think your stupidity is finite you come along with even greater stupidity that reaches an unimaginable level. You truly are the dimmest bulb I have ever encountered and the best part is you aren't afraid to openly display it for all to see.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:If you guys don't think it's the government’s job to do God's will,  then why do you insist that we plaster his name on everything?  Why do you insist that laws be written in a way that reflects your perception of his teachings?

Just when I think your stupidity is finite you come along with even greater stupidity that reaches an unimaginable level. You truly are the dimmest bulb I have ever encountered and the best part is you aren't afraid to openly display it for all to see.

Don't want to answer the question huh?

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:If you guys don't think it's the government’s job to do God's will,  then why do you insist that we plaster his name on everything?  Why do you insist that laws be written in a way that reflects your perception of his teachings?

Just when I think your stupidity is finite you come along with even greater stupidity that reaches an unimaginable level. You truly are the dimmest bulb I have ever encountered and the best part is you aren't afraid to openly display it for all to see.

Don't want to answer the question huh?

Unlike you, Darth is gainfully employed and works for his living.  He is probably busy, so I will respond for him.

It is not a surprise that a communist heathen would ask such a stupid question.  True Americans know most of the reasons.  I will list the first few that come to mind for me.

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights
The proper role of government is to protect these rights for us
Without religion, the government of a free people cannot be maintained
All things were created by God and to HIM, we are equally responsible
The God given right to govern is vested in the authority of the people
A Republican form of government cannot survive unless the people remain virtuous and morally strong

I am sure that to conservatives who study and respect our Founding Documents, these are nothing new.  They are the principles we live our lives by.  They are also embodied in the documents our Founders used to create this great country.  However, to communist heathens they are heresy to their atheist ideology.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:If you guys don't think it's the government’s job to do God's will,  then why do you insist that we plaster his name on everything?  Why do you insist that laws be written in a way that reflects your perception of his teachings?

Just when I think your stupidity is finite you come along with even greater stupidity that reaches an unimaginable level. You truly are the dimmest bulb I have ever encountered and the best part is you aren't afraid to openly display it for all to see.

Don't want to answer the question huh?

Unlike you, Darth is gainfully employed and works for his living.  He is probably busy, so I will respond for him.

It is not a surprise that a communist heathen would ask such a stupid question.  True Americans know most of the reasons.  I will list the first few that come to mind for me.

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights
The proper role of government is to protect these rights for us
Without religion, the government of a free people cannot be maintained
All things were created by God and to HIM, we are equally responsible
The God given right to govern is vested in the authority of the people
A Republican form of government cannot survive unless the people remain virtuous and morally strong

I am sure that to conservatives who study and respect our Founding Documents, these are nothing new.  They are the principles we live our lives by.  They are also embodied in the documents our Founders used to create this great country.  However, to communist heathens they are heresy to their atheist ideology.

So. Do you want the presence of God in our government and for it to be run in a way that is consistent with his teachings(at least in your perceptions)?  Yay or nay.

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:If you guys don't think it's the government’s job to do God's will,  then why do you insist that we plaster his name on everything?  Why do you insist that laws be written in a way that reflects your perception of his teachings?

Just when I think your stupidity is finite you come along with even greater stupidity that reaches an unimaginable level. You truly are the dimmest bulb I have ever encountered and the best part is you aren't afraid to openly display it for all to see.

Don't want to answer the question huh?

Unlike you, Darth is gainfully employed and works for his living.  He is probably busy, so I will respond for him.

It is not a surprise that a communist heathen would ask such a stupid question.  True Americans know most of the reasons.  I will list the first few that come to mind for me.

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights
The proper role of government is to protect these rights for us
Without religion, the government of a free people cannot be maintained
All things were created by God and to HIM, we are equally responsible
The God given right to govern is vested in the authority of the people
A Republican form of government cannot survive unless the people remain virtuous and morally strong

I am sure that to conservatives who study and respect our Founding Documents, these are nothing new.  They are the principles we live our lives by.  They are also embodied in the documents our Founders used to create this great country.  However, to communist heathens they are heresy to their atheist ideology.

So. Do you want the presence of God in our government and for it to be run in a way that is consistent with his teachings(at least in your perceptions)?  Yay or nay.

The only basis for sound government is natural law.  

I want our government to be run by following the Constitution as written and meant by our Founding Fathers.   Our problems are the result of heathen progressives like you that have been able to manipulate the system and use judicial interpretation of the Constitution (rather than what the Founders intended) to fundamentally change it into a socialist hellhole.  

You are EVIL.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:If you guys don't think it's the government’s job to do God's will,  then why do you insist that we plaster his name on everything?  Why do you insist that laws be written in a way that reflects your perception of his teachings?

Just when I think your stupidity is finite you come along with even greater stupidity that reaches an unimaginable level. You truly are the dimmest bulb I have ever encountered and the best part is you aren't afraid to openly display it for all to see.

Don't want to answer the question huh?

Unlike you, Darth is gainfully employed and works for his living.  He is probably busy, so I will respond for him.

It is not a surprise that a communist heathen would ask such a stupid question.  True Americans know most of the reasons.  I will list the first few that come to mind for me.

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights
The proper role of government is to protect these rights for us
Without religion, the government of a free people cannot be maintained
All things were created by God and to HIM, we are equally responsible
The God given right to govern is vested in the authority of the people
A Republican form of government cannot survive unless the people remain virtuous and morally strong

I am sure that to conservatives who study and respect our Founding Documents, these are nothing new.  They are the principles we live our lives by.  They are also embodied in the documents our Founders used to create this great country.  However, to communist heathens they are heresy to their atheist ideology.

So. Do you want the presence of God in our government and for it to be run in a way that is consistent with his teachings(at least in your perceptions)?  Yay or nay.

The only basis for sound government is natural law.  

I want our government to be run by following the Constitution as written and meant by our Founding Fathers.   Our problems are the result of heathen progressives like you that have been able to manipulate the system and use judicial interpretation of the Constitution (rather than what the Founders intended) to fundamentally change it into a socialist hellhole.  

You are EVIL.

Is that a nay then?

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:If you guys don't think it's the government’s job to do God's will,  then why do you insist that we plaster his name on everything?  Why do you insist that laws be written in a way that reflects your perception of his teachings?

Just when I think your stupidity is finite you come along with even greater stupidity that reaches an unimaginable level. You truly are the dimmest bulb I have ever encountered and the best part is you aren't afraid to openly display it for all to see.

Don't want to answer the question huh?

Unlike you, Darth is gainfully employed and works for his living.  He is probably busy, so I will respond for him.

It is not a surprise that a communist heathen would ask such a stupid question.  True Americans know most of the reasons.  I will list the first few that come to mind for me.

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights
The proper role of government is to protect these rights for us
Without religion, the government of a free people cannot be maintained
All things were created by God and to HIM, we are equally responsible
The God given right to govern is vested in the authority of the people
A Republican form of government cannot survive unless the people remain virtuous and morally strong

I am sure that to conservatives who study and respect our Founding Documents, these are nothing new.  They are the principles we live our lives by.  They are also embodied in the documents our Founders used to create this great country.  However, to communist heathens they are heresy to their atheist ideology.

So. Do you want the presence of God in our government and for it to be run in a way that is consistent with his teachings(at least in your perceptions)?  Yay or nay.

The only basis for sound government is natural law.  

I want our government to be run by following the Constitution as written and meant by our Founding Fathers.   Our problems are the result of heathen progressives like you that have been able to manipulate the system and use judicial interpretation of the Constitution (rather than what the Founders intended) to fundamentally change it into a socialist hellhole.  

You are EVIL.

Is that a nay then?

If you are so stupid that you cannot understand the answers that I provide, I have no more time for you.  Perhaps you will continue to find some people on here that are on the same mental plain as you and they will engage you in a dialog.  However, I am not one to waste my time on an obvious moron not to mention and evil cretin.

Good luck in finding morons with intelligence levels in the single digits who are willing to converse with you.  As long as they can tolerate a piece of lying dogshit, you will have someone to keep you entertained.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Ham Flower? wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Ham Flower? wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Oh my, my, my....  This is a tough one.   That darn bible and all its socialist teachings.


http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2016/04/us/bernie-sanders-pope-who-said-it/

What are those socialist teachings in the Bible ??? (you know, those specifically saying the able bodied lazy who refuse to work have a right to be provided for)

Matthew 25:31-46

Try reading what it actually says instead of what you want it to say.

Almost forgot to thank you Dr. Jones for your response.

IMHO, 2 Thessalonians 3, especially Verse 10 comes closer to the criteria I suggested .

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Now, please provide the reference to the able bodied lazy who refuse to work have a right to be provided for.

Next you should try reading Matthew 14:13-21. 5,000 people were fed without any mention of work. You really should study your Bible more.

Really? That's your take away from Matthew 14:13-21 (FWIW "The Feeding of the Multitudes" is also recorded in Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:10-17 and John 6:5-15) ? That the Multitude get a free picnic? Seriously? I pity you then since this is an extremely shallow reading of the Gospels. Yet you berate those on this thread for failing to study the Bible or "interpret them to their own convenient needs ".

Here's a Fallen Methodist's take on the "Feeding of the Multitudes". Where is the government in this recounting? MIA. This has nothing to do with socialism or government. Who provides the five loaves and two fishes? Someone in the crowd not the government. This has to do with God providing people with what is needed and with Jesus taking what we bring to him, no matter how insignificant, and multiplying it. Whether it be necessities or just our own talents, working with God's blessing through Jesus Christ our work is our own not the governments.

Ham Flower? wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Ham Flower? wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Ham Flower? wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Oh my, my, my....  This is a tough one.   That darn bible and all its socialist teachings.


http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2016/04/us/bernie-sanders-pope-who-said-it/

What are those socialist teachings in the Bible ??? (you know, those specifically saying the able bodied lazy who refuse to work have a right to be provided for)

Matthew 25:31-46

Try reading what it actually says instead of what you want it to say.

Almost forgot to thank you Dr. Jones for your response.

IMHO, 2 Thessalonians 3, especially Verse 10 comes closer to the criteria I suggested .

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Now, please provide the reference to the able bodied lazy who refuse to work have a right to be provided for.

Next you should try reading Matthew 14:13-21. 5,000 people were fed without any mention of work. You really should study your Bible more.

Really? That's your take away from Matthew 14:13-21 (FWIW "The Feeding of the Multitudes" is also recorded in Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:10-17 and John 6:5-15) ? That the Multitude get a free picnic? Seriously? I pity you then since this is an extremely shallow reading of the Gospels. Yet you berate those on this thread for failing to study the Bible or "interpret them to their own convenient needs ".

Here's a Fallen Methodist's take on the "Feeding of the Multitudes". Where is the government in this recounting? MIA. This has nothing to do with socialism or government. Who provides the five loaves and two fishes? Someone in the crowd not the government. This has to do with God providing people with what is needed and with Jesus taking what we bring to him, no matter how insignificant, and multiplying it. Whether it be necessities or just our own talents, working with God's blessing through Jesus Christ our work is our own not the governments.

You forgot to mention your time at the University of Chicago.

Dr. Jones wrote:And the hits just keep on rolling.  Who's afraid of taking in a few Syrian refugees?  Not this guy...

Pope meets migrants on Greek island of Lesbos
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/16/europe/pope-visits-refugees-lesbos/index.html

Does that make him a Marxist?

Seven o'clock, and retired to my fireside, I have determined to enter into conversation with you; this [Fontainebleau] is a village of about 5,000 inhabitants when the court is not here and 20,000 when they are, occupying a valley thro' which runs a brook, and on each side of it a ridge of small mountains most of which are naked rock. The king comes here in the fall always, to hunt. His court attend him, as do also the foreign diplomatic corps. But as this is not indispensably required, and my finances do not admit the expence of a continued residence here, I propose to come occasionally to attend the king's levees, returning again to Paris, distant 40 miles. This being the first trip, I set out yesterday morning to take a view of the place. For this purpose I shaped my course towards the highest of the mountains in sight, to the top of which was about a league. As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the labouring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstance. She told me she was a day labourer, at 8. sous or 4 d. sterling the day; that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could get no emploiment, and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned, because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

Dr. Jones wrote:Here's another good one:


Who wrote this?   



Thomas Jefferson or Bernie Sanders?

Seven o'clock, and retired to my fireside, I have determined to enter into conversation with you; this [Fontainebleau] is a village of about 5,000 inhabitants when the court is not here and 20,000 when they are, occupying a valley thro' which runs a brook, and on each side of it a ridge of small mountains most of which are naked rock. The king comes here in the fall always, to hunt. His court attend him, as do also the foreign diplomatic corps. But as this is not indispensably required, and my finances do not admit the expence of a continued residence here, I propose to come occasionally to attend the king's levees, returning again to Paris, distant 40 miles. This being the first trip, I set out yesterday morning to take a view of the place. For this purpose I shaped my course towards the highest of the mountains in sight, to the top of which was about a league. As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the labouring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstance. She told me she was a day labourer, at 8. sous or 4 d. sterling the day; that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could get no emploiment, and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned, because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

Jeebus. Seriously? Because Snowball always speaks and writes in 18th century English.  

Thornton over at  GLPVQ loved to post this Jefferson letter from 1785 to James Madison as proof that Jefferson was a socialist. I guess bad history has no half life in a Liberal's alternative Universe.

This is just a Jefferson attack, mirroring the growing resistance elsewhere in the West, on the landed aristocracy and the entail and primogeniture laws on inheritance found in France and Europe at the time allowing productive land to lay fallow and creating a shortage of available land in the market. Entail laws ended in Jefferson's Virginia in 1776 and primogeniture laws were abolished in the United States shortly after the American Revolution ended in 1783.

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it." If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it.

Dr. Jones wrote:You can poke, pluck and twist this through your conservative spin machine all you want,  but when the dust cloud clears the hard text still remains.  And is consistent with Jefferson's progressive tendencies.  

Checkmate

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:You can poke, pluck and twist this through your conservative spin machine all you want,  but when the dust cloud clears the hard text still remains.  And is consistent with Jefferson's progressive tendencies.  

Checkmate

You don't even know what entail and primogeniture laws are do you? And you're too stupid/lazy to look them up.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Quick, who said it Ayn Rand or Thomas Jefferson?

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it." If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Here's another good one:


Who wrote this?   



Thomas Jefferson or Bernie Sanders?




Jeebus. Seriously? Because Snowball always speaks and writes in 18th century English.  

Thornton over at  GLPVQ loved to post this Jefferson letter from 1785 to James Madison as proof that Jefferson was a socialist. I guess bad history has no half life in a Liberal's alternative Universe.

This is just a Jefferson attack, mirroring the growing resistance elsewhere in the West, on the landed aristocracy and the entail and primogeniture laws on inheritance found in France and Europe at the time allowing productive land to lay fallow and creating a shortage of available land in the market. Entail laws ended in Jefferson's Virginia in 1776 and primogeniture laws were abolished in the United States shortly after the American Revolution ended in 1783.

Thomas Jefferson on August 18, 1875 wrote:    Indeed, it is difficult to conceive how so good a people [the French], with so good a King, so well-disposed rulers in general, so genial a climate, so fertile a soil, should be rendered so ineffectual for producing human happiness by one single curse, — that of a bad form of government. But it is a fact, in spite of the mildness of their governors, the people are ground to powder by the vices of the form of government. Of twenty millions of people supposed to be in France, I am of opinion there are nineteen millions more wretched, more accursed in every circumstance of human existence than the most conspicuously wretched individual of the whole United States.  

Jammer wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Here's another good one:


Who wrote this?   



Thomas Jefferson or Bernie Sanders?




Jeebus. Seriously? Because Snowball always speaks and writes in 18th century English.  

Thornton over at  GLPVQ loved to post this Jefferson letter from 1785 to James Madison as proof that Jefferson was a socialist. I guess bad history has no half life in a Liberal's alternative Universe.

This is just a Jefferson attack, mirroring the growing resistance elsewhere in the West, on the landed aristocracy and the entail and primogeniture laws on inheritance found in France and Europe at the time allowing productive land to lay fallow and creating a shortage of available land in the market. Entail laws ended in Jefferson's Virginia in 1776 and primogeniture laws were abolished in the United States shortly after the American Revolution ended in 1783.

I looked in my book of original works by Jefferson and could not find that comment under either France or Income Inequality.  Also, it is quite suspicious as it does not seem to be of the same quality or style of Jefferson’s actual writings.  And since it is from the most notoriously dishonest person on this forum, I am hesitant to accept it as accurate until I can locate it.

However, in my looking through comments by Jefferson about France, I did find the following.  

Thomas Jefferson on August 18, 1875 wrote:    Indeed, it is difficult to conceive how so good a people [the French], with so good a King, so well-disposed rulers in general, so genial a climate, so fertile a soil, should be rendered so ineffectual for producing human happiness by one single curse, — that of a bad form of government. But it is a fact, in spite of the mildness of their governors, the people are ground to powder by the vices of the form of government. Of twenty millions of people supposed to be in France, I am of opinion there are nineteen millions more wretched, more accursed in every circumstance of human existence than the most conspicuously wretched individual of the whole United States.  

It is interesting that the despair in Jefferson’s words comes from the very progressive liberal actions of the social democrats in this country.  This was the very type of government that they are trying to implement in this country minus the monarch.  But on second thought, perhaps they are looking to install the Clinton Dynasty in that role in which case it would be identical.

In any event, it is pure condemnation of the progressive liberals and their evil agenda.