Forbes: Ron Paul Vs. Alexander Hamilton

[rational thinker]

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/03/bailout-constitutional-hamilton-oped-cx_jb_1003bowyer.html

[Liberty Rebellion]

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/03/bailout-constitutional-hamilton-oped-cx_jb_1003bowyer.html

:rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/03/bailout-constitutional-hamilton-oped-cx_jb_1003bowyer.html :cool: Thanks! :)

[Jeremy]

It's so funny! He tries to pretend like he found something new and that because Hamilton was around back then it means he's right. The truth is that us libertarians already knew Hamilton was a disgusting globalist HATED by the founding fathers.

[Liberty Rebellion]

And is the situation we're in now even comparable to that situation? Was our currency the reserve currency of the world? What was the debt to GDP ratio back then?

They also didn't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary who used to be the head of a globalist bank.

[socialize_me]

lol

[nullvalu]

It all goes back to Federalists vs Anti-Federalists (or Republicans, as they were known then)

[socialize_me]

It's so funny! He tries to pretend like he found something new and that because Hamilton was around back then it means he's right. The truth is that us libertarians already knew Hamilton was a disgusting globalist HATED by the founding fathers.

A globalist?? He supported a high tariff!! Hard to be a globalist if your plans are to heavily protect domestic industry...Jefferson was more of a globalist (unless you're using the Alex Jones interpretation of globalist) than Hamilton was. Free trade is a globalist idea :P but if you're considering globalism as this some sort of conspiracy where the New World Order will come together, I'd like you to find proof of this on how in the world you come to the conclusion that Hamilton would have supported such a thing. Hell, Hamilton fought in a war for independence from another country. Why the hell would he support world unification?? Have you read the Federalist Papers, or just been listening to some wackjobs on this forum?? Show me where Hamilton was a globalist...he supported a high protective tariff so he obviously wasn't a trade globalist...he warned about the Federal Government seizing control through Hitler-esque techniques, yet he would have supported the WTO, the NAU, and NAFTA?? Give me a break..

For whatever reason (perhaps it's because you've been reading DiLorenzo's and Woods' books or listening to their lectures), Hamilton is viewed with spite in this movement. Unfortunate that many of you either haven't read the Federalist Papers or think a union of states is a horrible concept. Either way, Madison and Hamilton worked together and yet Madison is referred to as Jefferson's double in many ways. How is it that Madison is viewed as a great Founding Father by people within this movement yet he socialized and collaborated with the evilest man ever to walk this earth..Mr. Alexander Hamilton?? How's that any different from Ron Paul co-authoring a book with Bernanke??? See how ridiculous you sound??

Although I don't agree with a lot of Hamilton's philosophies, to say he was despised by the Founders is rather a joke. I guess Washington came after the Founders?? Oh, and if the guy is such an intolerable man, why did he throw his support behind Jefferson?? He knew Burr was a very ambitious man who turned out later to try and take over the West and revolt against the United States. If Hamilton was an evil crook as postulated by Woods and DiLorenzo (and I'm guessing yourself since those are the people where you've probably formulated your opinions from), why the hell didn't he take up arms and side with Burr??? Hell, he could have co-ruled a new country!!

Hamilton was an incredibly influential man in his time. Jefferson admitted this, Washington recognized it, and Madison supported it. Exactly which of the Founding Fathers detested Hamilton?? The ones DiLorenzo wishes they did?? C'mon...the guy was the First Secretary of the Treasury, Jefferson regarded him as a titan in American Politics, and he submitted essays which fueled the fire to create a Constitution which Dr. Ron Paul always introduces in any discussion and is the backbone for all of his reasoning. Hamilton, who again I don't agree with his philosophy, carried more clout in his day than did Jefferson whether you like it or not. Just look at how Washington dealt with things. Explain to me Jefferson's resignation. It's because Hamilton was the most politically powerful man in the United States in the late 1780's/1790's. He influenced Washington more than Jefferson did, and so Jefferson resigned. Although again I agree with Jefferson's philosophy, you cannot deny history.

Yes, that Hamilton was a bad guy which no one liked. He was despised. Get a fucking clue.

[wizardwatson]

His assessment might be right, if we ignore everything that happened between then and now.

One could argue for slavery in the same manner.

[fj45lvr]

Please Read Hamiltons FEDERALIST #28 and tell me if he sounded deluded.

The guy had some things RIGHT ON.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa28.htm


"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense (http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/RightofDefense.html) which is paramount to all positive forms of government . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."

[Tenbatsu]

Talk about revisionist history.

I guess it wouldn't help his point out to point out the failures of the first central bank in the United States and the repercussions our Government faces when it opposes the power of central banks.

[V4Vendetta]

George Washington was not for a bailout.
Alexander Hamilton was not the brightest Founder.
He Screwed up a few things, and so did John Adams.

Why didn't he mention all the founders that were on the same side as Paul?
Because that would have made his argument look less one sided, and he didn't want to convey that message.

[socialize_me]

Please Read Hamiltons FEDERALIST #28 and tell me if he sounded deluded.

The guy had some things RIGHT ON.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa28.htm


"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense (http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/RightofDefense.html) which is paramount to all positive forms of government . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."


Of COURSE he did!! The guy actually FOUGHT for independence (unlike stormcommander who, at the most, has waved signs), authored essays that motivated a nation to adopt the Constitution we still have today (which would be a product of the 1780's globalists according to stormcommander), which has influenced Ron Paul moreso than anything else in his political philosophy. I mean, you can't go through life thinking everyone you disagree with that's in power (or has been) is a globalist. These people had to wait weeks or even months to know the results of a Presidential election---what the hell are you talking about "Hamilton was a globalist"?? Give me break. You're indoctrinated with hate and damn near borderline anarchy so I don't even know why I'm wasting my time. If Hamilton were alive today, you'd find he would be more Constitutional than most of the people in this movement.

[socialize_me]

Talk about revisionist history.

I guess it wouldn't help his point out to point out the failures of the first central bank in the United States and the repercussions our Government faces when it opposes the power of central banks.

He was a Treasury Secretary. He wasn't elected, he couldn't vote, how in the hell can you blame the First Bank on Hamilton when he didn't even pass the fucking bill? It had to go through the House and Senate, it had to be signed by Washington, and it had a sunset provision of 20 years. Don't you dare compare the National Bank, which was a Federal Institution, to the Federal Reserve which has been around for almost a century, has no sunset provisions, and is a private entity controlled by regional banks which actually elect the Board of Governors at the Fed branches. You're a revisionist of logic.

Might I also add that I said I don't agree with many of Hamilton's philosophies, but to say I'm a revisionist because he was the most politically powerful man in the United States is not a radical idea (maybe for you). Jefferson even admitted this!! Why do you think Jefferson resigned?? Why would Jefferson resign if he had more influence on Washington than Hamilton did? My God...why do I even bother?? You guys are so radical and indoctrinated that you think Hamilton was an anti-liberty guy. When exactly did you take up arms in the defense of liberty?? Never. You've sat on your ass typing away on a message board site thinking you're some sort of "revolutionary". Go do something revolutionary before you start criticizing Hamilton with off the wall ridiculous comments like "he was HATED by the Founders". Bullshit.

[Tenbatsu]

He was a Treasury Secretary. He wasn't elected, he couldn't vote, how in the hell can you blame the First Bank on Hamilton when he didn't even pass the fucking bill? It had to go through the House and Senate, it had to be signed by Washington, and it had a sunset provision of 20 years. Don't you dare compare the National Bank, which was a Federal Institution, to the Federal Reserve which has been around for almost a century, has no sunset provisions, and is a private entity controlled by regional banks which actually elect the Board of Governors at the Fed branches. You're a revisionist of logic.

Might I also add that I said I don't agree with many of Hamilton's philosophies, but to say I'm a revisionist because he was the most politically powerful man in the United States is not a radical idea (maybe for you). Jefferson even admitted this!! Why do you think Jefferson resigned?? Why would Jefferson resign if he had more influence on Washington than Hamilton did? My God...why do I even bother?? You guys are so radical and indoctrinated that you think Hamilton was an anti-liberty guy. When exactly did you take up arms in the defense of liberty?? Never. You've sat on your ass typing away on a message board site thinking you're some sort of "revolutionary". Go do something revolutionary before you start criticizing Hamilton with off the wall ridiculous comments like "he was HATED by the Founders". Bullshit.

Please do some research into Alexander Hamilton's ties with the Central Bank of England and other international bankers.

I'm not arguing whether the founders liked him or not, I don't know, nor does anyone else in my opinion.

Actually, just sit down and watch Money Masters, your opinion of Alexander Hamilton as a beacon of righteousness will fade quick.

Edit: One more thing..

Paulson, he has no direct legislative power, can't vote, is much less politically influential than Hamilton during his time, close ties to international bankers, pushes the most unconstitutional piece of legislation since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Now let's flip that, Alexander Hamilton, can't vote, no direct legislative power, extremely influential for his time, strong ties to international bankers - pushes a central bank on the United States.

The House and Senate do not even know what they're voting for, do you think that our House and Senate at the time really knew the pitfalls of a central bank? They see Paulson/Hamilton as people who know more than them and thus will follow them off a cliff, or, if they're not willing to follow, will be forcefully coerced to submit to their request. The only difference in these scenarios is the President. Bush is in on it, no doubt. Washington on the other hand was skeptical even while signing this bill but Alexander Hamilton had his ear the entire time and thus Washington, being a leader of men and not an economist, signed the bill in his faith that Hamilton wouldn't intentionally steer the U.S. toward serfdom.

[mconder]

"Ron Paul says that the Paulson plan is unconstitutional. So does Michele Malkin."

That's something I'd never thought I'd see.

[Alawn]

You guys are so radical and indoctrinated that you think Hamilton was an anti-liberty guy.

Sorry but he was anti liberty. So was Adams. They both fought for independence. But they didn't seem to care when they were the ones in control.

[Jeremy]

A globalist?? He supported a high tariff!! Hard to be a globalist if your plans are to heavily protect domestic industry...Jefferson was more of a globalist (unless you're using the Alex Jones interpretation of globalist) than Hamilton was. Free trade is a globalist idea :P but if you're considering globalism as this some sort of conspiracy where the New World Order will come together, I'd like you to find proof of this on how in the world you come to the conclusion that Hamilton would have supported such a thing. Hell, Hamilton fought in a war for independence from another country. Why the hell would he support world unification?? Have you read the Federalist Papers, or just been listening to some wackjobs on this forum?? Show me where Hamilton was a globalist...he supported a high protective tariff so he obviously wasn't a trade globalist...he warned about the Federal Government seizing control through Hitler-esque techniques, yet he would have supported the WTO, the NAU, and NAFTA?? Give me a break..

For whatever reason (perhaps it's because you've been reading DiLorenzo's and Woods' books or listening to their lectures), Hamilton is viewed with spite in this movement. Unfortunate that many of you either haven't read the Federalist Papers or think a union of states is a horrible concept. Either way, Madison and Hamilton worked together and yet Madison is referred to as Jefferson's double in many ways. How is it that Madison is viewed as a great Founding Father by people within this movement yet he socialized and collaborated with the evilest man ever to walk this earth..Mr. Alexander Hamilton?? How's that any different from Ron Paul co-authoring a book with Bernanke??? See how ridiculous you sound??

Although I don't agree with a lot of Hamilton's philosophies, to say he was despised by the Founders is rather a joke. I guess Washington came after the Founders?? Oh, and if the guy is such an intolerable man, why did he throw his support behind Jefferson?? He knew Burr was a very ambitious man who turned out later to try and take over the West and revolt against the United States. If Hamilton was an evil crook as postulated by Woods and DiLorenzo (and I'm guessing yourself since those are the people where you've probably formulated your opinions from), why the hell didn't he take up arms and side with Burr??? Hell, he could have co-ruled a new country!!

Hamilton was an incredibly influential man in his time. Jefferson admitted this, Washington recognized it, and Madison supported it. Exactly which of the Founding Fathers detested Hamilton?? The ones DiLorenzo wishes they did?? C'mon...the guy was the First Secretary of the Treasury, Jefferson regarded him as a titan in American Politics, and he submitted essays which fueled the fire to create a Constitution which Dr. Ron Paul always introduces in any discussion and is the backbone for all of his reasoning. Hamilton, who again I don't agree with his philosophy, carried more clout in his day than did Jefferson whether you like it or not. Just look at how Washington dealt with things. Explain to me Jefferson's resignation. It's because Hamilton was the most politically powerful man in the United States in the late 1780's/1790's. He influenced Washington more than Jefferson did, and so Jefferson resigned. Although again I agree with Jefferson's philosophy, you cannot deny history.

Yes, that Hamilton was a bad guy which no one liked. He was despised. Get a fucking clue.

By globalist I basically meant he was an interventionist... a power hungry person... etc... maybe not the perfect word I could have used =p

oh and btw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7aUY1Pjrlw

[mconder]

Adams and Hamilton were big government bitches. So what if Jefferson had had his way. I'd rather have 1000 years of people living on small farms and enjoying the good life, than a little over 200 years ending up a slave to some fascist state I don't even recognize. So, we'd be a little backward, but so would the rest of the world, seeing that the US evened almost all technologies. One thing, we'd be sovereign individuals still.

[Arklatex]

rational thinker, PM me every time you post. Your posts kick ass, no BS just links and worthwhile posts, spreads the movement. Keep it up please.

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Search&cof=LW%3A500%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.co m%2Flewroc1a.gif%3BLH%3A93%3BAH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3 A65dad07a461e3427%3B&domains=lewrockwell.com&q=Alexander+Hamilton&sitesearch=lewrockwell.com (http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Search&cof=LW%3A500%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.co m%2Flewroc1a.gif%3BLH%3A93%3BAH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3 A65dad07a461e3427%3B&domains=lewrockwell.com&q=Alexander+Hamilton&sitesearch=lewrockwell.com)

[Cowlesy]

Visit The Bank of New York's 1 Wall Street office, proceed to the 10th Floor (the beautiful Senior Executive floor), and basque in the glory of the gigantic Alexander Hamilton painting!