| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Malevolent Pygmies Playing With Fire |
| 2006-06-25 |
| I am, unlike George Bush (or any male of the Bush family, for that matter) a Jacksonian: The whole point of Jacksonianism is "You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. You play fair with me and I'll play fair with you. But if you fuck with me, I'll kill you." I believe that, at core, America is a Jacksonian nation. And when America finally realizes with what loathing we are regarded by the rest of the world, the result will not be what the rest of the world thinks will occur. There will be no sudden American need to apologize and submit ourselves to the world's judgment. We are a nation founded on telling the rest of the world to go to hell, and shedding our blood to send it there. |
| Posted by:SR-71 |
| #14 I still liked that slightly lame plan to turn Iran into a solar cell. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-06-25 23:33 |
| #13 You Islamists are SO lucky I'm not king. Actually I think they're quite fortunate that [insert name of Rantburg regular here] isn't in charge. This can be a bit of a tough crowd. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2006-06-25 22:43 |
| #12 next time, use "The Frank G™" method whereby outrageous and unreasonable methods are used to teach several-generation-level lessons. Shoot Qassams? Die by the hundreds. Kill Americans? Die by the thousands. Time for fun and restraint is over. You Islamists are SO lucky I'm not king. The excuses you've used in the past will not fly in the future. Suffer the consequences of your actions, and the world would be a better place. Can anyone disagree with that? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-06-25 22:36 |
| #11 Hmmm. Perhaps things evolve, Anonymoose, perhaps not. Are you saying that the historical view of Jackson, developed by historians and such-like voyeurs long after there were any Jackson contemporaries to object, is sacrosanct and modern people who differ in some respects can't call themselves Jacksonians? We seem to have, IIRC, Jacksonians, Jeffersonians, Wilsonians, etc. Looking at the definition DP offered, they certainly aren't Wilsonians or Jeffersonians - or I wouldn't see them that way. I've always thought the hallmark of Jacksonianism was self-reliance. Crude? Perhaps. Anti-elitist? Definitely. Big government? Hardly - or so I've always thought. Thus, I can't buy this assertion: "he believed in an overriding and perhaps overreaching federal government" And I think that's where flyover parted ways, as well, because you appear to dispute that key trait of self-reliance. The problem is making assertions without backing them up with proof or verifiable examples. I rather liked Daily Pundit's definition, myself. If you find fault with it, why don't you take it up with him? Or provide something substantial... BTW, the Nixonian / Chinese food bit was very clever. I'm afraid I'll be hungry for more soon, though, without proof of your assertion. |
| Posted by: Elmusing Gritch3892 2006-06-25 22:35 |
| #10 Next time read the Wiki and you will sound less dense. "Jacksonian democrat" has had a definition for a long time now. Comparitively, you might say that "Nixonian" is defined as somebody who likes Chinese food. So horribly under-defined as to be meaningless. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-06-25 22:19 |
| #9 That's a fine load of airy flabbergustophilliation. Doesn't mean shit in today's terms, however. Jacksonians have defended this country, despite the flaws and all, for more than 200 years. You may have served, but you sure as shit didn't know your fellows - or they were wardroom warriors. Autocrats? Crude? Big Gov't? Democrats? LOL. You act as though what it originally appeared to be is what it is today. No, I think DailyPundit's definition says it much much better. Much more succinctly. Much more accurately. Jacksonians are people who want to be left the fuck alone - does that sound like Big Gov't Donks? No. HAND, fluffbunny. |
| Posted by: flyover 2006-06-25 20:55 |
| #8 Unfortunately, Jacksonianism in its baser form is best typified by the character Pap Finn, father of Huckleberry. A man filled with burning hatred of anyone with $50 in his pocket, precisely because he had never had $50 in his whole life and knew that anyone who had, had gotten it through improper means. As much as Jackson himself despised "aristocrats", which he defined as anyone with money and breeding, in practice he was an autocrat, and one with a violent temper. He disliked the formalities of the constitution that denied him what he wanted, again seeing them as tricks by the upper classes to keep the common man down. Not ironically, he stands as the president who stood on the middle ground between early and modern America. He represented the rising power of the South and the West, and foresaged both the Civil War and American isolationism. As much as he is seen representing individual liberty and States' rights, in fact he believed in an overriding and perhaps overreaching federal government. It is right and proper that he was a co-founder of the modern democratic party. In many ways they still reflect his contradictions and crudeness of action. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-06-25 20:46 |
| #7 And outside every embassy - in the local language. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-06-25 19:33 |
| #6 "You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. You play fair with me and I'll play fair with you. But if you fuck with me, I'll kill you." Carve this in granite and place it by the entrance to Congress. Sign it "The people of the United States". |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-06-25 19:27 |
| #5 That needs to be read at the White House, exactly as posted. No "summary". Sisyphus explains for the witless and Daily Punidit, with his succinct clarification of what it is to be a Jacksonian, nailed it. |
| Posted by: Glosh Pholunter5587 2006-06-25 18:26 |
| #4 Amiho... /WG That is one solid 10-ring post. |
| Posted by: Unarong Flung7458 2006-06-25 18:16 |
| #3 tweaking the American nose has got to have consequences. 1st in the batting order: Iran, 2nd: Syria; 3rd: NK; 4th: Chavez...like frightened animals the rest will understand |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-06-25 18:15 |
| #2 Would that our "foreign policy" reflected this approach. We'd be a damn site better off. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-06-25 18:14 |
| #1 Exactly right... |
| Posted by: Wade Garrett 2006-06-25 18:01 |