Indeed it did, but not before he managed to become entwined in one of the more Byzantine webs of alleged treason ever. Burr, all in all, was one of the more intriguing characters in American history. For anyone interested in finding out more about him, I highly recommend Gore Vidal's excellent novel, Burr, A Novel -- https://www.amazon.com/Burr-Novel-Gore-Vidal/dp/0375708731. While it's an historical novel, it's well written and fast paced and one of those reads you'll find yourself unwilling to lay down before it's totally read.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13602000701737079

Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson

Defenders of Reason in Islam: Mu'tazililism from Medieval School to Modern Symbol

The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis

Islam's Predicament with Modernity: Religious Reform and Cultural Change

Islam without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty

Islam and Democracy: Fear of the Modern World

ps. I don't mind lending you at least some of the books above (via Amazon Kindle) if you're truly interested in learning about this period.

> Why did the ‘six-nine’ narrations gain such prominence?

>One may ask why early Muslim scholars did not refute the ages mentioned in the “six-nine” narration in their commentaries. It is possible that they simply took for granted that particular figures in such reports were not necessarily regarded as chronological data, and did not feel the need to comment further as this was self-evident for people of that time. American professor, Denise Spellberg, theorises that political factors, in particular the Shi`a-Sunni split, may have been important in the prevalent notion of Aisha’s young age at marriage. Her young age, and therefore that she was not known to any man before the Prophet , was an important point for supporters of the Sunni Abbasid caliphate as it proved her status as a divinely-appointed wife, and thus a reliable source regarding the ‘thorny’ question of his succession[36]. It may have been that Sunni scholars favoured the reports which placed Aisha at nine years of age as it helped raise her status as the only virgin bride of the Prophet . One may also add that the Shi`a cult around the figure of Sayyiduna Ali no doubt used the fact that he had been brought up in the prophetic household from his early childhood as a mark of his distinction above the other Companions, particularly Aisha. The Shi`a rejected the authority and status of Aisha, and it may have suited Sunni scholars to highlight those reports that showed Aisha to be very young when she entered the Prophet’s household .

http://hameem.org/index.php/multimedia/articles/89-articles/149-proof-that-aisha-was-over-15-years-old-when-she-married-the-prophet-peace-be-upon-him

But that cites this: https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Gender-Islamic-Past-Spellberg/dp/0231079990

> we really need to get to the bottom of whatever pathology is causing this

The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin

> Tracing conservatism back to its roots in the reaction against the French Revolution, Robin argues that the right is fundamentally inspired by a hostility to emancipating the lower orders. Some conservatives endorse the free market, others oppose it. Some criticize the state, others celebrate it. Underlying these differences is the impulse to defend power and privilege against movements demanding freedom and equality. Despite their opposition to these movements, conservatives favor a dynamic conception of politics and society--one that involves self-transformation, violence, and war. They are also highly adaptive to new challenges and circumstances. This partiality to violence and capacity for reinvention has been critical to their success.
>
> Written by a keen, highly regarded observer of the contemporary political scene, The Reactionary Mind ranges widely, from Edmund Burke to Antonin Scalia, from John C. Calhoun to Ayn Rand. It advances the notion that all rightwing ideologies, from the eighteenth century through today, are historical improvisations on a theme: the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.

That's generally what I think, but I also think people's behavior is highly contingent on social circumstances. If I had to pick a book that represents my view, it would be Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature.

Anyone that thinks Putin is a great guy should read this: The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep: Russia's Road to Terror and Dictatorship under Yeltsin and Putin

Walls don't work. For more info, read this.

I answered your second question. I'll add emphasis if that helps you.

Make Playboy Journalism Great Again!

And unlike the baseless, unfounded nostalgia those racists have, this statement has historical backings.

Snapshots:

1. This Post - 1, 2, 3
   
   ^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))

You check it against sources written by people that have expertise in the subject. Real expertise. Right now we are in the world of the internet where everyone thinks they know everything and garbage gets passed around. The Death of Expertise.

https://www.amazon.com/Multitude-War-Democracy-Age-Empire/dp/0143035592

Fun fact, I'm reading that Hitler biography reviewed in the NYT. I'm not going to say it's eerie how similar Trump and Hitler are, because it's not really quite apt: Hitler actually served in the war and was quite a capable reader, unlike Trump who skipped wartime service and is possibly-but-most-definitely illiterate.

But I will say that the culture in places like Vienna and Munich before and immediately after WWI that led to the rise of Hitler are in their own way startling similar to what we see with the rise of Trump here in the US. We need to renegotiate the Treaty of Versailles, we're getting raked over the coals by idiots exploiting us, we're getting stabbed in the back by malicious foreigners in our midst who have their own interests at heart and are exploiting us, the socialists and capitalists who hate us. We need to go back to the pre-War era of Bismark's Germany, when Germany was great.

That's more terrifying than one specific person to me. There were a lot of would be far-right ethno-nationalist authoritarians trying to make Germany great again, some even got power well before Hitler. If Trump is not successful, that just means we have to live on to fight the next one.

Rachel Maddow would have been a more apt choice for the Commander in Chief forum, that's for sure.

Shameless plug for her book Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power. I read that book in just about a day. She knows her shit and she doesn't play with kid gloves.

> Why do they hate the Clintons, and have been trying to lock them up for 25 years, but not Obama?

If you're asking a rhetorical question, then never mind. If you're really asking why, then:

The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton

Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative

And if you don't think they have been going tooth and nail - or hammer and chisel - after Obama since he first ran for President, you haven't been paying attention.

why is this garbage upvoted? do people just believe anything they hear now a days, no lincoln did not own slaves

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/148705

https://www.amazon.com/Did-Lincoln-Own-Slaves-Frequently/dp/0307279294/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349562568&sr=8-1&keywords=Did+Lincoln+Own+Slaves%3F+And+Other+Frequently+Asked+Questions+about+Abraham+Lincoln

https://www.quora.com/Did-Abraham-Lincoln-own-slaves

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

do you morons really believed lincoln owned slaves and only fought against slavery because it was best for the country, not the slaves. holy shit what am i reading

> spouts Nazi ideology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywmd8kR-AmI

>"hitler books"

https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1889-1936-Hubris-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393320359

https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1936-1945-Nemesis-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393322521

Because no one has ever studied Hitler...[facepalm] These are not propaganda pieces, but detailed biography and breakdown of the politics and strategies of the man and the era.

I mean, despite his vileness, he was successful. If you want to know when it's happening, you kinda have to know how it happened the first time. In all actuality, if you read even a little(I'll include links at the end), you can see exactly the same traits in the regressive left who uses patronizing racism to manipulate the populace.

You know who else...:

...had a thing against Judeo Christians as a whole?

...had a thing for Islam despite an obvious contradiction in agenda?

...whipped up crowds with vitriol and false accusations, using scapegoats to blame societal problems on?

...was a socialist and advocated violence instead of reason?

...carries out their violence without a tinge of conscience?

...wanted to split people up by immutable traits of groups instead of personal responsibility?

...sought to eradicate or limit certain rights like the right to firearms, free speech, and freedom of the press?

...had a dislike of individual rights such as materialism?

...makes claims of merely defending society from some nebulous embodiment injustice yet can't really come up with good examples that stand-up under scrutiny?

...supported their platform based on inequality of races?

...uses their own version of previously established language, their campaign centering on rhetoric and crass exaggerations rather than sound reason?

...had a convenient habit of dismissing their own flawed arguments out of hand?

...infiltrated the universities and encouraged teaching there to mirror their agenda?

...had youth outreach programs?

Hint: Reggressive Left and the ultimate villain himself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

See how handy historical knowledge can be?

>Iron Cross

In short, not every "iron cross" is an homage to hitler. When soldiers brought the medals home, they were very often immediately repurposed. The general shape never got quite the stigma that the swastika did. The iron cross became to mean something entirely different as it became more popular in pop culture. It's spread far and wide among wide arrays of culture, bikers, surfers, metal bands, etc and has since survived on it's aesthetics. As is common, people often say the nazi's were despicable, but they did have style.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Cross#In_post-war_pop_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biker_Cross

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfer's_cross

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kustom_Kulture - Not at all what you'd think.

Other various pictures of Milo being ostentatious, ridiculous, or provocative, stupid, etc:

http://www.peacock-panache.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/out-milo_yiannopolis-clown.png

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/09/9.jpg

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/06/Milo-Irvine-2-Jennifer-Lawrence.jpg

http://www.out.com/sites/out.com/files/2016/09/21/160907_milo_yiannopolis_f_0575_prt.jpg

https://lgbtqnation-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/2016/12/Screen-Shot-2016-12-18-at-11.03.57-AM-500x394.png

You really think someone who dresses and talks like the above couldn't wear an Iron cross without being a nazi?

Over all, Instead of believing something you sourced on Tumblr of all places, you may want to, you know, crack a history book or two yourself, get some perspective, or in other words a thing called context.

THIS is why the left is very much the prejudice bigots they're pretending to fight against.

Everyone? People stealing shit? Everyone? All legally allowable property? What sort of questions are these? Well-defined, regulated and all-encompassing property rights are the single most important feature for inclusive broad-based growth.

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227

The left needs to stop seeing everything as a continuation of the class war. It doesn't exist. The rich aren't out to eat you. And the Republicans can (rightfully) hit you with the 'class envy' smear.

Socialism is a fucking joke. It has no practicality. It will never get the left elected. If you believe in it, take econ classes until you understand the myriad of criticisms anyone who understands scarcity will level at you.

Although I think I'm going to unsub from here. Idiots have overrun another sub. Sad that places I can actually stand to be are always shrinking because socialists are just failures that whine online and think that downvotes and moronic arguments get them anywhere in the real world.

> The horseshoe theory says nothing more than radicalization and narrow mindedness is wrong, and I firmly stand with that statement.

Like I said: this only makes sense if you're completely ignoring what each side stands for in the broader sense. Left radicalization says "fuck intolerance". Right radicalization says "fuck progress and difference". Those two things aren't equivalent or equally worthy of consideration.

> Left wing idiocy is not an iota better than right wing idiocy.

Yes it is, fuck off. Good things and bad things aren't the same just because people might believe them equally deeply.

If you honestly think that, then you're the reason America's Overton Window has been creeping right for decades, and you're part of the reason that the center of our country and our largest coastal cities have been left to rot by corporate oligarchs who don't care about them.

> Yes, we centrists are more and more decried as cucks and traitors and whatnot. For decades the ability to compromise was something very highly regarded in politicians. We used to have way more moderates in this country. Apparently not getting anything done if you don't have a majority because god forbid we work with them has become mainstream, though.

Fuck compromise until we're compromising on different tactics to achieve just goals.

But when America's Overton Window is so far right that even our "leftist" party would be considered center-right by every other developed democracy, "compromise" is nothing but a sham that allows every structural problem to perpetuate itself.

You know what "compromise" with right-wingers has gotten us?

• The three-fifth's "compromise".
  
  
• The Missouri "Compromise".
  
  
• "Separate but equal".
  
  
• "Don't ask, don't tell".
  
  
• Reaganomics and the subsequent hollowing out of the middle class that coincided with dog-whistle race politics.
  
  
• The war on drugs and the war on poverty, which directly contributed to the "driving while black" phenomenon, in addition to the disproportionate incarceration and sentencing rates among black folks.
  
  
• A "states rights" approach to education policy that led to a race-to-the-bottom where Texas' right-wing backwards-ass lawmakers effectively decide education policy for most of the nation.
  
  
• A crumbling healthcare system that costs more per-capita than any other developed nation with single-payer systems.
  
  
• I could go on for literally days.
  
  > Vilifying half of the country as obstructionist assholes is more important than focusing on the problems. For some reason the word discussion has become "being right at any cost" instead of "sharing ideas". And people like you think that's a good development...
  
  Maybe half of the country are actually obstructionist assholes and maybe the truth isn't somewhere in the middle. Has that thought ever seriously crossed your mind, even once?
  
  You know what did or will change those things I mentioned?
  
  Standing up for something for once in your goddamn life and refusing to compromise until you see that result. You have to be willing to tell right-wingers "NO, YOU'RE FUCKING WRONG" if you want to be part of the solution rather than being passively complicit in the problem.
  
  Saying that does not make me "just as bad" as someone who thinks that poor people should die of preventable illnesses in the streets or that education should be treated as a scarce commodity, I'm sorry to inform you.
  
  Compromise is a tactic. It is not, and should never be, the driving goal.
  
  You know who wins when "compromise" is the ends and the means? The people with the least to lose and the most extant power.
  
  Every. Single. Time.
  
  "Compromise" didn't create the Civil Rights Acts: "divisive" protests and concerted action by "radical" groups did.
  
  "Compromise" didn't push LGBT equality onto the national agenda; that was "radical" queer folks showing up and speaking out.
  
  The list goes on and reaches through the annals of history: divisiveness and compromise are both necessary political tactics. It just so happens that we live in a country and in an age where the latter has been the dominant tactic of those with power for decades, and everyone else has suffered immensely for it.
  
  Every single time throughout our country's history that people disaffected by status quo politics spoke out, their ambitions have been tamed and neutered by "compromise" until they were loud enough to make that change happen themselves.
  
  Sometimes necessary progress is divisive. I don't give a fuck. I'm done begging regressive right-wing assholes to do what is right. I'm done with that, full stop.
  
  

  Give me a country where we "share ideas" that actually speak to the idea of all people being created equal instead of "sharing ideas" about how to rearrange the Titanic's deck chairs. Then we'll talk about "compromise".
  

  
  Until then -- until we actually have a country where "compromise" involves a diverse group of people coming to the table to talk about how we achieve progress and mutual inclusiveness instead of whether we should even strive for those things -- I'm done trying to "compromise" with people whose vested interests are regressive and backwards.