# If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America?



## EdwardBaiamonte

Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.

FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.


----------



## Dragon

If Jefferson founded the Republican Party, then Democrats are the green cheese that drips to Earth from the Moon, granting paranormal powers to modern liberal politicians along with the gift of prophecy, immortal life and bullet-proof skin. Democrats would then never lose an election, and would in fact be a superior race of beings who could only be challenged by superheroes from the Interstellar League of Justice.

However, of course Jefferson didn't found the Republican Party, so none of that is true -- thank God!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> However, of course Jefferson didn't found the Republican Party, so none of that is true -- thank God!




I like the evidence a liberal uses!! It will not even occur to a liberal to have evidence!!

WIKI: The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights.


----------



## rdean

Republican Party - Conservapedia

The Democratic Party was the home to the conservatives until the middle 1960's.  Then the liberals from the Republican Party moved to the Democratic Party and the conservatives in the Democratic Party moved to the Republican Party.  You can read about it at a number of places, including, oddly enough, "Conservapedia".  I posted a link above.

The Republican Party today maintains a racial make up of about 90% white.  For a reason.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

rdean said:


> The Democratic Party was the home to the conservatives until the middle 1960's.



Actually FDR was the greatest liberal in American History in the 
1930's




rdean said:


> The Republican Party today maintains a racial make up of about 90% white.  For a reason.



yes they have been brainwashed to think the government that enslaved them is now their best friend. Liberal targeting of blacks starting in the 1960's  amounted to a near genocide. Now you can understand what Reagan meant when he said, "isn't welfare a from of slavery"


----------



## del

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, of course Jefferson didn't found the Republican Party, so none of that is true -- thank God!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the evidence a liberal uses!! It will not even occur to a liberal to have evidence!!
> 
> WIKI: The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights.
Click to expand...


you, sir, are a fucking maroon


----------



## rdean

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party was the home to the conservatives until the middle 1960's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually FDR was the greatest liberal in American History in the
> 1930's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican Party today maintains a racial make up of about 90% white.  For a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes they have been brainwashed to think the government that enslaved them is now their best friend. Liberal targeting of blacks starting in the 1960's  amounted to a near genocide. Now you can understand what Reagan meant when he said, "isn't welfare a from of slavery"
Click to expand...


Even today's Democratic Party has conservatives because they are a coalition party.  Liberals aren't allowed in today's Republican Party.  They are as welcome as the gays.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

del said:


> you, sir, are a fucking maroon




if so why be so afraid to present your evidence? What does your fear tell you?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

rdean said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party was the home to the conservatives until the middle 1960's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually FDR was the greatest liberal in American History in the
> 1930's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican Party today maintains a racial make up of about 90% white.  For a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes they have been brainwashed to think the government that enslaved them is now their best friend. Liberal targeting of blacks starting in the 1960's  amounted to a near genocide. Now you can understand what Reagan meant when he said, "isn't welfare a from of slavery"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even today's Democratic Party has conservatives because they are a coalition party.  Liberals aren't allowed in today's Republican Party.  They are as welcome as the gays.
Click to expand...


any evidence or just playing the race card again ? Evidence does not occur to a liberal.


----------



## theHawk

FDR took office when the economy was bad, he took advantage of the desperate people and enacted all his progressive policies during the crisis, all of which failed.  Only a world war and the creation of the 'industrial military complex' brought the US out of it.

FDR had no qualms about circumventing the constitution.  When many of his New Deal legislation started to be undone by Congress and the Supreme Court, he tried to add more justices to the Supreme Court in order to fill it with a bunch of progressive hacks that would rule in his favor.  Thankfully his attempt failed.

Obama is trying his best to mimic FDR.  He's used the 'economic crisis' to pass 'stimulous' bills which were nothing more than slush funds for his cronies.  He circumvents Congress whenever it suits him. And he is already trying to stir up more wars in the Middle East.


----------



## Zander

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.
> 
> FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.



What place do Democrats have in America? 

We could start with putting them all in privately own and run "for profit" prison camps. Then, after being properly re-educated on the benefits of limited government and taking personal responsibility for ones own life, they could be reintroduced into society.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.
> 
> FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.



Your ignorance is only surpassed by your partisanship.


----------



## Brutus

Wry Catcher said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.
> 
> FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is only surpassed by your partisanship.
Click to expand...

Of course if ignorant you would not be so afraid to explain exactly why you feel that way.


----------



## Brutus

Zander said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.
> 
> FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What place do Democrats have in America?
> 
> We could start with putting them all in privately own and run "for profit" prison
> camps. Then, after being properly re-educated on the benefits of limited
> government and taking personal responsibility for ones own life, they could be
> reintroduced into society.....
Click to expand...

H
Great idea but I'm afraid a liberal is a liberal because he can't be educated or re-educated.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, of course Jefferson didn't found the Republican Party, so none of that is true -- thank God!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the evidence a liberal uses!! It will not even occur to a liberal to have evidence!!
> 
> WIKI: The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights.
Click to expand...


It depends on which Republican party you're talking about.  The current GOP doesn't trace it's lineage back to the Democratic-Republican party, and you can probably find that if you read further down that Wiki article.  The current Republican party was formed in the 1860's.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Also, while the rhetoric of the Republican party is arguably (and in my opinion) a good deal closer to Jefferson's philosophical ideals than that of the Democrats, the majority of the Republican party legislates, whenever it suits them (which is pretty often these days), in favor of limiting individual freedoms, centralizing power to the Federal government, and government redistribution of wealth (typically in the form of corporate subsidies), all of which strike me as being in total opposition to Jeffersonian philosophy.  Seems to me that implying that either party has a monopoly on founding principles involves ignoring a lot of what that party actually does.


----------



## editec

What a pathetic attempt to glom onto the founding fathers.

Seriously...lame, dude.


----------



## Two Thumbs

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.
> 
> FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.



What place to dems have in America?

good lard.  You sir are little more than a would be tyrant.

and

wilson was the first far leftist in Office.


----------



## regent

There have been two Republican parties in America, the first the liberals, the Jeffersonians, the Antifederalists, formed around 1789. It was this group that fought the ratification of the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights were added.  The second Republican party formed in the 1850's and is today's Republican party. The Democrats of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson.  The Democratic party was comprised of both liberals and conservatives, the conservatives of the South. Truman began easing the conservatives out of the Democratic party and today the former conservative Democrats have found their home with the present day Republican party.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> There have been two Republican parties in America, the first the liberals, the Jeffersonians, the Antifederalists, formed around 1789. It was this group that fought the ratification of the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights were added.



Jefferson formed the Republican Party in 1792 when he left the Washington Administration in disgust . The Republican Party stood for, then and now, freedom and liberty from central government. Now you've got the basics.

WIKI: "The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights".




regent said:


> The second Republican party formed in the 1850's and is today's Republican party.



of course that is absurd since Horace Greely named the 1850's party after Jefferson's Party because it had the same philosophy 



regent said:


> The Democrats of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson.



of course that is 100% absurd since Jefferson was 100% about freedom from liberal central government  while todays Democrats are 100% opposite.


It seems you have to start over with American History just to get the basics down. Sorry


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Two Thumbs said:


> What place to dems have in America?
> 
> good lard.  You sir are little more than a would be tyrant.
> 
> and



Is this merely left wing ranting or can you support what you say? How can Republicans be tyrants when they are for limited government?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

editec said:


> What a pathetic attempt to glom onto the founding fathers.
> 
> Seriously...lame, dude.




of course if it was lame you would not be so afraid to say why? What does your fear tell you about liberalism


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Seems to me that implying that either party has a monopoly on founding principles involves ignoring a lot of what that party actually does.



Since independents decide elections both parties cross over so don't appear consistent to the novice. Republicans though  have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson. Newts passed the house and fell one short in the Senate. Democrats defeated them all. Today our debt would be $0 not $16 trillion.

Libertarians are pure, but purely impotent. Hope that helps you along?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been two Republican parties in America, the first the liberals, the Jeffersonians, the Antifederalists, formed around 1789. It was this group that fought the ratification of the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights were added.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson formed the Republican Party in 1792 when he left the Washington Administration in disgust . The Republican Party stood for, then and now, freedom and liberty from central government. Now you've got the basics.
> 
> WIKI: "The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second Republican party formed in the 1850's and is today's Republican party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course that is absurd since Horace Greely named the 1850's party after Jefferson's Party because it had the same philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course that is 100% absurd since Jefferson was 100% about freedom from liberal central government  while todays Democrats are 100% opposite.
> 
> 
> It seems you have to start over with American History just to get the basics down. Sorry
Click to expand...


<<<<<<
When you leave the core values of Jefferson and substitute the means to the end to secure those core values I know how deep the basics go.
The central government was a threat to liberals and Jefferson feared governments based on their history of governments of that period, but when Jefferson and his party became the government, government seemed less of a threat.  The size of government was never part of the core values of liberals, it was what one did with governments that was the threat. Look what Jefferson did with government when he became president, borrowed money and took questionable liberties with the Constitution.


----------



## Peach

theHawk said:


> FDR took office when the economy was bad, he took advantage of the desperate people and enacted all his progressive policies during the crisis, all of which failed.  Only a world war and the creation of the 'industrial military complex' brought the US out of it.
> 
> FDR had no qualms about circumventing the constitution.  When many of his New Deal legislation started to be undone by Congress and the Supreme Court, he tried to add more justices to the Supreme Court in order to fill it with a bunch of progressive hacks that would rule in his favor.  Thankfully his attempt failed.
> 
> Obama is trying his best to mimic FDR.  He's used the 'economic crisis' to pass 'stimulous' bills which were nothing more than slush funds for his cronies.  He circumvents Congress whenever it suits him. And he is already trying to stir up more wars in the Middle East.


You must have learned US history off of a Beck puddle.


----------



## Peach

regent said:


> There have been two Republican parties in America, the first the liberals, the Jeffersonians, the Antifederalists, formed around 1789. It was this group that fought the ratification of the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights were added.  The second Republican party formed in the 1850's and is today's Republican party. The Democrats of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson.  The Democratic party was comprised of both liberals and conservatives, the conservatives of the South. Truman began easing the conservatives out of the Democratic party and today the former conservative Democrats have found their home with the present day Republican party.


And some of the right wing Democrats became DIXIECRATS, before fining refuge in the Republican party.


----------



## Peach

Peach said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been two Republican parties in America, the first the liberals, the Jeffersonians, the Antifederalists, formed around 1789. It was this group that fought the ratification of the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights were added.  The second Republican party formed in the 1850's and is today's Republican party. The Democrats of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson.  The Democratic party was comprised of both liberals and conservatives, the conservatives of the South. Truman began easing the conservatives out of the Democratic party and today the former conservative Democrats have found their home with the present day Republican party.
> 
> 
> 
> And some of the right wing Democrats became DIXIECRATS, before fining refuge in the Republican party.
Click to expand...

*FINDING. FDR kept this country together when Communism and Fascism were genuine threats.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Not2BSubjugated said:


> It depends on which Republican party you're talking about.  The current GOP doesn't trace it's lineage back to the Democratic-Republican party



of course thats absurd since they have the same name and philosophy. In fact, Greely named lincoln's Party Republican because of name and philosophy. What more do you want? 





Not2BSubjugated said:


> and you can probably find that if you read further down that Wiki article.  The current Republican party was formed in the 1860's.



yes to revive the name and philosophy of Jefferson's Party. Is it making sense now?


----------



## Peach

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.
> 
> FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.


Read the Federalist Papers! Madison, Jay, and Hamilton argued FOR a strong central government. As did Jefferson but with more input from the states.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> The central government was a threat to liberals and Jefferson feared governments based on their history of governments of that period,



of course that is 100% absurd, Jefferson looked at all of history and gave us freedom from all central governments regardless of period 




regent said:


> but when Jefferson and his party became the government, government seemed less of a threat.  The size of government was never part of the core values of liberals,



here are 50 Jefferson quote to prove you are 100% wrong:

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

-The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

-The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

" the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class." 


-A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.

-Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

-History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.

-I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

-I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

-My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

-Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

-Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

-The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

-Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

-Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

-Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

-I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious
"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four
pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most 
free to individual enterprise.  Protection from casual 
embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed." 
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801.

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens
free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
--Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.

"[Ours is a] policy of not embarking the public in enterprises
better managed by individuals, and which might occupy as much
of our time as those political duties for which the public functionaries are particularly instituted.  Some money could be
lent them [the New Orleans Canal Co.], but only on an assurance that it would be employed so as to secure the public objects."
--Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1808.

"The rights of the people to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers
not subject to their control at short periods." --Thomas Jefferson
to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816.

"Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry 
or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural 
Address, 1805.

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's 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." --Thomas Jefferson: Note 
in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.

"Private enterprise manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.

"The merchants will manage [commerce] the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.


"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389 


Some] seem to think that [civilization's] advance has brought on too complicated a state of society, and that we should gain in happiness by treading back our steps a little way. I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief of those who maintain it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Ludlow, 1824. ME 16:75

The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:492 

"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:337

"The power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen) which remain exclusively with its own legislature, but to its external commerce only; that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Bank, 1791. ME 3:147 

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson


"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin 

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."

-- Thomas Paine 


When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin 

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
-Thomas paine

"If the government robs Peter to pay Paul, it can always count on the support of Paul." [in America to bottom 45% pay no Federal taxes]
-Winston Churchhill

"The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
-James madison
Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." 


Patrick Henry
Tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up?

Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." 



I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic." 
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 


James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." 

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." 

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."




I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - Benjamin Franklin

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." - Benjamin Franklin 

One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation. 
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825
Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. 

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Nicholas, September 7, 1803


That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, andnot as the gift of their chief magistrate. 

Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 
1774

The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. 

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819


The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. 

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. 

Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Peach said:


> Read the Federalist Papers! Madison, Jay, and Hamilton argued FOR a strong central government. As did Jefferson but with more input from the states.



Jefferson despised central governemnt and left the Washington administration to start the Republican Party to oppose liberal central government. Read the quotes. You are 100% brainwashed.

When Jefferson won the presidency he called it the Second American Revolution because it established for all time the the revolution had been about freedom from all central government not just the central government of England. Now you've  got the basics..


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Peach said:


> *FINDING. FDR kept this country together when Communism and Fascism were genuine threats.




kept it together by prolonging the Depression for 10 years that caused WW 2? If BO prolongs this recession for 10 years will he be your hero too?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

WIKI: The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights.


----------



## rightwinger

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, of course Jefferson didn't found the Republican Party, so none of that is true -- thank God!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the evidence a liberal uses!! It will not even occur to a liberal to have evidence!!
> 
> WIKI: The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights.
Click to expand...


Saddam Hussein had his Republican Guard

Were they Republicans too?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

rightwinger said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, of course Jefferson didn't found the Republican Party, so none of that is true -- thank God!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the evidence a liberal uses!! It will not even occur to a liberal to have evidence!!
> 
> WIKI: The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saddam Hussein had his Republican Guard
> 
> Were they Republicans too?
Click to expand...


did they stand for freedom and liberty from liberal central government or were they representatives of liberal central government. Now you've got the answer. Why do you even try?


----------



## rightwinger

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the evidence a liberal uses!! It will not even occur to a liberal to have evidence!!
> 
> WIKI: The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam Hussein had his Republican Guard
> 
> Were they Republicans too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did they stand for freedom and liberty from liberal central government or were they representatives of liberal central government. Now you've got the answer. Why do you even try?
Click to expand...


Saddam Hussein is as close to being Republican as Jefferson was

After all......they both had Republican in their name....right?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.
> 
> FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.



<<<<<<
The founders had the most limited government America has ever had and then the founders met and changed it to a larger and and more involved government mostly at the expense of the states. 

What is an American inspired program? In any case FDR has always been rated as one of the three greatest American presidents and recently one group of 238 noted historians and presidential experts rated FDR as America's greatest president.


----------



## whitehall

You can't play the political ideology game using 200 year old characters. Today's democrat party has drifted so far left in the last half century that it is off the charts. You might as well use Joe Stalin.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

This is historically inaccurate. Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party eventually became the _Democratic_ Party under Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren, whereas the Whig Party eventually collapsed and many of their members created the Republican Party. So technically the Democratic Party is older than the Republican Party.


----------



## code1211

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> What place to dems have in America?
> 
> good lard.  You sir are little more than a would be tyrant.
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this merely left wing ranting or can you support what you say? How can Republicans be tyrants when they are for limited government?
Click to expand...




I am a devoted Conservative and find myself fearful that neither of the major parties represents me.  Both are Liberal in philosophy, actions, programs and goals.

I don't give a rip about social issues.  No true conservative would.  Any action of government should be to simply allow people to thrive free of fear from hurtful actions of others.

Everything else that government does is an affront to jefferson and to any of the Founders and needs to be stripped away from the activity of government and from the cost, also.

The money spent in 2011 outpaced the money collected by about $4500 per person.  I did not see my share of that $4500.  I want my fair share which is to say, I wish the thieving, unscrupulous crooks in Washington would take the next decade off and just leave us all alone. 

The best government is the least government.  To control government, it must be closely watched and this is only possible when it is close at hand.  Why are we trusting local issues to Federal Crooks?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

code1211 said:


> I am a devoted Conservative and find myself fearful that neither of the major parties represents me.  Both are Liberal in philosophy, actions, programs and goals.




you are being silly, Ron Paul is  Republican, but an impotent and pure one. The others have the same philosophy but know independents decide elections and so cross over a lot. You're job is to keep pushing the Ron Paul wing of the Party, not to get discouraged.




I don't give a rip about social issues.  No true conservative would.  Any action of government should be to simply allow people to thrive free of fear from hurtful actions of others.

Everything else that government does is an affront to jefferson and to any of the Founders and needs to be stripped away from the activity of government and from the cost, also.

The money spent in 2011 outpaced the money collected by about $4500 per person.  I did not see my share of that $4500.  I want my fair share which is to say, I wish the thieving, unscrupulous crooks in Washington would take the next decade off and just leave us all alone. 

The best government is the least government.  To control government, it must be closely watched and this is only possible when it is close at hand.  Why are we trusting local issues to Federal Crooks?[/QUOTE]


----------



## rightwinger

whitehall said:


> You can't play the political ideology game using 200 year old characters. Today's democrat party has drifted so far left in the last half century that it is off the charts. You might as well use Joe Stalin.



Oh....are we playing that game?

Would that make Republicans Hitler?


----------



## code1211

Peach said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been two Republican parties in America, the first the liberals, the Jeffersonians, the Antifederalists, formed around 1789. It was this group that fought the ratification of the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights were added.  The second Republican party formed in the 1850's and is today's Republican party. The Democrats of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson.  The Democratic party was comprised of both liberals and conservatives, the conservatives of the South. Truman began easing the conservatives out of the Democratic party and today the former conservative Democrats have found their home with the present day Republican party.
> 
> 
> 
> And some of the right wing Democrats became DIXIECRATS, before fining refuge in the Republican party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FINDING. FDR kept this country together when Communism and Fascism were genuine threats.
Click to expand...




Just as Lenin employed Capitalism to save his failing Communist state, FDR used Communism?

Not exactly.

FDR was a power hungry statist and he used the crisis to advance his personal agenda.  If he had used his power to invigorate the Capitalistic possibilities of the country, the world might have avoided WW2.  As it was, the world was starving and despots ruled the countries whether they were Fascists, Nazis or Democrats.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> This is historically inaccurate. Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party eventually became the _Democratic_ Party under Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren, whereas the Whig Party eventually collapsed and many of their members created the Republican Party. So technically the Democratic Party is older than the Republican Party.



How can it be older if Jefferson started the Republican party in 1792.

5th Congress (1797-1799) 
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803) 

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34

"Historians do not agree on the details surrounding the origin of Parties. Some believe  that Jefferson forged the Republican party from coalition of existing state and local parties"....[in the 1790's]. 

Page 31, Political Parties in America by Robert Huckshorn( most popular Political Science text on parties in USA.


"Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."

- Susan Dunn, Jefferson's Second Revolution.


"In referring to political parties  I have adopted the names which the respective parties used in self-designation. Thus the Jeffersonian party has been referred to throughout as the Republican Party. This name came into use early in the 1790's among persons who considered themselves of a common political "interest", and the term "Republican interest" was generally used until it was replaced by the more definite "Republican Party". 

The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr.


-During a conciliatory moment at his Inauguration Jefferson said: "today we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." (referring to the two majors parties at the time)  
We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
-  When Jefferson won the election of 1800 the National Gazette headline was, "Complete triumph of Republican firmness over the "obstinacy" of the Aristocrats"! ( what Republicans called big government Federalists)


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is historically inaccurate. Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party eventually became the _Democratic_ Party under Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren, whereas the Whig Party eventually collapsed and many of their members created the Republican Party. So technically the Democratic Party is older than the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be older if Jefferson started the Republican party in 1792.
> 
> 5th Congress (1797-1799)
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6th Congress (1799-1801)
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7th Congress (1801-1803)
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
> 
> "Historians do not agree on the details surrounding the origin of Parties. Some believe  that Jefferson forged the Republican party from coalition of existing state and local parties"....[in the 1790's].
> 
> Page 31, Political Parties in America by Robert Huckshorn( most popular Political Science text on parties in USA.
> 
> 
> "Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."
> 
> - Susan Dunn, Jefferson's Second Revolution.
> 
> 
> "In referring to political parties  I have adopted the names which the respective parties used in self-designation. Thus the Jeffersonian party has been referred to throughout as the Republican Party. This name came into use early in the 1790's among persons who considered themselves of a common political "interest", and the term "Republican interest" was generally used until it was replaced by the more definite "Republican Party".
> 
> The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr.
> 
> 
> -During a conciliatory moment at his Inauguration Jefferson said: "today we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." (referring to the two majors parties at the time)
> We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
> -  When Jefferson won the election of 1800 the National Gazette headline was, "Complete triumph of Republican firmness over the "obstinacy" of the Aristocrats"! ( what Republicans called big government Federalists)
Click to expand...


If you read my full post, and not just the last sentence, your question is answered.


----------



## code1211

Peach said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.
> 
> FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the Federalist Papers! Madison, Jay, and Hamilton argued FOR a strong central government. As did Jefferson but with more input from the states.
Click to expand...




Context is everything in this.  Strong in the year 1787 is something entirely different than today.  At that time, the Supremacy Clause was a debatable idea.

The power and autonomy of the states was an unchallenged premise of the union while the overreach of today's federalism would have been an absolute deal breaker for the ratification of the Constitution.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

rightwinger said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't play the political ideology game using 200 year old characters. Today's democrat party has drifted so far left in the last half century that it is off the charts. You might as well use Joe Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....are we playing that game?
> 
> Would that make Republicans Hitler?
Click to expand...


how would that be possible given that Republicans since Jefferson were for very very limited government while Hitler was the exact opposite??


----------



## code1211

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The central government was a threat to liberals and Jefferson feared governments based on their history of governments of that period,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course that is 100% absurd, Jefferson looked at all of history and gave us freedom from all central governments regardless of period
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> but when Jefferson and his party became the government, government seemed less of a threat.  The size of government was never part of the core values of liberals,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> here are 50 Jefferson quote to prove you are 100% wrong:
> 
> "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."
> 
> "The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."
> 
> -The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
> 
> -The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
> 
> " the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class."
> 
> 
> -A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.
> 
> -Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
> 
> -History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.
> 
> -I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
> 
> -I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
> 
> -My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.
> 
> -Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
> 
> -Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
> 
> -The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.
> 
> -Most bad government has grown out of too much government.
> 
> -Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.
> 
> -Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
> 
> -I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious
> "Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four
> pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most
> free to individual enterprise.  Protection from casual
> embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed."
> --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801.
> 
> "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens
> free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
> --Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.
> 
> "[Ours is a] policy of not embarking the public in enterprises
> better managed by individuals, and which might occupy as much
> of our time as those political duties for which the public functionaries are particularly instituted.  Some money could be
> lent them [the New Orleans Canal Co.], but only on an assurance that it would be employed so as to secure the public objects."
> --Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1808.
> 
> "The rights of the people to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers
> not subject to their control at short periods." --Thomas Jefferson
> to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816.
> 
> "Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
> equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry
> or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural
> Address, 1805.
> 
> "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's 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." --Thomas Jefferson: Note
> in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.
> 
> "Private enterprise manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.
> 
> "The merchants will manage [commerce] the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.
> 
> 
> "If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389
> 
> 
> Some] seem to think that [civilization's] advance has brought on too complicated a state of society, and that we should gain in happiness by treading back our steps a little way. I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief of those who maintain it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Ludlow, 1824. ME 16:75
> 
> The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:492
> 
> "Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:337
> 
> "The power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen) which remain exclusively with its own legislature, but to its external commerce only; that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Bank, 1791. ME 3:147
> 
> "Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -- Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
> 
> -- Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -- Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
> -Thomas paine
> 
> "If the government robs Peter to pay Paul, it can always count on the support of Paul." [in America to bottom 45% pay no Federal taxes]
> -Winston Churchhill
> 
> "The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
> -James madison
> Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
> 
> 
> Patrick Henry
> Tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up?
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
> 
> 
> 
> I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic."
> -- Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
> 
> James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
> 
> James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." - Benjamin Franklin
> 
> One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825
> Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Nicholas, September 7, 1803
> 
> 
> That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, andnot as the gift of their chief magistrate.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America,
> 1774
> 
> The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819
> 
> 
> The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816
> 
> They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791
Click to expand...




Okay libs.  Cite the Jefferson quotes that illustrate the Communist stance taken by the Democrat Party of today.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

whitehall said:


> You can't play the political ideology game using 200 year old characters. Today's democrat party has drifted so far left in the last half century that it is off the charts. You might as well use Joe Stalin.



In fact, they spied for Stalin and some were hung!!


----------



## rightwinger

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is historically inaccurate. Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party eventually became the _Democratic_ Party under Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren, whereas the Whig Party eventually collapsed and many of their members created the Republican Party. So technically the Democratic Party is older than the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be older if Jefferson started the Republican party in 1792.
> 
> 5th Congress (1797-1799)
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6th Congress (1799-1801)
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7th Congress (1801-1803)
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
> 
> "Historians do not agree on the details surrounding the origin of Parties. Some believe  that Jefferson forged the Republican party from coalition of existing state and local parties"....[in the 1790's].
> 
> Page 31, Political Parties in America by Robert Huckshorn( most popular Political Science text on parties in USA.
> 
> 
> "Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."
> 
> - Susan Dunn, Jefferson's Second Revolution.
> 
> 
> "In referring to political parties  I have adopted the names which the respective parties used in self-designation. Thus the Jeffersonian party has been referred to throughout as the Republican Party. This name came into use early in the 1790's among persons who considered themselves of a common political "interest", and the term "Republican interest" was generally used until it was replaced by the more definite "Republican Party".
> 
> The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr.
> 
> 
> -During a conciliatory moment at his Inauguration Jefferson said: "today we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." (referring to the two majors parties at the time)
> We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
> -  When Jefferson won the election of 1800 the National Gazette headline was, "Complete triumph of Republican firmness over the "obstinacy" of the Aristocrats"! ( what Republicans called big government Federalists)
Click to expand...


You have posted the same Jefferson was a Republican thread four or five times. Each time you have been provided the correct historical interpretation of the Democratic Republican Party and what it became. Each time you ignored it and came back posting the same nonsense again

Fool me once, shame on you.....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

rightwinger said:


> Saddam Hussein is as close to being Republican as Jefferson was
> 
> After all......they both had Republican in their name....right?



but they stood for opposite political ideas and so were not "close". Is that really over your head?


----------



## Nosmo King

Two Thumbs said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.
> 
> FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What place to dems have in America?
> 
> good lard.  You sir are little more than a would be tyrant.
> 
> and
> 
> wilson was the first far leftist in Office.
Click to expand...

Not T.R.?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

rightwinger said:


> Each time you ignored it and came back posting the same nonsense again
> 
> Fool me once, shame on you.....




if true you would not be so afraid to show your best example of nonsense. what does your fear tell you?


----------



## Nosmo King

Jayzus!

First, let's get our history straight.  The Republican Party (the GOP) was founded in the 1850s.  The first national candidate was John C. Fremont of the new state of California, founded only five years before.  Not Thomas Jefferson.  The first candidate elected as a Republican was Abraham Lincoln (who fought a war to unite and strengthen a NATIONAL government over Conservatives who were fighting for state's rights).

As a result of the Civil War, all southern states (the former Confederacy) merged politically into what became known as the "Solid South".  A region where a Republican could win only if the Democrat candidate was dead.  And sometimes not even then.

Conservatives believe in state's rights in all things other than national defense.  It stands to reason, and it was expressed as so, that "state's rights" was the defense of segregation and the oppressive "Jim Crow" laws.  Remember, Conservatives.

Don't swap political party for political  ideology just to right a wrong committed in history.


----------



## rightwinger

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each time you ignored it and came back posting the same nonsense again
> 
> Fool me once, shame on you.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if true you would not be so afraid to show your best example of nonsense. what does your fear tell you?
Click to expand...


You still haven't explained how the Republican Guard is not Republican

It is as historically accurate as your connections


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Nosmo King said:


> Jayzus!
> 
> First, let's get our history straight.  The Republican Party (the GOP) was founded in the 1850s. .



Then the Congressional Record got it wrong??

5th Congress (1797-1799) 
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803) 

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34

"Historians do not agree on the details surrounding the origin of Parties. Some believe  that Jefferson forged the Republican party from coalition of existing state and local parties"....[in the 1790's]. 

Page 31, Political Parties in America by Robert Huckshorn( most popular Political Science text on parties in USA.


"Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."

- Susan Dunn, Jefferson's Second Revolution.


"In referring to political parties  I have adopted the names which the respective parties used in self-designation. Thus the Jeffersonian party has been referred to throughout as the Republican Party. This name came into use early in the 1790's among persons who considered themselves of a common political "interest", and the term "Republican interest" was generally used until it was replaced by the more definite "Republican Party". 

The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr.


-During a conciliatory moment at his Inauguration Jefferson said: "today we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." (referring to the two majors parties at the time)  
We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
-  When Jefferson won the election of 1800 the National Gazette headline was, "Complete triumph of Republican firmness over the "obstinacy" of the Aristocrats"! ( what Republicans called big government Federalists)


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

rightwinger said:


> You still haven't explained how the Republican Guard is not Republican



The Republican Guard was for very very very strong central government, while Jeffersonian Republicans were for the exact opposite.


----------



## rightwinger

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't explained how the Republican Guard is not Republican
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican Guard was for very very very strong central government, while Jeffersonian Republicans were for the exact opposite.
Click to expand...


Smoking Gun


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> What place to dems have in America?
> 
> good lard.  You sir are little more than a would be tyrant.
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this merely left wing ranting or can you support what you say? How can Republicans be tyrants when they are for limited government?
Click to expand...


The republican party is for limited government?  Is that why they vote to use that government's authority to prevent gays from getting married?  Limited government, but one that enforces morality when it suits them?  Is that why we have a patriot act?  Because Republicans are all about limited government?

Not saying all republicans agree with these things, but making the blanket statement that Republicans are for limited government is silly.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me that implying that either party has a monopoly on founding principles involves ignoring a lot of what that party actually does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since independents decide elections both parties cross over so don't appear consistent to the novice. Republicans though  have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson. Newts passed the house and fell one short in the Senate. Democrats defeated them all. Today our debt would be $0 not $16 trillion.
> 
> Libertarians are pure, but purely impotent. Hope that helps you along?
Click to expand...


Once again, things like The Patriot Act and using the power of government to deny homosexuals the right to marriage are not policies used to sway independents.  They're simply promotions of government and centralized power that Republicans use when it suits them.

Also, regardless of the reasoning behind those compromises of individual freedom and decentralized governing that the GOP often uses to sway independents, these compromised positions nevertheless ARE inconsistent with the philosophy, regardless of the perception of novices like myself.

Lastly, I'm well aware of how libertarians do in the polls.  This may effect the reasoning BEHIND many of the republicans' compromises of Jeffersonian philosophy, but it doesn't change whether or not those compromises are, in fact, compromises.


----------



## regent

code1211 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The central government was a threat to liberals and Jefferson feared governments based on their history of governments of that period,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course that is 100% absurd, Jefferson looked at all of history and gave us freedom from all central governments regardless of period
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> but when Jefferson and his party became the government, government seemed less of a threat.  The size of government was never part of the core values of liberals,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> here are 50 Jefferson quote to prove you are 100% wrong:
> 
> "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."
> 
> "The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."
> 
> -The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
> 
> -The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
> 
> " the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class."
> 
> 
> -A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.
> 
> -Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
> 
> -History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.
> 
> -I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
> 
> -I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
> 
> -My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.
> 
> -Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
> 
> -Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
> 
> -The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.
> 
> -Most bad government has grown out of too much government.
> 
> -Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.
> 
> -Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
> 
> -I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious
> "Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four
> pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most
> free to individual enterprise.  Protection from casual
> embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed."
> --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801.
> 
> "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens
> free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
> --Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.
> 
> "[Ours is a] policy of not embarking the public in enterprises
> better managed by individuals, and which might occupy as much
> of our time as those political duties for which the public functionaries are particularly instituted.  Some money could be
> lent them [the New Orleans Canal Co.], but only on an assurance that it would be employed so as to secure the public objects."
> --Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1808.
> 
> "The rights of the people to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers
> not subject to their control at short periods." --Thomas Jefferson
> to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816.
> 
> "Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
> equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry
> or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural
> Address, 1805.
> 
> "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's 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." --Thomas Jefferson: Note
> in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.
> 
> "Private enterprise manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.
> 
> "The merchants will manage [commerce] the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.
> 
> 
> "If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389
> 
> 
> Some] seem to think that [civilization's] advance has brought on too complicated a state of society, and that we should gain in happiness by treading back our steps a little way. I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief of those who maintain it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Ludlow, 1824. ME 16:75
> 
> The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:492
> 
> "Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:337
> 
> "The power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen) which remain exclusively with its own legislature, but to its external commerce only; that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Bank, 1791. ME 3:147
> 
> "Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -- Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
> 
> -- Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -- Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
> -Thomas paine
> 
> "If the government robs Peter to pay Paul, it can always count on the support of Paul." [in America to bottom 45% pay no Federal taxes]
> -Winston Churchhill
> 
> "The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
> -James madison
> Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
> 
> 
> Patrick Henry
> Tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up?
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
> 
> 
> 
> I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic."
> -- Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
> 
> James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
> 
> James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." - Benjamin Franklin
> 
> One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825
> Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Nicholas, September 7, 1803
> 
> 
> That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, andnot as the gift of their chief magistrate.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America,
> 1774
> 
> The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819
> 
> 
> The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816
> 
> They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay libs.  Cite the Jefferson quotes that illustrate the Communist stance taken by the Democrat Party of today.
Click to expand...

<<<<<
Quoting Jefferson proves nothing regarding the core values of liberalism. Jefferson was a liberal and during his time, governments were entititys that took away one of those core values, freedom. If you read the Declaration of Independence you will see Jefferson express some of those core values of liberalism and his concept of government. At least reading the Declaration is a start. Incidently Jefferson never wrote letters to the editor regarding the new Constitution, he was in France.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

regent said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course that is 100% absurd, Jefferson looked at all of history and gave us freedom from all central governments regardless of period
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here are 50 Jefferson quote to prove you are 100% wrong:
> 
> "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."
> 
> "The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."
> 
> -The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
> 
> -The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
> 
> " the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class."
> 
> 
> -A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.
> 
> -Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
> 
> -History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.
> 
> -I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
> 
> -I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
> 
> -My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.
> 
> -Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
> 
> -Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
> 
> -The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.
> 
> -Most bad government has grown out of too much government.
> 
> -Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.
> 
> -Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
> 
> -I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious
> "Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four
> pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most
> free to individual enterprise.  Protection from casual
> embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed."
> --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801.
> 
> "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens
> free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
> --Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.
> 
> "[Ours is a] policy of not embarking the public in enterprises
> better managed by individuals, and which might occupy as much
> of our time as those political duties for which the public functionaries are particularly instituted.  Some money could be
> lent them [the New Orleans Canal Co.], but only on an assurance that it would be employed so as to secure the public objects."
> --Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1808.
> 
> "The rights of the people to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers
> not subject to their control at short periods." --Thomas Jefferson
> to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816.
> 
> "Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
> equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry
> or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural
> Address, 1805.
> 
> "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's 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." --Thomas Jefferson: Note
> in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.
> 
> "Private enterprise manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.
> 
> "The merchants will manage [commerce] the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.
> 
> 
> "If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389
> 
> 
> Some] seem to think that [civilization's] advance has brought on too complicated a state of society, and that we should gain in happiness by treading back our steps a little way. I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief of those who maintain it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Ludlow, 1824. ME 16:75
> 
> The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:492
> 
> "Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:337
> 
> "The power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen) which remain exclusively with its own legislature, but to its external commerce only; that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Bank, 1791. ME 3:147
> 
> "Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -- Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
> 
> -- Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -- Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
> -Thomas paine
> 
> "If the government robs Peter to pay Paul, it can always count on the support of Paul." [in America to bottom 45% pay no Federal taxes]
> -Winston Churchhill
> 
> "The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
> -James madison
> Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
> 
> 
> Patrick Henry
> Tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up?
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
> 
> 
> 
> I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic."
> -- Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
> 
> James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
> 
> James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." - Benjamin Franklin
> 
> One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825
> Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Nicholas, September 7, 1803
> 
> 
> That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, andnot as the gift of their chief magistrate.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America,
> 1774
> 
> The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819
> 
> 
> The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816
> 
> They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay libs.  Cite the Jefferson quotes that illustrate the Communist stance taken by the Democrat Party of today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <<<<<
> Quoting Jefferson proves nothing regarding the core values of liberalism. Jefferson was a liberal and during his time, governments were entititys that took away one of those core values, freedom. If you read the Declaration of Independence you will see Jefferson express some of those core values of liberalism and his concept of government. At least reading the Declaration is a start. Incidently Jefferson never wrote letters to the editor regarding the new Constitution, he was in France.
Click to expand...


Agreed, except that it wasn't just during Jefferson's time that governments took away freedom.  The entire concept of government is the restriction of individual freedom.


----------



## regent

Restriction of individual freedom may or may not be the role of government, depends on the government. America has lost a lot of individual freedom since 1789 but when you consider the US has gone from a population of five million or so to three hundred million and we have changed from an agriculture nation to a manufacturing nation with the cities and jobs and so on....


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on which Republican party you're talking about.  The current GOP doesn't trace it's lineage back to the Democratic-Republican party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course thats absurd since they have the same name and philosophy. In fact, Greely named lincoln's Party Republican because of name and philosophy. What more do you want?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you can probably find that if you read further down that Wiki article.  The current Republican party was formed in the 1860's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes to revive the name and philosophy of Jefferson's Party. Is it making sense now?
Click to expand...


By lineage I mean actual lineage.  I share most of Jefferson's ideals, but I can't rightly say that he was my ancestor when my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and my dad's Scotch Irish.  Even if they had named me Thomas with J as my middle initial, the guy wouldn't suddenly cameo on my family tree.

The GOP isn't the same party as the Democratic-Republicans because they're not the same party as the Democratic-Republicans.  Jefferson's Republicans fractured somewhere in the early 1800's, and one of the fragments actually evolved into what is today called the Democratic party, which is why that party -can- claim -actual- lineage back to Jefferson's Republicans.  My grandfather, on my mother's side, was a wife beater, an abusive father, a thug involved in organized crime. . . many things to which I am diametrically opposed.  These differences in philosophy don't remove him from my family tree.  My mother still sprung forth from his loin, and thus I am still a product thereof.  The current Democrats might disagree in rhetoric and legislation with Jefferson's core principles, but their party still sprung forth from the loin of his, so to speak.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

regent said:


> Restriction of individual freedom may or may not be the role of government, depends on the government. America has lost a lot of individual freedom since 1789 but when you consider the US has gone from a population of five million or so to three hundred million and we have changed from an agriculture nation to a manufacturing nation with the cities and jobs and so on....



There's no may or may not about it.  The basic scope of any government is the enforcement of societies laws.  Laws, by nature, are limits to what you're allowed to do, i.e. limits to individual freedom.  Therefore the basic scope of any government is the enforcement of limits to individual freedom.

These limits may seem basic.  Don't kill each other, for instance.  They're still limits.


----------



## rightwinger

regent said:


> Restriction of individual freedom may or may not be the role of government, depends on the government. America has lost a lot of individual freedom since 1789 but when you consider the US has gone from a population of five million or so to three hundred million and we have changed from an agriculture nation to a manufacturing nation with the cities and jobs and so on....



America has gained a lot of individual freedom since 1789. In 1789 over half the population could not vote. The rights of the Constitution were not applied to women, blacks or Indians. We have more freedom of speech, more freedom of the press more freedom of association


----------



## Sallow

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> *FINDING. FDR kept this country together when Communism and Fascism were genuine threats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kept it together by prolonging the Depression for 10 years that caused WW 2? If BO prolongs this recession for 10 years will he be your hero too?
Click to expand...


The Depression didn't cause WWII. And it wasn't "prolonged" by FDR's policies. You may want to study history a bit. The disparity in wealth was leading to a rise in populist movements in this country..like Communists and Fascists. This place was ripe for a revolution. FDR tamped down those angry voices by implementing social programs in a package called "The New Deal". The economic calamity faced in this country was caused by Laissez-faire capitalism..and it was a tough slog getting out of it.


----------



## regent

Not2BSubjugated said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Restriction of individual freedom may or may not be the role of government, depends on the government. America has lost a lot of individual freedom since 1789 but when you consider the US has gone from a population of five million or so to three hundred million and we have changed from an agriculture nation to a manufacturing nation with the cities and jobs and so on....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no may or may not about it.  The basic scope of any government is the enforcement of societies laws.  Laws, by nature, are limits to what you're allowed to do, i.e. limits to individual freedom.  Therefore the basic scope of any government is the enforcement of limits to individual freedom.
> 
> These limits may seem basic.  Don't kill each other, for instance.  They're still limits.
Click to expand...


Another way of looking at it if government keeps people from killing one another, that meams the government gave them theedom to live. So why do we have govenments?


----------



## Dragon

Not2BSubjugated said:


> There's no may or may not about it.  The basic scope of any government is the enforcement of societies laws.  Laws, by nature, are limits to what you're allowed to do, i.e. limits to individual freedom.  Therefore the basic scope of any government is the enforcement of limits to individual freedom.



Well, actually your final sentence doesn't follow from the rest, all of which is true. Let's say you're living in a village with a man who has so much personal power (through intelligence, charisma, fighting ability, followers, whatever) that he can force others to do what he wants to, or torture or kill them if they don't. A law might be in place that requires him not to torture or kill anyone, or to have them tortured or killed by his followers. While this law would certainly restrict HIS freedom, how can you say that it would restrict YOURS? Would it not, instead, protect you from being coerced by this guy, and thus INCREASE your freedom?

This is the reasoning behind having a government to protect our rights and liberties, and why there is a distinction between liberals (who distrust government but recognize its necessity) and anarchists (who distrust government and do not see its necessity).


----------



## Dragon

Regarding Thomas Jefferson's liberalism, here is a quote (at length) which I like to present illustrating what he really believed. It's from a letter he wrote from France to a certain Rev. James Madison, not to be confused with James Madison the politician, who was a different person.



			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> 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 laboring 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 circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. 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 no employment 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 concentred 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 laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason 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 undisturbed only for the sake 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 labored. 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 or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are 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 labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor 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.



Here we see Jefferson clearly articulating a core liberal position in the context of an agrarian economy, which requires a different approach than is appropriate for an industrial economy. Nevertheless, the core value is the same: inequality is bad. Inequality threatens liberty. That's true whether the inequality is of political power or, as in this case, of wealth.

Jefferson saw massive inequality of wealth (which for him meant land ownership) in Europe, and he saw its dire effects. His thought was of how to prevent the same thing occurring in America. He was quite prepared to use government to prevent or cure the problem if needed, including a progressive property tax and laws to require breaking up large estates.

In an industrial economy such as we have today, wealth takes different forms, but otherwise the same problem remains, and the attitudes of liberals are unchanged. Only the means differ.


----------



## regent

Dragon said:


> Regarding Thomas Jefferson's liberalism, here is a quote (at length) which I like to present illustrating what he really believed. It's from a letter he wrote from France to a certain Rev. James Madison, not to be confused with James Madison the politician, who was a different person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 laboring 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 circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. 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 no employment 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 concentred 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 laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason 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 undisturbed only for the sake 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 labored. 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 or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are 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 labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we see Jefferson clearly articulating a core liberal position in the context of an agrarian economy, which requires a different approach than is appropriate for an industrial economy. Nevertheless, the core value is the same: inequality is bad. Inequality threatens liberty. That's true whether the inequality is of political power or, as in this case, of wealth.
> 
> Jefferson saw massive inequality of wealth (which for him meant land ownership) in Europe, and he saw its dire effects. His thought was of how to prevent the same thing occurring in America. He was quite prepared to use government to prevent or cure the problem if needed, including a progressive property tax and laws to require breaking up large estates.
> 
> In an industrial economy such as we have today, wealth takes different forms, but otherwise the same problem remains, and the attitudes of liberals are unchanged. Only the means differ.
Click to expand...


In the Declaration of Independence, (Jefferson) changed "life liberty and property" to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Why the change? The change is supposed to be because Jefferson already saw the beginnings of corporations and their use of power. Of course, Jefferson had envisioned America as a sea of small farms and America as an agriculture nation,  each owning his own farm. Now corporations were emerging and property meant corporate ownership and a different America.   And you are correct, the core values of liberalism are the same as brought forth in the Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Dragon said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no may or may not about it.  The basic scope of any government is the enforcement of societies laws.  Laws, by nature, are limits to what you're allowed to do, i.e. limits to individual freedom.  Therefore the basic scope of any government is the enforcement of limits to individual freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually your final sentence doesn't follow from the rest, all of which is true. Let's say you're living in a village with a man who has so much personal power (through intelligence, charisma, fighting ability, followers, whatever) that he can force others to do what he wants to, or torture or kill them if they don't. A law might be in place that requires him not to torture or kill anyone, or to have them tortured or killed by his followers. While this law would certainly restrict HIS freedom, how can you say that it would restrict YOURS? Would it not, instead, protect you from being coerced by this guy, and thus INCREASE your freedom?
> 
> This is the reasoning behind having a government to protect our rights and liberties, and why there is a distinction between liberals (who distrust government but recognize its necessity) and anarchists (who distrust government and do not see its necessity).
Click to expand...


I certainly agree that many laws only serve to benefit many people who had no ability or desire to commit the acts that those laws identify as criminal.  Your village example, however, doesn't contradict what I've said, which I still feel logically follows my premise to a T.  Even if the law only serves to limit the individual rights of one man in the village because, for the sake of the argument, he's the only one capable of the force required to break the law, the law is still a limit to individual freedom and the government's scope is still to enforce that limit.


----------



## Dragon

Not2BSubjugated said:


> I certainly agree that many laws only serve to benefit many people who had no ability or desire to commit the acts that those laws identify as criminal.  Your village example, however, doesn't contradict what I've said, which I still feel logically follows my premise to a T.  Even if the law only serves to limit the individual rights of one man in the village because, for the sake of the argument, he's the only one capable of the force required to break the law, the law is still a limit to individual freedom and the government's scope is still to enforce that limit.



Let me make what I said a little clearer. It's not just that most people have no desire to do what the hypothetical petty tyrant would do, and therefore the law _doesn't affect them_. It's that most people are _victims_ of the petty tyrant, their liberty is _reduced_ by his activities, and therefore the law, by restraining him from these activities, _augments the freedom of most of the people in the village_.

Which is, to a liberal, the whole point of law.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Not2BSubjugated said:


> By lineage I mean actual lineage.



When it comes to political parties you cant be much more actual than name and philosophy. Jefferson's Party never disappeared it just split apart only to be reformed in 1865  



Not2BSubjugated said:


> I share most of Jefferson's ideals, but I can't rightly say that he was my ancestor when my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and my dad's Scotch Irish.  Even if they had named me Thomas with J as my middle initial, the guy wouldn't suddenly cameo on my family tree.



actually people are not political parties you are comparing apples and oranges




Not2BSubjugated said:


> The GOP isn't the same party as the Democratic-Republicans because they're not the same party as the Democratic-Republicans.



the philosophy is the same so in that very very important sense they are the same




Not2BSubjugated said:


> Jefferson's Republicans fractured somewhere in the early 1800's, and one of the fragments actually evolved into what is today called the Democratic party, which is why that party -can- claim -actual- lineage back to Jefferson's Republicans.



they can claim it just not in terms of name and philosophy,... which are somewhat important, one might say. Of course it hugely dishonest to attach themselves to America's founding that way.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> Nevertheless, the core value is the same: inequality is bad.
> .



that of course is idiotic, liberal,  and out of context.

"Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry 
or that of his fathers." - Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson loved inequality, just not the kind caused by strong liberal central government or monarchy.  That is why he formed the Republican Party. That why his entire political life was devoted to reducing central government, not violent liberal property redistribution.


----------



## rightwinger

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By lineage I mean actual lineage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to political parties you cant be much more actual than name and philosophy. Jefferson's Party never disappeared it just split apart only to be reformed in 1865
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I share most of Jefferson's ideals, but I can't rightly say that he was my ancestor when my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and my dad's Scotch Irish.  Even if they had named me Thomas with J as my middle initial, the guy wouldn't suddenly cameo on my family tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually people are not political parties you are comparing apples and oranges
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP isn't the same party as the Democratic-Republicans because they're not the same party as the Democratic-Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the philosophy is the same so in that very very important sense they are the same
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson's Republicans fractured somewhere in the early 1800's, and one of the fragments actually evolved into what is today called the Democratic party, which is why that party -can- claim -actual- lineage back to Jefferson's  tru.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they can claim it just not in terms of name and philosophy,... which are somewhat important, one might say. Of course it hugely dishonest to attach themselves to America's founding that way.
Click to expand...


So, basically, you wish it was true....therefore it is


----------



## regent

There is a constant realignment of political parties, they change, adopt new methods and so on. But in general terms, the Democratic party began as the party of liberalism and remains so today. They did tolerate the conservative Democrats as votes and for their chairmanships, but finally Truman began easing them out of the party, votes and all. 
The Republican party may have a little different history. Books have been written claiming and giving evidence of Lincoln being a liberal, if so, the biggest change has been been the Republican party becoming the conservative party of today. Was Lincoln a liberal and was the Republican party of Reconstruction liberal?


----------



## Dragon

Those really interested in this subject might want to check out Wiseacre's U.S. Presidential Elections thread on this forum. He's written most of the posts there but I've also contributed substantially.

The Democratic-Republican Party, unlike the Federalists, the Whigs, and various minor parties, did not dissolve, ever, not once. In the time of Andrew Jackson, the party was renamed the Democratic Party, which name it still bears. (So of course the OP could not be more wrong; it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, that trace back to the D-Rs.) You could sort of call it a liberal party back then, but from Jackson down to Lincoln it would be more accurate to call it an "agrarian" party -- for preserving the agrarian nature of the U.S. economy and pursuing Thomas Jefferson's vision, against industrialization and all of the government activities that went along with that.

The Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans (by which I mean the one that bears that name today -- founded in the 1850s, first president was Abraham Lincoln, etc.) were all industrial parties, advocating strong central government for the purpose of encouraging the development of industry. Beginning in the 1840s-1850s, the issue of slavery also arose and anti-slavery parties (minor ones like the Free Soil Party) to advocate abolition. The Republicans were the first to combine industrialism with abolitionism.

The Civil War resolved the agrarian-industrial issue. The Democrats thereafter were confined to a challenger role for the most part until under Woodrow Wilson they adopted the reformer, progressive, or industrial-liberal role that was first championed by Republican Theodore Roosevelt. Under Franklin Roosevelt the Democrats made a huge comeback and were never again as weak as between the Civil War and the Great Depression.

As for big versus small government, both parties are big government now, the only difference lies in what exactly they want the government to do.


----------



## Wiseacre

Dragon said:


> Those really interested in this subject might want to check out Wiseacre's U.S. Presidential Elections thread on this forum. He's written most of the posts there but I've also contributed substantially.
> 
> The Democratic-Republican Party, unlike the Federalists, the Whigs, and various minor parties, did not dissolve, ever, not once. In the time of Andrew Jackson, the party was renamed the Democratic Party, which name it still bears. (So of course the OP could not be more wrong; it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, that trace back to the D-Rs.) You could sort of call it a liberal party back then, but from Jackson down to Lincoln it would be more accurate to call it an "agrarian" party -- for preserving the agrarian nature of the U.S. economy and pursuing Thomas Jefferson's vision, against industrialization and all of the government activities that went along with that.
> 
> The Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans (by which I mean the one that bears that name today -- founded in the 1850s, first president was Abraham Lincoln, etc.) were all industrial parties, advocating strong central government for the purpose of encouraging the development of industry. Beginning in the 1840s-1850s, the issue of slavery also arose and anti-slavery parties (minor ones like the Free Soil Party) to advocate abolition. The Republicans were the first to combine industrialism with abolitionism.
> 
> The Civil War resolved the agrarian-industrial issue. The Democrats thereafter were confined to a challenger role for the most part until under Woodrow Wilson they adopted the reformer, progressive, or industrial-liberal role that was first championed by Republican Theodore Roosevelt. Under Franklin Roosevelt the Democrats made a huge comeback and were never again as weak as between the Civil War and the Great Depression.
> 
> As for big versus small government, both parties are big government now, the only difference lies in what exactly they want the government to do.




I agree with everything in Dragon's post, except at the end whe he says both parties are for big gov't.    The GOP definitely wants smaller gov't, less gov't spending, and less gov't intervention than the Dems do.   Bush43 not withstanding, that was then and this is now.


----------



## Dragon

Bush 43 really wasn't anomalous, I'm afraid. Bush 41 and Ronald Reagan both expanded the size and scope of the federal government, too. Obama has proposed cuts in military spending and other spending cuts, while at the same time expanding certain other aspects of government, some on an emergency basis but others permanently. The same could be said about Bill Clinton, too.  I don't see either the Republicans or the Democrats as advocating smaller government across the board, although both advocate spending cuts in certain functions, while wanting to expand others.


----------



## rightwinger

Wiseacre said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those really interested in this subject might want to check out Wiseacre's U.S. Presidential Elections thread on this forum. He's written most of the posts there but I've also contributed substantially.
> 
> The Democratic-Republican Party, unlike the Federalists, the Whigs, and various minor parties, did not dissolve, ever, not once. In the time of Andrew Jackson, the party was renamed the Democratic Party, which name it still bears. (So of course the OP could not be more wrong; it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, that trace back to the D-Rs.) You could sort of call it a liberal party back then, but from Jackson down to Lincoln it would be more accurate to call it an "agrarian" party -- for preserving the agrarian nature of the U.S. economy and pursuing Thomas Jefferson's vision, against industrialization and all of the government activities that went along with that.
> 
> The Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans (by which I mean the one that bears that name today -- founded in the 1850s, first president was Abraham Lincoln, etc.) were all industrial parties, advocating strong central government for the purpose of encouraging the development of industry. Beginning in the 1840s-1850s, the issue of slavery also arose and anti-slavery parties (minor ones like the Free Soil Party) to advocate abolition. The Republicans were the first to combine industrialism with abolitionism.
> 
> The Civil War resolved the agrarian-industrial issue. The Democrats thereafter were confined to a challenger role for the most part until under Woodrow Wilson they adopted the reformer, progressive, or industrial-liberal role that was first championed by Republican Theodore Roosevelt. Under Franklin Roosevelt the Democrats made a huge comeback and were never again as weak as between the Civil War and the Great Depression.
> 
> As for big versus small government, both parties are big government now, the only difference lies in what exactly they want the government to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with everything in Dragon's post, except at the end whe he says both parties are for big gov't.    The GOP definitely wants smaller gov't, less gov't spending, and less gov't intervention than the Dems do.   Bush43 not withstanding, that was then and this is now.
Click to expand...


Since Nixon, Republicans have campaigned on smaller government and never delivered

We should trust them now?


----------



## Wiseacre

Frankly, I don't trust any of 'em.   If I thought Obama did a good job this past 3 years, I'd vote for him, but in my view he did not.   It's time to give the GOP another shot, I think the Tea Party influence will force them into a smaller gov't and less spending than we'd get from Obama.


----------



## code1211

Nosmo King said:


> Jayzus!
> 
> First, let's get our history straight.  The Republican Party (the GOP) was founded in the 1850s.  The first national candidate was John C. Fremont of the new state of California, founded only five years before.  Not Thomas Jefferson.  The first candidate elected as a Republican was Abraham Lincoln (who fought a war to unite and strengthen a NATIONAL government over Conservatives who were fighting for state's rights).
> 
> As a result of the Civil War, all southern states (the former Confederacy) merged politically into what became known as the "Solid South".  A region where a Republican could win only if the Democrat candidate was dead.  And sometimes not even then.
> 
> Conservatives believe in state's rights in all things other than national defense.  It stands to reason, and it was expressed as so, that "state's rights" was the defense of segregation and the oppressive "Jim Crow" laws.  Remember, Conservatives.
> 
> Don't swap political party for political  ideology just to right a wrong committed in history.





Can you say "Dixiecrat"?  Learn to read or something.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

rightwinger said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those really interested in this subject might want to check out Wiseacre's U.S. Presidential Elections thread on this forum. He's written most of the posts there but I've also contributed substantially.
> 
> The Democratic-Republican Party, unlike the Federalists, the Whigs, and various minor parties, did not dissolve, ever, not once. In the time of Andrew Jackson, the party was renamed the Democratic Party, which name it still bears. (So of course the OP could not be more wrong; it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, that trace back to the D-Rs.) You could sort of call it a liberal party back then, but from Jackson down to Lincoln it would be more accurate to call it an "agrarian" party -- for preserving the agrarian nature of the U.S. economy and pursuing Thomas Jefferson's vision, against industrialization and all of the government activities that went along with that.
> 
> The Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans (by which I mean the one that bears that name today -- founded in the 1850s, first president was Abraham Lincoln, etc.) were all industrial parties, advocating strong central government for the purpose of encouraging the development of industry. Beginning in the 1840s-1850s, the issue of slavery also arose and anti-slavery parties (minor ones like the Free Soil Party) to advocate abolition. The Republicans were the first to combine industrialism with abolitionism.
> 
> The Civil War resolved the agrarian-industrial issue. The Democrats thereafter were confined to a challenger role for the most part until under Woodrow Wilson they adopted the reformer, progressive, or industrial-liberal role that was first championed by Republican Theodore Roosevelt. Under Franklin Roosevelt the Democrats made a huge comeback and were never again as weak as between the Civil War and the Great Depression.
> 
> As for big versus small government, both parties are big government now, the only difference lies in what exactly they want the government to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with everything in Dragon's post, except at the end whe he says both parties are for big gov't.    The GOP definitely wants smaller gov't, less gov't spending, and less gov't intervention than the Dems do.   Bush43 not withstanding, that was then and this is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Nixon, Republicans have campaigned on smaller government and never delivered
> 
> We should trust them now?
Click to expand...


Of course they cant deliver because of independents and Democrats.
Newt's BBA(Balanced Budget Amendment)  passed the House and fell one vote short in the Senate. Today our debt would be $0, not $16 trillion. 100% of the impetus for small government is Republican and had been since Jefferson founded the Party. Such an obvious point should never escape you again.


----------



## code1211

Not2BSubjugated said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> What place to dems have in America?
> 
> good lard.  You sir are little more than a would be tyrant.
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this merely left wing ranting or can you support what you say? How can Republicans be tyrants when they are for limited government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The republican party is for limited government?  Is that why they vote to use that government's authority to prevent gays from getting married?  Limited government, but one that enforces morality when it suits them?  Is that why we have a patriot act?  Because Republicans are all about limited government?
> 
> Not saying all republicans agree with these things, but making the blanket statement that Republicans are for limited government is silly.
Click to expand...




Are the Republicans against a federal law allowing gays to marry?

Why on Earth should there be Federal law for that?  This is definitely a states' rights issue.

The reason it's legal to get married as a same sex couple in some states and not in others is because it is a states rights issue.

What's you thinking on a national driver's license?  How about paying all taxes directly to the Feds and dissolving states' governments altogether?

If there are no states rights, there is no need for states.  If there are no property rights, there is no need for private property.  Should all of it belong to the Feds all the time the for all time?

If that's your stand, then welcome to the Democrat Party.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Wiseacre said:


> I think the Tea Party influence will force them into a smaller gov't and less spending than we'd get from Obama.



the Tea Party has all but folded because the country is too far to the left of them for the moment


----------



## Wiseacre

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Tea Party influence will force them into a smaller gov't and less spending than we'd get from Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Tea Party has all but folded because the country is too far to the left of them for the moment
Click to expand...



Don't bet the rent on it dude.


----------



## code1211

regent said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course that is 100% absurd, Jefferson looked at all of history and gave us freedom from all central governments regardless of period
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here are 50 Jefferson quote to prove you are 100% wrong:
> 
> "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."
> 
> "The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."
> 
> -The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
> 
> -The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
> 
> " the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class."
> 
> 
> -A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.
> 
> -Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
> 
> -History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.
> 
> -I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
> 
> -I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
> 
> -My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.
> 
> -Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
> 
> -Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
> 
> -The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.
> 
> -Most bad government has grown out of too much government.
> 
> -Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.
> 
> -Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
> 
> -I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious
> "Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four
> pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most
> free to individual enterprise.  Protection from casual
> embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed."
> --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801.
> 
> "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens
> free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
> --Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.
> 
> "[Ours is a] policy of not embarking the public in enterprises
> better managed by individuals, and which might occupy as much
> of our time as those political duties for which the public functionaries are particularly instituted.  Some money could be
> lent them [the New Orleans Canal Co.], but only on an assurance that it would be employed so as to secure the public objects."
> --Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1808.
> 
> "The rights of the people to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers
> not subject to their control at short periods." --Thomas Jefferson
> to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816.
> 
> "Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
> equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry
> or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural
> Address, 1805.
> 
> "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's 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." --Thomas Jefferson: Note
> in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.
> 
> "Private enterprise manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.
> 
> "The merchants will manage [commerce] the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.
> 
> 
> "If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389
> 
> 
> Some] seem to think that [civilization's] advance has brought on too complicated a state of society, and that we should gain in happiness by treading back our steps a little way. I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief of those who maintain it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Ludlow, 1824. ME 16:75
> 
> The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:492
> 
> "Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:337
> 
> "The power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen) which remain exclusively with its own legislature, but to its external commerce only; that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Bank, 1791. ME 3:147
> 
> "Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -- Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
> 
> -- Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -- Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
> -Thomas paine
> 
> "If the government robs Peter to pay Paul, it can always count on the support of Paul." [in America to bottom 45% pay no Federal taxes]
> -Winston Churchhill
> 
> "The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
> -James madison
> Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
> 
> 
> Patrick Henry
> Tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up?
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
> 
> 
> 
> I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic."
> -- Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
> 
> James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
> 
> James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." - Benjamin Franklin
> 
> One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825
> Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Nicholas, September 7, 1803
> 
> 
> That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, andnot as the gift of their chief magistrate.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America,
> 1774
> 
> The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819
> 
> 
> The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816
> 
> They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay libs.  Cite the Jefferson quotes that illustrate the Communist stance taken by the Democrat Party of today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <<<<<
> Quoting Jefferson proves nothing regarding the core values of liberalism. Jefferson was a liberal and during his time, governments were entititys that took away one of those core values, freedom. If you read the Declaration of Independence you will see Jefferson express some of those core values of liberalism and his concept of government. At least reading the Declaration is a start. Incidently Jefferson never wrote letters to the editor regarding the new Constitution, he was in France.
Click to expand...




You have access to the Declaration on the web.

Please, cut and paste those portions of the Declaration that are demonstrative of Liberal thinking as it exists in today's American Liberalism.

Please hurry.  I'm not a young man.


----------



## code1211

Not2BSubjugated said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, except that it wasn't just during Jefferson's time that governments took away freedom.  The entire concept of government is the restriction of individual freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the contrary, without a government, the rule of law is absent and the law of the jungle reigns supreme.
> 
> If you live in fear of your life, you have no freedom.  Societal agreement on a particular set of rules to regulate the activities of all is the only method found to be successful in granting greater freedom to people.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Not2BSubjugated said:


> The republican party is for limited government?  Is that why they vote to use that government's authority to prevent gays from getting married?  Limited government, but one that enforces morality when it suits them?  Is that why we have a patriot act?  Because Republicans are all about limited government?
> 
> Not saying all republicans agree with these things, but making the blanket statement that Republicans are for limited government is silly.



as a liberal you miss the point. Yes, Republicans since Jefferson have been for limited government or freedom from big liberal government, but this is different from being anarchists. Jefferson was not for gay marriage


----------



## code1211

Not2BSubjugated said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on which Republican party you're talking about.  The current GOP doesn't trace it's lineage back to the Democratic-Republican party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course thats absurd since they have the same name and philosophy. In fact, Greely named lincoln's Party Republican because of name and philosophy. What more do you want?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you can probably find that if you read further down that Wiki article.  The current Republican party was formed in the 1860's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes to revive the name and philosophy of Jefferson's Party. Is it making sense now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By lineage I mean actual lineage.  I share most of Jefferson's ideals, but I can't rightly say that he was my ancestor when my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and my dad's Scotch Irish.  Even if they had named me Thomas with J as my middle initial, the guy wouldn't suddenly cameo on my family tree.
> 
> The GOP isn't the same party as the Democratic-Republicans because they're not the same party as the Democratic-Republicans.  Jefferson's Republicans fractured somewhere in the early 1800's, and one of the fragments actually evolved into what is today called the Democratic party, which is why that party -can- claim -actual- lineage back to Jefferson's Republicans.  My grandfather, on my mother's side, was a wife beater, an abusive father, a thug involved in organized crime. . . many things to which I am diametrically opposed.  These differences in philosophy don't remove him from my family tree.  My mother still sprung forth from his loin, and thus I am still a product thereof.  The current Democrats might disagree in rhetoric and legislation with Jefferson's core principles, but their party still sprung forth from the loin of his, so to speak.
Click to expand...




Are bowels a part of the loins?


----------



## code1211

Not2BSubjugated said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Restriction of individual freedom may or may not be the role of government, depends on the government. America has lost a lot of individual freedom since 1789 but when you consider the US has gone from a population of five million or so to three hundred million and we have changed from an agriculture nation to a manufacturing nation with the cities and jobs and so on....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no may or may not about it.  The basic scope of any government is the enforcement of societies laws.  Laws, by nature, are limits to what you're allowed to do, i.e. limits to individual freedom.  Therefore the basic scope of any government is the enforcement of limits to individual freedom.
> 
> These limits may seem basic.  Don't kill each other, for instance.  They're still limits.
Click to expand...





That is true on a theoretical basis, but in actuality, there is a minority of mean sons o bitches that will do whatever they can to subjugate those around them.  By limiting the "freedom of the bullies to subjugate others, the vast majority is afforded greater freedom.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Quoting Jefferson proves nothing regarding the core values of liberalism.



why would it given that Jefferson was ultra conservative and as such wanted a very very limited government. To demonstrate this he started the Republican Party which today claims Grover Norquist, Ron Paul, and the Tea Party as members




regent said:


> Jefferson was a liberal and during his time,



if so then a liberal is for very very limited government 




regent said:


> At least reading the Declaration is a start. .



its a start at best. He formed the Republican to make final what his concept of America had been all along, namely, the home of freedom from big liberal government.


----------



## code1211

Sallow said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> *FINDING. FDR kept this country together when Communism and Fascism were genuine threats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kept it together by prolonging the Depression for 10 years that caused WW 2? If BO prolongs this recession for 10 years will he be your hero too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Depression didn't cause WWII. And it wasn't "prolonged" by FDR's policies. You may want to study history a bit. The disparity in wealth was leading to a rise in populist movements in this country..like Communists and Fascists. This place was ripe for a revolution. FDR tamped down those angry voices by implementing social programs in a package called "The New Deal". The economic calamity faced in this country was caused by Laissez-faire capitalism..and it was a tough slog getting out of it.
Click to expand...




The question is simply whether or not the the policies of FDR hurried us out of the Depression or not.

His policies did not get us out of the Depression so getting us out of the Depression is not a debatable point.  It's a little like the Obama "recovery".

If Obama's recovery was like the Bush economy that he derided, he'd probably be elected king.

It's not.  the Big 0 is failing.  FDR did fail.  We can argue whether or not his policies were right for the time or not, but it cannot be argued that his policies corrected the problem.  We know that the policies used by FDR failed and we know the there same updated policies used by the Big 0 are failing.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sallow said:


> The Depression didn't cause WWII.



Hitler never would have come to power in a million years without the Depression to make the world desperate




Sallow said:


> And it wasn't "prolonged" by FDR's policies.



****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"

"The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]

In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal 
is urgently needed 




Sallow said:


> "The New Deal". The economic calamity faced in this country was caused by Laissez-faire capitalism..and it was a tough slog getting out of it.



I know its way way over your head but Friedman and Bernanke say it 
was caused by Federal Reserve Policy. You'd need Econ 101 before you're allowed to talk on the subject.


----------



## rdean

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.
> 
> FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.



In the Republican vision of America, Democrats have no place.  Neither do blacks or gays or most women or Muslims or scientists or college professors or teachers or....Well, except for ignorant white southern so called Christians, no one really.  But they do have room for trailers.  Lots and lots of trailers.  Oh, and beer and guns.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

rdean said:


> In the Republican vision of America, Democrats have no place.



in our Founders vision Democrats had no place since they were for big liberal government


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> The question is simply whether or not the the policies of FDR hurried us out of the Depression or not.



No, that's an absurd oversimplification of the issues of the era in a blatant attempt to make Roosevelt's legacy look bad.

In addition to that question, which isn't really a question and that's why you cherry-picked it, there are at least the following:

1) Whether his policies reduced the suffering of the Depression and helped make things better than they would have been otherwise.

2) Whether, absent those reforms, things would have gotten so bad that a real risk of an overthrow of the government and imposition of either a fascist or a Marxist despotism would have existed.

3) Whether the long-term changes in economic policy introduced by Roosevelt contributed to the amazing prosperity of the nation after World War II.

None of these questions is subsumed in the one you asked.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> 1) Whether his (FDR's)policies reduced the suffering of the Depression and helped make things better than they would have been otherwise.



how can prolonging the Depression for 10 years, by interfering with the free market, and causing WW 2 reduce suffering???

****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"

"The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]

In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal 
is urgently needed


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> 2) Whether, absent those [FRD's]reforms,



a 10 year depression and World War is a liberal's idea of reform?? You are perfectly brainwashed. You have no idea whatsoever. Now we can see why so many millions followed Hitler Stalin Mao. For humans thinking is often not necessary at all; our liberals are perfect proof of it.  Is it a surprise our liberals spied for Stalin? Is it a surprise FDR loved Henry Wallace and Alger Hiss?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Whether, absent those [FRD's]reforms,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a 10 year depression and World War is a liberal's idea of reform?? You are perfectly brainwashed. You have no idea whatsoever. Now we can see why so many millions followed Hitler Stalin Mao. For humans thinking is often not necessary at all; our liberals are perfect proof of it.  Is it a surprise our liberals spied for Stalin? Is it a surprise FDR loved Henry Wallace and Alger Hiss?
Click to expand...


Wallace was originally a Repbublican as was Morganthau, but Morganthau remained a Republican even though in FDR's cabinet. In any case historians in the last poll named FDR America's greatest president. And the people elected FDR four times, count em four times. 
And it's true that now Republicans blame FDR for not spending as much to end the depression as WWII. But until FDR and Hoover, depressions were not considered a govenment's responsiblity. Today we assume the government has almost total responsiblity over economic problems.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Wallace was originally a Repbublican



FDR love Wallace because Wallace loved Stalin, not because he had been a Republican?




regent said:


> as was Morganthau, but Morganthau remained a Republican even though in FDR's cabinet.



was he wrong about the liberal unemployment as measured by the BLS??




regent said:


> In any case historians in the last poll named FDR America's greatest president. And the people elected FDR four times, count em four times.



dear, the people supported Hitler Stalin Mao and many others throughout history. Must I say more??




regent said:


> And it's true that now Republicans blame FDR for not spending as much to end the depression as WWII.



of course thats not true but is 100% idiotic. bet $10,000? or admit to being a liberal?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> Regarding Thomas Jefferson's liberalism, here is a quote (at length) which I like to present illustrating what he really believed. It's from a letter he wrote from France to a certain Rev. James Madison, not to be confused with James Madison the politician, who was a different person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 laboring 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 circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. 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 no employment 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 concentred 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 laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason 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 undisturbed only for the sake 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 labored. 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 or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are 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 labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we see Jefferson clearly articulating a core liberal position in the context of an agrarian economy, which requires a different approach than is appropriate for an industrial economy. Nevertheless, the core value is the same: inequality is bad. Inequality threatens liberty. That's true whether the inequality is of political power or, as in this case, of wealth.
> 
> Jefferson saw massive inequality of wealth (which for him meant land ownership) in Europe, and he saw its dire effects. His thought was of how to prevent the same thing occurring in America. He was quite prepared to use government to prevent or cure the problem if needed, including a progressive property tax and laws to require breaking up large estates.
> 
> In an industrial economy such as we have today, wealth takes different forms, but otherwise the same problem remains, and the attitudes of liberals are unchanged. Only the means differ.
Click to expand...




The lynch pin of the whole argument is that the property of that country was absolutely concentrated in the hands of a few.

In this country, home ownership was above 70% and is now around 65% as it has been for most of the years following WW2.

Comparison of that country to this is fallacious.


----------



## code1211

regent said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding Thomas Jefferson's liberalism, here is a quote (at length) which I like to present illustrating what he really believed. It's from a letter he wrote from France to a certain Rev. James Madison, not to be confused with James Madison the politician, who was a different person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 laboring 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 circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. 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 no employment 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 concentred 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 laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason 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 undisturbed only for the sake 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 labored. 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 or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are 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 labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we see Jefferson clearly articulating a core liberal position in the context of an agrarian economy, which requires a different approach than is appropriate for an industrial economy. Nevertheless, the core value is the same: inequality is bad. Inequality threatens liberty. That's true whether the inequality is of political power or, as in this case, of wealth.
> 
> Jefferson saw massive inequality of wealth (which for him meant land ownership) in Europe, and he saw its dire effects. His thought was of how to prevent the same thing occurring in America. He was quite prepared to use government to prevent or cure the problem if needed, including a progressive property tax and laws to require breaking up large estates.
> 
> In an industrial economy such as we have today, wealth takes different forms, but otherwise the same problem remains, and the attitudes of liberals are unchanged. Only the means differ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the Declaration of Independence, (Jefferson) changed "life liberty and property" to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Why the change? The change is supposed to be because Jefferson already saw the beginnings of corporations and their use of power. Of course, Jefferson had envisioned America as a sea of small farms and America as an agriculture nation,  each owning his own farm. Now corporations were emerging and property meant corporate ownership and a different America.   And you are correct, the core values of liberalism are the same as brought forth in the Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason.
Click to expand...




What exactly are the core values to which you refer?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no may or may not about it.  The basic scope of any government is the enforcement of societies laws.  Laws, by nature, are limits to what you're allowed to do, i.e. limits to individual freedom.  Therefore the basic scope of any government is the enforcement of limits to individual freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually your final sentence doesn't follow from the rest, all of which is true. Let's say you're living in a village with a man who has so much personal power (through intelligence, charisma, fighting ability, followers, whatever) that he can force others to do what he wants to, or torture or kill them if they don't. A law might be in place that requires him not to torture or kill anyone, or to have them tortured or killed by his followers. While this law would certainly restrict HIS freedom, how can you say that it would restrict YOURS? Would it not, instead, protect you from being coerced by this guy, and thus INCREASE your freedom?
> 
> This is the reasoning behind having a government to protect our rights and liberties, and why there is a distinction between liberals (who distrust government but recognize its necessity) and anarchists (who distrust government and do not see its necessity).
Click to expand...





One the very basic defining qualities of the Liberal is his reliance on government as the answer to any issue that is presented.

How does this demonstrate a distrust?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly agree that many laws only serve to benefit many people who had no ability or desire to commit the acts that those laws identify as criminal.  Your village example, however, doesn't contradict what I've said, which I still feel logically follows my premise to a T.  Even if the law only serves to limit the individual rights of one man in the village because, for the sake of the argument, he's the only one capable of the force required to break the law, the law is still a limit to individual freedom and the government's scope is still to enforce that limit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make what I said a little clearer. It's not just that most people have no desire to do what the hypothetical petty tyrant would do, and therefore the law _doesn't affect them_. It's that most people are _victims_ of the petty tyrant, their liberty is _reduced_ by his activities, and therefore the law, by restraining him from these activities, _augments the freedom of most of the people in the village_.
> 
> Which is, to a liberal, the whole point of law.
Click to expand...





Is this view point only held by Liberals?


----------



## code1211

Wiseacre said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those really interested in this subject might want to check out Wiseacre's U.S. Presidential Elections thread on this forum. He's written most of the posts there but I've also contributed substantially.
> 
> The Democratic-Republican Party, unlike the Federalists, the Whigs, and various minor parties, did not dissolve, ever, not once. In the time of Andrew Jackson, the party was renamed the Democratic Party, which name it still bears. (So of course the OP could not be more wrong; it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, that trace back to the D-Rs.) You could sort of call it a liberal party back then, but from Jackson down to Lincoln it would be more accurate to call it an "agrarian" party -- for preserving the agrarian nature of the U.S. economy and pursuing Thomas Jefferson's vision, against industrialization and all of the government activities that went along with that.
> 
> The Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans (by which I mean the one that bears that name today -- founded in the 1850s, first president was Abraham Lincoln, etc.) were all industrial parties, advocating strong central government for the purpose of encouraging the development of industry. Beginning in the 1840s-1850s, the issue of slavery also arose and anti-slavery parties (minor ones like the Free Soil Party) to advocate abolition. The Republicans were the first to combine industrialism with abolitionism.
> 
> The Civil War resolved the agrarian-industrial issue. The Democrats thereafter were confined to a challenger role for the most part until under Woodrow Wilson they adopted the reformer, progressive, or industrial-liberal role that was first championed by Republican Theodore Roosevelt. Under Franklin Roosevelt the Democrats made a huge comeback and were never again as weak as between the Civil War and the Great Depression.
> 
> As for big versus small government, both parties are big government now, the only difference lies in what exactly they want the government to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with everything in Dragon's post, except at the end whe he says both parties are for big gov't.    The GOP definitely wants smaller gov't, less gov't spending, and less gov't intervention than the Dems do.   Bush43 not withstanding, that was then and this is now.
Click to expand...




I think Conservatives want smaller government, but the Republican Party strives mightily to ostracize its Conservatives.  They want the Conservative vote, but they want the centralization of power to Washington.  

A Republican Senator from indiana, Dick lugar, Doesn't even own a home in Indiana.

If this does't scream Washington is my home, nothing does.

A major problem of our society is that our Representatives are become our rulers and they regard us as their subjects to be ruled, not represented.

When their residence is in Washington, our homes are are in their sights.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is simply whether or not the the policies of FDR hurried us out of the Depression or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's an absurd oversimplification of the issues of the era in a blatant attempt to make Roosevelt's legacy look bad.
> 
> In addition to that question, which isn't really a question and that's why you cherry-picked it, there are at least the following:
> 
> 1) Whether his policies reduced the suffering of the Depression and helped make things better than they would have been otherwise.
> 
> 2) Whether, absent those reforms, things would have gotten so bad that a real risk of an overthrow of the government and imposition of either a fascist or a Marxist despotism would have existed.
> 
> 3) Whether the long-term changes in economic policy introduced by Roosevelt contributed to the amazing prosperity of the nation after World War II.
> 
> None of these questions is subsumed in the one you asked.
Click to expand...





None of them have to be.  The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2.  The boom time of the 50's and 60's was made possible by the utter destruction and defacto colonization of the the world.

Are you arguing that the policies of FDR served to end the Great Depression?

I cannot argue that they mollified it or not.  I know from speaking with my parents who regarded FDR as a God, that he gave hope where there previously was none and for that he must be respected.

It's his policies and whether or not they were effective in ending the Great depression that I am questioning.

The Depression lingered for years and the unemployment was high and the lives of Americans were crushed by it.  Otherwise talented and intelligent people were employed in manual labor with no hope of advancing.  That is not economic recovery.

There is no evidence to suggest that the policies of FDR contributed toward any economic recovery.  If it was impossible to correct absent WW2, we will never know.  Most of his policies were to soften the suffering and none were to correct it.

What we do know is that his policies did not end the Great Depression.  The problem with reality is that it's so real.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting Jefferson proves nothing regarding the core values of liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would it given that Jefferson was ultra conservative and as such wanted a very very limited government. To demonstrate this he started the Republican Party which today claims Grover Norquist, Ron Paul, and the Tea Party as members
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson was a liberal and during his time,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if so then a liberal is for very very limited government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least reading the Declaration is a start. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep on and on with the limited government thing as if that is the key to liberal/conservatism. But the size of government is not a core value of either liberal or conservatism. The fact that conservatives harp today on small government is a passing thing, a campaign gimmick, as it  was at one time when the liberals demaded small government. Generally the party out of power wants a small powerless administration, but of more import to each, is the type of govenment, which side the governnment supports that is important.
Click to expand...


----------



## regent

code1211 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is simply whether or not the the policies of FDR hurried us out of the Depression or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's an absurd oversimplification of the issues of the era in a blatant attempt to make Roosevelt's legacy look bad.
> 
> In addition to that question, which isn't really a question and that's why you cherry-picked it, there are at least the following:
> 
> 1) Whether his policies reduced the suffering of the Depression and helped make things better than they would have been otherwise.
> 
> 2) Whether, absent those reforms, things would have gotten so bad that a real risk of an overthrow of the government and imposition of either a fascist or a Marxist despotism would have existed.
> 
> 3) Whether the long-term changes in economic policy introduced by Roosevelt contributed to the amazing prosperity of the nation after World War II.
> 
> None of these questions is subsumed in the one you asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of them have to be.  The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2.  The boom time of the 50's and 60's was made possible by the utter destruction and defacto colonization of the the world.
> 
> Are you arguing that the policies of FDR served to end the Great Depression?
> 
> I cannot argue that they mollified it or not.  I know from speaking with my parents who regarded FDR as a God, that he gave hope where there previously was none and for that he must be respected.
> 
> It's his policies and whether or not they were effective in ending the Great depression that I am questioning.
> 
> The Depression lingered for years and the unemployment was high and the lives of Americans were crushed by it.  Otherwise talented and intelligent people were employed in manual labor with no hope of advancing.  That is not economic recovery.
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that the policies of FDR contributed toward any economic recovery.  If it was impossible to correct absent WW2, we will never know.  Most of his policies were to soften the suffering and none were to correct it.
> 
> What we do know is that his policies did not end the Great Depression.  The problem with reality is that it's so real.
Click to expand...


Until Hoover depressions/recessions were considered part of the business cycle and they were allowed to run their course. EXcept for Keynes there was no manual, no plans or blueprint for governments to cope or cure depressions. When the Great Depression hit Hoover broke the mold and tried to help by helping business, trickle-down, and it didn't work. FDR at first talked of balancing the budget as a treatment but quickly saw the  madness of that with people starving and new governments being formed in Spain and Germany. FDR experimented, when this didn't work he dropped it. But above all he gave hope and with the hope programs. People at the time recognized what he was doing and believed in him.
Historians recently rated FDR as America's greatest president. Now what could Republicans do, but call him names and belittle his accomplishments. Maybe it's a truism that unless you live history it is difficult to understand the period. Those that lived it with FDR understood it.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2.



This is true, but as I said, what ENDED the Depression isn't the important question.



> The boom time of the 50's and 60's was made possible by the utter destruction and defacto colonization of the the world.



This is false, for the simple reason that the "utter destruction of the world" is a myth and did not happen. Except for Germany, Japan, and (maybe) the Soviet Union, all the major combatants emerged from the war with bigger and stronger industrial capacity than they went into it. And of course, there were many industrial powers (Sweden and Switzerland for example) who were neutrals and were not even touched by the war.



> Are you arguing that the policies of FDR served to end the Great Depression?



Please note that none of the questions I raised had anything to do with what ended the Depression. Therefore, obviously, I'm not arguing that -- I'm arguing something completely different and MUCH more important.



> It's his policies and whether or not they were effective in ending the Great depression that I am questioning.



Why, when no one has seriously suggested that Roosevelt's policies ended the Depression? The claims for him lie elsewhere entirely, and I suggested them.


----------



## editec

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The republican party is for limited government? Is that why they vote to use that government's authority to prevent gays from getting married? Limited government, but one that enforces morality when it suits them? Is that why we have a patriot act? Because Republicans are all about limited government?
> 
> Not saying all republicans agree with these things, but making the blanket statement that Republicans are for limited government is silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as a liberal you miss the point. Yes, Republicans since Jefferson have been for limited government or freedom from big liberal government, but this is different from being anarchists. Jefferson was not for gay marriage
Click to expand...

 
Oh my god are you completely mad?

Smaller government?

Like the war between the states was an example of what?  anti-FEDERALISM?

Seriously dude, _READ A BOOK._


----------



## Dragon

regent said:


> You keep on and on with the limited government thing as if that is the key to liberal/conservatism. But the size of government is not a core value of either liberal or conservatism. The fact that conservatives harp today on small government is a passing thing, a campaign gimmick, as it  was at one time when the liberals demaded small government. Generally the party out of power wants a small powerless administration, but of more import to each, is the type of govenment, which side the governnment supports that is important.



Actually, there's a little more to it than that. Agrarian liberalism is different from industrial liberalism. Agrarian liberals do want a very limited central government, not as a core value, but as a means to an end.

Liberalism is ALWAYS about equality, and hence about liberty. Or vice-versa: liberty, and therefore equality. Because it's gross inequality that is the main threat to liberty; when one person is vastly more powerful than another person, he is able to impose his will on the weaker person and compel obedience. But exactly how that mechanic operates, and therefore what to do about it, is different in an agrarian economy than in an industrial one.

In an agrarian economy, a strong central government can and usually does enforce the privilege of the landed elite: very wealthy owners of large amounts of good land, who work that land by means of forced labor (usually slavery but sometimes a kind of bonded peasantry or serfdom instead). Liberals oppose it for that reason. Also, agrarian liberals feared the rise of a capitalist industrial economy and the elevation of a super-wealthy commercial elite, which a strong central government could facilitate through central banking, high tariffs, and subsidies.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. opposed a strong central government but only as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. Classical liberals were quite willing to use government force where it served the ends of equality and liberty.

Industrial liberalism seeks the same things as classical liberalism -- liberty and equality -- but does so by different means because it occupies different circumstances. On land, you walk; in the water, you swim; both are done for the purpose of moving. In an industrial economy, a strong central government is unavoidable and the only question is whether it serves the interests of the commercial/capitalist elite or those of the people as a whole.

Neither modern liberals nor conservatives oppose "big government," but neither do they advocate it as an end in itself. As always, the ends of liberals are liberty and equality, and so liberals advocate government activities that serve these ends while opposing government activities that oppose them.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> You keep on and on with the limited government thing as if that is the key to liberal/conservatism. .



actually it is what all of human history has been about. It was what the American Revolution was all about and it is obviously what modern politics is all about.

"My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government." -Thomas Jefferson

-


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

editec said:


> Oh my god are you completely mad?



and the liberal will demonstrate that I am?????



editec said:


> Smaller government?



what about it??????????




editec said:


> Like the war between the states was an example of what?  anti-FEDERALISM?



do you have any idea why you tried to change the subject to the Civil War??? 



editec said:


> Seriously dude, _READ A BOOK._



why so perfectly afraid to say exactly what  you feel I don't know that  is a book that you apparently have in mind? What does your fear tell you??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

code1211 said:


> The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2.



Sorry but that is mistaken. If war production and execution ended the Depression then of course the Depression would have come back full steam the instant the war stopped.

Also if that worked we just make  tons of planes and tanks and dump them into the sea


----------



## Intense

Kentucky Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts
RESOLUTIONS IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY

THE representatives of the good people of this commonwealth in general assembly convened, having maturely considered the answers of sundry states in the Union, to their resolutions passed at the last session, respecting certain unconstitutional laws of Congress, commonly called the alien and sedition laws, would be faithless indeed to themselves, and to those they represent, were they silently to acquiesce in principles and doctrines attempted to be maintained in all those answers, that of Virginia only excepted. *To again enter the field of argument, and attempt more fully or forcibly to expose the unconstitutionality of those obnoxious laws, would, it is apprehended be as unnecessary as unavailing.*

We cannot however but lament, that in the discussion of those interesting subjects, by sundry of the legislatures of our sister states, unfounded suggestions, and uncandid insinuations, derogatory of the true character and principles of the good people of this commonwealth, have been substituted in place of fair reasoning and sound argument. Our opinions of those alarming measures of the general government, together with our reasons for those opinions, were detailed with decency and with temper, and submitted to the discussion and judgment of our fellow citizens throughout the Union. Whether the decency and temper have been observed in the answers of most of those states who have denied or attempted to obviate the great truths contained in those resolutions, we have now only to submit to a candid world. *Faithful to the true principles of the federal union, unconscious of any designs to disturb the harmony of that Union, and anxious only to escape the fangs of despotism, the good people of this commonwealth are regardless of censure or calumniation.
*
Least however the silence of this commonwealth should be construed into an acquiescence in the doctrines and principles advanced and attempted to be maintained by the said answers, or least those of our fellow citizens throughout the Union, who so widely differ from us on those important subjects, should be deluded by the expectation, that we shall be deterred from what we conceive our duty; or shrink from the principles contained in those resolutions: therefore.

RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: *That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who adminster the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does upon the most deliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion, palpable violations of the said constitution; and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister states in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy; yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiesecence as highly criminal: That although this commonwealth as a party to the federal compact; will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact:
*
AND FINALLY, in order that no pretexts or arguments may be drawn from a supposed acquiescence on the part of this commonwealth in the constitutionality of those laws, and be thereby used as precedents for similar future violations of federal compact; *this commonwealth does now enter against them, its SOLEMN PROTEST.
*
Approved December 3rd, 1799. - A.K.A. Thomas Jefferson

Avalon Project - Kentucky Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> But above all he [FDR] gave hope



So did Hitler Stalin and Mao??? FDR gave hope but only to fools. What he did was deliver 10 years of Depression and 5 years of world war.




regent said:


> People at the time recognized what he was doing



of course that's idiotic. If they knew he was prolonging the Depression for 10 years and planting the seeds of world war they would have recognized only that at best he was a perfect liberal fool .




regent said:


> . Now what could Republicans do, but call him names and belittle his accomplishments.



of course one has to be perfectly, 100% brainwashed to say Depression and WW 2 are accomplishments. Now you can see why millions followed Hitler Stalin and Mao. For humans thinking is often just not necessary.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Intense said:


> Kentucky Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts
> RESOLUTIONS IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
> 
> THE representatives of the good people of this commonwealth in general assembly convened, having maturely considered the answers of sundry states in the Union, to their resolutions passed at the last session, respecting certain unconstitutional laws of Congress, commonly called the alien and sedition laws, would be faithless indeed to themselves, and to those they represent, were they silently to acquiesce in principles and doctrines attempted to be maintained in all those answers, that of Virginia only excepted. *To again enter the field of argument, and attempt more fully or forcibly to expose the unconstitutionality of those obnoxious laws, would, it is apprehended be as unnecessary as unavailing.*
> 
> We cannot however but lament, that in the discussion of those interesting subjects, by sundry of the legislatures of our sister states, unfounded suggestions, and uncandid insinuations, derogatory of the true character and principles of the good people of this commonwealth, have been substituted in place of fair reasoning and sound argument. Our opinions of those alarming measures of the general government, together with our reasons for those opinions, were detailed with decency and with temper, and submitted to the discussion and judgment of our fellow citizens throughout the Union. Whether the decency and temper have been observed in the answers of most of those states who have denied or attempted to obviate the great truths contained in those resolutions, we have now only to submit to a candid world. *Faithful to the true principles of the federal union, unconscious of any designs to disturb the harmony of that Union, and anxious only to escape the fangs of despotism, the good people of this commonwealth are regardless of censure or calumniation.
> *
> Least however the silence of this commonwealth should be construed into an acquiescence in the doctrines and principles advanced and attempted to be maintained by the said answers, or least those of our fellow citizens throughout the Union, who so widely differ from us on those important subjects, should be deluded by the expectation, that we shall be deterred from what we conceive our duty; or shrink from the principles contained in those resolutions: therefore.
> 
> RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: *That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who adminster the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does upon the most deliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion, palpable violations of the said constitution; and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister states in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy; yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiesecence as highly criminal: That although this commonwealth as a party to the federal compact; will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact:
> *
> AND FINALLY, in order that no pretexts or arguments may be drawn from a supposed acquiescence on the part of this commonwealth in the constitutionality of those laws, and be thereby used as precedents for similar future violations of federal compact; *this commonwealth does now enter against them, its SOLEMN PROTEST.
> *
> Approved December 3rd, 1799. - A.K.A. Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Avalon Project - Kentucky Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts



and your point is?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> The Democratic-Republican Party, unlike the Federalists, the Whigs, and various minor parties, did not dissolve, ever, not once. In the time of Andrew Jackson, the party was renamed the Democratic Party, which name it still bears. (So of course the OP could not be more wrong; it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, that trace back to the D-Rs.) .



100% ignorant: Was the Congressional record wrong too??

5th Congress (1797-1799) 
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803) 

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> However, of course Jefferson didn't found the Republican Party, so none of that is true -- thank God!




"Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican." -Susan Dunn, "Jefferson's Second Revolution."


----------



## code1211

regent said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's an absurd oversimplification of the issues of the era in a blatant attempt to make Roosevelt's legacy look bad.
> 
> In addition to that question, which isn't really a question and that's why you cherry-picked it, there are at least the following:
> 
> 1) Whether his policies reduced the suffering of the Depression and helped make things better than they would have been otherwise.
> 
> 2) Whether, absent those reforms, things would have gotten so bad that a real risk of an overthrow of the government and imposition of either a fascist or a Marxist despotism would have existed.
> 
> 3) Whether the long-term changes in economic policy introduced by Roosevelt contributed to the amazing prosperity of the nation after World War II.
> 
> None of these questions is subsumed in the one you asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of them have to be.  The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2.  The boom time of the 50's and 60's was made possible by the utter destruction and defacto colonization of the the world.
> 
> Are you arguing that the policies of FDR served to end the Great Depression?
> 
> I cannot argue that they mollified it or not.  I know from speaking with my parents who regarded FDR as a God, that he gave hope where there previously was none and for that he must be respected.
> 
> It's his policies and whether or not they were effective in ending the Great depression that I am questioning.
> 
> The Depression lingered for years and the unemployment was high and the lives of Americans were crushed by it.  Otherwise talented and intelligent people were employed in manual labor with no hope of advancing.  That is not economic recovery.
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that the policies of FDR contributed toward any economic recovery.  If it was impossible to correct absent WW2, we will never know.  Most of his policies were to soften the suffering and none were to correct it.
> 
> What we do know is that his policies did not end the Great Depression.  The problem with reality is that it's so real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until Hoover depressions/recessions were considered part of the business cycle and they were allowed to run their course. EXcept for Keynes there was no manual, no plans or blueprint for governments to cope or cure depressions. When the Great Depression hit Hoover broke the mold and tried to help by helping business, trickle-down, and it didn't work. FDR at first talked of balancing the budget as a treatment but quickly saw the  madness of that with people starving and new governments being formed in Spain and Germany. FDR experimented, when this didn't work he dropped it. But above all he gave hope and with the hope programs. People at the time recognized what he was doing and believed in him.
> Historians recently rated FDR as America's greatest president. Now what could Republicans do, but call him names and belittle his accomplishments. Maybe it's a truism that unless you live history it is difficult to understand the period. Those that lived it with FDR understood it.
Click to expand...




And yet the Great Depression is referred to as the Great Depression.  Whether the events were too much for any program or any set of policies or whether this one set of policies was the wrong set really will never be reconciled.

What we know for a fact is that the Great Depression gripped the nation and none of the policies, programs or initiatives put forth during the FDR tenure were successful in ending the Great Depression.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true, but as I said, what ENDED the Depression isn't the important question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The boom time of the 50's and 60's was made possible by the utter destruction and defacto colonization of the the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is false, for the simple reason that the "utter destruction of the world" is a myth and did not happen. Except for Germany, Japan, and (maybe) the Soviet Union, all the major combatants emerged from the war with bigger and stronger industrial capacity than they went into it. And of course, there were many industrial powers (Sweden and Switzerland for example) who were neutrals and were not even touched by the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you arguing that the policies of FDR served to end the Great Depression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please note that none of the questions I raised had anything to do with what ended the Depression. Therefore, obviously, I'm not arguing that -- I'm arguing something completely different and MUCH more important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's his policies and whether or not they were effective in ending the Great depression that I am questioning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why, when no one has seriously suggested that Roosevelt's policies ended the Depression? The claims for him lie elsewhere entirely, and I suggested them.
Click to expand...




You responded to my post which was a response to a post in which that was exactly the question.  You are free to change the subject, but why do so and deny the subject that originally existed? 




Quote: Originally Posted by Sallow 
Quote: Originally Posted by EdwardBaiamonte 
Quote: Originally Posted by Peach 
*FINDING. FDR kept this country together when Communism and Fascism were genuine threats.

kept it together by prolonging the Depression for 10 years that caused WW 2? If BO prolongs this recession for 10 years will he be your hero too?
The Depression didn't cause WWII. And it wasn't "prolonged" by FDR's policies. You may want to study history a bit. The disparity in wealth was leading to a rise in populist movements in this country..like Communists and Fascists. This place was ripe for a revolution. FDR tamped down those angry voices by implementing social programs in a package called "The New Deal". The economic calamity faced in this country was caused by Laissez-faire capitalism..and it was a tough slog getting out of it.


The question is simply whether or not the the policies of FDR hurried us out of the Depression or not.

His policies did not get us out of the Depression so getting us out of the Depression is not a debatable point. It's a little like the Obama "recovery".

If Obama's recovery was like the Bush economy that he derided, he'd probably be elected king.

It's not. the Big 0 is failing. FDR did fail. We can argue whether or not his policies were right for the time or not, but it cannot be argued that his policies corrected the problem. We know that the policies used by FDR failed and we know the there same updated policies used by the Big 0 are failing.
__________________


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep on and on with the limited government thing as if that is the key to liberal/conservatism. But the size of government is not a core value of either liberal or conservatism. The fact that conservatives harp today on small government is a passing thing, a campaign gimmick, as it  was at one time when the liberals demaded small government. Generally the party out of power wants a small powerless administration, but of more import to each, is the type of govenment, which side the governnment supports that is important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there's a little more to it than that. Agrarian liberalism is different from industrial liberalism. Agrarian liberals do want a very limited central government, not as a core value, but as a means to an end.
> 
> Liberalism is ALWAYS about equality, and hence about liberty. Or vice-versa: liberty, and therefore equality. Because it's gross inequality that is the main threat to liberty; when one person is vastly more powerful than another person, he is able to impose his will on the weaker person and compel obedience. But exactly how that mechanic operates, and therefore what to do about it, is different in an agrarian economy than in an industrial one.
> 
> In an agrarian economy, a strong central government can and usually does enforce the privilege of the landed elite: very wealthy owners of large amounts of good land, who work that land by means of forced labor (usually slavery but sometimes a kind of bonded peasantry or serfdom instead). Liberals oppose it for that reason. Also, agrarian liberals feared the rise of a capitalist industrial economy and the elevation of a super-wealthy commercial elite, which a strong central government could facilitate through central banking, high tariffs, and subsidies.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. opposed a strong central government but only as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. Classical liberals were quite willing to use government force where it served the ends of equality and liberty.
> 
> Industrial liberalism seeks the same things as classical liberalism -- liberty and equality -- but does so by different means because it occupies different circumstances. On land, you walk; in the water, you swim; both are done for the purpose of moving. In an industrial economy, a strong central government is unavoidable and the only question is whether it serves the interests of the commercial/capitalist elite or those of the people as a whole.
> 
> Neither modern liberals nor conservatives oppose "big government," but neither do they advocate it as an end in itself. As always, the ends of liberals are liberty and equality, and so liberals advocate government activities that serve these ends while opposing government activities that oppose them.
Click to expand...




Liberty and equality sound like good things.  The question is liberty to do what and equality of what?

If I am free to work and achieve, am I also free to reap the reward?  If I am free to be indolent and lazy, am I also free to be supported others?  If yes, who is "free" to support me?

If all things are equal, we know for certain they are not, but if they are, then there is no individuality.  We know that there are different strengths and weaknesses that comprise every individual.  You may have a beautiful singing voice and i may have a real knack for throwing a football.  

Are we equal?  No.  

Do you demand that I have the same audiences that your talent commands As I sing like a croaking frog?  Do you demand that you have the right to start at Quarterback for the Giants?

What is your equality, then?  Is it equal opportunity or equal outcomes?

What is your liberty?  Is it only the limitation of the powerful's actions or is it the equal and universal ability of all to most completely develop that which makes them individuals?

The way you describe Liberty and Equality sound to me like Heavy government regulation of any achievement and forced restraint of the exceptional outcome.

There are many among us who are superior in various ways.  The rest of us may strive to be like them or simply admire their talents.  Real liberty celebrates the inequality of individuals and encourages the exceptional greatness where it rises.  Forced equality condemns the exceptional and penalizes the genius.


----------



## code1211

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but that is mistaken. If war production and execution ended the Depression then of course the Depression would have come back full steam the instant the war stopped.
> 
> Also if that worked we just make  tons of planes and tanks and dump them into the sea
Click to expand...




If WW2 did not end the Great Depression, demonstrate what ended it.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> But above all he [FDR] gave hope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did Hitler Stalin and Mao??? FDR gave hope but only to fools. What he did was deliver 10 years of Depression and 5 years of world war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> People at the time recognized what he was doing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course that's idiotic. If they knew he was prolonging the Depression for 10 years and planting the seeds of world war they would have recognized only that at best he was a perfect liberal fool .
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Now what could Republicans do, but call him names and belittle his accomplishments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course one has to be perfectly, 100% brainwashed to say Depression and WW 2 are accomplishments. Now you can see why millions followed Hitler Stalin and Mao. For humans thinking is often just not necessary.
Click to expand...



That's the whole point, America did not change to a Hitler, Stalin or Mao, they continued with Capitalism, and democracy but did change many of those characteristics that caused so much suffering. 
But a question, if you accept the premise that the Great Depression has, in fact, ended, what caused the Great Depression to end?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

code1211 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but that is mistaken. If war production and execution ended the Depression then of course the Depression would have come back full steam the instant the war stopped.
> 
> Also if that worked we just make  tons of planes and tanks and dump them into the sea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If WW2 did not end the Great Depression, demonstrate what ended it.
Click to expand...


how could World War 2  two possibly end the Depression unless they kept making planes and tanks and dumped them into the sea??

It was ended because FDR and much of his socialism was dead, Europe Russia China Japan had been destroyed while we had the only economy left standing on the planet and were 100% ready to switch to a capitalistic consumer driven peacetime economy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> That's the whole point, America did not change to a Hitler, Stalin or Mao,



What??? you said FDR gave hope. I said so what Hitler Stalin Mao did too. 




regent said:


> they continued with Capitalism, and democracy but did change many of those characteristics that caused so much suffering.



what caused the suffering of the Great Depression  was liberal interference in the economy. Did you think the Depression was caused by the Girl Scouts??



regent said:


> But a question, if you accept the premise that the Great Depression has, in fact, ended, what caused the Great Depression to end?



how could World War 2 two possibly end the Depression unless they kept making planes and tanks and dumped them into the sea??

It was ended because FDR and much of his socialism was dead, Europe Russia China Japan had been destroyed while we had the only economy left standing on the planet and were 100% ready to switch to a capitalistic consumer driven peacetime economy.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but that is mistaken. If war production and execution ended the Depression then of course the Depression would have come back full steam the instant the war stopped.
> 
> Also if that worked we just make  tons of planes and tanks and dump them into the sea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If WW2 did not end the Great Depression, demonstrate what ended it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how could World War 2  two possibly end the Depression unless they kept making planes and tanks and dumped them into the sea??
> 
> It was ended because FDR and much of his socialism was dead, Europe Russia China Japan had been destroyed while we had the only economy left standing on the planet and were 100% ready to switch to a capitalistic consumer driven peacetime economy.
Click to expand...


Well finally we have an answer as to why the Great Depression ended, and the cause of the end was the death of FDR's socialism. So when did FDR's socialism die, and why did it die? Did Truman kill it or maybe Ike? And what happened to all FDR's socialist programs, like Social Security, FDIC, SEC and that whole Schmear that conservatives are still screaming is destroying America are those dead too? And one more, are we still in that consumer driven capitalistic economy?


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> And yet the Great Depression is referred to as the Great Depression.  Whether the events were too much for any program or any set of policies or whether this one set of policies was the wrong set really will never be reconciled.
> 
> What we know for a fact is that the Great Depression gripped the nation and none of the policies, programs or initiatives put forth during the FDR tenure were successful in ending the Great Depression.



And if you have a fixation on discrediting Roosevelt, the New Deal, and liberalism in general, you can use that as an excuse to do so. What you can't do is use it as a good reason, because it's not one. I already explained why.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Liberty and equality sound like good things.  The question is liberty to do what and equality of what?



Very good questions, yes. The answer is liberty to do as much as possible for as many as possible, recognizing that one person's liberty often conflicts with another's and so compromise is necessary in a civilized society. And equality of power is the important part, but that entails equality of wealth, too.

Not, of course, complete equality as that is impracticable. But there are limits beyond which inequality cannot be tolerated, as Jefferson observed in his time in France.



> If I am free to work and achieve, am I also free to reap the reward?  If I am free to be indolent and lazy, am I also free to be supported others?  If yes, who is "free" to support me?



You ask that as if it were a serious question, as if aid to the poor (especially to the "lazy and indolent" poor) were more than a molecule of water in the ocean when it comes to resources supporting people. As if it weren't a completely, utterly trivial "problem," if one insists on regarding it as a problem at all.

Are you free to reap the reward for your work and achievement? Generally speaking, no. Most people cannot support themselves independently and so must work for someone else, and that someone else reaps the lion's share of the reward for their work. People lose a lot bigger share of the fruits of their labors to their employers than they do to the government. The less power organized labor has in the economy, the more that's true -- and right now it's VERY true. And unlike welfare, that is anything but a trivial problem.



> If all things are equal, we know for certain they are not, but if they are, then there is no individuality.



Equality of everything is not even worth discussing. Equality of power would not lead to a loss of individuality but, for almost everyone, to an increase in it.



> What is your equality, then?  Is it equal opportunity or equal outcomes?



I explained it above, but here I'll merely say that no one who talks about "equality of opportunity" and opposed to "equality of outcomes" actually believes in equality of opportunity. If you did, you would oppose all private schools, impose a 100% estate tax, and provide everyone a TRULY equal shot at success.



> What is your liberty?  Is it only the limitation of the powerful's actions or is it the equal and universal ability of all to most completely develop that which makes them individuals?



For everyone except the most powerful, the two are one.


----------



## code1211

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but that is mistaken. If war production and execution ended the Depression then of course the Depression would have come back full steam the instant the war stopped.
> 
> Also if that worked we just make  tons of planes and tanks and dump them into the sea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If WW2 did not end the Great Depression, demonstrate what ended it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how could World War 2  two possibly end the Depression unless they kept making planes and tanks and dumped them into the sea??
> 
> It was ended because FDR and much of his socialism was dead, Europe Russia China Japan had been destroyed while we had the only economy left standing on the planet and were 100% ready to switch to a capitalistic consumer driven peacetime economy.
Click to expand...




Which of the causes that you cite are not directly resultant from WW2?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the Great Depression is referred to as the Great Depression.  Whether the events were too much for any program or any set of policies or whether this one set of policies was the wrong set really will never be reconciled.
> 
> What we know for a fact is that the Great Depression gripped the nation and none of the policies, programs or initiatives put forth during the FDR tenure were successful in ending the Great Depression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you have a fixation on discrediting Roosevelt, the New Deal, and liberalism in general, you can use that as an excuse to do so. What you can't do is use it as a good reason, because it's not one. I already explained why.
Click to expand...



You did not deal with that specific point.  The economic one.

I am not discrediting FDR.  All I am saying is that his policies did not end the Great Depression.  Are you disagreeing with that one very specific point?


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> I am not discrediting FDR.  All I am saying is that his policies did not end the Great Depression.  Are you disagreeing with that one very specific point?



It's pretty clear from your other posts that that is indeed your motivation, so don't deny it.

No, I am not disagreeing with that one very specific point. What I am doing is calling it what it is: trivial and irrelevant.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty and equality sound like good things.  The question is liberty to do what and equality of what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good questions, yes. The answer is liberty to do as much as possible for as many as possible, recognizing that one person's liberty often conflicts with another's and so compromise is necessary in a civilized society. And equality of power is the important part, but that entails equality of wealth, too.
> 
> Not, of course, complete equality as that is impracticable. But there are limits beyond which inequality cannot be tolerated, as Jefferson observed in his time in France.
> 
> .
Click to expand...




The portion in red above is a real WOW moment for me.

To me, liberty is allowing any individual to do as that individual desires.  Within a society, it is understood that my freedom to swing my arm ends where your nose begins.  Liberty by my understanding is an individual thing and is allowed by the act of Government simply staying out of the way.

Your words say, "The answer is liberty to do as much as possible for as many as possible...".

I do not understand how doing something for somebody is liberty for the benefitted person.  If he is receiving charity, that would fit this description.  Doing for somebody is not liberty and is control.  This is how parents control children.  Depriving anybody of those things that are essential or at least desired is a method of control.

If I am controlled, I do not have liberty.

Is your vision of Liberty a vision of state control of the individual?

Equality of wealth is the basis of Liberty?  This is not a valid train of thought.  Forgive my butchering of this from Thoreau who said words to the effect that all men are rich in terms of what they can live without.

In many ways, the liberty of a person is abridged by the wealth and the authority he holds.  If you do not understand this, you understand very little.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I am free to work and achieve, am I also free to reap the reward?  If I am free to be indolent and lazy, am I also free to be supported others?  If yes, who is "free" to support me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ask that as if it were a serious question, as if aid to the poor (especially to the "lazy and indolent" poor) were more than a molecule of water in the ocean when it comes to resources supporting people. As if it weren't a completely, utterly trivial "problem," if one insists on regarding it as a problem at all.
> 
> Are you free to reap the reward for your work and achievement? Generally speaking, no. Most people cannot support themselves independently and so must work for someone else, and that someone else reaps the lion's share of the reward for their work. People lose a lot bigger share of the fruits of their labors to their employers than they do to the government. The less power organized labor has in the economy, the more that's true -- and right now it's VERY true. And unlike welfare, that is anything but a trivial problem.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another WOW Moment.
> 
> The question here is not about labor unions or division of the country's wealth or any macro economic considerations.  It is about the individual.
> 
> Is an individual free to enter into an agreement to exchange his labor for a compensation that agreed upon or not?  When that individual has done this, is he free to enjoy the fruits of his labor or not as defined by the agreement that he has arrived at with his employer?
> 
> You seem to think that the individual is not responsible for his actions, his thoughts, his agreements or his own personal welfare.
> 
> If you think that the individual is a hapless and impotent pawn unable to cope with the world, then you are a person who is free of pride, hope and initiative.  I can think of no other belief system that would allow you to abandon all responsibility for your own welfare.
> 
> Where did the notion of Labor unions come from in this?
Click to expand...


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> I do not understand how doing something for somebody is liberty for the benefitted person.



You really have an obsession with aid to the poor, don't you? Why do you think that's important or in any way defining?



> Equality of wealth is the basis of Liberty?



It is indeed. And I'm not going to go into Thoreau, who had a wonderful heart and some great insights but who should not be taken as offering practical suggestions for anyone (nor as having followed them himself; look into how he was supported while he was at Walden sometime).

Not, as I said already, _complete_ equality, but limited inequality. You cannot be free without the economic means to be free. You cannot be free, simply put, unless you can survive without holding a job working for someone else. As long as you are working for someone else, you are under that person's authority, you have a boss, and so you are not free. Now, there's a qualifier: If you don't NEED the job, if you can get by fine without it, and are therefore genuinely holding the job by your own voluntary choice, then yes, you are free. But for the overwhelming majority of people, that's not the case.

Excessive inequality of wealth reduces most people to servitude. When wages are very high, a person can go a long time between jobs and his freedom is thereby increased. When they are not, he is at the mercy of his employer and is thus not free. Moreover, huge inequality of wealth means a huge imbalance of political power, too, and the very wealthy suborn the government to act in service to their own ends -- which is the very definition of tyranny.

There is no liberty without property. (I forget who said that, but it's true.) This means that, if most people are denied property, then they are also denied liberty. And please, please, PLEASE don't go off on a tangent again about people being "given" property who haven't worked for it; the problem we have is people being denied the property they HAVE worked for, having it stolen by rich and powerful men who take their labor and keep the property it makes, too. While there are certainly people who cannot earn their way, the real problem we face is that too many people are not being allowed to earn their way, in order to maximize the wealth accruing to the richest.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Another WOW Moment.
> 
> The question here is not about labor unions or division of the country's wealth or any macro economic considerations.  It is about the individual.



All of those are bound together. There is no liberty without property.



> Is an individual free to enter into an agreement to exchange his labor for a compensation that agreed upon or not?



No one who HAS to take a job does so freely, or is capable of entering into a free agreement.

Here's an analogy. Suppose you and I and a third person are standing in my living room, which is a mess. I offer you a dollar to clean my room for me. You begin to decline, whereupon the third person whips a gun out, puts it to your head, and screams, "Clean Dragon's room NOW. And be thankful he's paying you ANYTHING!"

I don't say anything. I don't threaten, I don't make any hostile move. You clean my room, and I pay you a dollar.

I did not personally coerce you into doing anything, did I? Nevertheless, did you do it freely? Was the agreement to clean my room for a dollar freely made? Of course not. And that's a good analogy for the "free agreements" made by people to take jobs.

Don't bother with the cheap imitation spirituality, please. I don't consider that worthy of a response.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equality of everything is not even worth discussing. Equality of power would not lead to a loss of individuality but, for almost everyone, to an increase in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your equality, then?  Is it equal opportunity or equal outcomes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it above, but here I'll merely say that no one who talks about "equality of opportunity" and opposed to "equality of outcomes" actually believes in equality of opportunity. If you did, you would oppose all private schools, impose a 100% estate tax, and provide everyone a TRULY equal shot at success.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equality of opportunity means that all are free to excel.  Equality of outcome means that none do.
> 
> Eli Manning was the MVP of the Super Bowl.  You were no (I assume) and I was not.  He was the MVP because he was the most important and effective player on the field and by extension in the world.  It's pretty likely that, given the same opportunity, there are about 10 people on the planet that could have gained that honor in that situation on that day.
> 
> We all had the opportunity and only he succeeded in gaining the honor.  He started pretty much from the day he was born to hone the skills and take advantage of his physical gifts to gain that honor.
> 
> Do you demand that everyone on the planet gain that reward or that he be stripped of it?  Those are the only two options for equality of outcome.
> 
> Why ban private schools?  Do you propose that we also ban all universities public and private because not everyone can use them?  How about classes for gifted and for challenged students?  Athletics?  Choir?  Orchestras?  How limited do you demand that our society become in the name of equality?
> 
> Everyone has an equal shot at whatever they choose to shoot at.  Did Bill gates have an equal shot at success with the most favored in our society?  Was he crippled by his relative lack of opportunity?
> 
> A 100% estate tax?  Another WOW Moment.  Does no individual have the right to his own property in your vision of the world?
> 
> Without property rights, there are no rights.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> [
> Equality of opportunity means that all are free to excel.



And that is exactly what you don't believe in.

Actually, it's impossible for everyone to excel, by definition. Only the best can. But if we maximize the freedom to excel, then we also minimize the freedom of most to do reasonably well.

Why ban private schools? (Note that I'm not suggesting any of this as a practical measure, just pointing out what "equality of opportunity" would really mean.) Because they give the children of the wealthy a superior education, and thus a superior opportunity. Why a 100% estate tax? Because anything else gives those with inheritances an advantage, and again we don't have "equality of opportunity."

Everyone DOES NOT have "an equal shot at whatever they choose to shoot at." In our society, that's arrant nonsense.

I'm not saying I really believe in absolute equality of opportunity, myself -- I don't really want to ban private schools or have a 100% estate tax. But what I do believe in is limited inequality -- and that's as true of outcome as it is of opportunity, necessarily. You can't have one without the other.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your liberty?  Is it only the limitation of the powerful's actions or is it the equal and universal ability of all to most completely develop that which makes them individuals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For everyone except the most powerful, the two are one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be obsessed with class envy.  I would hope that you are young.  The two of these notions are definitely not one.
> 
> There can be various goals that individuals hold.  Let's take Mother Teresa and Donald Trump as two examples of human beings and assume that both operate to achieve their own goals in ways that are not hurtful of others.
> 
> One is striving mightily to amass a fortune of worldly goods and rewards and by outward appearance gives little thought to the after life.
> 
> The other cares little, seemingly, for her worldly rewards and strives to do the Earthly work of god and thereby will gain rewards in the afterlife assuring her of the eternal reward that she seeks.
> 
> Both have made the free choice to satisfy their personal greed for the reward that they have identified as the one they seek.  Free Choice to pursue happiness.
> 
> One of these in your world would be directed and restrained by government.  Why?
Click to expand...


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> You seem to be obsessed with class envy.



Not envy. Resentment for manifest injustice, though, yes. Absolutely.

The remainder of your post is a fairy tale. Don't bother.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not understand how doing something for somebody is liberty for the benefitted person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really have an obsession with aid to the poor, don't you? Why do you think that's important or in any way defining?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equality of wealth is the basis of Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is indeed. And I'm not going to go into Thoreau, who had a wonderful heart and some great insights but who should not be taken as offering practical suggestions for anyone (nor as having followed them himself; look into how he was supported while he was at Walden sometime).
> 
> Not, as I said already, _complete_ equality, but limited inequality. You cannot be free without the economic means to be free. You cannot be free, simply put, unless you can survive without holding a job working for someone else. As long as you are working for someone else, you are under that person's authority, you have a boss, and so you are not free. Now, there's a qualifier: If you don't NEED the job, if you can get by fine without it, and are therefore genuinely holding the job by your own voluntary choice, then yes, you are free. But for the overwhelming majority of people, that's not the case.
> 
> Excessive inequality of wealth reduces most people to servitude. When wages are very high, a person can go a long time between jobs and his freedom is thereby increased. When they are not, he is at the mercy of his employer and is thus not free. Moreover, huge inequality of wealth means a huge imbalance of political power, too, and the very wealthy suborn the government to act in service to their own ends -- which is the very definition of tyranny.
> 
> There is no liberty without property. (I forget who said that, but it's true.) This means that, if most people are denied property, then they are also denied liberty. And please, please, PLEASE don't go off on a tangent again about people being "given" property who haven't worked for it; the problem we have is people being denied the property they HAVE worked for, having it stolen by rich and powerful men who take their labor and keep the property it makes, too. While there are certainly people who cannot earn their way, the real problem we face is that too many people are not being allowed to earn their way, in order to maximize the wealth accruing to the richest.
Click to expand...




Again, I hope you are young.  Your vision of the world seems bereft of hope.

When I was much younger, I went to college.  Three degrees, all under grad, completed in six years while working full time driving a truck.  My FREE choice.  I lived in a condemned house paying very low rent and sleeping whenever the opportunity presented itself.  Again, my choice.  I wanted to graduate college and did not see a different way to do it by the terms of life that I understand.

I graduated free of debt and free of wealth.

During my life, I've done many jobs and have been lucky, as are most, in avoiding serious injury but have had some illness and some pain.  Through it all, I kept striving toward a vague idea of "success" which TO ME, was a home, some money and a path toward a comfy retirement.

My personal freedom has alway been enhanced, not diminished, by working and having an income.  That you see this as an abridgment of freedom is interesting.  I want certain things and these include all of the various hardware items like a house, cars, a little cash and the ability to do as I please.  It is assumed in my belief system that nobody else cares if I'm happy or not and that is my responsibility to either be happy or not be happy.

Freedom does not imply that nobody within the society can tell me what to do, but that I can determine what I want to do and that I have a reasonable chance to do it if it's not illegal or hurtful to others.  If I CHOOSE to abandon that path by making the real bad decisions, that's my fault.

It is appropriate to note here that the word "I" appears in this very often.  "I" is what freedom is all about.  As a person who writes many, many communications for business, it is my normal method to avoid altogether the word "I".  On the topic of freedom, "I" is the ONLY word that is meaningful.  If you are discussing freedom and liberty and ignoring the idea of the individual, you are missing the point entirely.

Anytime the liberty of the individual is dependent on the donation of anything from any source outside of the individual's right to have it, that liberty is reduced to a privilege which can be revoked at the whim of another.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another WOW Moment.
> 
> The question here is not about labor unions or division of the country's wealth or any macro economic considerations.  It is about the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of those are bound together. There is no liberty without property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is an individual free to enter into an agreement to exchange his labor for a compensation that agreed upon or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one who HAS to take a job does so freely, or is capable of entering into a free agreement.
> 
> Here's an analogy. Suppose you and I and a third person are standing in my living room, which is a mess. I offer you a dollar to clean my room for me. You begin to decline, whereupon the third person whips a gun out, puts it to your head, and screams, "Clean Dragon's room NOW. And be thankful he's paying you ANYTHING!"
> 
> I don't say anything. I don't threaten, I don't make any hostile move. You clean my room, and I pay you a dollar.
> 
> I did not personally coerce you into doing anything, did I? Nevertheless, did you do it freely? Was the agreement to clean my room for a dollar freely made? Of course not. And that's a good analogy for the "free agreements" made by people to take jobs.
> 
> Don't bother with the cheap imitation spirituality, please. I don't consider that worthy of a response.
Click to expand...




Assume that the same three people are in the same room, but all are not armed.

You declare that you want to have the room cleaned and that you are willing to pay for the job to be completed.  The other person and I are both free to choose a course of action.

We both can offer to do so and quote you a price to complete the job.  We can both decline to bid and leave you clean your own room.  If we both bid, then you are free to choose to accept one of the bids or neither of them.  Either of us can walk away leaving you with only one bid to consider.

The beauty of the situation is that you are free to ask for the bids, we are feee to provide them and we are free to walk away.

It is the same with any employment arrangement.  There is nobody with a gun to anybody's head demanding labor be performed.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Equality of opportunity means that all are free to excel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is exactly what you don't believe in.
> 
> Actually, it's impossible for everyone to excel, by definition. Only the best can. But if we maximize the freedom to excel, then we also minimize the freedom of most to do reasonably well.
> 
> Why ban private schools? (Note that I'm not suggesting any of this as a practical measure, just pointing out what "equality of opportunity" would really mean.) Because they give the children of the wealthy a superior education, and thus a superior opportunity. Why a 100% estate tax? Because anything else gives those with inheritances an advantage, and again we don't have "equality of opportunity."
> 
> Everyone DOES NOT have "an equal shot at whatever they choose to shoot at." In our society, that's arrant nonsense.
> 
> I'm not saying I really believe in absolute equality of opportunity, myself -- I don't really want to ban private schools or have a 100% estate tax. But what I do believe in is limited inequality -- and that's as true of outcome as it is of opportunity, necessarily. You can't have one without the other.
Click to expand...




There can never be equality.  That's just the way it is.  There are always those who are smarter or prettier or faster or stronger and that's just the way it is.

Beyond that though, there are just different goals identified by different people.  There was a guy in my High School who cried when he got a B on a test because he felt that jeopardized his shot at getting straight A's thoughout the public school ciriculum.  Turns out he made it without that particular A with a little extra credit.  Such is life.

I could run a faster mile than him but had no chance of straight A's.  No equality.  

What about those who want to enjoy the arts vs. those who really relish a good pro wrestling match?  The simple truth is that there are different strokes for different folks.  Maybe I want to spend 18 hours every day building a business and you want to work 8 hours a day and have a stay at home wife.

Do we both get the same house?  Same car?  Same country club?  Of course not.  Do we both get the same community awards, same adoration from the little leaguers or same awards from the church groups?  Of course not. 

The Frank Kapra type movies of "what could have been" represent the effect of choices made and those choices are the results of Liberty to choose.  We are the result of our choices for better or for worse.  The society is the result of the aggregate of all of us choosing and there will never be equality of outcomes because we all have varying and diverse ideas of what "the good life" is.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be obsessed with class envy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not envy. Resentment for manifest injustice, though, yes. Absolutely.
> 
> The remainder of your post is a fairy tale. Don't bother.
Click to expand...




I was enjoying this to now.  Do you disagree that the two examples are people who are pursuing paths to gain their own personal happiness?

Do you deny that enforcing an equality of outcome for both of these would make both manifestly and profoundly UNhappy?


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> There can never be equality.



There are, however, numbers greater than zero and less than infinity, a fact that you seem to be ignoring. I've said repeatedly that I'm talking about, not perfect equality, but LIMITED INEQUALITY. That being something that we can achieve -- and in fact have achieved in the past, with tremendously good results. So it's not an on-off, binary, either-or situation of "equality" or "non-equality." It's a spectrum from maximum inequality to maximum achievable equality. Somewhere along that spectrum is a sweet spot where the economy performs best and overall happiness and liberty are maximized. I am uncertain exactly where that sweet spot is located, but I do know that it is way, way closer to equality than the situation we have at this time.

Here's where your entire belief-system about economics flies in the face of reality: you don't seem to understand, or perhaps to accept, that the economy is competitive, and that consequently my success is someone else's failure. Now, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as things are kept within reasonable limits, but as of now, that's not what's happening. The biggest winners have NO RIGHT to win SO big that everyone else loses as badly as they are losing today. And there is no way to restore the middle class that used to be the norm in America without cutting the very rich down to size.

By the way, I'm 55 years old. You are mistaken to characterize me as without hope. I don't believe I'm wrong, however, in characterizing you as living in a wishful-thinking, idealistic, out-of-touch-with-reality fairy tale. I would have no JUSTIFIED hope if I thought the way you do. As it is, I don't have any hope in pie in the sky, but I do have hope in the ability to restore justice. I believe that can be done.


----------



## bodecea

Zander said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.
> 
> FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What place do Democrats have in America?
> 
> We could start with putting them all in privately own and run "for profit" prison camps. *Then, after being properly re-educated on the benefits of limited government and taking personal responsibility for ones own life, they could be reintroduced into society.....
Click to expand...


Spoken like a true Rightie.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can never be equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are, however, numbers greater than zero and less than infinity, a fact that you seem to be ignoring. I've said repeatedly that I'm talking about, not perfect equality, but LIMITED INEQUALITY. That being something that we can achieve -- and in fact have achieved in the past, with tremendously good results. So it's not an on-off, binary, either-or situation of "equality" or "non-equality." It's a spectrum from maximum inequality to maximum achievable equality. Somewhere along that spectrum is a sweet spot where the economy performs best and overall happiness and liberty are maximized. I am uncertain exactly where that sweet spot is located, but I do know that it is way, way closer to equality than the situation we have at this time.
> 
> Here's where your entire belief-system about economics flies in the face of reality: you don't seem to understand, or perhaps to accept, that the economy is competitive, and that consequently my success is someone else's failure. Now, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as things are kept within reasonable limits, but as of now, that's not what's happening. The biggest winners have NO RIGHT to win SO big that everyone else loses as badly as they are losing today. And there is no way to restore the middle class that used to be the norm in America without cutting the very rich down to size.
> 
> By the way, I'm 55 years old. You are mistaken to characterize me as without hope. I don't believe I'm wrong, however, in characterizing you as living in a wishful-thinking, idealistic, out-of-touch-with-reality fairy tale. I would have no JUSTIFIED hope if I thought the way you do. As it is, I don't have any hope in pie in the sky, but I do have hope in the ability to restore justice. I believe that can be done.
Click to expand...




The two points you make most clearly are that one person can win only when another person loses.  That is simply not true.  In the year 1400, there were far fewer than a billion people on the planet, most were far below the level that we recognize as poverty today and most were also enslaved either by their condition or by law to the whims of another.  Beyond this, there was rampant plague, famine and pestilence of every kind.

Today, our number is probably close to ten times that population and yet the folks around the world are generally much better off, better fed, more healthy, better housed and better connected to sources of help and justice.

Society is not a zero sum proposition.  The actual experience of our race demonstrates pretty clearly that it is exactly the process that by some of us getting richer that all become richer.  I'm pretty sure that in 1400, I'd have been one of the many doing back breaking labor and dying at the age of 45 from some plague induced disaster that hit my village and was fought by a holy man wielding beads.

No right to win?  That is a great way to assure that nobody wins.  Sadly for that philosophy, winners do win and losers do lose.  It is the responsibility of the leaders of any country to assure that the winners who do win, win in our neighborhood.  In that way, those of us who are just the average run of the mill hard working citizen types can share in the good that proceeds from winning.

What you propose is a system that punishes achievement and will in time drive the achievers to more friendly homes.  Additionally, you propose rewarding the non achievers which will attract or create more here.  What is the result when all of the achievers have left and only the non achievers and the run of the mill types like me remain?

I'll propose a picture of that world:  Class warfare, huge deficits, failing industry, increasing imbalance of our trade and a population that finds suddenly that most of the tax paid is paid by barely half of the population.  Also, champions of the underclasses who propose to save them by driving away those who could be their salvation.

If additional wealth is not created by the movers and the shakers, the rest of us will quibble about the shrinking and eroding pie that is prooving to be insufficient to feed us.

This is what is happening right now and our leaders are encouraging the quibbling.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> [
> The two points you make most clearly are that one person can win only when another person loses.  That is simply not true.



That's only one point, but of course it's true. For example, I am a freelance writer trying to land writing and editing jobs over the Internet. When I apply for a job, unless it's an established client of mine, I am competing with other writers who want the same work. If I get that work, no one else does -- my success is their failure. (And if I am the only person applying, that only means I've _already_ beaten all others, so they don't even get a chance.)

Same is true down the line, no matter what your circumstances. If you're applying for a job at a company, and you get the job, that means no one else does. If you're selling a product, and a customer buys your product, that means he doesn't buy someone else's. If I win, you lose.

Now, does that mean that, having lost a particular contest to me, you can't conceivably win one somewhere else and still be all right? No -- at least not necessarily. But the more lopsided our income distribution becomes, the harder it becomes for anyone but the biggest winners to find opportunities of success. The opportunities for most people are inversely proportional to the rewards of the greatest success.

Oh, and none of this conflicts in any way with the advance of technology and rising living standards for most people that have resulted, so none of your arguments against it hold any water at all.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> The two points you make most clearly are that one person can win only when another person loses.  That is simply not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's only one point, but of course it's true. For example, I am a freelance writer trying to land writing and editing jobs over the Internet. When I apply for a job, unless it's an established client of mine, I am competing with other writers who want the same work. If I get that work, no one else does -- my success is their failure. (And if I am the only person applying, that only means I've _already_ beaten all others, so they don't even get a chance.)
> 
> Same is true down the line, no matter what your circumstances. If you're applying for a job at a company, and you get the job, that means no one else does. If you're selling a product, and a customer buys your product, that means he doesn't buy someone else's. If I win, you lose.
> 
> Now, does that mean that, having lost a particular contest to me, you can't conceivably win one somewhere else and still be all right? No -- at least not necessarily. But the more lopsided our income distribution becomes, the harder it becomes for anyone but the biggest winners to find opportunities of success. The opportunities for most people are inversely proportional to the rewards of the greatest success.
> 
> Oh, and none of this conflicts in any way with the advance of technology and rising living standards for most people that have resulted, so none of your arguments against it hold any water at all.
Click to expand...




Let's assume that you are trying to land your editing job.  Let's also assume that another is trying to do the same thing with your exact skill set and talents but was trying to land a similar position in 1400, the same year that I used above.

The 1400 version of you would have a pretty rough time doing so since the only books being written were literally being written by the illuminating monks in the monestaries.

However, after about 700 years and the various winners profiting with outladishly unfair incomes, you now have access to literally thousands of things to be editied for consumption by the vorascious appetites that are fed by the huge and expanding educational and entertainment industries operating in multi media and even making transitions from one medium to another requiring additional editing and more editors just to keep up with the demand.

As such, the very act of winning by many is what has created and grows the needs that allows you to prosper as an editor.

If the two of us were more famous and were having this little debate at a more public level, we would likely write, and and be paid to write, and find that our thoughts created other thoughts in others and thereby created others with the need to write and others with the need to read or listen to those thoughts.

The 24 hour news cycle is born and another industry is funded by the public and the need for even more.

This is not zero sum.  Everything is constantly growing and even the growth is growing.  It's humbling to be a leaf swept along in this stream.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Let's assume that you are trying to land your editing job.  Let's also assume that another is trying to do the same thing with your exact skill set and talents but was trying to land a similar position in 1400, the same year that I used above.



Why? For that matter, how? He's been dead for centuries.

It's telling that you can't find examples illustrating your points in the real world. Incidentally your claim that the gains since 1400 are due to maximizing the rewards to the biggest winners is completely without foundation. You seem to simply assume that it's true, probably for ideological reasons as a free-market purist, but the historical evidence points to the contrary. For example, the strongest period of the U.S. economy was in the period from 1940 to 1980, when the philosophy you are expressing was followed LEAST in our entire history.


----------



## tooldtocare

_ .,.,.,.,.,.,"isn't welfare a from of slavery"_

I don&#8217;t see how welfare is a form of slavery. I receive welfare today and it has provided food and shelter when I had none. 

Thank God for a helping hand


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's assume that you are trying to land your editing job.  Let's also assume that another is trying to do the same thing with your exact skill set and talents but was trying to land a similar position in 1400, the same year that I used above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? For that matter, how? He's been dead for centuries.
> 
> It's telling that you can't find examples illustrating your points in the real world. Incidentally your claim that the gains since 1400 are due to maximizing the rewards to the biggest winners is completely without foundation. You seem to simply assume that it's true, probably for ideological reasons as a free-market purist, but the historical evidence points to the contrary. For example, the strongest period of the U.S. economy was in the period from 1940 to 1980, when the philosophy you are expressing was followed LEAST in our entire history.
Click to expand...




Actually, during the 70's, our economy started to feel the pressure from the rebuilding of the countries that were bombed to rubble in WW2.  The defacto colonization of the world by us after WW2 was relaxing necessarily and rise of OPEC was making its first impact on our economy.

History is what happened, not what supports your thinking.

By the by, you pretty much ignored my question on your assertion that the competitive abilities of the industrialized world outside of the USA was not destroyed during WW2.  

As the world rebuilt after it was destroyed in WW2 and was able to compete evenly as the various industrialized powers we now find around us, we find that the business models employed in the period from 1946 to 1970 no longer work.

The question is not if that model worked then as it clearly did.

The question is why it won't work now and what model will work?

By yearning to resurrect a system that has died, we consign our future to the scrap heap.  What's next?  Feudalism?

All of that said, you talk about the real world, but do not understand it.  Without competition, nothing improves.  With competition, everything improves.  You don't see that the sheer growth of the industry in which your example is set creates more opportunity.  

Again, pessimism.

The real world is all around us.  It is constantly evolving and changing and very likely, the role of editors as it currently exists will be different or superfluous in the future as the abilities of the PC's around us improves.  Will there be a need to confine articles to 5 inches in column if the papers of the future exist only electronically?

Will writing be the same as it is today?  Very likely, no.

R U KDN ME?


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Actually, during the 70's, our economy started to feel the pressure from the rebuilding of the countries that were bombed to rubble in WW2.



Wrong. First, as I pointed above, most of the world WASN'T "bombed to rubble," and the two countries that were (Germany and Japan) were fully recovered by the mid 1950s.

No, the cause of the postwar prosperity was completely different from that, and so was the cause of its failure in the late 1970s. That failure lasted ten years, from 1973 through 1982. Know what else happened in those same ten years?

Real Price of Oil and Major Disruptions in World Oil Supply, 1950-2008

It was all about oil.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, during the 70's, our economy started to feel the pressure from the rebuilding of the countries that were bombed to rubble in WW2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. First, as I pointed above, most of the world WASN'T "bombed to rubble," and the two countries that were (Germany and Japan) were fully recovered by the mid 1950s.
Click to expand...


you are a shameful liar which explains why you present no data. In the 1950's made in Japan stood for cheap junk like toys in CrackerJack boxes, by the 1980's they had just begun to import high quality compact cars.

Japan achieved the most impressive growth record of the post World Wart II era. In 1950, the real per capita GNP of Japan was less than 1/5 that of the U.S. $1,060 compared to $6,330 for the US.


----------



## regent

So how many wars did Japan have after WWII? Is it possible that the Cold War, Vietnam, Kosovo,  Iraq Afghanistan, SDI  cost the US anything in money? Add on to those expenses, our trickle-down supply-side, tax cuts to the wealthy economics for flavor.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> So how many wars did Japan have after WWII?



what?????????? They  had all the years God gave them didn't they???




regent said:


> Is it possible that the Cold War, Vietnam, Kosovo,  Iraq Afghanistan, SDI  cost the US anything in money?



Im sure each and every person on the planet agrees it cost money



regent said:


> Add on to those expenses, our trickle-down supply-side, tax cuts to the wealthy economics for flavor.



it seems you're winning an argument in your head, against some strawman somewhere, about something only you know about but nothing that ever approaches gibberish is expresed in your writing here. Why not show your parents before you post?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how many wars did Japan have after WWII?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what?????????? They  had all the years God gave them didn't they???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that the Cold War, Vietnam, Kosovo,  Iraq Afghanistan, SDI  cost the US anything in money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im sure each and every person on the planet agrees it cost money
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Add on to those expenses, our trickle-down supply-side, tax cuts to the wealthy economics for flavor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it seems you're winning an argument in your head, against some strawman somewhere, about something only you know about but nothing that ever approaches gibberish is expresed in your writing here. Why not show your parents before you post?
Click to expand...


I guess things have to be spelled out for you and that takes time. 
The questions boil down to was your comparison correct, were all things equal between Japan and the United States at the end of the war? 
Again the question, were the comparisons between Japan and the US following the war the same? 
Or I don't accept your comparisons between the US and Japan following WWII, is it possible your comparisons are incorrect?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> ok?




as long as you agree that Democrats have no place at America's founding and that the Republican philosophy is America's philosophy I'm happy. Thank  you.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, during the 70's, our economy started to feel the pressure from the rebuilding of the countries that were bombed to rubble in WW2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. First, as I pointed above, most of the world WASN'T "bombed to rubble," and the two countries that were (Germany and Japan) were fully recovered by the mid 1950s.
> 
> No, the cause of the postwar prosperity was completely different from that, and so was the cause of its failure in the late 1970s. That failure lasted ten years, from 1973 through 1982. Know what else happened in those same ten years?
> 
> Real Price of Oil and Major Disruptions in World Oil Supply, 1950-2008
> 
> It was all about oil.
Click to expand...




You must be right.  And the Marshall Plan was a blue print to educate law enforcement officials.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> You must be right.  And the Marshall Plan was a blue print to educate law enforcement officials.



I am right, and smartass one-liners won't substitute for arguments. Check the stats on industrial production in Great Britain and France pre- and post-World War II. After is higher than before, even though France was occupied by the Germans and Britain bombed by the Luftwaffe. The severe damage of the war was confined to the losers, with the possible exception of the Soviet Union -- hard to get good information from the Stalinist period.

The reason for the Martial Plan was mainly that railroads were plastered and there was famine due to the inability to deliver food. The U.S. fed hungry people and helped repair the infrastructure. That took all of a year or two. It's something we can be proud of as a nation, but rebuild the entire economy of Europe at our expense we did not -- it wasn't necessary.

Even the losers, as I said, were fully recovered, with economic production higher than before the war, by the late 1950s. And that's even though Germany lost a lot of people and territory, too. _West_ Germany by itself had a stronger economy in 1960 than Nazi Germany did in 1939.

To use this as an explanation for our postwar prosperity, which lasted decades, falls into the "clutching at straws" category. It's nonsense.


----------



## Brutus

Japan was not exporting cars to the USA until late 1970's!


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be right.  And the Marshall Plan was a blue print to educate law enforcement officials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am right, and smartass one-liners won't substitute for arguments. Check the stats on industrial production in Great Britain and France pre- and post-World War II. After is higher than before, even though France was occupied by the Germans and Britain bombed by the Luftwaffe. The severe damage of the war was confined to the losers, with the possible exception of the Soviet Union -- hard to get good information from the Stalinist period.
> 
> The reason for the Martial Plan was mainly that railroads were plastered and there was famine due to the inability to deliver food. The U.S. fed hungry people and helped repair the infrastructure. That took all of a year or two. It's something we can be proud of as a nation, but rebuild the entire economy of Europe at our expense we did not -- it wasn't necessary.
> 
> Even the losers, as I said, were fully recovered, with economic production higher than before the war, by the late 1950s. And that's even though Germany lost a lot of people and territory, too. _West_ Germany by itself had a stronger economy in 1960 than Nazi Germany did in 1939.
> 
> To use this as an explanation for our postwar prosperity, which lasted decades, falls into the "clutching at straws" category. It's nonsense.
Click to expand...




I don't know everything that you don't know, but you're embarrassing yourself on this.  The plan was named after the general, not a fighting style from Enter the Dragon.

Marshall Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> I don't know everything that you don't know, but you're embarrassing yourself on this.  The plan was named after the general, not a fighting style from Enter the Dragon.
> 
> Marshall Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



As I said, a smartass wisecrack can't substitute for an argument. Neither can a source that doesn't conflict with what I said in any way.

"By 1952 as the funding ended, the economy of every participant state had surpassed pre-war levels; for all Marshall Plan recipients, output in 1951 was at least 35% higher than in 1938.[8] Over the next two decades, Western Europe enjoyed unprecedented growth and prosperity, but economists are not sure what proportion was due directly to the ERP, what proportion indirectly, and how much would have happened without it.. . .

"Especially damaged was transportation infrastructure, as railways, bridges, and docks had been specifically targeted by air strikes, while much merchant shipping had been sunk."

There you go. Just what I said: the main damage was to railroads and other transportation infrastructure, the U.S. contributed to rebuilding the same while providing food aid for the hungry, the job was essentially completed within a year or two (although the Marshall Plan extended for four years total), and the economies of all participants exceeded prewar production by very shortly after the war ended. (I had read elsewhere that the German and Japanese economies did not fully recover until the mid to late 1950s, while this article seems to suggest that it was earlier -- it doesn't really matter, though.)

The idea that postwar prosperity in the U.S. was due to the wartime destruction has no basis in fact. Actually, it has no basis in theory, either. You don't believe in that "beggar-thy-neighbor" reasoning yourself, I daresay, in any other context; for example, I suspect you don't approve of mercantilism or of protectionism. But if the U.S. really did become prosperous because the rest of the world was in ruins, then logically both mercantilism and protectionism are sound ideas, since they flow from exactly the same basis.

No. It's as I said before: most participants in the war had stronger industrial bases after the war than before it, once the transportation infrastructure had been repaired the economy of Europe was stronger than ever, and competition from foreign sources did not wait until the 1970s to start. It began within a few years of the war's end, and after that the U.S. economy did not go into decline but became even more wealthy -- which is exactly what we should expect as our foreign trading partners have stronger economies and can afford to buy more of our exports.

The reason for our unprecedented prosperity in the DECADES (please note once more) after World War II lies elsewhere.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> The reason for our unprecedented prosperity in the DECADES (please note once more) after World War II lies elsewhere.




There a lot of reason that come to mind:

1) Europe China India Japan England were not competitive

2) FDR was dead

3) new war technology was put to use in consumer goods for which  there was pent up demand


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know everything that you don't know, but you're embarrassing yourself on this.  The plan was named after the general, not a fighting style from Enter the Dragon.
> 
> Marshall Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, a smartass wisecrack can't substitute for an argument. Neither can a source that doesn't conflict with what I said in any way.
> 
> "By 1952 as the funding ended, the economy of every participant state had surpassed pre-war levels; for all Marshall Plan recipients, output in 1951 was at least 35% higher than in 1938.[8] Over the next two decades, Western Europe enjoyed unprecedented growth and prosperity, but economists are not sure what proportion was due directly to the ERP, what proportion indirectly, and how much would have happened without it.. . .
> 
> "Especially damaged was transportation infrastructure, as railways, bridges, and docks had been specifically targeted by air strikes, while much merchant shipping had been sunk."
> 
> There you go. Just what I said: the main damage was to railroads and other transportation infrastructure, the U.S. contributed to rebuilding the same while providing food aid for the hungry, the job was essentially completed within a year or two (although the Marshall Plan extended for four years total), and the economies of all participants exceeded prewar production by very shortly after the war ended. (I had read elsewhere that the German and Japanese economies did not fully recover until the mid to late 1950s, while this article seems to suggest that it was earlier -- it doesn't really matter, though.)
> 
> The idea that postwar prosperity in the U.S. was due to the wartime destruction has no basis in fact. Actually, it has no basis in theory, either. You don't believe in that "beggar-thy-neighbor" reasoning yourself, I daresay, in any other context; for example, I suspect you don't approve of mercantilism or of protectionism. But if the U.S. really did become prosperous because the rest of the world was in ruins, then logically both mercantilism and protectionism are sound ideas, since they flow from exactly the same basis.
> 
> No. It's as I said before: most participants in the war had stronger industrial bases after the war than before it, once the transportation infrastructure had been repaired the economy of Europe was stronger than ever, and competition from foreign sources did not wait until the 1970s to start. It began within a few years of the war's end, and after that the U.S. economy did not go into decline but became even more wealthy -- which is exactly what we should expect as our foreign trading partners have stronger economies and can afford to buy more of our exports.
> 
> The reason for our unprecedented prosperity in the DECADES (please note once more) after World War II lies elsewhere.
Click to expand...




You are free to believe what ever you may want to.  You said you are 55 and at that age you should remember pretty clearly the number of imported cars that were in the USA in the 60's.  There were Volkswagons and they were quirky and odd little cars with no real creature comforts and no real power, either.

Toyotas, Datsuns, Mercedes, Beamers were all still in the future of our imports.  If you recall, you are comparing post war production to the Great Depression and this is where we came in on this little debate.  Something beats nothing every time and that is what the post war production was compting against.  

Remember that Hitler took power and his primary campaign promise was that if he was elected, everyone would have bread the following day.  In Europe, people were literally starving in the street.

The post war USA dominance of the world was not just in manufacturing.  It was in everything from Olympic competition to per capita income.  The PR story was something about our better diet and Mom, Apple Pie and the American way.

Probably had a little more to do with the fact that one entire generation of young men in the USA had not been killed as they were throughout Europe.

There was a time when fully half of the world's GDP was American made and that time was the 60's.  We're down to about 30% of the whole right now which is still quite enviable.

I don't know exactly what you are trying to argue here, but I do know you are not using facts to do it.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> You are free to believe what ever you may want to.



No, being a rational person, I am not. I am only free to believe what the evidence, and sound reasoning on the basis of the evidence, show me to be true. And that is why I don't believe the myth that our postwar prosperity was based on the devastation of the rest of the world by World War II. I don't believe that, because I know that the rest of the world was not devastated by World War II, and I know that those countries which were, had fully recovered long before our prosperity hit a bump in the road.



> You said you are 55 and at that age you should remember pretty clearly the number of imported cars that were in the USA in the 60's.



Right. That's evidence: competition did grow more stiff for the AUTO INDUSTRY in the 1970s. But your reasoning from the evidence is faulty. Please consider that the problems of the mid to late 1970s did not continue past 1983: inflation came down, economic growth went up, but foreign competition did not decline. If foreign competition were the reason for the slump of the '70s, that slump should have been intractable and Ronald Reagan should have lost his reelection bid in 1984.

Whatever caused the problems of 1973-1982, it must have been something that STOPPED in 1982. Competition, therefore, cannot be the right answer.



> Probably had a little more to do with the fact that one entire generation of young men in the USA had not been killed as they were throughout Europe.



Are your referring to the World War I soldiers or those of World War II? Either way, your reasoning again does not consider the facts correctly. The generation that fought in World War I was, by 1950, middle-aged going on old and their losses, which were severe in France, Britain, and Germany (though not in most other combatant nations), had been fully replaced. For those that fought World War II, the only countries with truly awful casualties were Germany and the Soviet Union. I already noted that Germany was an exception to the "not devastated" truth and that the Soviet Union might be another, although the USSR under Stalin was such a Byzantine lair of deception that there's no way to know for certain.

France was defeated so quickly that neither long casualty lists nor massive damage ensued; France actually suffered worse in the Allied bombing prior to D-day than in 1940. The same was true for the other countries conquered by the Nazis in the Blitzkrieg: Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc. More Poles were killed in the death camps of the Holocaust than in combat. Between Dunkirk and the invasion of Italy, Great Britain fought mostly a sea and air war, which by the nature of things involves relatively lower casualty lists. The majority of the British troops in France escaped from Dunkirk even if they did leave their equipment behind, and in the campaigns from 1942 on, they and we were winning, so that the greater portion of casualties were enemy.

What am I trying to argue here? I am arguing that the changes to our economic system put in place in the 1930s were a huge success. Those changes included Social Security, regulation of the financial industry, protection and encouragement of labor unions, and a steeply graduated income tax that imposed an effective cap on personal income at a bit under two million dollars in today's money. This created broadly shared gains from economic growth, which in turn generated high levels of consumer demand, and that boosted sales and profits and hence, investment in productive enterprises. I am further arguing that the problems the system encountered beginning in 1973 and ending in 1982 were due to the temporary price surge in oil due to politically-motivated machinations by OPEC, and ended when new non-OPEC oil production came on line in the early 1980s to drive the price down. And finally, I am arguing that the shift away from that New Deal economic policy set beginning in the 1980s is a very large part of why we are in economic difficulties today -- although not the entirety of the reason.

I am certainly arguing from facts; unlike yourself, however, I am arguing from all of them rather than from a select few that fit preconceptions. It does make a difference.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as long as you agree that Democrats have no place at America's founding and that the Republican philosophy is America's philosophy I'm happy. Thank  you.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you would cope with history better if you used the terms conservative or liberal rather than political parties. Political parties change names, purposes and even philosophies and are not a good guide. 
This nation was built on the ideas put forth in the Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason, might check them out, and then see if you can  find those concepts in the Declaration of Independence and even go beyond that and see if you can find any in the Constitution.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Political parties change names, purposes and even philosophies and are not a good guide.



Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792 to promote freedom or liberty from big liberal government. Modern Republicans have an identical philosophy



regent said:


> This nation was built on the ideas put forth in the Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason, might check them out, and then see if you can  find those concepts in the Declaration of Independence and even go beyond that and see if you can find any in the Constitution.



yes, history evolved toward the Republican idea of individual liberty from big liberal government. Those who oppose the basic concept of America are called liberals today. Hope you understand now?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Political parties change names, purposes and even philosophies and are not a good guide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792 to promote freedom or liberty from big liberal government. Modern Republicans have an identical philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> This nation was built on the ideas put forth in the Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason, might check them out, and then see if you can  find those concepts in the Declaration of Independence and even go beyond that and see if you can find any in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, history evolved toward the Republican idea of individual liberty from big liberal government. Those who oppose the basic concept of America are called liberals today. Hope you understand now?
Click to expand...


Well the founders had the perfect conservative government, it was almost no government it was so small, it had no authority, could not tax, coin money, regulate commerce it was totally helpless, and guess what, the founders changed it to a stronger, powerful larger government. So who changed it to the bigger, stronger government of today, was it liberals, conservatives, Republicans or Democrats?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Well the founders had the perfect conservative government, it was almost no government it was so small, it had no authority, could not tax, coin money, regulate commerce it was totally helpless, and guess what, the founders changed it to a stronger, powerful larger government.



yes all agree from the Articles to Constitution govt got bigger 




regent said:


> So who changed it to the bigger, stronger government of today, was it liberals, conservatives, Republicans or Democrats?



Welcome to your first lesson in American History. Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792 to keep the government small. Republicans have been slowly losing the battle for 200 years.


----------



## regent

So do historians consider Jefferson to be a liberal or a conservative, and is the size of government the factor that determines that?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> So do historians consider Jefferson to be a liberal or a conservative, and is the size of government the factor that determines that?



historians are liberal so can't be trusted to even acknowledge that he founded the Republican Party in 1792 to fight for freedom from big liberal government .

WiKi:The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do historians consider Jefferson to be a liberal or a conservative, and is the size of government the factor that determines that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> historians are liberal so can't be trusted to even acknowledge that he founded the Republican Party in 1792 to fight for freedom from big liberal government .
> 
> WiKi:The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights.
Click to expand...


Historians write our history books teach our young and you don't trust them because their history is different than yours. So you get your history from Wiki? 
Why don't you check out Wiki and see if there is more to liberalism and conservatism than the size of government?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Historians write our history books teach our young and you don't trust them because their history is different than yours. So you get your history from Wiki?




dear I gave you the quote from wiki which shows that historians  refuse to use the name Republican when all agree it was the name used at the time based on letters newspapers speeches and even the Congressional Record. Can you grasp that? Is it really over your head? Can't you discuss with your parents before you post?




regent said:


> Why don't you check out Wiki and see if there is more to liberalism and conservatism than the size of government?



there is nothing to history besides the size of government!!
History is the struggle against liberal government.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historians write our history books teach our young and you don't trust them because their history is different than yours. So you get your history from Wiki?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear I gave you the quote from wiki which shows that historians  refuse to use the name Republican when all agree it was the name used at the time based on letters newspapers speeches and even the Congressional Record. Can you grasp that? Is it really over your head? Can't you discuss with your parents before you post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you check out Wiki and see if there is more to liberalism and conservatism than the size of government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is nothing to history besides the size of government!!
> History is the struggle against liberal government.
Click to expand...


OK then the only thing that defines liberal and conservatism is the struggle against liberal government, right?  So using that definition has America become more liberal or more conservative since 1789?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> OK then the only thing that defines liberal and conservatism is the struggle against liberal government, right?



yes, right




regent said:


> So using that definition has America become more liberal or more conservative since 1789?




why do you act like a 5 year old?? A child knows that our government is 100 times bigger than it was. Do you parents know you do this??


----------



## regent

You switched definitions of liberal conservative on me again, from size of government to the struggle against liberal government and now back to size of government. If you can't answer or don't know, why not just evade the post instead reverting to insults.


----------



## Brutus

regent said:


> You switched definitions of liberal conservative on me again, from size of government to the struggle against liberal government and now back to size of government. If you can't answer or don't know, why not just evade the post instead reverting to insults.



Too stupid . Conservatives since Jefferson have battled against big liberal government.


----------



## regent

Brutus said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You switched definitions of liberal conservative on me again, from size of government to the struggle against liberal government and now back to size of government. If you can't answer or don't know, why not just evade the post instead reverting to insults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too stupid . Conservatives since Jefferson have battled against big liberal government.
Click to expand...


Have they just battled big liberal govenment or big government?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Have they just battled big liberal govenment or big government?



Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792, with Madison, for the purpose of preventing big liberal government. Modern Republicans have the same identical philosophy. 

Moreover, liberalism does not have a place within the concept of freedom. In fact, liberalism is perfectly unAmerican.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have they just battled big liberal govenment or big government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792, with Madison, for the purpose of preventing big liberal government. Modern Republicans have the same identical philosophy.
> 
> Moreover, liberalism does not have a place within the concept of freedom. In fact, liberalism is perfectly unAmerican.
Click to expand...


1.  So what is this modern Republican philosophy? And please don't give me a rundown    on the 1923 World Series as the answer. 
2.  What was the philosophy of the Republican party of Jefferson and Madison? 
3.  Where is it written that liberalism is unAmerican?
4.  What definition have political scientists, historians given to the tenants of liberalism?  

Remember same identical philosophy. 
I know what's coming, the results of the 1936 presidential election. Instead of trying to answer all four questions maybe just pick one, go to Wicki and get back to me.


----------



## Pheonixops

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party was the home to the conservatives until the middle 1960's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually FDR was the greatest liberal in American History in the
> 1930's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican Party today maintains a racial make up of about 90% white.  For a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *yes they have been brainwashed to think the government that enslaved them is now their best friend. Liberal targeting of blacks starting in the 1960's * amounted to a near genocide. Now you can understand what Reagan meant when he said, "isn't welfare a from of slavery"
Click to expand...

Really? How did the conservatives, WHO WANTED TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO (the Blacks as second class citizens) help "them"? What a stupid way to whitewash history.


----------



## Pheonixops

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Also, while the rhetoric of the Republican party is arguably (and in my opinion) a good deal closer to Jefferson's philosophical ideals than that of the Democrats, the majority of the Republican party legislates, whenever it suits them (which is pretty often these days), in favor of limiting individual freedoms, centralizing power to the Federal government, and government redistribution of wealth (typically in the form of corporate subsidies), all of which strike me as being in total opposition to Jeffersonian philosophy.  Seems to me that implying that either party has a monopoly on founding principles involves ignoring a lot of what that party actually does.



EXCELLENT POINTS! One current example I can think of is what is happening here in Virginia. I always hear republicans say "keep government out of the way, less government, etc", yet they are trying to pass a bill to require a woman to get an ultrasound before she has an abortion..................the bill is being touted by republicans.


----------



## Pheonixops

regent said:


> *There have been two Republican parties in America, the first the liberals, the Jeffersonians,* the Antifederalists, formed around 1789. It was this group that fought the ratification of the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights were added.  The second Republican party formed in the 1850's and is today's Republican party. The Democrats of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson.  The Democratic party was comprised of both liberals and conservatives, the conservatives of the South. Truman began easing the conservatives out of the Democratic party and today the former conservative Democrats have found their home with the present day Republican party.



Yep!


----------



## Pheonixops

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> <snip>Jefferson formed the Republican Party in 1792 when he left the Washington Administration in disgust .* The Republican Party stood for, then and now, freedom and liberty from central government. *Now you've got the basics.<snip>



Really? Then why did central government increase under Reagan and Bush?


----------



## Pheonixops

Peach said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR took office when the economy was bad, he took advantage of the desperate people and enacted all his progressive policies during the crisis, all of which failed.  Only a world war and the creation of the 'industrial military complex' brought the US out of it.
> 
> FDR had no qualms about circumventing the constitution.  When many of his New Deal legislation started to be undone by Congress and the Supreme Court, he tried to add more justices to the Supreme Court in order to fill it with a bunch of progressive hacks that would rule in his favor.  Thankfully his attempt failed.
> 
> Obama is trying his best to mimic FDR.  He's used the 'economic crisis' to pass 'stimulous' bills which were nothing more than slush funds for his cronies.  He circumvents Congress whenever it suits him. And he is already trying to stir up more wars in the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> You must have learned US history off of a Beck puddle.
Click to expand...


LOL, funny and true!


----------



## Peach

Not2BSubjugated said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, of course Jefferson didn't found the Republican Party, so none of that is true -- thank God!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the evidence a liberal uses!! It will not even occur to a liberal to have evidence!!
> 
> WIKI: The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on which Republican party you're talking about.  The current GOP doesn't trace it's lineage back to the Democratic-Republican party, and you can probably find that if you read further down that Wiki article.  The current Republican party was formed in the 1860's.
Click to expand...

What place do Democrats have in America? 
**************************************
One party rule isn't a...GOOD idea. ; )


----------



## code1211

Pheonixops said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party was the home to the conservatives until the middle 1960's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually FDR was the greatest liberal in American History in the
> 1930's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican Party today maintains a racial make up of about 90% white.  For a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *yes they have been brainwashed to think the government that enslaved them is now their best friend. Liberal targeting of blacks starting in the 1960's * amounted to a near genocide. Now you can understand what Reagan meant when he said, "isn't welfare a from of slavery"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? How did the conservatives, WHO WANTED TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO (the Blacks as second class citizens) help "them"? What a stupid way to whitewash history.
Click to expand...




From a legal stand point, Liberalism is the only device that can strip away rights that are protected by law.

A strict, Conservative interpretation of the law, or of any law that defines the protection of Civl rights, follows the letter of the law.   All of the People who are equal before that laws are covered by that ruling.

A Liberal interpretation of any law allows for the authorities to tinker with the meaning and conjure results that include some and exclude others regardless of what the law says.

In this sense, only Liberals can rob a man of rights that are guaranteed under law.  It is sometimes justified and sometimes not not based on the justice contained in the law.  Dred Scot and Jim Crow come to mind.  

However, strip away the layers of this onion, and you will as often find one political party as the other behind the "Liberal" interpretations that embarrass the rest of us looking back at them.

Very recently, it was Democrat appointees who ruled that it is legal and right that the government can strip away the property of one individual and award it to another because the government thinks that this is best.

This is the beginning of the end.

If there are no property rights, there are no rights.  Understand clearly that the most personal property one may possess is one's self.


----------



## code1211

Pheonixops said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, while the rhetoric of the Republican party is arguably (and in my opinion) a good deal closer to Jefferson's philosophical ideals than that of the Democrats, the majority of the Republican party legislates, whenever it suits them (which is pretty often these days), in favor of limiting individual freedoms, centralizing power to the Federal government, and government redistribution of wealth (typically in the form of corporate subsidies), all of which strike me as being in total opposition to Jeffersonian philosophy.  Seems to me that implying that either party has a monopoly on founding principles involves ignoring a lot of what that party actually does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCELLENT POINTS! One current example I can think of is what is happening here in Virginia. I always hear republicans say "keep government out of the way, less government, etc", yet they are trying to pass a bill to require a woman to get an ultrasound before she has an abortion..................the bill is being touted by republicans.
Click to expand...




Given the recent national debate on this topic, is any portion of the cost covered by public money?


----------



## code1211

regent said:


> There have been two Republican parties in America, the first the liberals, the Jeffersonians, the Antifederalists, formed around 1789. It was this group that fought the ratification of the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights were added.
> 
> The second Republican party formed in the 1850's and is today's Republican party. The Democrats of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson.  The Democratic party was comprised of both liberals and conservatives, the conservatives of the South. Truman began easing the conservatives out of the Democratic party and today the former conservative Democrats have found their home with the present day Republican party.




Are you sure that you want to use support of the Bill of Rights as proof that the the Democrat party supports the ideas of Jefferson?

I could be very wrong on this as I'm not a lawyer, thereby retaining some morality, but it seems to me that the Democrat Party stridently opposes the amendments highlighted in RED, both parties support the amendments in BLUE, and the recent rulings of Democrat appointees undermine the intent of those in GREEN.  By my count that puts you under 50% of the contested amendments.

Does trampling the Bill of Rights mean support in today's lexicon?

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
Right to keep and bear arms
Conditions for quarters of soldiers
Right of search and seizure regulated
Provisons concerning prosecution
Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
Right to a trial by jury
Excessive bail, cruel punishment
Rule of construction of Constitution
Rights of the States under Constitution



TOP

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
TOP

Right to keep and bear arms 

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
TOP

Conditions for quarters of soldiers 

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
TOP

Right of search and seizure regulated 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
TOP

Provisons concerning prosecution 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
TOP

Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc. 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
TOP

Right to a trial by jury 

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
TOP

Excessive bail, cruel punishment 

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
TOP

Rule of construction of Constitution 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
TOP

Rights of the States under Constitution 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## code1211

Pheonixops said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>Jefferson formed the Republican Party in 1792 when he left the Washington Administration in disgust .* The Republican Party stood for, then and now, freedom and liberty from central government. *Now you've got the basics.<snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then why did central government increase under Reagan and Bush?
Click to expand...




You're right the two parties we are currently saddled with are Communist lite and Communist a little bit liter.

Every time the Government takes away a right and makes it a privilege, that right ceases to exist.  

Our current government is changing the definition of entitlements to mean rights.  Find for me healthcare or transportation or any of the New deal "rights" in the Bill of Rights or the Enumerated Powers.

Welfare is not welfare as understood by the Founders.  It's charity.  That does not particularly make it either bad or wrong.  It's just not a part of the Founder's understanding of what a government is charged to do.


----------



## regent

Welfare was a state responsiblity until the Great Depression and during that crisis states could not handle the welfare needed so the national government assumed that responsibility. During the Clinton administration welfare was pretty much turned back to the states. 
Entitlements mean rights as entitled by law. 
The Supreme Court has reviewed all of the New Deal Acts and declared some Constitutional and some not. 
As Justice Hughes said, the Constitution is what the Court say it is.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare is not welfare as understood by the Founders.  It's charity.  That does not particularly make it either bad or wrong.  It's just not a part of the Founder's understanding of what a government is charged to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare and the sense of aid to the poor and the "general welfare" as that phrase is used in the Constitution are not identical, true; however that the founders didn't understand aid to the poor to be part of what government is charged to do is NOT true.
> 
> US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens
> 
> The responsibility of government to provide assistance to the poor, especially to poor children and to those who cannot work, goes back to before the U.S. was even founded. Even when the federal government stayed out of it, it was always a responsibility of government at the state level.
Click to expand...


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare is not welfare as understood by the Founders.  It's charity.  That does not particularly make it either bad or wrong.  It's just not a part of the Founder's understanding of what a government is charged to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare and the sense of aid to the poor and the "general welfare" as that phrase is used in the Constitution are not identical, true; however that the founders didn't understand aid to the poor to be part of what government is charged to do is NOT true.
> 
> US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens
> 
> The responsibility of government to provide assistance to the poor, especially to poor children and to those who cannot work, goes back to before the U.S. was even founded. Even when the federal government stayed out of it, it was always a responsibility of government at the state level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Founders" is a phrase that restricts the conversation to the Federal government.
> 
> During the Washington Administration, how much aid to the poor was provided by the Federal Government?  As large or small at that amount is should pretty well describe what the Founders felt the Federal Government involvement in the charity to the poor should be.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> "The Founders" is a phrase that restricts the conversation to the Federal government.



It actually doesn't matter one way or the other. That the federal government stayed out of providing aid to the poor for so long was purely a function of custom and lack of perceived need, not because the Constitution doesn't authorize it. The Constitution does, and there has never been any serious controversy in court about that at all.


----------



## Pheonixops

code1211 said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually FDR was the greatest liberal in American History in the
> 1930's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *yes they have been brainwashed to think the government that enslaved them is now their best friend. Liberal targeting of blacks starting in the 1960's * amounted to a near genocide. Now you can understand what Reagan meant when he said, "isn't welfare a from of slavery"
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How did the conservatives, WHO WANTED TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO (the Blacks as second class citizens) help "them"? What a stupid way to whitewash history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From a legal stand point, Liberalism is the only device that can strip away rights that are protected by law.*
> 
> A strict, Conservative interpretation of the law, or of any law that defines the protection of Civl rights, follows the letter of the law.   All of the People who are equal before that laws are covered by that ruling.
> 
> A Liberal interpretation of any law allows for the authorities to tinker with the meaning and conjure results that include some and exclude others regardless of what the law says.
> 
> In this sense, only Liberals can rob a man of rights that are guaranteed under law.  It is sometimes justified and sometimes not not based on the justice contained in the law.  Dred Scot and Jim Crow come to mind.
> 
> However, strip away the layers of this onion, and you will as often find one political party as the other behind the "Liberal" interpretations that embarrass the rest of us looking back at them.
> 
> Very recently, it was Democrat appointees who ruled that it is legal and right that the government can strip away the property of one individual and award it to another because the government thinks that this is best.
> 
> This is the beginning of the end.
> 
> If there are no property rights, there are no rights.  Understand clearly that the most personal property one may possess is one's self.
Click to expand...


Nice argument, but not really. Take a look at my sig line to see the true definition of _Liberal_. The Amendment process to the Constitution is a Liberal process. Without that process, the conservative status quo would have remained and there would be not be any 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. "The Thirteenth Amendment (both proposed and ratified in 1865) abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment (proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868) included the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Fifteenth Amendment, (proposed in 1869 and ratified in 1870 under the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant) grants voting rights regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" There would be no women's suffrage; the 19th Amendment. Conservatives wanted to keep the status quo and have some people remain as second class citizens, the Liberals fought to change that.


----------



## Pheonixops

code1211 said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, while the rhetoric of the Republican party is arguably (and in my opinion) a good deal closer to Jefferson's philosophical ideals than that of the Democrats, the majority of the Republican party legislates, whenever it suits them (which is pretty often these days), in favor of limiting individual freedoms, centralizing power to the Federal government, and government redistribution of wealth (typically in the form of corporate subsidies), all of which strike me as being in total opposition to Jeffersonian philosophy.  Seems to me that implying that either party has a monopoly on founding principles involves ignoring a lot of what that party actually does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCELLENT POINTS! One current example I can think of is what is happening here in Virginia. I always hear republicans say "keep government out of the way, less government, etc", yet they are trying to pass a bill to require a woman to get an ultrasound before she has an abortion..................the bill is being touted by republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the recent national debate on this topic, is any portion of the cost covered by public money?
Click to expand...


I am not sure, that's a good argument that can evolve into many other discussions like Georgetown and other Catholic institutions that may receive public funds as well.


----------



## Pheonixops

code1211 said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>Jefferson formed the Republican Party in 1792 when he left the Washington Administration in disgust .* The Republican Party stood for, then and now, freedom and liberty from central government. *Now you've got the basics.<snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then why did central government increase under Reagan and Bush?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right the two parties we are currently saddled with are Communist lite and Communist a little bit liter.
> 
> Every time the Government takes away a right and makes it a privilege, that right ceases to exist.
> 
> Our current government is changing the definition of entitlements to mean rights.  Find for me healthcare or transportation or any of the New deal "rights" in the Bill of Rights or the Enumerated Powers.
> 
> Welfare is not welfare as understood by the Founders.  It's charity.  That does not particularly make it either bad or wrong.  It's just not a part of the Founder's understanding of what a government is charged to do.
Click to expand...


LOL, good points. It's nice to find some people here (you) who don't turn a debate into a "fuck you" contest. 

I agree with your points above and respect your POV.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> 1.  So what is this modern Republican philosophy?



same as Jefferson, freedom from big liberal government



regent said:


> 2.  What was the philosophy of the Republican party of Jefferson and Madison?




same as modern Republicans



regent said:


> 3.  Where is it written that liberalism is unAmerican?



The Constitution. It is designed to strictly limit Federal governemnt to a few enumerated powers. Liberals are 100% opposed so should be made illegal



regent said:


> 4.  What definition have political scientists, historians given to the tenants of liberalism?



quasi sociialism!! why do you think the liberals spied for Stalin
and the CPUSA in fact supports BO??



regent said:


> Remember same identical philosophy.
> I know what's coming, the results of the 1936 presidential election. Instead of trying to answer all four questions maybe just pick one, go to Wicki and get back to me.



what?????????????????????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> The Constitution does,




of course of it does authorize welfare you would not be so afraid to say where? What does your fear tell you?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Peach said:


> What place do Democrats have in America?
> **************************************
> One party rule isn't a...GOOD idea. ; )



Democrats are opposed to America so have no place in America. With them gone the political spectrum would shift in a more American direction. The debate would be between Ron Paul and more mainstream Republlicans. That would be an American debate and you'd have 2 new parties instantly.


----------



## tooldtocare

If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America? 

Was Jerfferson Jewish -?

Now chill, I was just asking -


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pheonixops said:


> Really? How did the conservatives, WHO WANTED TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO (the Blacks as second class citizens) help "them"? What a stupid way to whitewash history.



if there is a white wash why be so afraid to say exactly what it was?? What does your fear tell us?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  So what is this modern Republican philosophy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same as Jefferson, freedom from big liberal government
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  What was the philosophy of the Republican party of Jefferson and Madison?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> same as modern Republicans
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution. It is designed to strictly limit Federal governemnt to a few enumerated powers. Liberals are 100% opposed so should be made illegal
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  What definition have political scientists, historians given to the tenants of liberalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quasi sociialism!! why do you think the liberals spied for Stalin
> and the CPUSA in fact supports BO??
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember same identical philosophy.
> I know what's coming, the results of the 1936 presidential election. Instead of trying to answer all four questions maybe just pick one, go to Wicki and get back to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what?????????????????????
Click to expand...


That's it! Freedom from big liberal government, that's why we fought the Revolutionary war to be free of the big liberal government of George III? Jefferson sure goofed with all that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness stuff. I guess this is Wicki history?


----------



## Pheonixops

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How did the conservatives, WHO WANTED TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO (the Blacks as second class citizens) help "them"? What a stupid way to whitewash history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if there is a white wash why be so afraid to say exactly what it was?? What does your fear tell us?
Click to expand...


I have no fear. I asked a question, can you answer it?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Founders" is a phrase that restricts the conversation to the Federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually doesn't matter one way or the other. That the federal government stayed out of providing aid to the poor for so long was purely a function of custom and lack of perceived need, not because the Constitution doesn't authorize it. The Constitution does, and there has never been any serious controversy in court about that at all.
Click to expand...




Please make that citation and demonstrate how this is supported by the actions of the Founders during the Washington Administration.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Founders" is a phrase that restricts the conversation to the Federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually doesn't matter one way or the other. That the federal government stayed out of providing aid to the poor for so long was purely a function of custom and lack of perceived need, not because the Constitution doesn't authorize it. The Constitution does, and there has never been any serious controversy in court about that at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please make that citation
Click to expand...


Article I, Section 8, first clause: Congress is authorized to tax (and by implication, spend) to provide for the general welfare of the United States. You were correct above in pointing out that "the general welfare of the United States" is not identical in meaning to what we mean today by "welfare," but wrong to imply that it does not _encompass_ aid to the poor along with many other things.



> and demonstrate how this is supported by the actions of the Founders during the Washington Administration.



Why? Is no change in government policy allowed since the turn of the 19th century?


----------



## code1211

Pheonixops said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How did the conservatives, WHO WANTED TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO (the Blacks as second class citizens) help "them"? What a stupid way to whitewash history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From a legal stand point, Liberalism is the only device that can strip away rights that are protected by law.*
> 
> A strict, Conservative interpretation of the law, or of any law that defines the protection of Civl rights, follows the letter of the law.   All of the People who are equal before that laws are covered by that ruling.
> 
> A Liberal interpretation of any law allows for the authorities to tinker with the meaning and conjure results that include some and exclude others regardless of what the law says.
> 
> In this sense, only Liberals can rob a man of rights that are guaranteed under law.  It is sometimes justified and sometimes not not based on the justice contained in the law.  Dred Scot and Jim Crow come to mind.
> 
> However, strip away the layers of this onion, and you will as often find one political party as the other behind the "Liberal" interpretations that embarrass the rest of us looking back at them.
> 
> Very recently, it was Democrat appointees who ruled that it is legal and right that the government can strip away the property of one individual and award it to another because the government thinks that this is best.
> 
> This is the beginning of the end.
> 
> If there are no property rights, there are no rights.  Understand clearly that the most personal property one may possess is one's self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice argument, but not really. Take a look at my sig line to see the true definition of _Liberal_. The Amendment process to the Constitution is a Liberal process. Without that process, the conservative status quo would have remained and there would be not be any 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. "The Thirteenth Amendment (both proposed and ratified in 1865) abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment (proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868) included the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Fifteenth Amendment, (proposed in 1869 and ratified in 1870 under the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant) grants voting rights regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" There would be no women's suffrage; the 19th Amendment. Conservatives wanted to keep the status quo and have some people remain as second class citizens, the Liberals fought to change that.
Click to expand...




You don't understand what you are saying.  By making these changes through the Amendment process, this a Conservative process.  If these same changes were made by the capricious ruling a judge from a bench absent the act of a legislature, that would be a Liberal process.  As in, "A liberal interpretation of that law".

In the case of the notion that a person could be owned, that that person was to be counted as 3/5 of of a person or that a person born into slavery is also a slave, some Liberal court decisions should certainly have been rendered.  If a law is not just, that law should be challenged.

It could be argued that the inclusion of these point in the Constitution was a departure from the stated beliefs of the Founders as defined in the Declaration and were therefore expediencies intended only to incent ratification and were therefore Liberal interpretations of the goals of the country.  

Since they were included in the founding document of law in this country, Conservative rulings would have supported them and Liberal rulings would have struck them down.

Liberalism and Conservatism can be equally applied to the same actual thing and the only difference is the timing as before or after the stated date to begin the consideration.

If the law authorizes slavery, a Conservative ruling supports slavery.

If the law proscribes slavery, a Conservative ruling strikes it down.


----------



## code1211

Pheonixops said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then why did central government increase under Reagan and Bush?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right the two parties we are currently saddled with are Communist lite and Communist a little bit liter.
> 
> Every time the Government takes away a right and makes it a privilege, that right ceases to exist.
> 
> Our current government is changing the definition of entitlements to mean rights.  Find for me healthcare or transportation or any of the New deal "rights" in the Bill of Rights or the Enumerated Powers.
> 
> Welfare is not welfare as understood by the Founders.  It's charity.  That does not particularly make it either bad or wrong.  It's just not a part of the Founder's understanding of what a government is charged to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, good points. It's nice to find some people here (you) who don't turn a debate into a "fuck you" contest.
> 
> I agree with your points above and respect your POV.
Click to expand...




I appreciate your understanding.  I grew up in a house where a raised voice was authorization to leave the room.  There are a few opinions that are injurious on their face, but most are simply different.

If it costs me nothing for you to hold a belief and your belief injures nobody, go ahead.

I may try to show a better way and i may find your way to be better.  If I stop listening, I learn nothing.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> By making these changes through the Amendment process, this a Conservative process.  If these same changes were made by the capricious ruling a judge from a bench absent the act of a legislature, that would be a Liberal process.



That has to be the most nonsensical set of definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" that I have ever seen, and that's saying something. Seriously.

FYI, there is no such thing as a "liberal process," with the possible exception of voting in elections. Liberalism is a goal or set of goals, not a process or method of getting there. Freeing the slaves was a liberal end; guaranteeing equal rights likewise; and so on. That the amendment process was used to get there means absolutely nothing except that it was available and could be used, and therefore was.


----------



## code1211

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  So what is this modern Republican philosophy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same as Jefferson, freedom from big liberal government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same as modern Republicans
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution. It is designed to strictly limit Federal governemnt to a few enumerated powers. Liberals are 100% opposed so should be made illegal
> 
> 
> 
> quasi sociialism!! why do you think the liberals spied for Stalin
> and the CPUSA in fact supports BO??
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember same identical philosophy.
> I know what's coming, the results of the 1936 presidential election. Instead of trying to answer all four questions maybe just pick one, go to Wicki and get back to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what?????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's it! Freedom from big liberal government, that's why we fought the Revolutionary war to be free of the big liberal government of George III? Jefferson sure goofed with all that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness stuff. I guess this is Wicki history?
Click to expand...





Stay calm and try to think about this.

The revolutionaries wanted to bring the government rule closer to home and that meant out of London and onto our continent.

Conservatives, this does not particularly include Republicans, want to devolve the power of government from washington to much more local levels and reduce the power of Washington over the lives of the people.

Liberals in both parties strive mightily to increase the power and the intrusive reach of the government at the national level and remove the access to the seats of power from the common people.

How is that goal of the modern Conservative different from that goal of the American Revolutionary?


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Conservatives, this does not particularly include Republicans, want to devolve the power of government from washington to much more local levels and reduce the power of Washington over the lives of the people.
> 
> Liberals in both parties strive mightily to increase the power and the intrusive reach of the government at the national level and remove the access to the seats of power from the common people.



These are both false statements.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It actually doesn't matter one way or the other. That the federal government stayed out of providing aid to the poor for so long was purely a function of custom and lack of perceived need, not because the Constitution doesn't authorize it. The Constitution does, and there has never been any serious controversy in court about that at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please make that citation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 8, first clause: Congress is authorized to tax (and by implication, spend) to provide for the general welfare of the United States. You were correct above in pointing out that "the general welfare of the United States" is not identical in meaning to what we mean today by "welfare," but wrong to imply that it does not _encompass_ aid to the poor along with many other things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and demonstrate how this is supported by the actions of the Founders during the Washington Administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Is no change in government policy allowed since the turn of the 19th century?
Click to expand...





Any change can be good or bad and the structure of the Constitution seems to encourage change.  

That said, you implied above that that the Constitution authorizes aid to the poor.  It does not.  Assuming that perhaps The Founders did believe that it did, we could find support for that in their actions.  We cannot.

This was not a consideration of the Founders as a responsibility of the Federal Government.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives, this does not particularly include Republicans, want to devolve the power of government from washington to much more local levels and reduce the power of Washington over the lives of the people.
> 
> Liberals in both parties strive mightily to increase the power and the intrusive reach of the government at the national level and remove the access to the seats of power from the common people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are both false statements.
Click to expand...




Demonstrate what you say with an example.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> That said, you implied above that that the Constitution authorizes aid to the poor.  It does not.



Yes, it does. I showed where it does, too.



> Assuming that perhaps The Founders did believe that it did, we could find support for that in their actions.  We cannot.



False reasoning. There has to be a perceived need for the government to do something before it is done, regardless of whether or not it is authorized to do so.

Another example would be the creation of a powerful standing army. No need was perceived to do this prior to the end of World War II and onset of the Cold War, so it was never done before that. Large armies were created in times of war and then disbanded, retaining only a small cadre, between major wars.

But the authorization exists in the language: "Congress shall have the Power . . . To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

(Article I, Section 8, 12th clause.) Nothing in this language denies Congress the power to maintain a standing army by appropriating its funding every two years (or every single year, as is the actual practice -- every two years is what the Constitution mandates, minimum). So why didn't the Washington administration, or for that matter any administration from Washington through Franklin Roosevelt, do so? Obviously, because there was no need, and so it would have been a waste of money.

Same with aid to the poor. There was no perceived need prior to the Great Depression, so the matter was left to the states. That's the reason it was done, and the ONLY reason.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives, this does not particularly include Republicans, want to devolve the power of government from washington to much more local levels and reduce the power of Washington over the lives of the people.
> 
> Liberals in both parties strive mightily to increase the power and the intrusive reach of the government at the national level and remove the access to the seats of power from the common people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are both false statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Demonstrate what you say with an example.
Click to expand...


Conservatives advocated the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, which centralized many police functions and increased the power of the federal government.

Liberals are in favor of allowing states to set their own rules w/r/t marijuana, e.g. allowing California to permit widespread use of marijuana for "medical" reasons.

Of course, examples may also be found going the other direction. Neither conservatives nor liberals favor or oppose a strong federal government or state authority across the board, as an end in itself -- only as a means to an end, and that may go either way, depending on specifics.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By making these changes through the Amendment process, this a Conservative process.  If these same changes were made by the capricious ruling a judge from a bench absent the act of a legislature, that would be a Liberal process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the most nonsensical set of definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" that I have ever seen, and that's saying something. Seriously.
> 
> FYI, there is no such thing as a "liberal process," with the possible exception of voting in elections. Liberalism is a goal or set of goals, not a process or method of getting there. Freeing the slaves was a liberal end; guaranteeing equal rights likewise; and so on. That the amendment process was used to get there means absolutely nothing except that it was available and could be used, and therefore was.
Click to expand...




A Liberal feels charged with the responsibility to do the right thing and will do so in violation of the law.  A problem in dealing with a Liberal is that a liberal feels that the action at hand is the best action and the previous considerations of that are either wrong or irrelevant.

If that Liberal is super wise and in possession of all of the data, he may be right.  If not, he is likely wrong.  So, in a legal sense, if a law is wrong or unjust or out moded, the legislature should repeal it and replace it.

That is the Conservative process and deals with the prescribed method to make this change.

If the same law is ruled to be wrong by a judge and the prescribed process is ignored, that is a Liberal process.  

One is expedient and the other is time consuming and requires the paid liars in the legislature to abandon their positionless drive to gain more bribes and actually take a stand.  Both methods can arrive at a good outcome. 


Liberal Interpretation Law & Legal Definition
Liberal interpretation means interpretation agreeing to what the reader believes the author reasonably intended. But, a liberal interpretation does not necessarily mean an interpretation that would accomplish a change in former practice. Further, a liberal interpretation does necessarily involve a reasonable interpretation. The word 'liberal' is not synonymous with change. It does encompass the idea of reasonableness. It does involve a willingness to make changes, but only when changes are based upon reason.

In re K.M., 274 Ill. App. 3d 189 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995), the court observed that &#8220;The term "liberal," in the context of statutory construction and interpretation, is often used to signify an interpretation which produces broader coverage or more inclusive application of statutory concepts. What is called a liberal construction is ordinarily one which makes a statute apply to more things or in more situations than would be the case under strict construction.&#8221;


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, you implied above that that the Constitution authorizes aid to the poor.  It does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. I showed where it does, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming that perhaps The Founders did believe that it did, we could find support for that in their actions.  We cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False reasoning. There has to be a perceived need for the government to do something before it is done, regardless of whether or not it is authorized to do so.
> 
> Another example would be the creation of a powerful standing army. No need was perceived to do this prior to the end of World War II and onset of the Cold War, so it was never done before that. Large armies were created in times of war and then disbanded, retaining only a small cadre, between major wars.
> 
> But the authorization exists in the language: "Congress shall have the Power . . . To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
> 
> (Article I, Section 8, 12th clause.) Nothing in this language denies Congress the power to maintain a standing army by appropriating its funding every two years (or every single year, as is the actual practice -- every two years is what the Constitution mandates, minimum). So why didn't the Washington administration, or for that matter any administration from Washington through Franklin Roosevelt, do so? Obviously, because there was no need, and so it would have been a waste of money.
> 
> Same with aid to the poor. There was no perceived need prior to the Great Depression, so the matter was left to the states. That's the reason it was done, and the ONLY reason.
Click to expand...




The difference is that the authorization for a standing army, as you note, is in the Constitution.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are both false statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate what you say with an example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives advocated the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, which centralized many police functions and increased the power of the federal government.
> 
> Liberals are in favor of allowing states to set their own rules w/r/t marijuana, e.g. allowing California to permit widespread use of marijuana for "medical" reasons.
> 
> Of course, examples may also be found going the other direction. Neither conservatives nor liberals favor or oppose a strong federal government or state authority across the board, as an end in itself -- only as a means to an end, and that may go either way, depending on specifics.
Click to expand...




We are talking past each other on this.

If a person is a Conservative, he is against the intrusion into the private life of the government.  You seem to be including the voting blocks of the respective parties to arrive at your definitions.

Liberalism demands this intrusion into private lives and Conservatism demands that this intrusion be severely limited.  If your goal is to legislate that same sex relations be outlawed, that, to me, is a Liberal use of the government.  If you believe that a private citizen can be compelled to sell his private property to another private individual by government, that, to me, is a Liberal position.

A Liberal generally "knows" what is best for me.  That i disagree with most as to that condition puts me at odds with Liberals.

To me, any intrusion into my life by the government is to be discouraged.  As government expands its reach and control of my life, my rights are diminished and my freedom eroded.

I think that both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of trying to exert control on what I may do or may elect to do in the future and I resent it.

If I want to own a gun, erect a cross, take a same sex partner or smoke dope, who should care if I do no harm to others?

All I ask is that I be left free to pursue my own happiness and I will, happily, afford that same courtesy to everyone else.


----------



## regent

code1211 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> same as Jefferson, freedom from big liberal government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same as modern Republicans
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution. It is designed to strictly limit Federal governemnt to a few enumerated powers. Liberals are 100% opposed so should be made illegal
> 
> 
> 
> quasi sociialism!! why do you think the liberals spied for Stalin
> and the CPUSA in fact supports BO??
> 
> 
> 
> what?????????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's it! Freedom from big liberal government, that's why we fought the Revolutionary war to be free of the big liberal government of George III? Jefferson sure goofed with all that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness stuff. I guess this is Wicki history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stay calm and try to think about this.
> 
> The revolutionaries wanted to bring the government rule closer to home and that meant out of London and onto our continent.
> 
> Conservatives, this does not particularly include Republicans, want to devolve the power of government from washington to much more local levels and reduce the power of Washington over the lives of the people.
> 
> Liberals in both parties strive mightily to increase the power and the intrusive reach of the government at the national level and remove the access to the seats of power from the common people.
> 
> How is that goal of the modern Conservative different from that goal of the American Revolutionary?
Click to expand...


The conservatives during the Revolution were called Tories.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> The difference is that the authorization for a standing army, as you note, is in the Constitution.



That isn't a difference. What's more, a standing army MUCH more clearly violates the biases of many of the framers than aid to the poor. But the Constitution says what it does, not what the framers might individually have intended it to say.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> We are talking past each other on this.



Well, that's true, but the reason is that I am using definitions of the words "liberal" and "conservative" that are customary and normal for the way those words are used, while you are using them to mean something completely different.

I might even agree with you if you were to stop using words that don't really mean what you are trying to say.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Whoops.  Been awhile lol


----------



## Pheonixops

code1211 said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right the two parties we are currently saddled with are Communist lite and Communist a little bit liter.
> 
> Every time the Government takes away a right and makes it a privilege, that right ceases to exist.
> 
> Our current government is changing the definition of entitlements to mean rights.  Find for me healthcare or transportation or any of the New deal "rights" in the Bill of Rights or the Enumerated Powers.
> 
> Welfare is not welfare as understood by the Founders.  It's charity.  That does not particularly make it either bad or wrong.  It's just not a part of the Founder's understanding of what a government is charged to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, good points. It's nice to find some people here (you) who don't turn a debate into a "fuck you" contest.
> 
> I agree with your points above and respect your POV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your understanding.  I grew up in a house where a raised voice was authorization to leave the room.  There are a few opinions that are injurious on their face, but most are simply different.
> 
> If it costs me nothing for you to hold a belief and your belief injures nobody, go ahead.
> 
> I may try to show a better way and i may find your way to be better.  If I stop listening, I learn nothing.
Click to expand...


Thank you, the feeling is mutual. Have you ever read this, it yields a better explanation of some of my points more than I can:
The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Dragon said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly agree that many laws only serve to benefit many people who had no ability or desire to commit the acts that those laws identify as criminal.  Your village example, however, doesn't contradict what I've said, which I still feel logically follows my premise to a T.  Even if the law only serves to limit the individual rights of one man in the village because, for the sake of the argument, he's the only one capable of the force required to break the law, the law is still a limit to individual freedom and the government's scope is still to enforce that limit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make what I said a little clearer. It's not just that most people have no desire to do what the hypothetical petty tyrant would do, and therefore the law _doesn't affect them_. It's that most people are _victims_ of the petty tyrant, their liberty is _reduced_ by his activities, and therefore the law, by restraining him from these activities, _augments the freedom of most of the people in the village_.
> 
> Which is, to a liberal, the whole point of law.
Click to expand...


I understand this, but it still doesn't contradict my point.  Whether the end result is an overall increase in the freedom of the society as a whole, the government's scope is still the furthering of that overall freedom through the restriction of someone's individual freedom.  If the law restricts a murderous potential petty tyrant from killing everyone in his village and therefore enforces their right to continue to live, it still restricts that murderous's tyrant from killing who he wants to kill.  (And for those of you reading this, don't mistake this for my condoning of violence.  I'm not an anarchist and I feel that a lot of laws are absolutely justified, including those against murder).  Even when the end result is the enforcement of more overall freedom, governments still do this through laws which restrict everyone's freedom to impose on everyone else's.  When I say a government's scope, I'm referring to what they -do-, not what results from those actions.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking past each other on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's true, but the reason is that I am using definitions of the words "liberal" and "conservative" that are customary and normal for the way those words are used, while you are using them to mean something completely different.
> 
> I might even agree with you if you were to stop using words that don't really mean what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...




Okay, I'll give you that.

Now, lets's change the words to represent these two basic concepts:

Grasshoppers and Ants.

Let's say the that the Grasshoppers are those who want to exert the control of government over the lives of the many and who want to collect taxes and spend the resulting treasure in ways that are defined and elected by them to enhance the greater good as they define good to be.

It is their goal to control the actions and the interactions of all around them to both control and equalize the outcomes of all endeavors and to assure that nobody is either allowed to profit unreasonably or to want too severely.

Grasshoppers view the government as the answer and the individual as a subservient supporter of government.

Let's say the Ants are those who want to limit the control of the government over the lives of the many and want to limit the amount of money taken by the government from the individual believing that the individual has the most intimate knowledge of what his goals and needs are and will most wisely spend money to satisfy these.

It is their goal to provide as much freedom and liberty as possible for all to allow the full realization of the dreams and hopes of the individual.  Taxation is intended and used to fund the barest possible structure of government to assure the continuation of this freedom for the individual.

Ants view the individual as the answer and government as a subservient supporter of the individual.

In this definition of these two basic groups, knowing that you will take some of each to be happy, which most comfortably accommodates your beliefs as the basis on which to base a government?


----------



## Dragon

Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By lineage I mean actual lineage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to political parties you cant be much more actual than name and philosophy. Jefferson's Party never disappeared it just split apart only to be reformed in 1865
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I share most of Jefferson's ideals, but I can't rightly say that he was my ancestor when my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and my dad's Scotch Irish.  Even if they had named me Thomas with J as my middle initial, the guy wouldn't suddenly cameo on my family tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually people are not political parties you are comparing apples and oranges
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP isn't the same party as the Democratic-Republicans because they're not the same party as the Democratic-Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the philosophy is the same so in that very very important sense they are the same
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson's Republicans fractured somewhere in the early 1800's, and one of the fragments actually evolved into what is today called the Democratic party, which is why that party -can- claim -actual- lineage back to Jefferson's Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they can claim it just not in terms of name and philosophy,... which are somewhat important, one might say. Of course it hugely dishonest to attach themselves to America's founding that way.
Click to expand...


1.  Even in terms of political parties, lineage -can- be more actual than name and philosophy.  Lineage means lineal descent, by which measurement the current Democrats are more closely associated with the Democratic Republicans.  Why's that? Because part of your second premise is correct.  Jefferson's party didn't disappear, it split up.  Part of it is still together.  Apparently, these days they call themselves the Democrat party.

2.  It's not apples and oranges.  Literal lineage means what it means regardless of where you apply it.  Your opinion that lineage means something different with political parties is exactly that:  opinion.  When I say, "actual lineage", that "actual" part should clue you in that I'm referring to fact, not opinion.  Factually, lineage has a particular definition.  Look it up.

3.  I agree with you that the philosophy of the current Democrat party and the original premises of Jefferson's party have some massive fissures between them, but I can't sign off on the GOP and Jefferson having the same philosophy.  Neither should you.  Jefferson never would've approved of The Patriot Act, or of using government's authority to enforce morality (see gay marriage), or of long term military occupation and nation building.  The GOP's rhetoric might be closer to Jeffersonian politics than the Democrats', but if you honestly believe GOP = Jeffersonian, then you either aren't paying attention to what Jefferson was about or you aren't paying attention to what the GOP does.

4.  Once again, note my use of the word, "actual".  I never meant to imply that the Dems can rightly claim that their views line up with those of Jefferson, only that the GOP isn't more of a descendant of Jefferson's Democratic Republicans than the Democratic party is.  Especially in name.  Democrats, Republicans.  Democratic Republicans.  Seems to me both parties have equal claim on whose name is more similar.

Unrelated to this exact argumentative crux, I also must say that the entire premise of your argument is anti-Jeffersonian.  Saying people have no place in this country because their viewpoints differed from those of the original government is clearly in defiance of the entire philosophy behind the birth of a free society.  If Jefferson and the founders felt that opposing viewpoints should be ousted, they probably wouldn't have included freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights, no?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Dragon said:


> Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.



Haha, you're probably absolutely correct in this assumption.  However. . . ant here.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Jefferson's party didn't disappear, it split up.  Part of it is still together.  Apparently, these days they call themselves the Democrat party.



Yes Jefferson's party, The 1792 Republican Party, split up only to be reformed and renamed the 1855 Republican Party. Since both have the same name and philosophy they are far more closely linked than modern Republicans and the 1824 Democratic-Republicans or 1826 Democrats who slowly evolved to have the opposite philosophy of modern Republicans.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Not2BSubjugated said:


> 2.  It's not apples and oranges.  Literal lineage means what it means regardless of where you apply it.  Your opinion that lineage means something different with political parties is exactly that:  opinion.  When I say, "actual lineage", that "actual" part should clue you in that I'm referring to fact, not opinion.  Factually, lineage has a particular definition.  Look it up.



literal and factual lineage is based on name and philosophy of both Jefferson and Greely,i.e., Republican. Greely used Republican specificially because of Jefferson's philosophy which was not represented by pro slavery Democrats


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Jefferson never would've approved of The Patriot Act,



Jefferson never would have approved of the secret purchase of  Louisiana with greatly expanded presidential powers, but this and spying during war are very very trivial issues compared to the major issue of history: freedom from big liberal government. Here are some Jefferson quotes to serve as your first lesson in American History:

-That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

-The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

-The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

" the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class." 


-A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.

-Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

-History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.

-I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

-I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

-My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

-Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

-Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

-The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

-Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

-Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

-Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

-I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious
"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four
pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most 
free to individual enterprise.  Protection from casual 
embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed." 
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801.

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens
free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
--Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.

"[Ours is a] policy of not embarking the public in enterprises
better managed by individuals, and which might occupy as much
of our time as those political duties for which the public functionaries are particularly instituted.  Some money could be
lent them [the New Orleans Canal Co.], but only on an assurance that it would be employed so as to secure the public objects."
--Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1808.

"The rights of the people to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers
not subject to their control at short periods." --Thomas Jefferson
to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816.

"Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry 
or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural 
Address, 1805.

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's 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." --Thomas Jefferson: Note 
in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.

"Private enterprise manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.

"The merchants will manage [commerce] the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.


"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389 


Some] seem to think that [civilization's] advance has brought on too complicated a state of society, and that we should gain in happiness by treading back our steps a little way. I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief of those who maintain it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Ludlow, 1824. ME 16:75

The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:492 

"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:337

"The power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen) which remain exclusively with its own legislature, but to its external commerce only; that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Bank, 1791. ME 3:147 

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson


"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin 

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."

-- Thomas Paine 


When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin 

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
-Thomas paine

"If the government robs Peter to pay Paul, it can always count on the support of Paul." [in America to bottom 45% pay no Federal taxes]
-Winston Churchhill

"The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
-James madison
Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." 


Patrick Henry
Tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up?

Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." 



I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic." 
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 


James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." 

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." 

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."




I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - Benjamin Franklin

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." - Benjamin Franklin 

One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation. 
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825
Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. 

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Nicholas, September 7, 1803


That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, andnot as the gift of their chief magistrate. 

Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 
1774

The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. 

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819


The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. 

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. 

Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Not2BSubjugated said:


> a descendant of Jefferson's Democratic Republicans



why would you say Democratic Republicans when I have bet you $10000 that there is no known use of that term  in the 18th Century. Are you slow?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Not2BSubjugated said:


> If Jefferson and the founders felt that opposing viewpoints should be ousted, they probably wouldn't have included freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights, no?



speech is one thing, being 100% opposed to the basic principle of the Constitution and then subverting the Constitution is another. Of course if they had known what would happen they would have been even clearer that liberals are the opposite of Americans.

It was a catch 22 for them. They had to allow all speech because evil governemnt could not be trusted to regulate it but that then opened the door to treasonous liberal speech.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.





Of course not.  We all live on a continuum between those two points and there are people in both political parties on either end of that continuum.

It is a very personal thing to determine if you are either a Grasshopper or an Ant and why you think you are.

I would argue that if you are a grasshopper, you don't care if there are other grasshoppers or not, but if you are an Ant, you are committed to a missionary lifestyle.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  We all live on a continuum between those two points and there are people in both political parties on either end of that continuum.
Click to expand...


What you are doing here is equivalent to putting people who are mostly atheists on a "spectrum" between Protestant and Catholic. It's not that most people fall somewhere in between those extremes, it's that most people don't even think in those terms. For most people, the size and scope of government is neither something to be desired nor something to be feared, but something of no particular importance.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  We all live on a continuum between those two points and there are people in both political parties on either end of that continuum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is equivalent to putting people who are mostly atheists on a "spectrum" between Protestant and Catholic. It's not that most people fall somewhere in between those extremes, it's that most people don't even think in those terms. For most people, the size and scope of government is neither something to be desired nor something to be feared, but something of no particular importance.
Click to expand...




That may have been true of people when we were growing up.  Now the size of government and particularly the cost will haunt our succeeding generations.  15 trillion in debt is nothing to sneeze at.

We are currently borrowing 40 cents for every sixty cents we actually have to spend a dollar.

The size of government is an albatross around our collective neck.

The scope of government is the ugly step sister of the glass slipper wearing Cinderalla of the give aways that are costing so much.  A perfect example is the lady who believes in her heart that someone who is not her needs to pay for her contraception devices.

The time to pay the piper is coming and those of us who have always paid our own way will have to pay as much, probably more, than the leeches who ran up the bills.

You'e probably right that nobody cares and they won't until the well runs dry.

We are about a half a decade away from being Greece.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.





Based on your posts, I thought that one of the descriptions fit you rather closely.


----------



## code1211

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, you're probably absolutely correct in this assumption.  However. . . ant here.
Click to expand...





Sounds like we might have grown up on (in?) the same hill.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  It's not apples and oranges.  Literal lineage means what it means regardless of where you apply it.  Your opinion that lineage means something different with political parties is exactly that:  opinion.  When I say, "actual lineage", that "actual" part should clue you in that I'm referring to fact, not opinion.  Factually, lineage has a particular definition.  Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> literal and factual lineage is based on name and philosophy of both Jefferson and Greely,i.e., Republican. Greely used Republican specificially because of Jefferson's philosophy which was not represented by pro slavery Democrats
Click to expand...


lin·e·age1 &#8194; &#8194;[lin-ee-ij]  Show IPA
noun
1.
lineal descent from an ancestor; ancestry or extraction: She could trace her lineage to the early Pilgrims.
2.
the line of descendants of a particular ancestor; family; race.

Where do you get that lineage is based on name and philosophy?  I refer you back to the argument that, even if my folks had named me Thomas J and I held to a philosophy that was -exactly- Jefferson's, he wouldn't suddenly appear in my family tree and become my ancestor.

Literal lineage, in the case of a political party, would be along the lines of, "This guy had control of the party, then it passed to this other dude, who renamed it That party in stead of This party, and then he passed it on to so and so, but some other dude and his friends within That party decided that it was some hardcore BS, so it ended up splintering in half.  The new half took on the name, Other party, and when That party's poor economic policies led it to ruin some time down the road, Other party was still around.  Now Other party is the last remaining fragment of This party."

Savvy?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson never would've approved of The Patriot Act,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson never would have approved of the secret purchase of  Louisiana with greatly expanded presidential powers, but this and spying during war are very very trivial issues compared to the major issue of history: freedom from big liberal government. Here are some Jefferson quotes to serve as your first lesson in American History:
> 
> -That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
> "The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."
> 
> -The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
> 
> -The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
> 
> " the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class."
> 
> 
> -A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.
> 
> -Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
> 
> -History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.
> 
> -I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
> 
> -I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
> 
> -My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.
> 
> -Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
> 
> -Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
> 
> -The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.
> 
> -Most bad government has grown out of too much government.
> 
> -Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.
> 
> -Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
> 
> -I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious
> "Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four
> pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most
> free to individual enterprise.  Protection from casual
> embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed."
> --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801.
> 
> "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens
> free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
> --Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.
> 
> "[Ours is a] policy of not embarking the public in enterprises
> better managed by individuals, and which might occupy as much
> of our time as those political duties for which the public functionaries are particularly instituted.  Some money could be
> lent them [the New Orleans Canal Co.], but only on an assurance that it would be employed so as to secure the public objects."
> --Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1808.
> 
> "The rights of the people to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers
> not subject to their control at short periods." --Thomas Jefferson
> to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816.
> 
> "Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
> equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry
> or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural
> Address, 1805.
> 
> "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's 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." --Thomas Jefferson: Note
> in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.
> 
> "Private enterprise manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.
> 
> "The merchants will manage [commerce] the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.
> 
> 
> "If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389
> 
> 
> Some] seem to think that [civilization's] advance has brought on too complicated a state of society, and that we should gain in happiness by treading back our steps a little way. I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief of those who maintain it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Ludlow, 1824. ME 16:75
> 
> The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:492
> 
> "Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:337
> 
> "The power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen) which remain exclusively with its own legislature, but to its external commerce only; that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Bank, 1791. ME 3:147
> 
> "Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -- Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
> 
> -- Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -- Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
> -Thomas paine
> 
> "If the government robs Peter to pay Paul, it can always count on the support of Paul." [in America to bottom 45% pay no Federal taxes]
> -Winston Churchhill
> 
> "The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
> -James madison
> Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
> 
> 
> Patrick Henry
> Tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up?
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
> 
> 
> 
> I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic."
> -- Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
> 
> James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
> 
> James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." - Benjamin Franklin
> 
> One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825
> Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Nicholas, September 7, 1803
> 
> 
> That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, andnot as the gift of their chief magistrate.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America,
> 1774
> 
> The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819
> 
> 
> The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816
> 
> They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791
Click to expand...


My first lesson in American history?  No amount of condescension will lend credence to your arguments or rob it from mine.  Our points are either logical or they are not.

On top of that, from the perspective of the founders, whose small government philosophy I'm well aware of, thank you (much of my own political philosophy sees pretty much eye to eye with most of your list of quotes), the Patriot Act would -not- have been a trivial issue.

"One of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act is in title V, and relates to National Security Letters (NSLs). An NSL is a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI, and reportedly by other U.S. government agencies including the CIA and the Department of Defense (DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. Title V allowed the use of NSLs to be made by a Special Agent in charge of a Bureau field office, where previously only the Director or the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI were able to certify such requests.[122] This provision of the Act was challenged by the ACLU on behalf of an unknown party against the U.S. government on the grounds that NSLs violate the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because there is no way to legally oppose an NSL subpoena in court, and that it was unconstitutional to not allow a client to inform their Attorney as to the order because of the gag provision of the letters. The court's judgement found in favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the law unconstitutional.[123] Later, the USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized and amendments were made to specify a process of judicial review of NSLs and to allow the recipient of an NSL to disclose receipt of the letter to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order.[124] However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of these gags" - Wiki Article

Breaching the First and Fourth Amendments under the guise of preventing terrorism wouldn't have been a big deal to the founders?  Since Franklin was among those quotes you flew at me in my "first lesson in American history", lemme fire one back at you.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

This is only one example.  I refer you back to the gay marriage issue:  Republicans seeking Federal power to prevent individuals from practicing a controversial but victimless lifestyle.

How about the war on drugs?  Breaching the 10th Amendment by controlling individual consumption of substances from the federal level?

Here's a little fun fact for you. . . all those quotes you threw up while implying that I'm ignorant. . . those have nothing to do with whether or not the current GOP still holds to those philosophies.  As I said before, I agree with your assessment that the GOP is -closer- to Jefferson's philosophy than the Democrats.  However, any BLANKET STATEMENT that the GOP is a party of small government is either ignorant or dishonest.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> a descendant of Jefferson's Democratic Republicans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would you say Democratic Republicans when I have bet you $10000 that there is no known use of that term  in the 18th Century. Are you slow?
Click to expand...


Not at all.  I say Democratic Republicans because Democratic Republican party is the current commonly used term when referring to Jefferson's Republicans.  I'm well aware that they called it the Republican party back then.  However, if I say Republicans to refer to Jefferson's Republicans and the GOP both, it'll create confusion when trying to differ between which I'm referring to.

After all, on a -LITERAL- level, they are two different things.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Jefferson and the founders felt that opposing viewpoints should be ousted, they probably wouldn't have included freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> speech is one thing, being 100% opposed to the basic principle of the Constitution and then subverting the Constitution is another. Of course if they had known what would happen they would have been even clearer that liberals are the opposite of Americans.
> 
> It was a catch 22 for them. They had to allow all speech because evil governemnt could not be trusted to regulate it but that then opened the door to treasonous liberal speech.
Click to expand...


So it wasn't a principle that speech shouldn't be silenced by those in power, simply a way of guaranteeing that said power wouldn't be turned on them?

The implication is that Jefferson would agree with the following:  In a perfect world, the government would enforce my views on everyone else and oust those who opposed them, but would never enforce other views on me or those who agree.

Is that sentiment that you feel would be in keeping with the founders' philosophy, as opposed to a general appreciation of the value of individual freedom?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

code1211 said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, you're probably absolutely correct in this assumption.  However. . . ant here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like we might have grown up on (in?) the same hill.
Click to expand...


Perhaps.  Mine are two tiny hills in the midst of two long time Democrat strong holds:  Hawaii and Oregon.


----------



## regent

E. P. Link in his book, _Democratic-Republican Societies 1790-1800, published in 1942 lists 42 societies with at least 15  labeled Democratic and two useing the hyphenated Democratic-Republican label._


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> That may have been true of people when we were growing up.  Now the size of government and particularly the cost will haunt our succeeding generations.  15 trillion in debt is nothing to sneeze at.



Debt is a function of imbalance between government revenues and spending. It is not a function of the size and scope of government. It is also fairly easy to remedy by actions which result in redistribution of wealth downward and hence in expanded economic performance, which results in increased revenues.

Less radically, we could fix it by reversing the Bush tax cuts and cutting back military spending to a level consistent with a mission of protecting the United States as opposed to protecting nebulously-defined American "interests" globally, the latter amounting to _carte blanche_ to wage war anywhere, for any pretext. And we will do these things because there is no choice about it.

But that wouldn't come anywhere near the point of making the changes you and other libertarians would like to see.

Here's the way I see it. The equation of government size with government infringement on liberty is a false one. If you look at the tyrannies of history, some of the worst ones (ancient and medieval monarchies) were much smaller governments than today's democracies, which are far more benign. The modern big governments that can be categorized as tyrannies are exceptions and most of them are now defunct (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union). As the examples of the ancient monarchies demonstrate, it wasn't the SIZE of those totalitarian states that made them tyrannical, it was lack of public accountability, too much concentration of power into too few hands, and lack of protection for people's rights. And those are factors that have nothing to do with a government's size and scope one way or another.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That may have been true of people when we were growing up.  Now the size of government and particularly the cost will haunt our succeeding generations.  15 trillion in debt is nothing to sneeze at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debt is a function of imbalance between government revenues and spending. It is not a function of the size and scope of government. It is also fairly easy to remedy by actions which result in redistribution of wealth downward and hence in expanded economic performance, which results in increased revenues.
> 
> Less radically, we could fix it by reversing the Bush tax cuts and cutting back military spending to a level consistent with a mission of protecting the United States as opposed to protecting nebulously-defined American "interests" globally, the latter amounting to _carte blanche_ to wage war anywhere, for any pretext. And we will do these things because there is no choice about it.
> 
> But that wouldn't come anywhere near the point of making the changes you and other libertarians would like to see.
> 
> Here's the way I see it. The equation of government size with government infringement on liberty is a false one. If you look at the tyrannies of history, some of the worst ones (ancient and medieval monarchies) were much smaller governments than today's democracies, which are far more benign. The modern big governments that can be categorized as tyrannies are exceptions and most of them are now defunct (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union). As the examples of the ancient monarchies demonstrate, it wasn't the SIZE of those totalitarian states that made them tyrannical, it was lack of public accountability, too much concentration of power into too few hands, and lack of protection for people's rights. And those are factors that have nothing to do with a government's size and scope one way or another.
Click to expand...


Couple things I have to disagree with here.  On the higher end of estimates I've seen, accounting for inflation and war related pentagon expenses (interest on war related loans) as well as money that went directly to the war effort, the high end of estimates I've seen put the cost to date at around 4 trillion.  Average that out over the 10 years we've been in the desert playing nation builder and you're looking at an average of 400 billion a year.

Combine that with the Bush tax cuts.  If we sunset the Bush tax cuts on the upper income bracket (>200k/year), but allow the Bush tax cuts for the lower brackets to remain, we're looking at an estimated revenue increase of 700 billion over 10 years.  That's 70 billion per year.

So if we roll back those tax cuts and stop the war immediately, we're looking at increased revenues of about 470 billion per year.  We have a budget deficit of 1.4 trillion per year.  The only way we're pulling out of our deficit and debt by cutting the war and raising taxes is if we -seriously- raise taxes across the board.  Without bleeding out our economy through stifling tax levels, the only way to make a serious effort at reducing the national debt is to address non military spending.  The proportionate size of the big three, medicare, medicade, SS, leaves me struggling to believe that any honest attempt to eliminate our massive spending deficits can be made without addressing one or all of these.

I'm also not convinced that downward wealth redistribution is the big ticket out of economic problems.  Seems counter intuitive to me that shuffling wealth out of the hands of some and into the hands of others so that the "some" can start working to get that money back is a surefire way at facilitating wealth creation, but I'm also not an economist so I won't claim to be particularly knowledgeable in this area.

Lastly, part of what many libertarians refer to with the term, "government size", is the scope of the government's power.  However, even when we're talking about the government's size in the literal terms of federal employees, government organizations, and government facilities, I would have to contend that any increase in literal size is, to some degree, an increase in its power and an increase in its infringement on individual liberty.  Virtually every literal expansion in the government's size is an increase for the purpose of creating/enforcing/facilitating regulation or an increase for the purpose of wealth redistribution.  All regulation is a decrease in -someone's- individual liberty for the stated betterment of the country as a whole (not saying it's all good or evil, each regulation has its own merits), and all wealth redistribution is also a decrease in -someone's- individual liberty to do as they will with the wealth they acquire.  Much of our own government's expansion in recent years has been, at least in my eyes, an unconscionable concentration of power into the hands of less and less people.  We've recently passed a bill that enables the Federal executive branch to deem any citizen a terrorist and then imprison them offshore indefinitely with zero due process.  On top of that, we've executive branch czars writing and executing their own legislation and, in some cases, even taking it upon themselves to "try" and penalize people and organizations based on this executive branch, non-executive order legislating (with an executive order the legislative branch actually has recourse).  We've got organizations like the EPA that are run, with similarly unilateral legislative/judicial powers, by executive branch appointees who have no congressional oversight, actually override laws Congress passes when they decide it's the right thing to do, and override court decisions at will as well.  Make no mistake, a slide in the general direction of unilaterally dictated totalitarianism is well underway.


----------



## Dragon

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Couple things I have to disagree with here.  On the higher end of estimates I've seen, accounting for inflation and war related pentagon expenses (interest on war related loans) as well as money that went directly to the war effort, the high end of estimates I've seen put the cost to date at around 4 trillion.  Average that out over the 10 years we've been in the desert playing nation builder and you're looking at an average of 400 billion a year.
> 
> Combine that with the Bush tax cuts.  If we sunset the Bush tax cuts on the upper income bracket (>200k/year), but allow the Bush tax cuts for the lower brackets to remain, we're looking at an estimated revenue increase of 700 billion over 10 years.  That's 70 billion per year.
> 
> So if we roll back those tax cuts and stop the war immediately, we're looking at increased revenues of about 470 billion per year.  We have a budget deficit of 1.4 trillion per year.



When I say to sunset the Bush tax cuts, I mean all of them, not just on the high bracket. When I say cut back the military, I don't just mean end the wars (although that's a good first step), I mean close down most (if not all) foreign military bases and redefine the military's mission as one of protecting the United States (not the world) against military attack. This would allow for a much smaller military force in being. This is something we are going to have to do if we want to remain economically competitive; far too much of our national wealth is going to uphold a military force that's as expensive as the rest of the world's combined. In a competitive global economy, we cannot afford that.



> I'm also not convinced that downward wealth redistribution is the big ticket out of economic problems.  Seems counter intuitive to me that shuffling wealth out of the hands of some and into the hands of others so that the "some" can start working to get that money back is a surefire way at facilitating wealth creation, but I'm also not an economist so I won't claim to be particularly knowledgeable in this area.



It's not difficult to understand, actually, and it works like this.

1) Economic growth and investment in real wealth production are functions of consumer demand.

2) The richer a person is, the less of his income is consumed and the more of it is saved or invested. Therefore, the more widely wealth is distributed, the more of it will be spent on consumption and the less will be saved or invested in the aggregate.

3) For that reason, when wealth is overly concentrated, as it is today, we have too much of it being saved and invested and not enough being spent, so that the economy rests on an inadequate base of consumer demand, and an unhealthy percentage of the investment goes to financial shell-games and rent-seeking rather than genuine production.

Redistributing wealth downward would simply be correcting for that imbalance. Note that I haven't said anything about exactly how that should be done; I would not recommend ham-handed tax-and-redistribute methods but there are other ways.



> Lastly, part of what many libertarians refer to with the term, "government size", is the scope of the government's power.  However, even when we're talking about the government's size in the literal terms of federal employees, government organizations, and government facilities, I would have to contend that any increase in literal size is, to some degree, an increase in its power and an increase in its infringement on individual liberty.



My disagreement here is with your last phrase, the one after the comma in the last sentence quoted above. An increase in the government's power is not (necessarily) an increase in its infringement on individual liberty. It will be, to the extent and only to the extent that the government is unaccountable to the people, overly concentrated in who holds the reins of its authority, or lacking adequate protection for the people's rights. If any or all of those is already true, then increasing the power of the government increases its potential infringement of liberty, yes. But it's those three factors, not the government's size, that are really determinative.

Once again, compare ancient and medieval monarchies to modern democracies. The old monarchies were tiny, weak things compared to modern governments, but also far more tyrannical. Clearly, increasing the size and power of government from medieval to modern times has not resulted in a corresponding loss of liberty -- exactly the reverse in fact.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Dragon said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couple things I have to disagree with here.  On the higher end of estimates I've seen, accounting for inflation and war related pentagon expenses (interest on war related loans) as well as money that went directly to the war effort, the high end of estimates I've seen put the cost to date at around 4 trillion.  Average that out over the 10 years we've been in the desert playing nation builder and you're looking at an average of 400 billion a year.
> 
> Combine that with the Bush tax cuts.  If we sunset the Bush tax cuts on the upper income bracket (>200k/year), but allow the Bush tax cuts for the lower brackets to remain, we're looking at an estimated revenue increase of 700 billion over 10 years.  That's 70 billion per year.
> 
> So if we roll back those tax cuts and stop the war immediately, we're looking at increased revenues of about 470 billion per year.  We have a budget deficit of 1.4 trillion per year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I say to sunset the Bush tax cuts, I mean all of them, not just on the high bracket. When I say cut back the military, I don't just mean end the wars (although that's a good first step), I mean close down most (if not all) foreign military bases and redefine the military's mission as one of protecting the United States (not the world) against military attack. This would allow for a much smaller military force in being. This is something we are going to have to do if we want to remain economically competitive; far too much of our national wealth is going to uphold a military force that's as expensive as the rest of the world's combined. In a competitive global economy, we cannot afford that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also not convinced that downward wealth redistribution is the big ticket out of economic problems.  Seems counter intuitive to me that shuffling wealth out of the hands of some and into the hands of others so that the "some" can start working to get that money back is a surefire way at facilitating wealth creation, but I'm also not an economist so I won't claim to be particularly knowledgeable in this area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not difficult to understand, actually, and it works like this.
> 
> 1) Economic growth and investment in real wealth production are functions of consumer demand.
> 
> 2) The richer a person is, the less of his income is consumed and the more of it is saved or invested. Therefore, the more widely wealth is distributed, the more of it will be spent on consumption and the less will be saved or invested in the aggregate.
> 
> 3) For that reason, when wealth is overly concentrated, as it is today, we have too much of it being saved and invested and not enough being spent, so that the economy rests on an inadequate base of consumer demand, and an unhealthy percentage of the investment goes to financial shell-games and rent-seeking rather than genuine production.
> 
> Redistributing wealth downward would simply be correcting for that imbalance. Note that I haven't said anything about exactly how that should be done; I would not recommend ham-handed tax-and-redistribute methods but there are other ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, part of what many libertarians refer to with the term, "government size", is the scope of the government's power.  However, even when we're talking about the government's size in the literal terms of federal employees, government organizations, and government facilities, I would have to contend that any increase in literal size is, to some degree, an increase in its power and an increase in its infringement on individual liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My disagreement here is with your last phrase, the one after the comma in the last sentence quoted above. An increase in the government's power is not (necessarily) an increase in its infringement on individual liberty. It will be, to the extent and only to the extent that the government is unaccountable to the people, overly concentrated in who holds the reins of its authority, or lacking adequate protection for the people's rights. If any or all of those is already true, then increasing the power of the government increases its potential infringement of liberty, yes. But it's those three factors, not the government's size, that are really determinative.
> 
> Once again, compare ancient and medieval monarchies to modern democracies. The old monarchies were tiny, weak things compared to modern governments, but also far more tyrannical. Clearly, increasing the size and power of government from medieval to modern times has not resulted in a corresponding loss of liberty -- exactly the reverse in fact.
Click to expand...


If we roll back the Bush tax cuts for -everyone-, we're then looking at about 103 billion per year in stead of 70 billion.

The entirity of the US military budget in 2011 was somewhere in the neighborhood of 690 billion.

So if we sunset -all- of the Bush tax cuts and literally cut Military spending to zero, we're looking at about 800 bil per year in savings.  Closer to that magical 1.4 tril number, but still sadly short.  (Though I must admit that I agree with the idea of cutting a lot of the more wasteful and heavy-handed military excursions.  Self interest first.  Fuck nation building and meddling in other peoples' conflicts.)



Next, as far as the basic, surface economic arguments of wealth redistribution, I've heard them all before, including this idea that wealth redistribution creates the consumer demand that drives the economy.  While it does create that, it simultaneously reduces the capital available to the businesses being taxed, thus simultaneously reducing their ability to expand (and therefore reducing the economy's ability to expand).  Shuffling the deck doesn't put more cards in it, and since so much wealth is literally consumed (food doesn't get resold after it's eaten), the -creation- of wealth is absolutely necessary to a healthy economy.  Inhibiting creation to artificially inflate demand seems like it'd be self defeating.

I also think that this approach is overly simplistic in that it doesn't recognize the effects of our current regulatory and political environment in reducing the potential profit of the sort of investments in businesses that allow the economy to expand.  2 month tax cut extensions, continuing budgetary resolutions in stead of a solid, long term (even 1 year!) budget. . . these things cause uncertainty and are a large part of why wealthy investors (read people that know how to profit from investment) are putting money into things like Gold en masse rather than braving a shaky market to invest in actual economic expansion.  If we had an environment wherein it was more profitable to do real business, more people would participate and everyone would benefit.

Then again, even this is probably overly simplistic.  Unless we were to get into the grittier and more highly specialized details (the ones that require specialized education in economics), then neither of us are really making arguments that hold much water.



I do agree that much of the infringement of personal liberty is in large part to the extent that it is unaccountable to "the people", but not purely.  The very term, power, means the ability to influence and control.  For the government, power is the ability to influence and control the country ("the people").  An expansion of government power is, by nature, an expansion in their ability to tell people what and what not to do in a given arena.

Any expansion in government power also requires the manpower and infrastructure necessary to implement said power.  These things cost money which is then taxed from individuals.  Taxation, at any level, lessens the freedom a person has to do with their wealth as they wish.

Even if this power is -fully- accountable to "the people" (i.e. they can repeal it at any time via popular vote), saying that it is therefore not at all an infringement on -individual- liberty is simply false.  The logical conclusion of this statement would be that absolute power of the popular vote (a true, pure democracy) would be the ultimate expression of individual freedom.  I would argue that a society wherein 50.1 percent of the populous has the potential to completely subjugate the remaining 49.9 percent is hardly that expression.

The ultimate expression of individual freedom would be a complete lack of regulation on anybody, i.e. anarchy.  Unfortunately, on a practical level, anarchy would never work simply because people can't be trusted not to subjugate each other via physical force when given potential immunity from recourse.  Different argument though.

Lastly, your claim that the US government has more power than monarchies of the feudal era, -if- you're talking about the power it exercises over its own population, is simply false.  Monarchies in the feudal era had absolute power in accordance with their own laws.  Our laws don't allow our government absolute power.  New laws saying the executive branch can brand someone a terrorist and imprison them indefinitely, off shore, with no due process, are certainly moving us in that direction.  Not there yet, though.


----------



## Dragon

Not2BSubjugated said:


> So if we sunset -all- of the Bush tax cuts and literally cut Military spending to zero, we're looking at about 800 bil per year in savings.  Closer to that magical 1.4 tril number, but still sadly short.  (Though I must admit that I agree with the idea of cutting a lot of the more wasteful and heavy-handed military excursions.  Self interest first.  Fuck nation building and meddling in other peoples' conflicts.)



I thought you'd probably agree with that. 

How much of our current deficit is due to structural errors on either the spending or the revenue side, and how much is due simply to the economic downturn and the fact that we haven't fully recovered from it, a fact that both increases spending and cuts revenue? Remember that at the end of the Clinton administration we had a balanced budget even though military spending was still obscene, just because we had no Bush tax cuts, no wars, and no Medicare prescription drug plan. Those three things from the Bush years by themselves created a high deficit, and then the Great Recession pushed it through the roof.



> Next, as far as the basic, surface economic arguments of wealth redistribution, I've heard them all before, including this idea that wealth redistribution creates the consumer demand that drives the economy.  While it does create that, it simultaneously reduces the capital available to the businesses being taxed, thus simultaneously reducing their ability to expand (and therefore reducing the economy's ability to expand).



It does reduce available capital, but at present what we have is an excess of capital (strange as that may sound), so that's not a problem. Capital is not invested in real wealth-producing activities (by which I mean, activities that produce goods and services for the market) to the extent it exists, but only to the extent that unsatisfied consumer demand is believed to exist for the products and services to be produced. After that, if there is capital left over, it goes into nonproductive investments: speculation on commodities markets or similar bubble-blowing, rent-seeking of various types, and financial shell games that just transfer wealth from those investors who buy in at the wrong time to those who choose their buy/sell times better, rather than creating any new wealth.

Just look at the size of the U.S. economy's financial sector compared to its agriculture, manufacturing, or consumer-service sector, and you can see how out of balance things are. This illustrates that we have too much accumulated capital and not enough money distributed to the people.

It's certainly true that economic functionality can't be reduced to a single variable. I'm only bringing this up because it's one of the two areas where our current economy falls down worst, the other being environmental and resource sustainability.



> I do agree that much of the infringement of personal liberty is in large part to the extent that it is unaccountable to "the people", but not purely.  The very term, power, means the ability to influence and control.  For the government, power is the ability to influence and control the country ("the people").  An expansion of government power is, by nature, an expansion in their ability to tell people what and what not to do in a given arena.



Yes, but that isn't necessarily a problem. It all depends on which people the government is telling what to and not to do, and what exactly it is telling them to or not to do. My freedom is seriously impacted by laws that restrict individual behavior, but I am benefited, not hindered, by laws and regulations that deprive businesses of the right to pollute my neighborhood, sell me defective and dangerous products, provide me with an unsafe workplace (if I had a regular job that is), and similar things. Whether it will exert power in a beneficial or a harmful manner comes down to the three things I mentioned above: public accountability, separation of powers, and explicit protection of rights.

Incidentally, I'm not saying that our current government is ideal in any of these three respects, especially the first one.



> Any expansion in government power also requires the manpower and infrastructure necessary to implement said power.  These things cost money which is then taxed from individuals.  Taxation, at any level, lessens the freedom a person has to do with their wealth as they wish.



Yes and no. It depends on what the taxes are spent on, and whether this represents a net gain or loss. I assume you would not want taxes and hence government reduced to nonexistence, that you recognize value in various government services. In this, we may have a difference of where to draw the line beyond which further expansion of government does more harm than good, but we both recognize the principle -- that is, I don't believe you are an anarchist.

My belief is that where the line is drawn is a function of society's wealth and complexity. We need more government today than we did in the early 19th century, and we can also afford more. It's an observable fact that the richer a society becomes, the larger a percentage of its GDP goes to public spending. Clearly, the reason for that is because people see value in public services and would rather have them than have a little more pocket money, provided they are left with enough for what they want and need.

Please note that I listed THREE factors leading to good government as opposed to tyranny, not just one. Separation of powers and protection of rights are just as important as public accountability.



> Lastly, your claim that the US government has more power than monarchies of the feudal era, -if- you're talking about the power it exercises over its own population, is simply false.



That isn't what I said. I said that it is larger and has a greater scope. It takes up a much larger share of GDP, and has laws impacting more aspects of life than, say, the French government of Louis XIV. But the king of France had the power of life or death over anyone in the country except the highest nobility, and could usually contrive it even where they were concerned. It was a much smaller government, but it had just about nothing in the way of public accountability, it was all concentrated into one man's hands ("L'etat, c'est moi"), and there were no restraints on it as to what it could lawfully do. The only restraints on it, in fact, were those imposed by lack of resources -- exactly what the libertarian argument would have us believe leads to liberty.

To the extent we have a good government, a non-tyrannical government, in this country, it is due to periodic elections, the federal system and separation of powers generally, and the Bill of Rights, and the size of the government is irrelevant.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> E. P. Link in his book, _Democratic-Republican Societies 1790-1800, published in 1942 lists 42 societies with at least 15  labeled Democratic and two useing the hyphenated Democratic-Republican label._


_

and???????????????_


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Not2BSubjugated said:


> The implication is that Jefferson would agree with the following:  In a perfect world, the government would enforce my views on everyone else and oust those who opposed them, but would never enforce other views on me or those who agree.




wrong wrong wrong: The implication is that knowledge exists, the Constitution reflects that knowledge, liberals are opposed to that knowledge, but, we can't trust government with the power  to make treasonous liberals or their treasonous speech illegal.




Not2BSubjugated said:


> Is that sentiment that you feel would be in keeping with the founders' philosophy, as opposed to a general appreciation of the value of individual freedom?



the Founders had no general appreciation for a liberals or other big government types individual freedom.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

rdean said:


> Republican Party - Conservapedia
> 
> The Democratic Party was the home to the conservatives until the middle 1960's.  Then the liberals from the Republican Party moved to the Democratic Party and the conservatives in the Democratic Party moved to the Republican Party.  You can read about it at a number of places, including, oddly enough, "Conservapedia".  I posted a link above.
> 
> The Republican Party today maintains a racial make up of about 90% white.  For a reason.



I would add as advice to the OP - google LBJ Civil Rights Act

THAT's what caused the swtich.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Not at all.  I say Democratic Republicans because Democratic Republican party is the current commonly used term when referring to Jefferson's Republicans.



you mean commonly used by some current liberals who don't want to acknowledge that Democrats and their treasonous ideology had no place at the founding or in America.

WIKI: "The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790s, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights."



Not2BSubjugated said:


> I'm well aware that they called it the Republican party back then.




and do you know why liberals must pretend otherwise?????




Not2BSubjugated said:


> However, if I say Republicans to refer to Jefferson's Republicans and the GOP both, it'll create confusion when trying to differ between which I'm referring to.



do you know when term GOP became significant???



Not2BSubjugated said:


> After all, on a -LITERAL- level, they are two different things.


Yes but so were Jefferson's Republicans and the National Republicans.

Most importantly its absurd to use the term  Democratic Republican Party when it only existed for perhaps 15 years, while Republican has existed for all of American History


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> E. P. Link in his book, _Democratic-Republican Societies 1790-1800, published in 1942 lists 42 societies with at least 15  labeled Democratic and two useing the hyphenated Democratic-Republican label._
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> and???????????????_
Click to expand...

_

So according to some historians the term Democratic-Republicans was used before 1800._


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Dragon said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if we sunset -all- of the Bush tax cuts and literally cut Military spending to zero, we're looking at about 800 bil per year in savings.  Closer to that magical 1.4 tril number, but still sadly short.  (Though I must admit that I agree with the idea of cutting a lot of the more wasteful and heavy-handed military excursions.  Self interest first.  Fuck nation building and meddling in other peoples' conflicts.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you'd probably agree with that.
> 
> How much of our current deficit is due to structural errors on either the spending or the revenue side, and how much is due simply to the economic downturn and the fact that we haven't fully recovered from it, a fact that both increases spending and cuts revenue? Remember that at the end of the Clinton administration we had a balanced budget even though military spending was still obscene, just because we had no Bush tax cuts, no wars, and no Medicare prescription drug plan. Those three things from the Bush years by themselves created a high deficit, and then the Great Recession pushed it through the roof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, as far as the basic, surface economic arguments of wealth redistribution, I've heard them all before, including this idea that wealth redistribution creates the consumer demand that drives the economy.  While it does create that, it simultaneously reduces the capital available to the businesses being taxed, thus simultaneously reducing their ability to expand (and therefore reducing the economy's ability to expand).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does reduce available capital, but at present what we have is an excess of capital (strange as that may sound), so that's not a problem. Capital is not invested in real wealth-producing activities (by which I mean, activities that produce goods and services for the market) to the extent it exists, but only to the extent that unsatisfied consumer demand is believed to exist for the products and services to be produced. After that, if there is capital left over, it goes into nonproductive investments: speculation on commodities markets or similar bubble-blowing, rent-seeking of various types, and financial shell games that just transfer wealth from those investors who buy in at the wrong time to those who choose their buy/sell times better, rather than creating any new wealth.
> 
> Just look at the size of the U.S. economy's financial sector compared to its agriculture, manufacturing, or consumer-service sector, and you can see how out of balance things are. This illustrates that we have too much accumulated capital and not enough money distributed to the people.
> 
> It's certainly true that economic functionality can't be reduced to a single variable. I'm only bringing this up because it's one of the two areas where our current economy falls down worst, the other being environmental and resource sustainability.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but that isn't necessarily a problem. It all depends on which people the government is telling what to and not to do, and what exactly it is telling them to or not to do. My freedom is seriously impacted by laws that restrict individual behavior, but I am benefited, not hindered, by laws and regulations that deprive businesses of the right to pollute my neighborhood, sell me defective and dangerous products, provide me with an unsafe workplace (if I had a regular job that is), and similar things. Whether it will exert power in a beneficial or a harmful manner comes down to the three things I mentioned above: public accountability, separation of powers, and explicit protection of rights.
> 
> Incidentally, I'm not saying that our current government is ideal in any of these three respects, especially the first one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any expansion in government power also requires the manpower and infrastructure necessary to implement said power.  These things cost money which is then taxed from individuals.  Taxation, at any level, lessens the freedom a person has to do with their wealth as they wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and no. It depends on what the taxes are spent on, and whether this represents a net gain or loss. I assume you would not want taxes and hence government reduced to nonexistence, that you recognize value in various government services. In this, we may have a difference of where to draw the line beyond which further expansion of government does more harm than good, but we both recognize the principle -- that is, I don't believe you are an anarchist.
> 
> My belief is that where the line is drawn is a function of society's wealth and complexity. We need more government today than we did in the early 19th century, and we can also afford more. It's an observable fact that the richer a society becomes, the larger a percentage of its GDP goes to public spending. Clearly, the reason for that is because people see value in public services and would rather have them than have a little more pocket money, provided they are left with enough for what they want and need.
> 
> Please note that I listed THREE factors leading to good government as opposed to tyranny, not just one. Separation of powers and protection of rights are just as important as public accountability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, your claim that the US government has more power than monarchies of the feudal era, -if- you're talking about the power it exercises over its own population, is simply false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. I said that it is larger and has a greater scope. It takes up a much larger share of GDP, and has laws impacting more aspects of life than, say, the French government of Louis XIV. But the king of France had the power of life or death over anyone in the country except the highest nobility, and could usually contrive it even where they were concerned. It was a much smaller government, but it had just about nothing in the way of public accountability, it was all concentrated into one man's hands ("L'etat, c'est moi"), and there were no restraints on it as to what it could lawfully do. The only restraints on it, in fact, were those imposed by lack of resources -- exactly what the libertarian argument would have us believe leads to liberty.
> 
> To the extent we have a good government, a non-tyrannical government, in this country, it is due to periodic elections, the federal system and separation of powers generally, and the Bill of Rights, and the size of the government is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Haha, we're now close to common ground on all fronts.

The only place I disagree with the assessment of Clinton's surplus was that Clinton also had the internet boom to work with, which accounted for massive economic expansion throughout the nineties.  Bush's deficits were also accentuated by an economic downturn after 9/11 (not to defend Bush).  All that said, I can't say that I can account for the exact numbers back then, so I must admit that my level of understanding leaves room for the possibility that, in an economic recovery, rolling back Bush's tax cuts and military spending would be all that's necessary for the elimination of the deficit.

On the economics, I agree that a lot of the investment games regarding commodities, futures and derivatives markets (among others) don't seem like they'd contribute much to economic expansion and wealth creation, and I must admit that again my understanding leaves more than enough room for the possibility that rerouting that capital toward consumer demand, even artificially facilitated demand, could have positive effects on our economic situation.  In any event, we've reached the level of depth in this argument where I must bow out and admit that my knowledge will allow me to speculate no deeper with any measure of confidence or honesty.



> Yes, but that isn't necessarily a problem. It all depends on which people the government is telling what to and not to do, and what exactly it is telling them to or not to do. My freedom is seriously impacted by laws that restrict individual behavior, but I am benefited, not hindered, by laws and regulations that deprive businesses of the right to pollute my neighborhood, sell me defective and dangerous products, provide me with an unsafe workplace (if I had a regular job that is), and similar things. Whether it will exert power in a beneficial or a harmful manner comes down to the three things I mentioned above: public accountability, separation of powers, and explicit protection of rights.



On this we agree.  Each expansion of power and regulation is good or bad on its own merits.



> Yes and no. It depends on what the taxes are spent on, and whether this represents a net gain or loss. I assume you would not want taxes and hence government reduced to nonexistence, that you recognize value in various government services. In this, we may have a difference of where to draw the line beyond which further expansion of government does more harm than good, but we both recognize the principle -- that is, I don't believe you are an anarchist.



I still have to say that any taxation lessens individual freedom to do as they wish with the wealth that they have in that the taxed may not wish for their money to go toward even a financially beneficial government cause, but I do recognize that in many cases society experiences an overall increase in wealth based on taxation.  Despite the likely connotations of my premise given my very libertarian sensibilities, I again feel that each case is good or bad on its own merit.



> ...It's an observable fact that the richer a society becomes, the larger a percentage of its GDP goes to public spending. Clearly, the reason for that is because people see value in public services and would rather have them than have a little more pocket money, provided they are left with enough for what they want and need.
> 
> Please note that I listed THREE factors leading to good government as opposed to tyranny, not just one. Separation of powers and protection of rights are just as important as public accountability.



No disagreement here.



> That isn't what I said. I said that it is larger and has a greater scope. It takes up a much larger share of GDP, and has laws impacting more aspects of life than, say, the French government of Louis XIV. But the king of France had the power of life or death over anyone in the country except the highest nobility, and could usually contrive it even where they were concerned. It was a much smaller government, but it had just about nothing in the way of public accountability, it was all concentrated into one man's hands ("L'etat, c'est moi"), and there were no restraints on it as to what it could lawfully do. The only restraints on it, in fact, were those imposed by lack of resources -- exactly what the libertarian argument would have us believe leads to liberty.
> 
> To the extent we have a good government, a non-tyrannical government, in this country, it is due to periodic elections, the federal system and separation of powers generally, and the Bill of Rights, and the size of the government is irrelevant.



Not to nitpick, but you did actually say power.



> Clearly, increasing the size and power of government from medieval to modern times has not resulted in a corresponding loss of liberty -- exactly the reverse in fact.



However, my "-if-" was my acknowledgement of the very good chance that you didn't mean power exercised over populace.  In light of that clarification, I'd say we agree here as well.  Lack of government funding protects freedom when that government is tyrannical, but in and of itself can't be said to have a guaranteed effect in either direction (toward guaranteeing freedom or tyranny).  

And YES!  Words on paper already provide no real shield against tyranny, especially when even those words allow for legal interpretation.  Separation of powers is absolutely key.


So, I could be wrong in this, but it seems like our argument has pretty much played out.  If that's the case, good discussion.  It's been a lot of fun.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

> Clearly, increasing the size and power of government from medieval to modern times has not resulted in a corresponding loss of liberty -- exactly the reverse in fact.




medieval government and society was very very powerful and authoritarian compared to now where we live under a Republican Constitution.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The implication is that Jefferson would agree with the following:  In a perfect world, the government would enforce my views on everyone else and oust those who opposed them, but would never enforce other views on me or those who agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong wrong wrong: The implication is that knowledge exists, the Constitution reflects that knowledge, liberals are opposed to that knowledge, but, we can't trust government with the power  to make treasonous liberals or their treasonous speech illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that sentiment that you feel would be in keeping with the founders' philosophy, as opposed to a general appreciation of the value of individual freedom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Founders had no general appreciation for a liberals or other big government types individual freedom.
Click to expand...


On that first bit, what you said doesn't actually contradict what I said.  If someone says their views should be enforced and others should be ousted, the implication is that they believe their views are factually correct (knowledge and not opinion).  Whether or not the founders' views were correct is purely incidental.  What you're saying is still that they would have held to the belief that, in a perfect world (one in which govt could be trusted) their views (or facts, as you imply that they were) would be enforced and others would be ousted.  Note that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this.  I don't know what was in their hearts.

On that second bit, I posed what I said as a question because I must admit that I don't know.  The Franklin quote that I posted could certainly be construed to support your opinion on this (i.e. that someone's opinion could affect whether they deserve freedom or security).


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> E. P. Link in his book, _Democratic-Republican Societies 1790-1800, published in 1942 lists 42 societies with at least 15  labeled Democratic and two useing the hyphenated Democratic-Republican label._
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> and???????????????_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> So according to some historians the term Democratic-Republicans was used before 1800._
Click to expand...

_

Dear, we were talking about Political Parties, not societies._


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I say Democratic Republicans because Democratic Republican party is the current commonly used term when referring to Jefferson's Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean commonly used by some current liberals who don't want to acknowledge that Democrats and their treasonous ideology had no place at the founding or in America.
> 
> WIKI: "The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790s, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights."
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well aware that they called it the Republican party back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and do you know why liberals must pretend otherwise?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, if I say Republicans to refer to Jefferson's Republicans and the GOP both, it'll create confusion when trying to differ between which I'm referring to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you know when term GOP became significant???
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all, on a -LITERAL- level, they are two different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes but so were Jefferson's Republicans and the National Republicans.
> 
> Most importantly its absurd to use the term  Democratic Republican Party when it only existed for perhaps 15 years, while Republican has existed for all of American History
Click to expand...


My usage of the term doesn't take into account who made the term, for what reason, or for how long it's been popular, and I'm not attempting to lend it credibility.  I don't care (in the context of my usage) who caused the term's popularity or why.  I only care that it is a popular enough term that, when I use it, people understand what I'm talking about.  My usage of various different terms is simply a function of my writing style, one that changes up monikers in subsequent references in order to avoid literary stagnation.

Other than that, we don't seem to have any conflicting ideas here, so. . . good talk.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> and???????????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So according to some historians the term Democratic-Republicans was used before 1800.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear, we were talking about Political Parties, not societies.
Click to expand...


But you were talking about the use of that term, not political parties.

This is your quote:

"why would you say Democratic Republicans when I have bet you $10000 that there is no known use of that term in the 18th Century. Are you slow?"

Please send the money as quickly as you can. Thanking you in advance.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So according to some historians the term Democratic-Republicans was used before 1800.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear, we were talking about Political Parties, not societies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you were talking about the use of that term, not political parties.
> 
> This is your quote:
> 
> "why would you say Democratic Republicans when I have bet you $10000 that there is no known use of that term in the 18th Century. Are you slow?"
> 
> Please send the money as quickly as you can. Thanking you in advance.
Click to expand...


Dear, obviously we are talking about use of the term Democratic-Republican as the name of a political party in the 1790's. You have not found such usage so we must conclude there was none. This means the party Jefferson founded was called the Republican Party as indicated by all the Congressional Records, Jefferson's letters, speeches, and newspaper articles of the era.

By demanding money you have in effect accepted the bet and are now legally obligated to pay.


----------



## Dragon

The bottom line, of course, is that the party founded by Jefferson in the late 18th century, and the party founded in the mid 19th century whose first elected president was Abraham Lincoln, were not the same party. Today's Republican Party is the one whose first elected president was Lincoln, not the one founded by Jefferson.

That's a fact, and it will remain a fact no matter what word games are played around similarities of nomenclature. It is no more true that Jefferson's party currently holds a majority in the House of Representatives, than it is that Obama's predecessor needs an employee to follow behind him sweeping up falling leaves (because he's a "Bush").

In fact, the party founded by Jefferson is the one that has the White House and a majority in the Senate. And that, too, is a fact regardless of what word games are played.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Not2BSubjugated said:


> I only care that it is a popular enough term that, when I use it, people understand what I'm talking about.



What they understand when you use the fradulent term "Democratic-Republican" to describe Jefferson's "Republican Party" is that you've been tricked by liberal historians into thinking that modern big government Democrats have a connection to founding American principles when really their connections is to Cuba!!


----------



## sparky

Slave slut Jefferson would have Hallie Berry picking cotton in the rose garden...~S~


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

sparky said:


> Slave slut Jefferson would have Hallie Berry picking cotton in the rose garden...~S~



always the dumbest one here aren't you?


----------



## regent

Yes, apparently the historians have tricked a lot of people. Every history book I looked at has the Democratic-Republicans listed as Jeffersonians, and a number giving the date of 1792. Even the Oxford Guide to the United States Government lists 1792 for the Democratic-Republican beginnng. Fortunately you are around to set them, and us, straight with your take on history. 
And the Cuba connection is really something again. So what about liberals, do they have a connection to America's founding principles?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> . Fortunately you are around to set them, and us, straight with your take on history.



its not a take dear, its reading the Congressinal Record, newspapers , speeches, ballots, letters or the era, etc. Of course liberals have reason to lie about the founding!!! 

WIKI: "Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790s, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", 




regent said:


> .
> And the Cuba connection is really something again. So what about liberals, do they have a connection to America's founding principles?



No of course not. America is about freedom from liberal government. You are only learning that now? The Constitution in effect was to make liberalism illegal.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Fortunately you are around to set them, and us, straight with your take on history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its not a take dear, its reading the Congressinal Record, newspapers , speeches, ballots, letters or the era, etc. Of course liberals have reason to lie about the founding!!!
> 
> WIKI: "Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790s, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans",
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> And the Cuba connection is really something again. So what about liberals, do they have a connection to America's founding principles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No of course not. America is about freedom from liberal government. You are only learning that now? The Constitution in effect was to make liberalism illegal.
Click to expand...


Well as one conservative said: "For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."  
General Douglas MacArthur 
I hope MacArthur was not another Cuban?


----------



## Old Rocks

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> you, sir, are a fucking maroon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if so why be so afraid to present your evidence? What does your fear tell you?
Click to expand...


*Just on one issue, Jefferson would disavow the present Republican Party.*

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
 Jan. 1. 1802


----------



## regent

Old Rocks said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> you, sir, are a fucking maroon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if so why be so afraid to present your evidence? What does your fear tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Just on one issue, Jefferson would disavow the present Republican Party.*
> 
> Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin
> 
> To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
> 
> Gentlemen
> 
> The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
> 
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
> 
> I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
> 
> Th Jefferson
> Jan. 1. 1802
Click to expand...


The evidence is overwhelming that the Democratic-Republican party began in 1792. Not only do most  history books mention that fact but say the Democratic-Republican party of Jefferson, after the 1800 election, then changed their name to Republican."


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only care that it is a popular enough term that, when I use it, people understand what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they understand when you use the fradulent term "Democratic-Republican" to describe Jefferson's "Republican Party" is that you've been tricked by liberal historians into thinking that modern big government Democrats have a connection to founding American principles when really their connections is to Cuba!!
Click to expand...


So despite the fact that I say that it's my opinion that today's Republicans spew rhetoric that's closer to Jeffersonian principles than that which the Democrats spew, the fact that I would use the term Democratic-Republican clues you in the fact that I -really- believe the opposite?

Am I some kinda Democrat spy implanted on a message board?  I don't get where you're coming from with this stupidity.


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Really...



Jefferson is not credited with founding the GOP.

STFU you moron

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Bfgrn

The Republican Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Democratic Party. Founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in *1854*, it is often called the GOP (Grand Old Party).

Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743  July 4, *1826*)

EPIC fail!


----------



## code1211

Old Rocks said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> you, sir, are a fucking maroon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if so why be so afraid to present your evidence? What does your fear tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Just on one issue, Jefferson would disavow the present Republican Party.*
> 
> Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin
> 
> To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
> 
> Gentlemen
> 
> The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
> 
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
> 
> I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
> 
> Th Jefferson
> Jan. 1. 1802
Click to expand...




It is very likely that jefferson saw this wall as a protection of the rights if the individual to enjoy the free exercise of religion, not a barrier of the thoughts of religion from entering into government.

The thoughts of Jefferson that reverberate through the years are those that were in the Declaration.  Without the Declaration, this letter would never have been written, Jefferson would never have been remembered and our country would never have been founded.

The absolute and undeniable basis of the Declaration is that we are endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights.  To demand of succeeding generations that they believe that Jefferson demanded an agnostic or atheistic government is a perversion of his thoughts, hopes and beliefs.


The specific passage in the letter to which Jefferson responds:

<snip> And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.<snip>


http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=65


----------



## Dragon

The idea that today's Republicans are rhetorically (let alone in actions) closer to Jefferson's politics than the Democrats is a classic case of confusing ends with means, and also of failing to understand the difference between agrarian liberalism and industrial liberalism. Liberalism of any kind is about equality, and hence the liberty of ordinary people (which is where the name comes from). Agrarian liberalism is the advocacy of policies that will serve this end in the context of an agrarian economy. Industrial liberalism is the advocacy of policies that will serve this end in the context of an industrial economy. We are currently groping towards what might be called a post-industrial liberalism, but it's not completely clear what that would consist of.

Thomas Jefferson was an agrarian liberal, while those few of today's Democrats that are any sort of liberal are either industrial liberals or else trying to be post-industrial liberals. There's a difference in means, but not in ends, and none of them can properly be called conservative.

Here's a quote from Jefferson that I like to use to emphasize just how RADICALLY FAR his views were from those of today's Republicans. I may have posted this on this thread already; if I did, obviously some people need a reminder, so here it is.



			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> 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 laboring 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 circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. 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 no employment 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 concentred 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 laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason 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 undisturbed only for the sake 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 labored. *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 or property in geometrical progression as they rise.* Whenever there are 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 labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor 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.



Emphasis added. Can anyone imagine a Republican today expressing views like that? Of course not, and so not only is the OP technically (and obviously) dead wrong as to the origins of the Republican Party, he is also dead wrong in his underlying thesis that the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson held views similar to those of today's Republicans. It's true that he was a small-government advocate, but _only as a means to an end_, and the end -- economic equality -- is one no Republican believes in.

For that matter, no Republican really believes in small government, either.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> The idea that today's Republicans are rhetorically (let alone in actions) closer to Jefferson's politics than the Democrats is a classic case of confusing ends with means, and also of failing to understand the difference between agrarian liberalism and industrial liberalism. Liberalism of any kind is about equality, and hence the liberty of ordinary people (which is where the name comes from). Agrarian liberalism is the advocacy of policies that will serve this end in the context of an agrarian economy. Industrial liberalism is the advocacy of policies that will serve this end in the context of an industrial economy. We are currently groping towards what might be called a post-industrial liberalism, but it's not completely clear what that would consist of.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson was an agrarian liberal, while those few of today's Democrats that are any sort of liberal are either industrial liberals or else trying to be post-industrial liberals. There's a difference in means, but not in ends, and none of them can properly be called conservative.
> 
> Here's a quote from Jefferson that I like to use to emphasize just how RADICALLY FAR his views were from those of today's Republicans. I may have posted this on this thread already; if I did, obviously some people need a reminder, so here it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 laboring 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 circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. 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 no employment 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 concentred 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 laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason 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 undisturbed only for the sake 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 labored. *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 or property in geometrical progression as they rise.* Whenever there are 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 labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis added. Can anyone imagine a Republican today expressing views like that? Of course not, and so not only is the OP technically (and obviously) dead wrong as to the origins of the Republican Party, he is also dead wrong in his underlying thesis that the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson held views similar to those of today's Republicans. It's true that he was a small-government advocate, but _only as a means to an end_, and the end -- economic equality -- is one no Republican believes in.
> 
> For that matter, no Republican really believes in small government, either.
Click to expand...




You have posted this before.  It is wise to note that the encounter remembered by Jefferson above was in France, not the USA.  His references to the inequality of the property divisions contained there in are to the system of pre-revolutionary France.

In that place and time the ownership of land was the result of a class system and the woman with whom he spoke was of a non propertied class.  It was for all intents and purposes, illegal for her to own land and she and her heirs were perpetually banned from ever rising above the caste into which she was born.

In that condition was this monologue written.

The condition of the individual in a system like ours in which an individual is allowed by nothing more nor less than the contents of his checking account and the stability of his credit record to own property.  This example is empty except as it demonstrates that our system provides individual economic mobility and that one did not.

As such, this demonstrates that the power of the individual to rise by the work of his own hand and the planning of his own life is both secure and available to all.

That some choose to not be industrious or choose to be disinterested observers in their own lives is a mystery to me.

By pretending that nobody can rise except by the hand of the government lifting them ignores that the hand of government is already there providing an easily accessed ladder.  All that is needed of the individual is the will to climb.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."-Thomas Jefferson

 "...in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution..."-Thomas Jefferson

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" - One of Thomas Jefferson's seals

Your quote is an interesting one, Dragon, but it cannot be said definitively based on that one quote that the end goal of Jefferson's philosophy was economic equality by any means available, including a powerful, centralized government.  Based on several of his other quotes, it could be argued (perhaps not definitively) that the end he was seeking through the means of small government was the prevention of that government's slide into tyranny and the preservation of everyone's self determination.

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."-Thomas Jefferson

That quote alone seems to contradict your assessment in that it implies, through use of the word, "always", that no matter what the purpose is, big government is never a proper means to achieve it.  It also contradicts, to some degree, the letter you posted, and thus my argument and my assessment aren't definitive. . . but neither are your's.

"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."-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, -&#8364;&#732;the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'" -Thomas Jefferson

These quotes show that, even from an economic standpoint, much of the Republicans' rhetoric mirrors some of what Jefferson expressed.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]" -Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment

Republican rhetoric tends to be in favor of the 2nd Amendment and gun rights in general while Democratic rhetoric tends to be against.

Based on these quotes and despite the letter you've posted, I hold to my opinion that Republican rhetoric is closer to Jeffersonian principle than Democrat rhetoric, though I don't claim to be definitively correct in my assessment.  I didn't know the man personally.  I also acknowledge that much of what the Republicans actually legislate is in complete contradiction to many of these sentiments expressed by TJ.

Along the lines of this argument in relation to the OP, however, that posted letter definitely shows room for the argument that the entire premise of the post is bunk.


----------



## Bfgrn

Not2BSubjugated said:


> "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "Most bad government has grown out of too much government."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Your quote is an interesting one, Dragon, but it cannot be said definitively based on that one quote that the end goal of Jefferson's philosophy was economic equality by any means available, including a powerful, centralized government.  Based on many of his other quotes, it could be argued (perhaps not definitively) that the end he was seeking through the means of small government was the prevention of that government's slide into tyranny and the preservation of everyone's self determination.
> 
> "I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> That quote alone seems to contradict your assessment in that it implies, through use of the word, "always", that no matter what the purpose is, big government is never a proper means to achieve it.  It also contradicts, to some degree, the letter you posted, and thus my argument and my assessment aren't definitive. . . but neither are your's.
> 
> "I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -Thomas Jefferson
> 
> These quotes show that, even from an economic standpoint, much of the Republicans' rhetoric mirrors some of what Jefferson expressed.
> 
> "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
> 
> And again,  "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Republican rhetoric tends to be in favor of the 2nd Amendment while Democratic rhetoric tends to be against.
> 
> Based on these quotes and despite the letter you've posted, I hold to my opinion that Republican rhetoric is closer to Jeffersonian principle than Democrat rhetoric, though I don't claim to be definitively correct in my assessment.  I didn't know the man personally.  I also acknowledge that much of what the Republicans actually legislate is in complete contradiction to many of these sentiments expressed by TJ.
> 
> Along the lines of this argument in relation to the OP, however, that posted letter definitely shows room for the argument that the entire premise of the post is bunk.



Great, a bunch of quotes most of which Thomas Jefferson never said.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Bfgrn said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "Most bad government has grown out of too much government."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Your quote is an interesting one, Dragon, but it cannot be said definitively based on that one quote that the end goal of Jefferson's philosophy was economic equality by any means available, including a powerful, centralized government.  Based on many of his other quotes, it could be argued (perhaps not definitively) that the end he was seeking through the means of small government was the prevention of that government's slide into tyranny and the preservation of everyone's self determination.
> 
> "I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> That quote alone seems to contradict your assessment in that it implies, through use of the word, "always", that no matter what the purpose is, big government is never a proper means to achieve it.  It also contradicts, to some degree, the letter you posted, and thus my argument and my assessment aren't definitive. . . but neither are your's.
> 
> "I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -Thomas Jefferson
> 
> These quotes show that, even from an economic standpoint, much of the Republicans' rhetoric mirrors some of what Jefferson expressed.
> 
> "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
> 
> And again,  "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Republican rhetoric tends to be in favor of the 2nd Amendment while Democratic rhetoric tends to be against.
> 
> Based on these quotes and despite the letter you've posted, I hold to my opinion that Republican rhetoric is closer to Jeffersonian principle than Democrat rhetoric, though I don't claim to be definitively correct in my assessment.  I didn't know the man personally.  I also acknowledge that much of what the Republicans actually legislate is in complete contradiction to many of these sentiments expressed by TJ.
> 
> Along the lines of this argument in relation to the OP, however, that posted letter definitely shows room for the argument that the entire premise of the post is bunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great, a bunch of quotes most of which Thomas Jefferson never said.
Click to expand...


I stand corrected.  Further research spurred by this response has shown me that, in my haste to respond, I did indeed include a fair number of quotes mistakenly attributed to Thomas Jefferson.  Editing my post now to remove the offending lines and insert the actual quotes upon which some of these mistakes seem to be based.

My thanks for pointing this out.  Every exposed fallacy in my thinking places me some degree closer to the truth.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> You have posted this before.  It is wise to note that the encounter remembered by Jefferson above was in France, not the USA.  His references to the inequality of the property divisions contained there in are to the system of pre-revolutionary France.



Of course they are, but the point is that he found the effects of gross inequality of wealth unacceptable. His point in thinking of these things was, "How can we make sure nothing like that happens in America?" Today's Republicans don't consider gross inequality of wealth a problem; as best I can tell, for them that's a feature, not a bug.



> In that place and time the ownership of land was the result of a class system and the woman with whom he spoke was of a non propertied class.  It was for all intents and purposes, illegal for her to own land and she and her heirs were perpetually banned from ever rising above the caste into which she was born.



Well, that's not quite correct (France had no rigid caste system, that would be India), but it's true that the government upheld the privileges of the nobility and the clergy. _That's why classical liberals were against big government_. It was a MEANS, not an END: a way to ensure that massive economic injustice such as plagued Europe would not happen here. And yet, you will note that Jefferson was not averse to such methods as a graduated property tax to prevent and/or cure the problem.

In a capitalist industrialist economy, though, it's quite possible for similar inequities to develop without the existence of a titled nobility or other government action upholding a privileged elite. That's why modern liberals, though retaining a desire to restrain government abuses, have abandoned their opposition to big government _per se_. Government is the only tool available to restrain corporate abuses of liberty. Industrial liberalism pursues the same ends by different means, because the old means have become counterproductive.



> This example is empty except as it demonstrates that our system provides individual economic mobility and that one did not.



Frankly, Jefferson would look at the massively unequal distribution of wealth in this society, and the suffering that results, and be appalled. So I don't think you want to go there.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> The Republican Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Democratic Party. Founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in *1854*, it is often called the GOP (Grand Old Party).
> 
> Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743  July 4, *1826*)
> 
> EPIC fail!



5th Congress (1797-1799) 
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803) 

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34

"Historians do not agree on the details surrounding the origin of Parties. Some believe  that Jefferson forged the Republican party from coalition of existing state and local parties"....[in the 1790's]. 

Page 31, Political Parties in America by Robert Huckshorn( most popular Political Science text on parties in USA.


"Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."

- Susan Dunn, Jefferson's Second Revolution.


"In referring to political parties  I have adopted the names which the respective parties used in self-designation. Thus the Jeffersonian party has been referred to throughout as the Republican Party. This name came into use early in the 1790's among persons who considered themselves of a common political "interest", and the term "Republican interest" was generally used until it was replaced by the more definite "Republican Party". 

The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr.


-


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> Frankly, Jefferson would look at the massively unequal distribution of wealth in this society, and the suffering that results, and be appalled. So I don't think you want to go there.



Actually Jefferson loved inequality, just not the kind caused by by big liberal government:

"Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry 
or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural 
Address, 1805.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> Great, a bunch of quotes most of which Thomas Jefferson never said.



but all of which exactly reflect the Republican Jeffersonian American philosophy of freedom from liberal government.

So what place do liberals have in America?


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, a bunch of quotes most of which Thomas Jefferson never said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but all of which exactly reflect the Republican Jeffersonian American philosophy of freedom from liberal government.
> 
> So what place do liberals have in America?
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what it reflects to YOU. Because it doesn't reflect Thomas Jefferson's beliefs. Most of it was not said by Thomas Jefferson, who was a liberal, not a conservative.

Sourced Jefferson quotes:

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482 

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29 

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> It doesn't matter what it reflects to YOU. Because it doesn't reflect Thomas Jefferson's beliefs. Most of it was not said by Thomas Jefferson, who was a liberal, not a conservative.



so if Jefferson did not form the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for very very limited government what did he form it for and fight for all his life?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Well as one conservative said: "For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
> General Douglas MacArthur
> I hope MacArthur was not another Cuban?




dear, I am so sorry but you are just not intelligent enough to be here. You see, some words can have 2 meanings. This you learn in elementary school. So yes, they were liberals in the sense that they wanted rapid change to a new government, but, the change they wanted was to a limited, small, conservative Republican government. 
 If you're still confused I suggest going over it with your parents over and over until finally sinks in. PLease let me know how you do.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have posted this before.  It is wise to note that the encounter remembered by Jefferson above was in France, not the USA.  His references to the inequality of the property divisions contained there in are to the system of pre-revolutionary France.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are, but the point is that he found the effects of gross inequality of wealth unacceptable. His point in thinking of these things was, "How can we make sure nothing like that happens in America?" Today's Republicans don't consider gross inequality of wealth a problem; as best I can tell, for them that's a feature, not a bug.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that place and time the ownership of land was the result of a class system and the woman with whom he spoke was of a non propertied class.  It was for all intents and purposes, illegal for her to own land and she and her heirs were perpetually banned from ever rising above the caste into which she was born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's not quite correct (France had no rigid caste system, that would be India), but it's true that the government upheld the privileges of the nobility and the clergy. _That's why classical liberals were against big government_. It was a MEANS, not an END: a way to ensure that massive economic injustice such as plagued Europe would not happen here. And yet, you will note that Jefferson was not averse to such methods as a graduated property tax to prevent and/or cure the problem.
> 
> In a capitalist industrialist economy, though, it's quite possible for similar inequities to develop without the existence of a titled nobility or other government action upholding a privileged elite. That's why modern liberals, though retaining a desire to restrain government abuses, have abandoned their opposition to big government _per se_. Government is the only tool available to restrain corporate abuses of liberty. Industrial liberalism pursues the same ends by different means, because the old means have become counterproductive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This example is empty except as it demonstrates that our system provides individual economic mobility and that one did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, Jefferson would look at the massively unequal distribution of wealth in this society, and the suffering that results, and be appalled. So I don't think you want to go there.
Click to expand...




Jefferson would be pleased that anyone, ANYONE, can rise in this society regardless of Gender, class, national origin or anything else.  Anyone, ANYONE, can gain an education and take advantage of all that society offers.

Conversely, anyone can ignore opportunity and avoid success by poor choices.

Mistakes matter and many people make them in truckloads on a daily basis.

The problem with freedom is that we are just as free to succeed as we are free to fail.

The problem with the inequity in the division of wealth is not that so many are poor but that so many are wealthy.  The ceiling just keeps rising here.  The floor stays where it is.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

code1211 said:


> The problem with the inequity in the division of wealth is not that so many are poor but that so many are wealthy.  The ceiling just keeps rising here.  The floor stays where it is.




When Newt ended welfare as we know it by requiring work, 70% dropped off the rolls. This indicates that liberals are causing much of the failure among the lower classes.


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what it reflects to YOU. Because it doesn't reflect Thomas Jefferson's beliefs. Most of it was not said by Thomas Jefferson, who was a liberal, not a conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so if Jefferson did not form the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for very very limited government what did he form it for and fight for all his life?
Click to expand...


Here is your very very limited government of our founders:

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

*Early laws regulating corporations in America*

    *Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

    *Corporations licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

    *The state legislature could revoke a corporations charter if it misbehaved.

    *The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

    *As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldnt break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were just doing their job when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

    *Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

    *Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

    *Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted in perpetuity, as is now the practice).

    *Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

    *Corporations real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

    *Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

    *Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

    *State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

    *All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Jefferson would be pleased that anyone, ANYONE, can rise in this society regardless of Gender, class, national origin or anything else.  Anyone, ANYONE, can gain an education and take advantage of all that society offers.



That is untrue, and therefore he would not. And besides, note that there is a marked difference in meaning between the words "anyone" and "everyone." Even if, theoretically, and ignoring certain practical barriers, "anyone" can do this, it remains true that only so many people can do it, because there is only so much wealth to go around, and it is seriously maldistributed. There are only so many of any given type of job that needs doing, and so only so many can take advantage of an education aimed at doing that job. Multiply that by the number of good jobs total -- which is shrinking all the time -- and you have the limit of how many people can significantly better themselves in the economy as it exists today. If everyone made use of those opportunities, most of them would have wasted their money and time.

I refer you once more to Jefferson's suggestion of a graduated property tax, and of laws of inheritance requiring that estates be divided rather than concentrating, and his suggestion that idle land be given to the unemployed to farm if a problem of that nature developed. He was concerned with _inequality_ -- in the ordinary, straightforward sense -- and not merely with some theoretical value that those who like inequality but feel guilty about that can address and tell themselves they've solve the problem.



> The problem with the inequity in the division of wealth is not that so many are poor but that so many are wealthy.  The ceiling just keeps rising here.  The floor stays where it is.



Actually, the class that is shrinking is neither the poor nor the rich, but the middle class. And whether "the floor stays where it is" depends on how you define "the floor." Obviously an unemployed homeless person is on the floor, but how about a minimum-wage worker who can afford to get by, but just barely? Whether that, too, is "on the floor" is a matter of definition and line-drawing, not objective fact. It is an objective fact, though, that the percentage of the people who are just getting by is growing. And it is a reasonable evaluation that this is a problem.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> because there is only so much wealth to go around, .



of course thats perfectly idiotic and so perfectly liberal. Per capita GDP is 1000 times what was 200 years ago and rising faster now than ever before. Do liberals know anything at all?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> He was concerned with _inequality_ -- in the ordinary, straightforward sense



again, so idiotic and so perfectly liberal. Jefferson was concerned with
inequality caused by government. He formed the Republican Party to fight against crony capitalist government induced inequality.  

If there was an initiative during his 2 terms for an inheritance tax or redistribution lets see it, liberal.

"Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry 
or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural 
Address, 1805.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what it reflects to YOU. Because it doesn't reflect Thomas Jefferson's beliefs. Most of it was not said by Thomas Jefferson, who was a liberal, not a conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so if Jefferson did not form the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for very very limited government what did he form it for and fight for all his life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is your very very limited government of our founders:
> 
> Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.
> 
> So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.
> 
> Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.
> 
> *Early laws regulating corporations in America*
> 
> *Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.
> 
> *Corporations&#8217; licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).
> 
> *The state legislature could revoke a corporation&#8217;s charter if it misbehaved.
> 
> *The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.
> 
> *As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn&#8217;t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were &#8220;just doing their job&#8221; when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.
> 
> *Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.
> 
> *Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.
> 
> *Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted &#8220;in perpetuity,&#8221; as is now the practice).
> 
> *Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.
> 
> *Corporations&#8217; real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).
> 
> *Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.
> 
> *Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.
> 
> *State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.
> 
> *All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.
> 
> The Early Role of Corporations in America
> 
> The Legacy of the Founding Parents
Click to expand...



Why not answer the question rather than try to change the subject???????????????????????
 if Jefferson did not form the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for very very limited government what did he form it for and fight for all his life?[/QUOTE]


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations.



Of course thats even more perfectly idiotic and liberal than usual.
Show us something in the Constitution that our founders wrote that regulates corporations as you describe???

They did of course know and read Adam Smith!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> "The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465



Does this somehow mean that Jefferson was not a Republican conservative opposed to big liberal government?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson would be pleased that anyone, ANYONE, can rise in this society regardless of Gender, class, national origin or anything else.  Anyone, ANYONE, can gain an education and take advantage of all that society offers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is untrue, and therefore he would not. And besides, note that there is a marked difference in meaning between the words "anyone" and "everyone." Even if, theoretically, and ignoring certain practical barriers, "anyone" can do this, it remains true that only so many people can do it, because there is only so much wealth to go around, and it is seriously maldistributed. There are only so many of any given type of job that needs doing, and so only so many can take advantage of an education aimed at doing that job. Multiply that by the number of good jobs total -- which is shrinking all the time -- and you have the limit of how many people can significantly better themselves in the economy as it exists today. If everyone made use of those opportunities, most of them would have wasted their money and time.
> 
> I refer you once more to Jefferson's suggestion of a graduated property tax, and of laws of inheritance requiring that estates be divided rather than concentrating, and his suggestion that idle land be given to the unemployed to farm if a problem of that nature developed. He was concerned with _inequality_ -- in the ordinary, straightforward sense -- and not merely with some theoretical value that those who like inequality but feel guilty about that can address and tell themselves they've solve the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the inequity in the division of wealth is not that so many are poor but that so many are wealthy.  The ceiling just keeps rising here.  The floor stays where it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the class that is shrinking is neither the poor nor the rich, but the middle class. And whether "the floor stays where it is" depends on how you define "the floor." Obviously an unemployed homeless person is on the floor, but how about a minimum-wage worker who can afford to get by, but just barely? Whether that, too, is "on the floor" is a matter of definition and line-drawing, not objective fact. It is an objective fact, though, that the percentage of the people who are just getting by is growing. And it is a reasonable evaluation that this is a problem.
Click to expand...




You are a pessimist and I am not.  I know for a fact that every day is a new beginning and I am lucky to be alive because things always can get better and they usually do.

You do not share this point of view.  You are sure that the world is cruel and all around you are conniving and deceitful, bent on taking from you what shrinking lot you once thought might fall to you.  You are sure that all opportunities are shrinking and that all that was good is somehow less than it was and there are powerful forces keeping you from happiness.

You're a Liberal.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

code1211 said:


> You're a Liberal.



yes exactly, the liberal really does know that wealth has exploded  exponentially for everyone over the last 100 years.

The liberal pretends otherwise- out of  laziness, fear,  insecurity, and incompetence- so as to free himself from the burden of participating in the creation of his own wealth and the creation of society's wealth.

It is so much easier to use liberal government to steal wealth for him, at the point of a gun.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> You are a pessimist and I am not.



No, sir. I am NOT a pessimist. I firmly believe that things can and WILL get better. I look at the technology we have today, and the capacity of it to produce immense wealth and provide a good -- by the standards of the past, indeed, a lush, an _incredible_ -- standard of living for everyone, and I am very, very hopeful and optimistic.

No, the difference between you and me is not that. It is that you believe in fairy-tales and I do not. To realize that potential requires that we recognize reality and do it the right way, and not stick our fingers in our ears, put on our blinders, and believe that it will all do itself. It won't.


----------



## Brutus

A liberal is a pessimist believing the finite pie must be divided with ever growing welfare while the conservative is an optimistic  believing everyone can expand the pie.


----------



## Polk

theHawk said:


> FDR took office when the economy was bad, he took advantage of the desperate people and enacted all his progressive policies during the crisis, all of which failed.  Only a world war and the creation of the 'industrial military complex' brought the US out of it.
> 
> FDR had no qualms about circumventing the constitution.  When many of his New Deal legislation started to be undone by Congress and the Supreme Court, he tried to add more justices to the Supreme Court in order to fill it with a bunch of progressive hacks that would rule in his favor.  Thankfully his attempt failed.
> 
> Obama is trying his best to mimic FDR.  He's used the 'economic crisis' to pass 'stimulous' bills which were nothing more than slush funds for his cronies.  He circumvents Congress whenever it suits him. And he is already trying to stir up more wars in the Middle East.



The conservative explanation of the Depression is laughable. "Increasing government spending is a failure, we were only lifted out of the Depression by a massive increase in government spending."


----------



## regent

People keep claiming that it was the spending of WWII that ended the depression, that seems like evidence that the government simply did not  spend enough on Hoover's RFC or FDR's  New Deal? In any case Hoover began the idea that the government has a responsiblity to be involved in recessions/depressions, and we seem to be following that Keynsian path to this day. Hoover started the government spending, FDR increased Hoover's spending but the evidence is that neither were enough it took a WWII type of spending to end the Great Depression. Would the depression have ended on its own, we may never know, but the bigger question would the American people have waited for it to end on its own?


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course thats even more perfectly idiotic and liberal than usual.
> Show us something in the Constitution that our founders wrote that regulates corporations as you describe???
> 
> They did of course know and read Adam Smith!!
Click to expand...


I just gave you a list of the heavy regulations imposed on corporations by our founding fathers. Maybe an adult can help you read them, and explain them to you.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course thats even more perfectly idiotic and liberal than usual.
> Show us something in the Constitution that our founders wrote that regulates corporations as you describe???
> 
> They did of course know and read Adam Smith!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just gave you a list of the heavy regulations imposed on corporations by our founding fathers. Maybe an adult can help you read them, and explain them to you.
Click to expand...


Too stupid and liberal, of course!! You gave a list about "state" regulations, but could not name even one one federal corporate regulation!!

You wanted them to be federal regulations so badly that you just flat out lied about it. What does that tell us about you and liberalism?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> it took a WWII type of spending to end the Great Depression.



of course thats 100% idiotic and liberal. If making planes and dumping them into the sea helped the economy BUsh and/or BO would have recommended it!! Did you see anyone recommending it??

See why we are positive liberalism is the absence of intelligence? What other conclusion is possible?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pessimist and I am not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, sir. I am NOT a pessimist. I firmly believe that things can and WILL get better. I look at the technology we have today, and the capacity of it to produce immense wealth and provide a good -- by the standards of the past, indeed, a lush, an _incredible_ -- standard of living for everyone, and I am very, very hopeful and optimistic.
> 
> No, the difference between you and me is not that. It is that you believe in fairy-tales and I do not. To realize that potential requires that we recognize reality and do it the right way, and not stick our fingers in our ears, put on our blinders, and believe that it will all do itself. It won't.
Click to expand...




I'm not sure you know what a pessimist does.  

If you assume that those around you are bound to fail, that is pessimism.

If you assume that the conditions are right to achieve, that is optimism.

Why is planning, hard work, continuous effort and not giving up a fairy tale?

How can we live in the world you describe above and not hold the opinion that this is the best place and time to ever have lived and that all who live here and now are blessed beyond all who came before and that they need to reach out and grab the opportunity that everyone who came before would die to have.

The hardship of 1800 was starvation.  The hardship of today is being limited to basic cable.

Do you assert that people blessed with everything of today are just plain incompetent?


----------



## code1211

regent said:


> People keep claiming that it was the spending of WWII that ended the depression, that seems like evidence that the government simply did not  spend enough on Hoover's RFC or FDR's  New Deal? In any case Hoover began the idea that the government has a responsiblity to be involved in recessions/depressions, and we seem to be following that Keynsian path to this day. Hoover started the government spending, FDR increased Hoover's spending but the evidence is that neither were enough it took a WWII type of spending to end the Great Depression. Would the depression have ended on its own, we may never know, but the bigger question would the American people have waited for it to end on its own?




What we know for a fact is that it did not.

Keynsian Economics provides that in good time the government collects a surplus that it can spend in the lean time.  We are not practicing this.  

We are witnessing political hacks draining the treasury to buy votes.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Polk said:


> we were only lifted out of the Depression by a massive increase in government spending."



****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"

"The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]

In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal 
is urgently needed


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

code1211 said:


> We are witnessing political hacks draining the treasury to buy votes.




yes exactly; who ever conceived of democracy as liberal politicians buying votes?? The liberals have subverted our democracy!! They should be made illegal as the Constitution intended.


"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course thats even more perfectly idiotic and liberal than usual.
> Show us something in the Constitution that our founders wrote that regulates corporations as you describe???
> 
> They did of course know and read Adam Smith!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a list of the heavy regulations imposed on corporations by our founding fathers. Maybe an adult can help you read them, and explain them to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too stupid and liberal, of course!! You gave a list about "state" regulations, but could not name even one one federal corporate regulation!!
> 
> You wanted them to be federal regulations so badly that you just flat out lied about it. What does that tell us about you and liberalism?
Click to expand...


You can try to spin it anyway you wish with your tiny little brain. Our founding fathers did not believe in the invisible hand. They believed in a firm hand by GOVERNMENT.


----------



## code1211

Bfgrn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a list of the heavy regulations imposed on corporations by our founding fathers. Maybe an adult can help you read them, and explain them to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too stupid and liberal, of course!! You gave a list about "state" regulations, but could not name even one one federal corporate regulation!!
> 
> You wanted them to be federal regulations so badly that you just flat out lied about it. What does that tell us about you and liberalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can try to spin it anyway you wish with your tiny little brain. Our founding fathers did not believe in the invisible hand. They believed in a firm hand by GOVERNMENT.
Click to expand...




Demonstrate that belief by quoting the Constitution.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> You can try to spin it anyway you wish with your tiny little brain. Our founding fathers did not believe in the invisible hand. They believed in a firm hand by GOVERNMENT.



of course thats an idiotic lie which perfectly explains why you are so afraid to present any evidence!! what on earth did you think the Revolution was about??? OMG!!



"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves"- Jefferson.

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."-Jefferson


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too stupid and liberal, of course!! You gave a list about "state" regulations, but could not name even one one federal corporate regulation!!
> 
> You wanted them to be federal regulations so badly that you just flat out lied about it. What does that tell us about you and liberalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can try to spin it anyway you wish with your tiny little brain. Our founding fathers did not believe in the invisible hand. They believed in a firm hand by GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate that belief by quoting the Constitution.
Click to expand...


whats really interesting is that in the one area where they did seek  some control over business, the Commerce Clause, the intent was as per Adam Smith to use that control to secure and promote free trade among the States.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> we were only lifted out of the Depression by a massive increase in government spending."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"
> 
> "The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]
> 
> In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal
> is urgently needed
Click to expand...


As many posters have already noted the New Deal did not spend enough money, it took war time spending to end the Great Depression. Will any administration now fail to spend stimulus money in a depression/recession?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> As many posters have already noted the New Deal did not spend enough money, it took war time spending to end the Great Depression. Will any administration now fail to spend stimulus money in a depression/recession?



too stupid!! if making planes and dumping them into the sea would end recession and depressions at least one person would propose it!! Who has, you simple idiot liberal? 

Why not try to explain why on earth that would work?? Don't be 100% afraid, try!!


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> it took a WWII type of spending to end the Great Depression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course thats 100% idiotic and liberal. If making planes and dumping them into the sea helped the economy BUsh and/or BO would have recommended it!! Did you see anyone recommending it??
> 
> See why we are positive liberalism is the absence of intelligence? What other conclusion is possible?
Click to expand...


By war time spending we mean of course tremendous amounts of money, not for tanks and weapons but internal improvements or whatever. Guess you didn't know that?


----------



## regent

code1211 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> People keep claiming that it was the spending of WWII that ended the depression, that seems like evidence that the government simply did not  spend enough on Hoover's RFC or FDR's  New Deal? In any case Hoover began the idea that the government has a responsiblity to be involved in recessions/depressions, and we seem to be following that Keynsian path to this day. Hoover started the government spending, FDR increased Hoover's spending but the evidence is that neither were enough it took a WWII type of spending to end the Great Depression. Would the depression have ended on its own, we may never know, but the bigger question would the American people have waited for it to end on its own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we know for a fact is that it did not.
> 
> Keynsian Economics provides that in good time the government collects a surplus that it can spend in the lean time.  We are not practicing this.
> 
> We are witnessing political hacks draining the treasury to buy votes.
Click to expand...


So you are saying that the problem is that we don't follow Keynes totally we only practice part of Keynes and we should be practicing the whole thing.  So from now on instead of tax breaks for the wealthy we should pay back the borrowed money. Good idea.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> By war time spending we mean of course tremendous amounts of money, not for tanks and weapons



you said war spending ended the Great Depression. I assumed they spent a lot on planes tanks and ships, and everything was rationed at home??




regent said:


> but internal improvements or whatever. Guess you didn't know that?



there were internal imporvements during WW2, not rationing???

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?? Is any other conclusion possible?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> By war time spending we mean of course tremendous amounts of money, not for tanks and weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you said war spending ended the Great Depression. I assumed they spent a lot on planes tanks and ships, and everything was rationed at home??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> but internal improvements or whatever. Guess you didn't know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there were internal imporvements during WW2, not rationing???
> 
> See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?? Is any other conclusion possible?
Click to expand...


First, I said many posters have said war time spending ended the Great Depression. Second, I never mentioned rationing.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> First, I said many posters have said war time spending ended the Great Depression.



of course thats idiotic and liberal which is why no one called for it during this great recession




regent said:


> Second, I never mentioned rationing.




yes becuase you didn't know about it. Do you have any POV that hasn't been destroyed by now?

Why not tell us, liberal, how spending on planes or bridges ends depression or recessions?? What are you so afraid of? If you know liberalism is ignorance why be a liberal?


----------



## Bfgrn

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too stupid and liberal, of course!! You gave a list about "state" regulations, but could not name even one one federal corporate regulation!!
> 
> You wanted them to be federal regulations so badly that you just flat out lied about it. What does that tell us about you and liberalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can try to spin it anyway you wish with your tiny little brain. Our founding fathers did not believe in the invisible hand. They believed in a firm hand by GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate that belief by quoting the Constitution.
Click to expand...


I just showed you how our founding fathers GOVERNED. Now YOU show me in the Constitution where there is any mention of a free market, an invisible hand or unregulated business?

The premise you are trying to prove is idiotic. Republican is a word. IT has no correlation to today's Republican party. The party Thomas Jefferson and James Madison founded was called The Democratic-Republican Party.

Today's Republican party is much more in line with Alexander Hamilton's vision of big business and corporations. 

After the Constitution was adopted, Americans were presented with two different visions of the nation's economic future. One, championed by Thomas Jefferson, aimed to preserve an economy based on independent farmers producing agricultural products for market. In contrast, Alexander Hamilton envisioned a robust industrial American economy.

Without guidance from the Constitution, these two powerful, competing visions were locked in battle.

By 1830, it had begun to look like Hamilton's ideal of elite-controlled companies and banks fostering national growth and expansion, might win out. The rise of the corporation had important economic consequences, contributing to a shift in power and wealth away from workers and landowners and into the hands of bankers and capitalists. 

The Corporations

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country".
Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, Nov. 12th, 1816.


----------



## code1211

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> we were only lifted out of the Depression by a massive increase in government spending."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"
> 
> "The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]
> 
> In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal
> is urgently needed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As many posters have already noted the New Deal did not spend enough money, it took war time spending to end the Great Depression. Will any administration now fail to spend stimulus money in a depression/recession?
Click to expand...





You and all Liberals are confused.

Ending a recession does require that money get spent, but that spending does not need to come from Government.  In truth, if that spending can be incented to come from the private sector, that is better.

Our current Government is dominated by liberals like yourself who do not understand this.  They are confounded by the fact that the business community is sitting on 3 Trillion dollars of cash that they are simply afraid to spend.

This administration following the philosophy that you a spouse has terrified the most optimistic group of people in the history of the planet, American Venture Capitalists, into pessimistic inaction.

A wise leader, something we do not have, would be working WITH the business community to free their capital to drive the economy rather than attacking them and threatening them in every speech, every day with every arm of the government and every tactic of Commerce and Justice.

They cripple the horse then whip it because it won't work.


----------



## code1211

regent said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> People keep claiming that it was the spending of WWII that ended the depression, that seems like evidence that the government simply did not  spend enough on Hoover's RFC or FDR's  New Deal? In any case Hoover began the idea that the government has a responsiblity to be involved in recessions/depressions, and we seem to be following that Keynsian path to this day. Hoover started the government spending, FDR increased Hoover's spending but the evidence is that neither were enough it took a WWII type of spending to end the Great Depression. Would the depression have ended on its own, we may never know, but the bigger question would the American people have waited for it to end on its own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we know for a fact is that it did not.
> 
> Keynsian Economics provides that in good time the government collects a surplus that it can spend in the lean time.  We are not practicing this.
> 
> We are witnessing political hacks draining the treasury to buy votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying that the problem is that we don't follow Keynes totally we only practice part of Keynes and we should be practicing the whole thing.  So from now on instead of tax breaks for the wealthy we should pay back the borrowed money. Good idea.
Click to expand...




No.  What I'm saying is that, as always, Liberals have said one thing and done another.  

Before you get hung up on Partisan hackery, the Republicans and the Democrats both do this.

A Liberal is what he does, not what he says.


----------



## code1211

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can try to spin it anyway you wish with your tiny little brain. Our founding fathers did not believe in the invisible hand. They believed in a firm hand by GOVERNMENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate that belief by quoting the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just showed you how our founding fathers GOVERNED. Now YOU show me in the Constitution where there is any mention of a free market, an invisible hand or unregulated business?
> 
> The premise you are trying to prove is idiotic. Republican is a word. IT has no correlation to today's Republican party. The party Thomas Jefferson and James Madison founded was called The Democratic-Republican Party.
> 
> Today's Republican party is much more in line with Alexander Hamilton's vision of big business and corporations.
> 
> After the Constitution was adopted, Americans were presented with two different visions of the nation's economic future. One, championed by Thomas Jefferson, aimed to preserve an economy based on independent farmers producing agricultural products for market. In contrast, Alexander Hamilton envisioned a robust industrial American economy.
> 
> Without guidance from the Constitution, these two powerful, competing visions were locked in battle.
> 
> By 1830, it had begun to look like Hamilton's ideal of elite-controlled companies and banks fostering national growth and expansion, might win out. The rise of the corporation had important economic consequences, contributing to a shift in power and wealth away from workers and landowners and into the hands of bankers and capitalists.
> 
> The Corporations
> 
> "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country".
> Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, Nov. 12th, 1816.
Click to expand...



I was pretty sure you could not demonstrate your assertion with the Constitution.  Thank you for confirming my suspicion.

The beauty of this Republic is that it can adapt and can be adapted.  The danger of this Republic is that it can be perverted.  The existence of the huge corporations like the ones that Teddy fought was not imagined by the Founders.

The dream of Jefferson's philosophy and the mechanics of Hamilton's banking system is what provides the soul and the body of our country.  Unique among nations is this combination of secular and mandated morality with a financial system that gives the bankroll to protect it and the pathway to participate in it.

The Declaration and the Constitution while steeped in Christianity stand independently separated from Christianity as our country's documents of faith.  Even those who cannot quote the Declaration know what it means to individuals.  Our faith in the Constitution is demonstrated by our core belief, held at the individual level, that anything unjust must be UnConstitutional.

Without Jefferson's dream, Hamilton's system is nothing more than a Treasury.

Without Hamilton's system, Jefferson's dream is faded parchment in a closet somewhere.

Without the combination of these two unique and powerful visions, we are living in a Mexico North, poverty stricken, shell of what we could have been and very likely sending tribute to Berlin, Tokyo or Moscow.


----------



## Bfgrn

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate that belief by quoting the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just showed you how our founding fathers GOVERNED. Now YOU show me in the Constitution where there is any mention of a free market, an invisible hand or unregulated business?
> 
> The premise you are trying to prove is idiotic. Republican is a word. IT has no correlation to today's Republican party. The party Thomas Jefferson and James Madison founded was called The Democratic-Republican Party.
> 
> Today's Republican party is much more in line with Alexander Hamilton's vision of big business and corporations.
> 
> After the Constitution was adopted, Americans were presented with two different visions of the nation's economic future. One, championed by Thomas Jefferson, aimed to preserve an economy based on independent farmers producing agricultural products for market. In contrast, Alexander Hamilton envisioned a robust industrial American economy.
> 
> Without guidance from the Constitution, these two powerful, competing visions were locked in battle.
> 
> By 1830, it had begun to look like Hamilton's ideal of elite-controlled companies and banks fostering national growth and expansion, might win out. The rise of the corporation had important economic consequences, contributing to a shift in power and wealth away from workers and landowners and into the hands of bankers and capitalists.
> 
> The Corporations
> 
> "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country".
> Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, Nov. 12th, 1816.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was pretty sure you could not demonstrate your assertion with the Constitution.  Thank you for confirming my suspicion.
> 
> The beauty of this Republic is that it can adapt and can be adapted.  The danger of this Republic is that it can be perverted.  The existence of the huge corporations like the ones that Teddy fought was not imagined by the Founders.
> 
> The dream of Jefferson's philosophy and the mechanics of Hamilton's banking system is what provides the soul and the body of our country.  Unique among nations is this combination of secular and mandated morality with a financial system that gives the bankroll to protect it and the pathway to participate in it.
> 
> The Declaration and the Constitution while steeped in Christianity stand independently separated from Christianity as our country's documents of faith.  Even those who cannot quote the Declaration know what it means to individuals.  Our faith in the Constitution is demonstrated by our core belief, held at the individual level, that anything unjust must be UnConstitutional.
> 
> Without Jefferson's dream, Hamilton's system is nothing more than a Treasury.
> 
> Without Hamilton's system, Jefferson's dream is faded parchment in a closet somewhere.
> 
> Without the combination of these two unique and powerful visions, we are living in a Mexico North, poverty stricken, shell of what we could have been and very likely sending tribute to Berlin, Tokyo or Moscow.
Click to expand...


I demonstrated my assertion with actual GOVERNANCE; laws and actions.

NOW...SHOW ME where in the Constitution it mentions free markets, capitalism, an invisible hand, or deregulation?

You CAN'T! But right wing turds like you believe that YOUR premises are the default.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Ending a recession does require that money get spent, but that spending does not need to come from Government.  In truth, if that spending can be incented to come from the private sector, that is better.



Correct, but you follow this to an incorrect conclusion. The problem in a recession is not that capital isn't available, nor that it CAN'T be spent, but rather that it ISN'T being spent -- or rather, isn't being invested. In fact, that difference between spending and investment is the whole problem.

Why does someone invest in plant expansion, founding a new business, or similar activities that create jobs? Because they expect to see a return on that investment. Why do they have that expectation? Because there is unsatisfied demand (or they think there is) for the products or services to be offered on the market. Where does demand come from? It comes from people who have money -- not large concentrations of money (that's where investment capital comes from), but just plain old spending money. It comes from people with good jobs, earning good wages, or otherwise from people who have money to spend on things.

What happens in a recession? People lose their jobs. People have less money to spend. Demand drops, and so there is less incentive to invest in the production of goods and services, and for that reason investment drops, which leads to more layoffs, which makes things worse, and this cycle continues until something happens to turn it around.

Why has the Lesser Depression we are in today not been as bad as the Great Depression? Because the drop in demand was cushioned by wealth-transfer programs in place since the 1930s or 1960s, such as unemployment insurance. This put money into the hands of unemployed people, which they spent, which kept business failure from being as bad as in the 1930s crash.

After Roosevelt took office in 1933, the initial recession that started the Great Depression turned around and the economy went into growth mode. One reason for this was Roosevelt's willingness to spend on relief, more so than Hoover had been. The signature programs of the First New Deal, the NRA and AAA, were mostly a waste of effort (the TVA was an exception; that was well worth doing), but programs like the WPA and CCC, which provided work-relief to millions of unemployed people, did help -- some. Not enough to end the Depression, but enough to make things somewhat better.

How did World War II pull us out of the Depression? By doing what Roosevelt had already been doing, on the scale that he should have been doing it but wasn't. Between military service and working in war industries, we achieved full employment at good wages. Demand soared. (There wasn't a whole lot to spend the money on, thanks to wartime rationing, but everyone had plenty to eat and a home and clothes, which was a big improvement.) For several years, as we fought the war, this demand accumulated in the form of savings and War Bond investments.

As the war ended, some people worried that when the military was demobilized and the war contracts finished, the economy would slip back into depression, which shows that a lot of people back then didn't understand how demand works to drive investment. After the war, people had been working at good jobs with nothing much to spend the money on, and so pent-up demand was HUGE. Because of that, investors were quick and ready to put up the dough to re-tool our manufacturing plants to make cars and refrigerators instead of tanks and airplanes, and civilian clothing instead of uniforms. All of which required hiring people, so good jobs were quickly available for those discharged from the military or laid off from the defense plants.

Bottom line: the government is the entity that needs to invest to pull us out of a depression not because no one else CAN, but because no one else WILL. Demand is the driver, and lack of money in people's pockets equals lack of demand, and without demand there is no reason to invest.


----------



## Polk

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> we were only lifted out of the Depression by a massive increase in government spending."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"
> 
> "The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]
> 
> In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal
> is urgently needed
Click to expand...


Things were worse in 1939 than they were in 1936... after the austerity measures Morgenthau called for where put in place. Morgenthau wasn't a significant backer of the New Deal. He was one of the strongest critics inside the administration.


----------



## code1211

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just showed you how our founding fathers GOVERNED. Now YOU show me in the Constitution where there is any mention of a free market, an invisible hand or unregulated business?
> 
> The premise you are trying to prove is idiotic. Republican is a word. IT has no correlation to today's Republican party. The party Thomas Jefferson and James Madison founded was called The Democratic-Republican Party.
> 
> Today's Republican party is much more in line with Alexander Hamilton's vision of big business and corporations.
> 
> After the Constitution was adopted, Americans were presented with two different visions of the nation's economic future. One, championed by Thomas Jefferson, aimed to preserve an economy based on independent farmers producing agricultural products for market. In contrast, Alexander Hamilton envisioned a robust industrial American economy.
> 
> Without guidance from the Constitution, these two powerful, competing visions were locked in battle.
> 
> By 1830, it had begun to look like Hamilton's ideal of elite-controlled companies and banks fostering national growth and expansion, might win out. The rise of the corporation had important economic consequences, contributing to a shift in power and wealth away from workers and landowners and into the hands of bankers and capitalists.
> 
> The Corporations
> 
> "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country".
> Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, Nov. 12th, 1816.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was pretty sure you could not demonstrate your assertion with the Constitution.  Thank you for confirming my suspicion.
> 
> The beauty of this Republic is that it can adapt and can be adapted.  The danger of this Republic is that it can be perverted.  The existence of the huge corporations like the ones that Teddy fought was not imagined by the Founders.
> 
> The dream of Jefferson's philosophy and the mechanics of Hamilton's banking system is what provides the soul and the body of our country.  Unique among nations is this combination of secular and mandated morality with a financial system that gives the bankroll to protect it and the pathway to participate in it.
> 
> The Declaration and the Constitution while steeped in Christianity stand independently separated from Christianity as our country's documents of faith.  Even those who cannot quote the Declaration know what it means to individuals.  Our faith in the Constitution is demonstrated by our core belief, held at the individual level, that anything unjust must be UnConstitutional.
> 
> Without Jefferson's dream, Hamilton's system is nothing more than a Treasury.
> 
> Without Hamilton's system, Jefferson's dream is faded parchment in a closet somewhere.
> 
> Without the combination of these two unique and powerful visions, we are living in a Mexico North, poverty stricken, shell of what we could have been and very likely sending tribute to Berlin, Tokyo or Moscow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I demonstrated my assertion with actual GOVERNANCE; laws and actions.
> 
> NOW...SHOW ME where in the Constitution it mentions free markets, capitalism, an invisible hand, or deregulation?
> 
> You CAN'T! But right wing turds like you believe that YOUR premises are the default.
Click to expand...



Powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people.

Since this none of the things you mention are cited by the Constitution, they are reserved to the States or to the people.

You cannot support your assertion because your assertion is baseless.




Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## Bfgrn

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was pretty sure you could not demonstrate your assertion with the Constitution.  Thank you for confirming my suspicion.
> 
> The beauty of this Republic is that it can adapt and can be adapted.  The danger of this Republic is that it can be perverted.  The existence of the huge corporations like the ones that Teddy fought was not imagined by the Founders.
> 
> The dream of Jefferson's philosophy and the mechanics of Hamilton's banking system is what provides the soul and the body of our country.  Unique among nations is this combination of secular and mandated morality with a financial system that gives the bankroll to protect it and the pathway to participate in it.
> 
> The Declaration and the Constitution while steeped in Christianity stand independently separated from Christianity as our country's documents of faith.  Even those who cannot quote the Declaration know what it means to individuals.  Our faith in the Constitution is demonstrated by our core belief, held at the individual level, that anything unjust must be UnConstitutional.
> 
> Without Jefferson's dream, Hamilton's system is nothing more than a Treasury.
> 
> Without Hamilton's system, Jefferson's dream is faded parchment in a closet somewhere.
> 
> Without the combination of these two unique and powerful visions, we are living in a Mexico North, poverty stricken, shell of what we could have been and very likely sending tribute to Berlin, Tokyo or Moscow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I demonstrated my assertion with actual GOVERNANCE; laws and actions.
> 
> NOW...SHOW ME where in the Constitution it mentions free markets, capitalism, an invisible hand, or deregulation?
> 
> You CAN'T! But right wing turds like you believe that YOUR premises are the default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people.
> 
> Since this none of the things you mention are cited by the Constitution, they are reserved to the States or to the people.
> 
> You cannot support your assertion because your assertion is baseless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 8 - Powers of Congress
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
> 
> To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
> 
> To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
> 
> To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
> 
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
> 
> To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
> 
> To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
> 
> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
> 
> To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
> 
> To provide and maintain a Navy;
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
> 
> To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
> 
> Section 9 - Limits on Congress
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
> 
> No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
> 
> (No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
> 
> No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
> 
> No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
> 
> No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
> 
> No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
> 
> Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> 
> Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...


SHOW ME where in the Constitution it mentions free markets, capitalism, an invisible hand, or deregulation? 

I will be waiting................

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ending a recession does require that money get spent, but that spending does not need to come from Government.  In truth, if that spending can be incented to come from the private sector, that is better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, but you follow this to an incorrect conclusion. The problem in a recession is not that capital isn't available, nor that it CAN'T be spent, but rather that it ISN'T being spent -- or rather, isn't being invested. In fact, that difference between spending and investment is the whole problem.
> 
> Why does someone invest in plant expansion, founding a new business, or similar activities that create jobs? Because they expect to see a return on that investment. Why do they have that expectation? Because there is unsatisfied demand (or they think there is) for the products or services to be offered on the market. Where does demand come from? It comes from people who have money -- not large concentrations of money (that's where investment capital comes from), but just plain old spending money. It comes from people with good jobs, earning good wages, or otherwise from people who have money to spend on things.
> 
> What happens in a recession? People lose their jobs. People have less money to spend. Demand drops, and so there is less incentive to invest in the production of goods and services, and for that reason investment drops, which leads to more layoffs, which makes things worse, and this cycle continues until something happens to turn it around.
> 
> Why has the Lesser Depression we are in today not been as bad as the Great Depression? Because the drop in demand was cushioned by wealth-transfer programs in place since the 1930s or 1960s, such as unemployment insurance. This put money into the hands of unemployed people, which they spent, which kept business failure from being as bad as in the 1930s crash.
> 
> After Roosevelt took office in 1933, the initial recession that started the Great Depression turned around and the economy went into growth mode. One reason for this was Roosevelt's willingness to spend on relief, more so than Hoover had been. The signature programs of the First New Deal, the NRA and AAA, were mostly a waste of effort (the TVA was an exception; that was well worth doing), but programs like the WPA and CCC, which provided work-relief to millions of unemployed people, did help -- some. Not enough to end the Depression, but enough to make things somewhat better.
> 
> How did World War II pull us out of the Depression? By doing what Roosevelt had already been doing, on the scale that he should have been doing it but wasn't. Between military service and working in war industries, we achieved full employment at good wages. Demand soared. (There wasn't a whole lot to spend the money on, thanks to wartime rationing, but everyone had plenty to eat and a home and clothes, which was a big improvement.) For several years, as we fought the war, this demand accumulated in the form of savings and War Bond investments.
> 
> As the war ended, some people worried that when the military was demobilized and the war contracts finished, the economy would slip back into depression, which shows that a lot of people back then didn't understand how demand works to drive investment. After the war, people had been working at good jobs with nothing much to spend the money on, and so pent-up demand was HUGE. Because of that, investors were quick and ready to put up the dough to re-tool our manufacturing plants to make cars and refrigerators instead of tanks and airplanes, and civilian clothing instead of uniforms. All of which required hiring people, so good jobs were quickly available for those discharged from the military or laid off from the defense plants.
> 
> Bottom line: the government is the entity that needs to invest to pull us out of a depression not because no one else CAN, but because no one else WILL. Demand is the driver, and lack of money in people's pockets equals lack of demand, and without demand there is no reason to invest.
Click to expand...




Let's hop into the time machine and go back to 2009 when the Big 0 and his cronies decided that they needed to save the UAW and public unions and that they would use 1 Trillion dollars of public funds to do this.  They squandered the cash.

GM and Chrysler both went through Bankruptcy which is what the Big 0 claimed the money would prevent and the public unions went through all the cut backs a year later when the money in the states, counties and cities ran out.

What might have happened if the Big 0 and his cronies had decided to gin up the economy instead of buying favors from their political base?  Here's how it could have worked:

The Big 0 announces his intention to help the economy and calls the American public to a unified effort to rebuild America and Re-start the economy.  To help, he will invest 1 Trillion dollars in the effort.  Here's how it will work:  The US federal Government will match personal investments up to $20,000 per household to improve each dwelling with a tax credit of 20 cents on the dollar invested.

This tax credit could be used for a gallon of paint to refresh your apartment or to add wing on to your house or to remodel your kitchen.

The same Trillion that the Big 0 pissed away is spent except that it is spent in one year instead of 10.  An additional 5 Trillion is spent during that first year also by the private sector to take advantage of the tax credit.  The tax credit reduces taxes owed in the following year by, if you're playing at home you know the answer, by an additional Trillion dollars and this is spent by the public sector also.

So, instead of wasting the Trillion on the "shovel ready" jobs that weren't, there is 7 trillion spent on real live homes that use products from every part of the economy including tools, paint, vehicles, materials and labor.  Oh, and I forgot to mention that the labor, the sale of goods and the movement of money through the economy would all create tax revenue and the folks that Obama was buying off would have had the cash to pay their own way and to provide the taxes that would have corrected the problems that the Big 0 only delayed.

That's what a recovery program should look like.  What Obama did was a welfare, graft and pay-off program to his cronies, supporters and sycophants.


----------



## code1211

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I demonstrated my assertion with actual GOVERNANCE; laws and actions.
> 
> NOW...SHOW ME where in the Constitution it mentions free markets, capitalism, an invisible hand, or deregulation?
> 
> You CAN'T! But right wing turds like you believe that YOUR premises are the default.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people.
> 
> Since this none of the things you mention are cited by the Constitution, they are reserved to the States or to the people.
> 
> You cannot support your assertion because your assertion is baseless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 8 - Powers of Congress
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
> 
> To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
> 
> To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
> 
> To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
> 
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
> 
> To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
> 
> To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
> 
> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
> 
> To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
> 
> To provide and maintain a Navy;
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
> 
> To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
> 
> Section 9 - Limits on Congress
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
> 
> No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
> 
> (No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
> 
> No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
> 
> No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
> 
> No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
> 
> No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
> 
> Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> 
> Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SHOW ME where in the Constitution it mentions free markets, capitalism, an invisible hand, or deregulation?
> 
> I will be waiting................
> 
> "I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29
Click to expand...




I don't know if you're playing stupid or not playing...

Anything, A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G, not specifically reserved to the Feds by the Constitution is given to the states or to the people.

The Constitution is a document of limitation.  It limits the Federal Government.  It grants to the Federal Government certain defined powers and these are enumerated.  Ergo, the Enumerated Powers.  If any power is not reserved to Feds, it is not.  Period.

Absence of anything from the Constitution means that it is not a power of the Feds.

Are you failing to grasp this or just being obtuse?


----------



## Bfgrn

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people.
> 
> Since this none of the things you mention are cited by the Constitution, they are reserved to the States or to the people.
> 
> You cannot support your assertion because your assertion is baseless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 8 - Powers of Congress
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
> 
> To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
> 
> To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
> 
> To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
> 
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
> 
> To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
> 
> To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
> 
> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
> 
> To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
> 
> To provide and maintain a Navy;
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
> 
> To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
> 
> Section 9 - Limits on Congress
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
> 
> No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
> 
> (No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
> 
> No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
> 
> No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
> 
> No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
> 
> No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
> 
> Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> 
> Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHOW ME where in the Constitution it mentions free markets, capitalism, an invisible hand, or deregulation?
> 
> I will be waiting................
> 
> "I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you're playing stupid or not playing...
> 
> Anything, A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G, not specifically reserved to the Feds by the Constitution is given to the states or to the people.
> 
> The Constitution is a document of limitation.  It limits the Federal Government.  It grants to the Federal Government certain defined powers and these are enumerated.  Ergo, the Enumerated Powers.  If any power is not reserved to Feds, it is not.  Period.
> 
> Absence of anything from the Constitution means that it is not a power of the Feds.
> 
> Are you failing to grasp this or just being obtuse?
Click to expand...


NOW, in 2012, we have a whole group of dogmatic driven ideologues who absolutely KNOW the founder's true intent.

I will restate what I said in a previous post on this thread:

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> I just showed you how our founding fathers GOVERNED. Now YOU show me in the Constitution where there is any mention of a free market, an invisible hand or unregulated business?




Dear, thats the whole point, it was not mentioned, it was taken for granted that the Feds would not interfere with free, natural, voluntary economic relationships. Indeed, that is exactly how the Republicans governed in 1800!! 

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government" -Jefferson


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Let's hop into the time machine and go back to 2009



Et cetera. I mostly agree with what you're saying in this post, but would like to point out that what you're saying is 1) the government should have made stimulus available faster, and 2) it should also have targeted the money better so as to boost demand more rather than providing a payoff for campaign donors. I might quibble with your specific ideas, but this general point is undeniable.

I agree. The stimulus was very poorly handled. It was also too small. In saying what I did above, I was defending the general principle, definitely not President Obama's application of it, which like so much of what he's done fell far short of what he promised and should have delivered.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> [
> The premise you are trying to prove is idiotic. Republican is a word. IT has no correlation to today's Republican party. The party Thomas Jefferson and James Madison founded was called The Democratic-Republican Party.



If you have primary source to confirm use of the term in 18th Century I'll pay you $10,000, bet or run away again with your liberal tail between your legs. 


5th Congress (1797-1799) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803) 

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34


----------



## regent

The reality is closer to what Justice Hughes said, "The Constitution is what the Court say it is." There you have it, and will all the posts change that? 
Is a law Constitutional unless found by the Court to be unconstitutional?


----------



## Dragon

Among the enumerated powers granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, along with many narrowly defined powers there are two, or maybe three, very, very broad powers that encompass an enormous amount of government authority. These are the power to tax and spend, which Congress may do "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," and the power to regulate interstate and international commerce. The third power is the so-called "necessary and proper" clause, but that's a power dependent on the scope of the others and so perhaps not a broad power in itself.

Between them, the broad powers to tax and spend and to regulate interstate commerce imply that the Constitution definitely does NOT envision limitations on the government consonant with free-market libertarianism.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> Today's Republican party is much more in line with Alexander Hamilton's vision of big business and corporations.



too stupid but perfectly liberal given the BO just took over 20% of the economy in perfect crony capitalist style while Republicans want free enterprise. Are you really intelligent enough to be here?





Bfgrn said:


> After the Constitution was adopted, Americans were presented with two different visions of the nation's economic future. One, championed by Thomas Jefferson, aimed to preserve an economy based on independent farmers producing agricultural products for market. In contrast, Alexander Hamilton envisioned a robust industrial American economy.



too stupid but perefectly liberal

1) Hamilton and the Federalists were defeated by Jefferson never to heard from again

2) Jefferson called it the second American Revolution.

3) Yes, in the beginning Jefferson thought of farming and importing manufactured goods from Europe, but by time he was in office he was enforcing an embargo against European trade and so  encouraging domestic manufacturing.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> Without guidance from the Constitution, these two powerful, competing visions were locked in battle.




too stupid!! The Federalists were defeated never to be heard from again until the Communist inspired New Deal


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country".
> Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, Nov. 12th, 1816.



Of course by today's standards there were few if any corporations in Jefferson's day. And of course he never imagined corporations would carry us from a time when 98% were private farmers, to today when 98% of us work a mere 8 hour days in air conditioned offices! Nor did he realize that capitalism would regulate them to the point where they were locked in a deadly battle to raise quality and lower price to stay ahead of competition and avoid bankruptcy. Indeed, 1000's lose this  battle every month and declare bankruptcy thanks to consumer regulation!  In fact, a modern corporation is a virtual slave to its customers and can therefore only succeed by raising the consumer's  standard of living. If you doubt this for a second please try to start a corporation yourself. Thanks to the magic of capitalism you won't make a penny until your customer would rather spend that penny on your product more than on any other product from anywhere in the world. The corporate capitalist mentality is the source of morality on earth. Liberalism is the exact opposite, it is about how to extract entitlements  from the other guy rather than how to fulfill his needs

Moreover, and most importantly, Jefferson does not say the government must prohibit corporations and thus perfectly destroy our standard of living which is the highest in human history! He does  very clearly say though that liberal government is the exact thing America was founded to prohibit.

Moreover, the word "corporation" to Jefferson and Adam Smith had little relationship to the word today:

The pretence that corporations are necessary for the
better government of  the trade, is without any
foundation. The real and effectual discipline which is
exercised over a workman, is not that of
his corporation, but that of his customers. It is the fear
of losing their employment which restrains his frauds
and corrects his negligence. An exclusive
corporation necessarily weakens the force of this
discipline. A particular set of workmen must then be
employed, let them behave well or ill. It is upon this
account, that in many large incorporated towns no
tolerable workmen are to be found, even in some of
the most necessary trades. If you would have your
work tolerably executed, it must be done in the
suburbs, where the workmen, having no exclusive
privilege, have nothing but their character to
depend upon, and you must then smuggle it into the
town as well as you can. (p. 129) Wealth of Nations


Corporations already existed in the new nation, but these were primarily educational corporations or institutions chartered by the British crown which continued to exist after the new nation was created from the Confederation. Due to experience as British Colonies and the accompanying corporate colonialism from British corporations chartered by the crown to do business in North America, new corporations were greeted with mixed feelings. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1816 letter to George Logan:[5] 
I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.



Mike Byron:Jefferson and Madison were so insistent upon this amendment[11th] because the American Revolution was in substantial degree a revolt against the domination of colonial economic and political life by the greatest multinational corporation of its age: the British East India Company. After all who do you think owned the tea which Sam Adams and friends dumped overboard in Boston Harbor? Who was responsible for the taxes on commodities and restrictions on trade by the American colonists? It was the British East India Company, of course.

And of course none of this takes into account that Hamilton, Jefferson's blood enemy, started a government corporation for  useful manufactures or that Jefferson was born a farmer, wanted all Americans to be small farmers, and saw corporations as a threat to his agrarian lifestyle.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> Between them, the broad powers to tax and spend and to regulate interstate commerce



too stupid and perfectly liberal. We know what they said and how they governed once running the country under the Constitution they wrote. The commerce clause was designed to promote free trade between states and countries!!! Welcome to your first lesson in American History! 

The American Revolution was about freedom from liberal government.
What did you think it was about?


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just showed you how our founding fathers GOVERNED. Now YOU show me in the Constitution where there is any mention of a free market, an invisible hand or unregulated business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear, thats the whole point, it was not mentioned, it was taken for granted that the Feds would not interfere with free, natural, voluntary economic relationships. Indeed, that is exactly how the Republicans governed in 1800!!
> 
> "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government" -Jefferson
Click to expand...


Again, you ignore the reality of how our founders governed. 

I also find it interesting that your quote of Jefferson exorcizes the most important qualification; the human one.

"I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

  Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafterwith all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizensa wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> The reality is closer to what Justice Hughes said, "The Constitution is what the Court say it is."



of course treasonous liberals say that because they hate the freedom the Constitution embodies. This is why they spied for Stalin


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just showed you how our founding fathers GOVERNED. Now YOU show me in the Constitution where there is any mention of a free market, an invisible hand or unregulated business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear, thats the whole point, it was not mentioned, it was taken for granted that the Feds would not interfere with free, natural, voluntary economic relationships. Indeed, that is exactly how the Republicans governed in 1800!!
> 
> "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government" -Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you ignore the reality of how our founders governed.
> 
> I also find it interesting that your quote of Jefferson exorcizes the most important qualification; the human one.
> 
> "I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
> 
> Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter&#8212;with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens&#8212;a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
Click to expand...


do you have any idea what point you are trying to make????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.



Jefferson's point here is that man can't be trusted with government , so government  must be kept very very limited. Thanks for making the Republican point, liberal !!!


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is closer to what Justice Hughes said, "The Constitution is what the Court say it is."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course treasonous liberals say that because they hate the freedom the Constitution embodies. This is why they spied for Stalin
Click to expand...


The biggest believer in social Darwinism in the 20th century was Joseph Stalin. He would fit perfectly in today's GOP.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians


----------



## Brutus

Bfgrn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is closer to what Justice Hughes said, "The Constitution is what the Court say it is."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course treasonous liberals say that because they hate the freedom the Constitution embodies. This is why they spied for Stalin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The biggest believer in social Darwinism in the 20th century was Joseph Stalin. He would fit perfectly in today's GOP.
Click to expand...



Dear, it was the liberals who spied for Stalin, it is BO who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders

How on earth can conservatives be authoritarian when stand for extreme anti authoritarian government while liberals just took over 20% of economy-health care . See why we are positive liberals are very very slow?? What other conclusion is possible??

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians[/QUOTE]


----------



## code1211

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> SHOW ME where in the Constitution it mentions free markets, capitalism, an invisible hand, or deregulation?
> 
> I will be waiting................
> 
> "I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you're playing stupid or not playing...
> 
> Anything, A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G, not specifically reserved to the Feds by the Constitution is given to the states or to the people.
> 
> The Constitution is a document of limitation.  It limits the Federal Government.  It grants to the Federal Government certain defined powers and these are enumerated.  Ergo, the Enumerated Powers.  If any power is not reserved to Feds, it is not.  Period.
> 
> Absence of anything from the Constitution means that it is not a power of the Feds.
> 
> Are you failing to grasp this or just being obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOW, in 2012, we have a whole group of dogmatic driven ideologues who absolutely KNOW the founder's true intent.
> 
> I will restate what I said in a previous post on this thread:
> 
> Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.
> 
> So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.
> 
> Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.
> 
> "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
Click to expand...





You are ascribing to these folks things they may have believed, but did not enact at the Federal Level.

The Constitution is what we are discussing and you are saying that the Founders imposed heavy regulation on Corporations.

In the post above you changed this to say that the Founders opposed swindling the common man.  Heavy regulations occur before the swindle and the penalty after the swindle occur afterward.  Obviously.

Can you produce a federal regulation from pre 1800 that demonstrates your claim?  There is nothing in the Consstitution so that assertion is empty.  

I'm not saying it doesn't exist.  I'm just wondering how it exists in complete secrecy.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's hop into the time machine and go back to 2009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Et cetera. I mostly agree with what you're saying in this post, but would like to point out that what you're saying is 1) the government should have made stimulus available faster, and 2) it should also have targeted the money better so as to boost demand more rather than providing a payoff for campaign donors. I might quibble with your specific ideas, but this general point is undeniable.
> 
> I agree. The stimulus was very poorly handled. It was also too small. In saying what I did above, I was defending the general principle, definitely not President Obama's application of it, which like so much of what he's done fell far short of what he promised and should have delivered.
Click to expand...




Thank you.


----------



## code1211

Bfgrn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is closer to what Justice Hughes said, "The Constitution is what the Court say it is."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course treasonous liberals say that because they hate the freedom the Constitution embodies. This is why they spied for Stalin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The biggest believer in social Darwinism in the 20th century was Joseph Stalin. He would fit perfectly in today's GOP.
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
Click to expand...




Conservatives include a wide stripe of people, but with regard to a form of government, they are generally committed to the Constitution as a base and therefore are also committed to a diffused arrangement of authority pressing it to the lowest levels away from Washington as will suffice to accomplish the job at hand.

As such, your quotation is simply wrong in today's parlence.


----------



## Bfgrn

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you're playing stupid or not playing...
> 
> Anything, A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G, not specifically reserved to the Feds by the Constitution is given to the states or to the people.
> 
> The Constitution is a document of limitation.  It limits the Federal Government.  It grants to the Federal Government certain defined powers and these are enumerated.  Ergo, the Enumerated Powers.  If any power is not reserved to Feds, it is not.  Period.
> 
> Absence of anything from the Constitution means that it is not a power of the Feds.
> 
> Are you failing to grasp this or just being obtuse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOW, in 2012, we have a whole group of dogmatic driven ideologues who absolutely KNOW the founder's true intent.
> 
> I will restate what I said in a previous post on this thread:
> 
> Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.
> 
> So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.
> 
> Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.
> 
> "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are ascribing to these folks things they may have believed, but did not enact at the Federal Level.
> 
> The Constitution is what we are discussing and you are saying that the Founders imposed heavy regulation on Corporations.
> 
> In the post above you changed this to say that the Founders opposed swindling the common man.  Heavy regulations occur before the swindle and the penalty after the swindle occur afterward.  Obviously.
> 
> Can you produce a federal regulation from pre 1800 that demonstrates your claim?  There is nothing in the Consstitution so that assertion is empty.
> 
> I'm not saying it doesn't exist.  I'm just wondering how it exists in complete secrecy.
Click to expand...


What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations

To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. Its quite the opposite in fact. Corporations like the East India Trading Company were despised by the founders and they were just one reason why they chose to revolt against England. Corporations represented the moneyed interests much like they do today and they often wielded political power, sometimes to the point of governing a colony all by themselves like the Massachusetts Bay Company did.

But there is more evidence that the Revolutionary generation despised corporations. The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.

After the nations founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. When you think about it, the regulations imposed on corporations in the early days of America were far harsher than they are now. That is hardly proof that the founders supported corporations. In fact its quite the opposite. The corporate entity was so restrictive that many of Americas corporate giants set up their entities to avoid the corporate restrictions. For example, Andrew Carnegie set up his steel company as a limited partnership and John D. Rockefeller set up his Standard Oil company as a trust which would later be rightfully busted up into smaller companies by Theodore Roosevelt.

For those who need more evidence, how about statements from the founders themselves. As we all know, big banks are also considered corporations and here is what Thomas Jefferson thought about them. In an 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin, Jefferson said,

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,

I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

Jefferson wasnt the only founding father to make statements about corporations. John Adams also had an opinion.

Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. &#8221;




The subject is idiotic since there were no corporations to speak of. 95% were independent farmers or self employed, plus the corporations that did exist in the public mind were really huge  government monopolies.

Even more absurd is being against modern corporations since we all work for them and get the goods and services that sustain our lives from them. Being against them is like being against the wind. Only liberals could be so stupid. what other conclusion is possible?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> &#8220;I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.&#8221;



this quote shows perfectly that Jefferson's corporations are opposite of modern corporations. The idea that 25 modern million corporations, all competing with each other,  could somehow get organized through a secret society ( maybe the Girl Scout is their front organization?)  and challenge our government is so perfectly stupid as to be perfectly liberal.


----------



## code1211

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOW, in 2012, we have a whole group of dogmatic driven ideologues who absolutely KNOW the founder's true intent.
> 
> I will restate what I said in a previous post on this thread:
> 
> Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.
> 
> So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.
> 
> Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.
> 
> "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are ascribing to these folks things they may have believed, but did not enact at the Federal Level.
> 
> The Constitution is what we are discussing and you are saying that the Founders imposed heavy regulation on Corporations.
> 
> In the post above you changed this to say that the Founders opposed swindling the common man.  Heavy regulations occur before the swindle and the penalty after the swindle occur afterward.  Obviously.
> 
> Can you produce a federal regulation from pre 1800 that demonstrates your claim?  There is nothing in the Consstitution so that assertion is empty.
> 
> I'm not saying it doesn't exist.  I'm just wondering how it exists in complete secrecy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations
> 
> To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. Its quite the opposite in fact. Corporations like the East India Trading Company were despised by the founders and they were just one reason why they chose to revolt against England. Corporations represented the moneyed interests much like they do today and they often wielded political power, sometimes to the point of governing a colony all by themselves like the Massachusetts Bay Company did.
> 
> But there is more evidence that the Revolutionary generation despised corporations. The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.
> 
> After the nations founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. When you think about it, the regulations imposed on corporations in the early days of America were far harsher than they are now. That is hardly proof that the founders supported corporations. In fact its quite the opposite. The corporate entity was so restrictive that many of Americas corporate giants set up their entities to avoid the corporate restrictions. For example, Andrew Carnegie set up his steel company as a limited partnership and John D. Rockefeller set up his Standard Oil company as a trust which would later be rightfully busted up into smaller companies by Theodore Roosevelt.
> 
> For those who need more evidence, how about statements from the founders themselves. As we all know, big banks are also considered corporations and here is what Thomas Jefferson thought about them. In an 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin, Jefferson said,
> 
> If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,
> 
> I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
> 
> Jefferson wasnt the only founding father to make statements about corporations. John Adams also had an opinion.
> 
> Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.
Click to expand...





Blah, Blah, Blah...

Show me the section in the Constitution in which they outlawed Corporations.


As far as this passage goes:

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

Our children don't need banks and corporations to deprive them of their wealth.  The Big 0 has pretty taken care of that with his ran a way spending.

Did you find any quotes from Jefferson regarding racking up 5 Trillion dollars of debt in three years?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> Between military service and working in war industries, we achieved full employment at good wages.



of course thats perfectly idiotic. A artificial liberal bubble will burst just like the housing bubble did and cause a recession or depression.

What a fool a liberal must be to think that building planes and tanks and dumping them into the sea will solve our problems. It is not even childlike.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Show me the section in the Constitution in which they outlawed Corporations.



First, show us where anyone claims that it does. Failing that, show where anyone's argument depends on it having done so.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

code1211 said:


> Did you find any quotes from Jefferson regarding racking up 5 Trillion dollars of debt in three years?




Jefferson wrote his letter to long time friend John Taylor,dated NOv.26, 1798, which was in fact advocating that such an amendment be added to the Constitution.Thomas Jefferson who, just two years after the Constitution had been in effect, argued for a Constitutional amendment: I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an article, taking from the Federal government the power of borrowing.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819

The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. 


When Jefferson assumed the Presidency, the crisis in France had passed. He slashed Army and Navy expenditures, cut the budget, eliminated the tax on whiskey so unpopular in the West, yet reduced the national debt by a third. He also sent a naval squadron to fight the Barbary pirates, who were harassing American commerce in the Mediterranean


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the section in the Constitution in which they outlawed Corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, show us where anyone claims that it does. Failing that, show where anyone's argument depends on it having done so.
Click to expand...




Bfgrn says exactly this in post #292.

That he supports it by saying that corporations are regulated at the State level does little to support his claim as it applies to the federal Charter.

Such is life.

He said that Corporations were heavily regulated by the Founders, but they were obviously not regulated at the Federal Level.  

By understating the lack of connection between the Federal level regulation, he disingenuously implies that the Founders wanted to regulate corporations at the Federal Level.  It is obvious that they did not.

Then, as now, Corporations are incorporated at the State level.  The Founders believed that the States should have the stronger regulatory influence over people and what they do.  That is why the Constitution is so limiting in its language and intent.

I feel that they shared my opinion that the most beautiful phrase in the English language is, "Congress shall make no law."


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you find any quotes from Jefferson regarding racking up 5 Trillion dollars of debt in three years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson wrote his letter to long time friend John Taylor,dated NOv.26, 1798, which was in fact advocating that such an amendment be added to the Constitution.Thomas Jefferson who, just two years after the Constitution had been in effect, argued for a Constitutional amendment: I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an article, taking from the Federal government the power of borrowing.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819
> 
> The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
> 
> 
> When Jefferson assumed the Presidency, the crisis in France had passed. He slashed Army and Navy expenditures, cut the budget, eliminated the tax on whiskey so unpopular in the West, yet reduced the national debt by a third. He also sent a naval squadron to fight the Barbary pirates, who were harassing American commerce in the Mediterranean
Click to expand...


Jefferson was a great liberal, in fact, America's first liberal president. But then as most politicians when they gain office he seemed to lose his fear of govenment. I guess if one is president he automatically loses some fears.  Jefferson also borrowed some 15 million dollars to buy Lousiana and try as he might, could find nothing in the Constitution that allowed a president to buy foreign land and so Jefferson now like Hamilton was embarked on a loose interpretation of the Constitution.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Jefferson was a great liberal, in fact, America's first liberal president.



of course thats perfectly idiotic since Jefferson came after the liberal Federalists, Washington and Adams, whom he defeated over the issue of limited government.




regent said:


> But then as most politicians when they gain office he seemed to lose his fear of govenment.


100% idiotic of course. He was opposed to big government, not to a big country geographically





regent said:


> I guess if one is president he automatically loses some fears.  Jefferson also borrowed some 15 million dollars to buy Lousiana and try as he might, could find nothing in the Constitution that allowed a president to buy foreign land and so Jefferson now like Hamilton was embarked on a loose interpretation of the Constitution.


it was loose for sure but it was a one-off, non ideological event that all sides agreed was incredibly good for the country. It had nothing to do with his ideology.


----------



## regent

You have your history and the historians have theirs. That's got to be a real decider. 
Anyway it seems you are saying  that if both sides agree that something is good for the country the Constitution is immaterial. Good idea.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> You have your history and the historians have theirs.



know idea what your subject is



regent said:


> That's got to be a real decider.



that???? whats that you boob!!



regent said:


> Anyway it seems you are saying  that if both sides agree that something is good for the country the Constitution is immaterial. Good idea.



as long as its non ideological, happens once a century or less, and looks to return $trillions and trillions and $trillions as the Purchase did, why not!!


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have your history and the historians have theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> know idea what your subject is
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's got to be a real decider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that???? whats that you boob!!
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good deal or not, the conservatives screamed, violation of the Constitution, a waste of money, and worse they knew that soon that section would be sending liberals to the Congress.
> When the vote for money came up in the House the vote was 59 for, and 57 against, seems close?
> But I guess that a precedent had been set, if it's a good deal, the Constitution can be by-passed. And Jefferson probably feared government even less after the purchase. Why fear government when you are the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## code1211

regent said:


> You have your history and the historians have theirs. That's got to be a real decider.
> Anyway it seems you are saying  that if both sides agree that something is good for the country the Constitution is immaterial. Good idea.





By what means were the funds approved to be spent?

By any measure, this was a good deal from our side and the French just wanted to be shed of it.  The legal transfer avoided a possible war with Britain which was spoiling for a fight already.

Did jeferson end up with a deficit or a surplus or a balance?


----------



## code1211

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have your history and the historians have theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> know idea what your subject is
> 
> 
> 
> that???? whats that you boob!!
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good deal or not, the conservatives screamed, violation of the Constitution, a waste of money, and worse they knew that soon that section would be sending liberals to the Congress.
> When the vote for money came up in the House the vote was 59 for, and 57 against, seems close?
> But I guess that a precedent had been set, if it's a good deal, the Constitution can be by-passed. And Jefferson probably feared government even less after the purchase. Why fear government when you are the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was the Louisiana Purchase ever challenged in the courts?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Why fear government when you are the government.



Obviously because in the future a liberal may  be the government. The Constitution was designed to make liberal big government illegal.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Jefferson

Notice how liberty and government are presented as opposites. That is something a liberal lacks the IQ to understand.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

code1211 said:


> Did jeferson end up with a deficit or a surplus or a balance?



Thomas Jefferson who, just two years after the Constitution had been in effect, argued for a Constitutional amendment: I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an article, taking from the Federal government the power of borrowing. 

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819

The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. 


When Jefferson assumed the Presidency, the crisis in France had passed. He slashed Army and Navy expenditures, cut the budget, eliminated the tax on whiskey so unpopular in the West, yet reduced the national debt by a third. He also sent a naval squadron to fight the Barbary pirates, who were harassing American commerce in the Mediterranean.

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."-Jefferson


----------



## regent

Well if the Constitution was designed to make big liberal government illegal, it failed. But where in the Constitution does it say big liberal government is against the law, or big government or liberal government are unlawful? The Constitution was written with liberal ideas from the Age of Enlightenent and Reason, and those liberal ideas appear in the Declaration of Independence written by a liberal, Jefferson. 
 Government was limited in power, not in size, by the Constitution that gave the national government limited powers, other powers to the states. and and the Bill of Rights. The state powers were  pretty much destroyed by the conservative Marshall Court with Marbury.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Well if the Constitution was designed to make big liberal government illegal, it failed.



yes Jefferson said the natural order was for liberty to lose ground and government to gain. This is the story of all of human history! Humans are sheep looking for a liberal Hitler, they are not individuals. 



regent said:


> But where in the Constitution does it say big liberal government is against the law, or big government or liberal government are unlawful?



the whole thing is designed to restrict government more than any other founding document in history. The Feds have a few enumerated powers only . BO calls it a document of negative liberties, i.e., it is about what the government cant do! Now you understand the American idea!  




regent said:


> The Constitution was written with liberal ideas from the Age of Enlightenent and Reason, and those liberal ideas appear in the Declaration of Independence written by a liberal, Jefferson.



they were liberal ideas in that they represented change, but it was change to very very limited Republican conservative government. This concept will be over a liberal's head. Don't even try to grasp it.




regent said:


> Government was limited in power, not in size,



sadly for your ego  power and size are about the same thing




regent said:


> by the Constitution that gave the national government limited powers,



yes it, in effect, made liberalsim illegal




regent said:


> The state powers were  pretty much destroyed by the conservative Marshall Court with Marbury.



Jefferson despised Marshall who was a liberal Federalist. Marbury did not become an important case for almost 100 years.


----------



## regent

Well if liberalism, big government and liberal government are illegal what in the world are conservatives so upset about? As for Marbury it  might have beome important in 1810  with Fletcher v. Peck the beginning of states losing their powers, never to regain.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Well if liberalism, big government and liberal government are illegal what in the world are conservatives so upset about?



murder is illegal, dear, but there is a lot of it


----------



## regent

You just can't make that Mickey Mouse history work can you? 
Jefferson was liberal, his Democratic-Republican party was liberal, and his dislike for, and his relationship with Marshall has no bearing on anything. There are no Constitutional prohibitions against the size of government, or a liberal government, small government or conservative government.  Article One, Section Eight is a list of things the government can do. 
The United States began as a liberal nation and has become more democratic over the years and Mickey Mouse history can't change that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Jefferson was liberal,



you mean classical liberal, i.e., for very very limited government.

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves"-Jefferson




regent said:


> his Democratic-Republican party was liberal,



if his Party was called Democratic-Republican in 18th Century I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??




regent said:


> There are no Constitutional prohibitions against the size of government, or a liberal government, small government or conservative government.



idiot!!! if true then the document would mean nothing. 

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." 

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Nicholas, September 7, 1803




regent said:


> Article One, Section Eight is a list of things the government can do.



yes Founders gave Feds a few enumerated power. You're of course a liberal and a pure idiot. BO was Constitutional law professor. He said it is document of negative liberties, i.e., about things governement cant do. NOw you know why liberals spied for Stalin and why BO voted to left of Bernie Sanders



regent said:


> The United States began as a liberal nation


 you mean classicial liberal,i.e., for change to very limited government




regent said:


> and has become more democratic over the years .



what??????????


----------



## code1211

regent said:


> Well if the Constitution was designed to make big liberal government illegal, it failed. But where in the Constitution does it say big liberal government is against the law, or big government or liberal government are unlawful? The Constitution was written with liberal ideas from the Age of Enlightenent and Reason, and those liberal ideas appear in the Declaration of Independence written by a liberal, Jefferson.
> Government was limited in power, not in size, by the Constitution that gave the national government limited powers, other powers to the states. and and the Bill of Rights. The state powers were  pretty much destroyed by the conservative Marshall Court with Marbury.





What is an example of a Liberal idea in the Constitution?


----------



## code1211

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson was liberal,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean classical liberal, i.e., for very very limited government.
> 
> "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves"-Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> his Democratic-Republican party was liberal,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if his Party was called Democratic-Republican in 18th Century I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idiot!!! if true then the document would mean nothing.
> 
> "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Nicholas, September 7, 1803
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes Founders gave Feds a few enumerated power. You're of course a liberal and a pure idiot. BO was Constitutional law professor. He said it is document of negative liberties, i.e., about things governement cant do. NOw you know why liberals spied for Stalin and why BO voted to left of Bernie Sanders
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States began as a liberal nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean classicial liberal,i.e., for change to very limited government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> and has become more democratic over the years .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what??????????
Click to expand...




I'm with you.  I have no idea what Regent is trying to say and I suspect he is as confused.


----------



## regent

Jefferson was already changing the classical liberal thing, read the Declaration.
As for the bet what evidence would suffice? 
So where does the Constitution place limits on the size of government or prohibit a liberal govenment? 
If I have to explain how the nation has become more democratic over the years, you are truly helpless.
Remember, the evidence you would accept for the name of the Jeffersonians being Democratic-Repupublicans before 1800.


----------



## regent

code1211 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if the Constitution was designed to make big liberal government illegal, it failed. But where in the Constitution does it say big liberal government is against the law, or big government or liberal government are unlawful? The Constitution was written with liberal ideas from the Age of Enlightenent and Reason, and those liberal ideas appear in the Declaration of Independence written by a liberal, Jefferson.
> Government was limited in power, not in size, by the Constitution that gave the national government limited powers, other powers to the states. and and the Bill of Rights. The state powers were  pretty much destroyed by the conservative Marshall Court with Marbury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is an example of a Liberal idea in the Constitution?
Click to expand...


How about the Bill of Rights?


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> What is an example of a Liberal idea in the Constitution?



Here are several:

Democracy -- "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" (Article II, Section 2)

Egalitarianism -- "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" (Article I, Section 9); "No State shall . . . grant any Title of Nobility" (Article I, Section 10)

Political liberty -- "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" (Article III, Section 3)

Freedom of religion, free speech, free press, right of assembly and petition -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (First Amendment)

Due process of law, rights of the accused  -- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Fourth Amendment); "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (Fifth Amendment); "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." (Sixth Amendment)

Racial equality -- "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." (15th Amendment)

Gender equality -- "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." (19th Amendment)

Will that do?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> How about the Bill of Rights?



Was added by Republicans who were scared to death of what liberal government might do unless what rights the people had were perfectly spelled out


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is an example of a Liberal idea in the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are several:
> 
> Democracy -- "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" (Article II, Section 2)
Click to expand...


too stupid!!! by 1000%. the idea of the people having power and not liberal government is 1000% Republican conservative!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> Egalitarianism -- "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" (Article I, Section 9); "No State shall . . . grant any Title of Nobility" (Article I, Section 10)




too stupid by 1000%. Hamilton and the liberal Federalists wanted powerful central government officials which in effect created a titled class of powerful liberals. BO just took over the health care industry. Thats makes him far more powerful than  King  George was!!


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egalitarianism -- "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" (Article I, Section 9); "No State shall . . . grant any Title of Nobility" (Article I, Section 10)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid by 1000%. Hamilton and the liberal Federalists wanted powerful central government officials which in effect created a titled class of powerful liberals. BO just took over the health care industry. Thats makes him far more powerful than  King  George was!!
Click to expand...


So the liberal-Federalists wanted a powerful central government with the govenment officials getting titles. Titles like president?  Can you define liberal? Maybe this is the problem? Everything and everybody seem to be liberal. 
And what health care industry did Bo just take over?  
And worse, I guess you missed my question as to what evidence you would accept  regarding the name Democratic-Republican being used before 1800? You know the $10,000 buck thing.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is an example of a Liberal idea in the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are several:
> 
> Democracy -- "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" (Article II, Section 2)
> 
> Egalitarianism -- "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" (Article I, Section 9); "No State shall . . . grant any Title of Nobility" (Article I, Section 10)
> 
> Political liberty -- "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" (Article III, Section 3)
> 
> Freedom of religion, free speech, free press, right of assembly and petition -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (First Amendment)
> 
> Due process of law, rights of the accused  -- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Fourth Amendment); "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (Fifth Amendment); "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." (Sixth Amendment)
> 
> Racial equality -- "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." (15th Amendment)
> 
> Gender equality -- "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." (19th Amendment)
> 
> Will that do?
Click to expand...




NO.

For you, what is the basic and defining characteristic of Liberalism?  Just one, single clear idea.

I don't want hear about philosophy.  I want to know what you think is the one, single idea of Liberalism, in a political sense, that defines it.  Philosophical ideals like "justice" or "liberty" have no place in this.

Philosophical ideals are like the resort you vacation within.  A political system is the vehicle that gets you there.  I think that you have the two confused and I would like to hear what you believe in this very narrow and specified question.


----------



## code1211

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egalitarianism -- "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" (Article I, Section 9); "No State shall . . . grant any Title of Nobility" (Article I, Section 10)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid by 1000%. Hamilton and the liberal Federalists wanted powerful central government officials which in effect created a titled class of powerful liberals. BO just took over the health care industry. Thats makes him far more powerful than  King  George was!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the liberal-Federalists wanted a powerful central government with the govenment officials getting titles. Titles like president?  Can you define liberal? Maybe this is the problem? Everything and everybody seem to be liberal.
> And what health care industry did Bo just take over?
> And worse, I guess you missed my question as to what evidence you would accept  regarding the name Democratic-Republican being used before 1800? You know the $10,000 buck thing.
Click to expand...




As I read Dragon's post above, it occurred to me that we are talking past each other.

You and Dragon seem to be thinking philosophical beliefs are political systems and that is not the case.

Philosophical beliefs, whether they be a defined code of ethics like the Ten Commandments or the Boy Scout's Oath are not a system of government but are the goals that any government might want to find.  

I asked dragon to state in one clear and concise statement the basic principle of Liberalism as a political device that might help to achieve the philosophical goals espoused by Liberals.   

I ask the same of you.

Remember, the philosophical beliefs are the finished product and the political system is the tool that you use to build it.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> For you, what is the basic and defining characteristic of Liberalism?  Just one, single clear idea.
> 
> I don't want hear about philosophy.



Can't comply with both of these, because liberalism IS a philosophy. Choose between them, please.

I know the difference between a philosophy and a political system. Liberalism is the former.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For you, what is the basic and defining characteristic of Liberalism?  Just one, single clear idea.
> 
> I don't want hear about philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't comply with both of these, because liberalism IS a philosophy. Choose between them, please.
> 
> I know the difference between a philosophy and a political system. Liberalism is the former.
Click to expand...




If that is so, then Liberalism has no place in a discussion on politics.

I believe there is a section on this site for religion.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> If that is so, then Liberalism has no place in a discussion on politics.
> 
> I believe there is a section on this site for religion.



Philosophy is not confined to religion. It is any discussion of ideas that lie outside the scope of scientific method, including values. Politics involves an articulation and expression of values. Strip politics of that, and you are left with no basis for choosing between one political system and another.


----------



## rdean

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually FDR was the greatest liberal in American History in the
> 1930's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes they have been brainwashed to think the government that enslaved them is now their best friend. Liberal targeting of blacks starting in the 1960's  amounted to a near genocide. Now you can understand what Reagan meant when he said, "isn't welfare a from of slavery"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even today's Democratic Party has conservatives because they are a coalition party.  Liberals aren't allowed in today's Republican Party.  They are as welcome as the gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> any evidence or just playing the race card again ? Evidence does not occur to a liberal.
Click to expand...


Clearly, the evidence is the number of gays, liberals and blacks in the Republican Party.  Did that really need to be "explained"?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is so, then Liberalism has no place in a discussion on politics.
> 
> I believe there is a section on this site for religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy is not confined to religion. It is any discussion of ideas that lie outside the scope of scientific method, including values. Politics involves an articulation and expression of values. Strip politics of that, and you are left with no basis for choosing between one political system and another.
Click to expand...




You are saying that an agenda of goals is all that is required for politics.

Both parties say that they are in favor of the same things and both parties have different plans on how to achieve those similar goals.

Our political process clumsily chooses one party or the other to guide us to the achievement of our national goals.  If the goals are the only thing you have, you have nothing worth anything beyond a nursery rhyme.

If you have an idea and no method to implement that idea, what good is that idea?  i was looking forward to flying cars at the age of 20 and have seen none on sale to date.  That's an idea.  What good is it?

Philosphy is philosophy and politics is politics.  Both can influence the other, but neither is what the other is. 

If you are saying that Liberalism is all ideas and no system, and you have said this, then Liberalism is a religion and not a political system.  

What is the system by which Liberalism proposes to achieve the goals that it espouses?


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> You are saying that an agenda of goals is all that is required for politics.



No. I am making an argument based on "necessary," not on "sufficient." I am not saying that an agenda of goals, or any other single thing, is "all" that is required for politics. Try again.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are saying that an agenda of goals is all that is required for politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am making an argument based on "necessary," not on "sufficient." I am not saying that an agenda of goals, or any other single thing, is "all" that is required for politics. Try again.
Click to expand...




Well, I have to admit that you seem to have nailed the Liberal approach to getting things done.

1.  Define a problem.  It doesn't matter what it is or if it actually exists.
2.  Say that it is important that everyone care about this problem and pity the victims of the problem who are helpless.
3.  Create an enemy that is said either does not care about the problem or is not working sufficiently hard to solve the problem.  Whatever effort is made is not enough.
4.  Demand that money be spent to help the victims of the problem.
5.  Condemn any opponent of the spending as racist, sexist, homophobic or mean spirited.
6.  Never, ever, under any circumstance solve the problem or actually address the causes of the problem.
7.  Repeat.

By not having an overarching and guiding principle, no issue has the possibility of being resolved.  No problem has the possibility of finding corrected.

The only function of Liberalism is to divide and create factions that will compete for wealth created by others to solve problems created, often out of thin air, by themselves.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Well, I have to admit that you seem to have nailed the Liberal approach to getting things done.



Please don't put words in my mouth. At the moment we are talking about this:



> By not having an overarching and guiding principle



I would like to answer your question of what overarching and guiding principle guides liberalism, but you rendered it impossible by simultaneously rejecting any "philosophical" consideration. You have posed a question of philosophy, and it must be answered philosophically.

When you recognize this and remove the objection to philosophy -- an absurd objection given that you are yourself TALKING philosophy -- then I can answer your question and we can go from there. Until then, there's nothing more to be said; you have simply closed the door to any possible discussion.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have to admit that you seem to have nailed the Liberal approach to getting things done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't put words in my mouth. At the moment we are talking about this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By not having an overarching and guiding principle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like to answer your question of what overarching and guiding principle guides liberalism, but you rendered it impossible by simultaneously rejecting any "philosophical" consideration. You have posed a question of philosophy, and it must be answered philosophically.
> 
> When you recognize this and remove the objection to philosophy -- an absurd objection given that you are yourself TALKING philosophy -- then I can answer your question and we can go from there. Until then, there's nothing more to be said; you have simply closed the door to any possible discussion.
Click to expand...




What is the ideal modus operandi for Liberalism?  I don't need to know what needs to be accomplished or what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.  I want to know how you intend to get it done.

Is the basic premise to centralize all government to as singular a point as possible or diffuse it to the the lowest level that will accomplish the work?  Does it depend on empowering the individual or in creating cooperatives?  Allowing entrepreneurial achievement or directing corporate direction by government?

This is not a hard thing to do if you know what you believe.  

In terms of a governmental system, what do you believe?


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> What is the ideal modus operandi for Liberalism?  I don't need to know what needs to be accomplished or what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.  I want to know how you intend to get it done.



In whatever way works best, while causing the least harm. And that is going to be different for different situations.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the ideal modus operandi for Liberalism?  I don't need to know what needs to be accomplished or what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.  I want to know how you intend to get it done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In whatever way works best, while causing the least harm. And that is going to be different for different situations.
Click to expand...



Of course that is vague general worthless empty BS. Has this BS ever worked? Is the liberal afraid to provide his best 2 examples for the whole world to see??


----------



## regent

And all this because someone confused the Republican party of the late 1700's with today's Republican party. A very common mistake, then to cover the mistake tried to convert the Republican party of today into today's liberal party or something like that? In any case it is a mistake that is quite common with high school students and even lower division college students.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> And all this because someone confused the Republican party of the late 1700's with today's Republican party.




why confused when they have the same name and political philosophy, and when they both were named for their association with Thomas Jefferson??????

WIKI: The party's founding members chose the name "Republican Party" in the mid-1850s as homage to the values of republicanism promoted by Thomas Jefferson's Republican party."[12] 

"The [modern]Republican Party name was christened in an editorial written by New York newspaper magnate Horace Greeley. Greeley printed in June 1854: "We should not care much whether those thus united (against slavery) were designated 'Whig,' 'Free Democrat' or something else; though we think some simple name like 'Republican' would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery."


----------



## code1211

regent said:


> And all this because someone confused the Republican party of the late 1700's with today's Republican party. A very common mistake, then to cover the mistake tried to convert the Republican party of today into today's liberal party or something like that? In any case it is a mistake that is quite common with high school students and even lower division college students.





What difference does it make which word was used by what political to describe his group of sympathizers 200 years ago?

Getting a Liberal of today to state clearly what he believes like asking him to reveal the secret of the Universe.  He simply will not do it because he simply does not know.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

code1211 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And all this because someone confused the Republican party of the late 1700's with today's Republican party. A very common mistake, then to cover the mistake tried to convert the Republican party of today into today's liberal party or something like that? In any case it is a mistake that is quite common with high school students and even lower division college students.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does it make which word was used by what political to describe his group of sympathizers 200 years ago?
> 
> Getting a Liberal of today to state clearly what he believes like asking him to reveal the secret of the Universe.  He simply will not do it because he simply does not know.
Click to expand...


Yes, a liberal will lack the IQ to know what liberalism is, but he will nevertheless  derive tremendous confidence from knowing, or feeling, that liberalism is legitimately American and connected to the Founding. When he finds out that liberalsim is actually anti-American or even treasonous he will have lost the only foundation he has.


----------



## sealybobo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And all this because someone confused the Republican party of the late 1700's with today's Republican party. A very common mistake, then to cover the mistake tried to convert the Republican party of today into today's liberal party or something like that? In any case it is a mistake that is quite common with high school students and even lower division college students.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does it make which word was used by what political to describe his group of sympathizers 200 years ago?
> 
> Getting a Liberal of today to state clearly what he believes like asking him to reveal the secret of the Universe.  He simply will not do it because he simply does not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, a liberal will lack the IQ to know what liberalism is, but he will nevertheless  derive tremendous confidence from knowing, or feeling, that liberalism is legitimately American and connected to the Founding. When he finds out that liberalsim is actually anti-American or even treasonous he will have lost the only foundation he has.
Click to expand...


But Jefferson disagrees with the righties on the Supreme Court.

Marshall and Jefferson presented two diametrically opposed views of the nature of constitutional interpretation, and it is regrettable that Marshalls view has been virtually uncontested in the United States during the past century; Jefferson was correct to warn that giving the Supreme Court sole ultimate power to interpret the Constitution would shift supremacy from the text of the Constitution to the subjective wishes of Supreme Court justices.

Perhaps it is time to give each branch of government the sovereignty to judge for itself what is constitutional, and the ability to act as a check against misinterpretations by the other branches.


----------



## regent

There was some disagreement as to who would define and apply the constitution. It was assumed by some that it would be the Court, by others the states, or Congress or even the executive. Perhaps that's why the founders never explicitly gave the power to any entity including  the Court in the Constitution. In any case the Court grabbed the power and still has it. No matter who took, or was given the power, it would end up as political, by politicians reflecting their party. The one saving grace of today's Court is the appointment for life. That has given a few justices the ability to drop the political part. Perhaps some day we will have a computer-Court.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Getting a Liberal of today to state clearly what he believes like asking him to reveal the secret of the Universe.



Bullshit. You are simply constructing your question so as to exclude any meaningful answer. You want a definition based on MEANS, when liberalism is actually defined by its ENDS.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a Liberal of today to state clearly what he believes like asking him to reveal the secret of the Universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You are simply constructing your question so as to exclude any meaningful answer. You want a definition based on MEANS, when liberalism is actually defined by its ENDS.
Click to expand...




Ah!  So there is no obligation to the law, any principles, rational thought or due process as long as the End is a good one?

If that is the case, then how does your party define good?  Is a good enough end a justification for the worst process?  The worst methods?  Dishonesty?  Moral corruption?  Thievery?  Constitutional abandonment?  

If you abandon all need to have an overarching MO, then you are open to all kinds of shenanigans.  It does explain allot about Liberalism that rigorously avoids making any plan whatsoever when in power.  How's that 2009 budget coming anyway?

Admitting you have none and denying you need one does not eliminate the need for a plan or the disaster that follows when you don't use one.

As Yogi Berra said, "If you don't know where you're going, you're probably not going to get there."


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a Liberal of today to state clearly what he believes like asking him to reveal the secret of the Universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You are simply constructing your question so as to exclude any meaningful answer. You want a definition based on MEANS, when liberalism is actually defined by its ENDS.
Click to expand...


1) all political philosophies will purport to achieve superior ends. Is there one where the ends are said to be inferior by its adherents?

2) if liberalism has no coherent methodology to achieve its ends it is by definition based on stupidity and dreams since there is so much history from which to judge various methodologies.

3) If liberalism is not conservatism then it ought to have a standard critique of conservatism stating its basic objection. Why doesn't it? Ans: because it has no intelligence with which to understand conceptual methodologies. Liberals is simple the default position for dumb people.


----------



## regent

It does get complicated, maybe go back to the idea that  Hamilton was a liberal and wanted more democracy for America, and of course, it's hard to cope with the charge that Hitler was a socialist, I mean look at what NAZI stands for. How about Hoover disliked apple sellers, or maybe Jefferson wanted the government to build churches, so many of these historical problems. I like Palin's account of Revere warning the British, or Reagan reduced the debt, maybe by now paid off the debt.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> It does get complicated, maybe go back to the idea that  Hamilton was a liberal and wanted more democracy for America, and of course, it's hard to cope with the charge that Hitler was a socialist, I mean look at what NAZI stands for. How about Hoover disliked apple sellers, or maybe Jefferson wanted the government to build churches, so many of these historical problems. I like Palin's account of Revere warning the British, or Reagan reduced the debt, maybe by now paid off the debt.



what?????????


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Ah!  So there is no obligation to the law, any principles, rational thought or due process as long as the End is a good one?



We can continue this discussion when you feel an obligation not to distort things I have said and put words in my mouth. Until then, there's no point to it. I don't waste time with dishonest people.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does get complicated, maybe go back to the idea that  Hamilton was a liberal and wanted more democracy for America, and of course, it's hard to cope with the charge that Hitler was a socialist, I mean look at what NAZI stands for. How about Hoover disliked apple sellers, or maybe Jefferson wanted the government to build churches, so many of these historical problems. I like Palin's account of Revere warning the British, or Reagan reduced the debt, maybe by now paid off the debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what?????????
Click to expand...


It occurred to me that five of the above, are charges I have seen on these boards, can you pick them out? How accurate are the charges? Are any of the above charges correct?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah!  So there is no obligation to the law, any principles, rational thought or due process as long as the End is a good one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can continue this discussion when you feel an obligation not to distort things I have said and put words in my mouth. Until then, there's no point to it. I don't waste time with dishonest people.
Click to expand...




Then put your own words in your mouth.

It occurred to me that you might be in a place where i was in the 80's.  I was raised in the People's Republic of Minnesota.  I went to school in the 70's.  It was simply not cool to be a Conservative.  Who wants to be like Nixon?

In an almost Gestalt way, i found that I was a Conservative.  I admired those who are self sufficient, wanted to make my own way, was and am proud to be able to do so, refused to accept that others controlled my future and was driven to make a good life for myself and my family.

I resent the government, being told what to do, accepting the arrogance of power, settling for seconds, being controlled and being told that i don't know what's best for me.

I resent the government setting goals that are ill conceived, spending money in a wasteful fashion and constantly spending more when the results demonstrate with no doubt left that they are ignorant and blind mismanagers who can't direct their own efforts save those of others.

As a result of this, the certain knowledge that government is inept and corrupt, government workers are disinterested and lethargic, the truly motivated are in the private sector and the truly interested are those who hold a stake in the game, I came to the realization that the growth of government is a mistake and the work of government needs to be limited.

Our leaders squander our money to buy votes to continue their hurtful careers, kill our young in wars of self aggrandizement and pass laws only to give them a chance to crow.  They are the worst and most corrupt group of citizens in the country and the current crop in the White House are the worst of this dismally corrupt crowd.

We know from the outset that they will steal from us, will never be fair, will use our money to buy the votes of their sycophants and will create and join unholy alliances based on lies, supported by the uninformed and achieve the worst of any possible array of choices.  The unConstitutional and poorly conceived, rigged and deceptive Obamacare being a wonderful example of this.  In the 80's it was the WIN buttons, Hostages and the misery index.

It was with this knowledge, which arrived for me suddenly, that I had a dramatic and permanent paradigm shift.  I was not a Liberal after all.  How could i be when i suddenly became aware of what is happening in the real world.  It was as if a veil was lifted.

You may be on the verge of a similar epiphany.  If you cannot define the workings of the party to which you ascribe your loyalty, it may be because you are a Conservative with all that this implies and yet still understand yourself to be a Liberal.  This would cause a bit of a conundrum for you.

How can I believe this when this is not what I believe?

If you feel that you are powerless, are weak, that your future needs to be controlled by others, that your work needs to accrue to the benefit of others chosen by the elite, that your prosperity is only at the pleasure of those that control you, then you are a Liberal.

If, on the other hand, you feel that your are the captain of your own ship and the master of your own soul, then you are a Conservative.

Read the poem "If" by Rudyard Kipling.  If your thought is, "This guy is a real sap", you are a Liberal.  If your thought is, "I would like to live my life as he does", you are a Conservative.

In our discussions, I think I know which way you are leaning, but, like me in the 80's, are not yet at the point where you can see it.  Reconciling your inner beliefs with your political affiliation becomes much easier with greater understanding.


If by Rudyard Kipling


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does get complicated, maybe go back to the idea that  Hamilton was a liberal and wanted more democracy for America, and of course, it's hard to cope with the charge that Hitler was a socialist, I mean look at what NAZI stands for. How about Hoover disliked apple sellers, or maybe Jefferson wanted the government to build churches, so many of these historical problems. I like Palin's account of Revere warning the British, or Reagan reduced the debt, maybe by now paid off the debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what?????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It occurred to me that five of the above, are charges I have seen on these boards, can you pick them out? How accurate are the charges? Are any of the above charges correct?
Click to expand...


Do Democrats have a place in America given that the Founding was Republican?


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Then put your own words in your mouth.



I have already done so. To repeat myself, liberalism is about maximizing the liberty and well-being of the common person, against the interests of the wealthy and powerful. That's equally true of "classical" and modern liberalism, although the means to that end differ slightly between the two.

As for the rest of your post, I remind you once more that I am older than you are. It's unlikely I'm going to mature into agreement with your position.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> Liberalism is about maximizing the liberty and well-being of the common person, against the interests of the wealthy and powerful. .



thats of course perfectly idiotic since it assumes the wealthy limit 
the liberty of the common man.

Steve Jobs and Henry Ford limit liberty by providing affordable phones and cars to the common man?? See why we are positive a liberal will be slow? What other conclusion is possible?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> what?????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It occurred to me that five of the above, are charges I have seen on these boards, can you pick them out? How accurate are the charges? Are any of the above charges correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do Democrats have a place in America given that the Founding was Republican?
Click to expand...


You keep confusing the label of America's early liberal party with today's conservative party. Today's Republican party began in the 1850's and are at this time considered America's conservative party. The liberal party of 1794 was also called Republican. True, this does confuse some people but most seem to have mastered that little word problem. 
Your posts would probably make more sense just using the words liberal and conservative instead of Republican for all the political groups. 
Anyway, see how a former conservative general uses the term liberal: 
"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."   General Douglas MacArthur


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> The liberal party of 1794 was also called Republican.



you mean classical liberal( look it up) or modern conservative as in, for limited government.




regent said:


> "For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."   General Douglas MacArthur



too stupid, he's using the definition, change, not the definition, small government. See why we are positive a liberal will be slow? In any case if our founders were Republicans where do liberals fit into American History?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then put your own words in your mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already done so. To repeat myself, liberalism is about maximizing the liberty and well-being of the common person, against the interests of the wealthy and powerful. That's equally true of "classical" and modern liberalism, although the means to that end differ slightly between the two.
> 
> As for the rest of your post, I remind you once more that I am older than you are. It's unlikely I'm going to mature into agreement with your position.
Click to expand...




I think you said in an earlier post that you're are 53.  No?  If that's the case, then I envy your youth.

You're saying that the role of government is to intrude into the interrelationships of the individuals who are citizens to protect the "common people" from the "wealthy and powerful".

This is a controlling interest in the lives of the individuals.  It also assumes that the "common people" are weak and inept.

I see the role of government as one that regulates the activities of all individuals with extreme equality allowing none to transgress against another, but allowing all to prosper to their fullest potential.  See the difference?  Limitations as to intrusion into the lives of others but encouragement to excel.

In both views of government action, activities are regulated, but in yours, you endorse the limitation of some more than others.  Exactly what defines an individual as "wealthy and powerful"?  In any pecking order, most are greater than the least and only some are greater than the most.

To those on the bottom, everyone is wealthy and powerful.  Do you propose penalizing anybody who is more powerful or more wealthy than anybody else?  

At what point in an individual's achievement of his potential must your penalties be levied?  Are they levied simply out of envy or must there be a hurtful action committed by a "wealthy and powerful" outside of just being a "wealthy and powerful"?


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> You're saying that the role of government is to intrude into the interrelationships of the individuals who are citizens to protect the "common people" from the "wealthy and powerful".



You're putting words in my mouth again. Whether the government needs to "intrude into the interrelationships of individuals" depends very much on the material circumstances and the complexity of society.

There are certain things that a government MUST do in a complex, industrial economy, that it does NOT have to do in a simpler agrarian economy. In the simpler arrangement, government intrusion is, more often than not, on behalf of the wealthy and powerful, to uphold the privileges of the landed elite, to enforce laws that provide forced labor of one kind or another, to exclude ordinary people from land ownership or from entry into business. For the most part, in a situation like that, liberalism calls for the government simply to refrain from doing these things. That's an oversimplification, but it's largely true.

In a complex, industrial society, the government MUST set trade policy, labor policy, industrial regulations; taxes are higher because there is more wealth and greater demand for public services, so tax policy is more important in its effect on people's lives; most people make a living working in a paid job rather than owning their own farms or small craft businesses, so regulations affecting labor rights and obligations are more important, too. _These are not areas where the government has any option of simply not "intruding."_ It MUST set trade policy, labor policy, tax policy; it must build infrastructure, fund education, manage health care; there are a great many things that the state must do in an advanced, modern economy that it does not need to do (and often couldn't do even if it wanted to) in a poorer, simpler, more decentralized, agrarian economy.

What matters to a liberal in a situation like that is _on whose behalf_ the government does these things that it MUST AND WILL do, one way or another, regardless.

A liberal wants the government to set all these policies with a view to protecting ordinary people from the rapacity of the rich and powerful. A conservative wants it to set all these policies to benefit the privileged.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal party of 1794 was also called Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean classical liberal( look it up) or modern conservative as in, for limited government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."   General Douglas MacArthur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid, he's using the definition, change, not the definition, small government. See why we are positive a liberal will be slow? In any case if our founders were Republicans where do liberals fit into American History?
Click to expand...


By 1776 the liberals under Jefferson had already left the definition of classic liberalism. Jefferson saw a fallacy in classic liberalism. The evidence, other than his writings, is in his Declaration of Independence.  
Of course, many of the founders were republicans but in 1787 republican was not the name of a political party but a term for a type of government. Remember when Mrs. Powel asks Franklin do we have a monarchy or a republic and his answer. It had nothing to do with a political party. The political parties began tp emerge over the battle to ratify the Consititution. 1788. As for "small government" being part of the definition of liberalism where is that written? To now it was always a goal not a definition. 
There are problems with Mac's quote but small government is not one.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal party of 1794 was also called Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean classical liberal( look it up) or modern conservative as in, for limited government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."   General Douglas MacArthur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid, he's using the definition, change, not the definition, small government. See why we are positive a liberal will be slow? In any case if our founders were Republicans where do liberals fit into American History?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By 1776 the liberals under Jefferson had already left the definition of classic liberalism. Jefferson saw a fallacy in classic liberalism. The evidence, other than his writings, is in his Declaration of Independence.
> Of course, many of the founders were republicans but in 1787 republican was not the name of a political party but a term for a type of government. Remember when Mrs. Powel asks Franklin do we have a monarchy or a republic and his answer. It had nothing to do with a political party. The political parties began tp emerge over the battle to ratify the Consititution. 1788. As for "small government" being part of the definition of liberalism where is that written? To now it was always a goal not a definition.
> There are problems with Mac's quote but small government is not one.
Click to expand...


but is there anything American about the Democratic philosophy?


----------



## Dragon

Hmm. I just developed a suspicion, based on E. Belaimonte's use of the phrase "too stupid," above. That's not a common turn of phrase, and it's one that is habitually used by another poster, Brutus.

I'm suspecting now that Belaimonte and Brutus are the same person logging in on two different accounts. Is there a forum policy against that?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying that the role of government is to intrude into the interrelationships of the individuals who are citizens to protect the "common people" from the "wealthy and powerful".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're putting words in my mouth again. Whether the government needs to "intrude into the interrelationships of individuals" depends very much on the material circumstances and the complexity of society.
> 
> There are certain things that a government MUST do in a complex, industrial economy, that it does NOT have to do in a simpler agrarian economy. In the simpler arrangement, government intrusion is, more often than not, on behalf of the wealthy and powerful, to uphold the privileges of the landed elite, to enforce laws that provide forced labor of one kind or another, to exclude ordinary people from land ownership or from entry into business. For the most part, in a situation like that, liberalism calls for the government simply to refrain from doing these things. That's an oversimplification, but it's largely true.
> 
> In a complex, industrial society, the government MUST set trade policy, labor policy, industrial regulations; taxes are higher because there is more wealth and greater demand for public services, so tax policy is more important in its effect on people's lives; most people make a living working in a paid job rather than owning their own farms or small craft businesses, so regulations affecting labor rights and obligations are more important, too. _These are not areas where the government has any option of simply not "intruding."_ It MUST set trade policy, labor policy, tax policy; it must build infrastructure, fund education, manage health care; there are a great many things that the state must do in an advanced, modern economy that it does not need to do (and often couldn't do even if it wanted to) in a poorer, simpler, more decentralized, agrarian economy.
> 
> What matters to a liberal in a situation like that is _on whose behalf_ the government does these things that it MUST AND WILL do, one way or another, regardless.
> 
> A liberal wants the government to set all these policies with a view to protecting ordinary people from the rapacity of the rich and powerful. A conservative wants it to set all these policies to benefit the privileged.
Click to expand...




I think you really don't see the favoritism that you are endorsing here or the implications of that favoritism.

A Conservative wants all laws to apply to all citizens equally.  Period.  Hard stop.

A Conservative believes this because he has a strong faith and belief that "All men are created equal" and that all men are competent agents who can direct and control their own lives.  This belief in the abilities and the competence of the individual is the justification for the equal application of law.

By your words above, you imply that there are a group of individuals that meet this description, but the vast majority of men are witless, inept dupes who cannot adapt to the modern world and who are condemned to a life of misery being perpetually duped by the elite.

By your words above, only the benevolent government can lift up the masses by restraining the activities, physically, philosophically, creatively and financially, of the elite.

I think that we both accept that there are people who are simply smarter, prettier, faster, stronger or more talented than the greater majority.  The Conservative feels that those who thus blessed are free to exploit their gifts and enjoy the rewards.

The Liberal feels that those who are thus blessed are to be subjected to punishments in view of their gifts and the rewards necessarily must be stripped from them.

The role of government in your mind is to do this stripping and confiscate for their own purpose the rewards.  It is okay to be better, but it is not okay to have more.

The way this works out in the real world is that a great many people who are really not more talented or more prettier or any of the others, but who just have worked and saved will find a penalty waiting at the end of their efforts.

No special gifts to penalize there, just a life of limits as opposed to a life of excesses.

Again, by what measure does a "common people" turn into a "wealthy and powerful"?  
Why is a penalty levied by government required?  
How much of one's labor must the government confiscate until the government is thought of as benevolent?  
Is any individual ever entitled to keep any of his own wealth?  
Does any individual have any truly private property?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.
> 
> FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.



Jefferson did not found the Republican party. He founded the democratic-republican party which is the now democratic party.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> A Conservative wants all laws to apply to all citizens equally.  Period.  Hard stop.
> 
> A Conservative believes this because he has a strong faith and belief that "All men are created equal" and that all men are competent agents who can direct and control their own lives



That may describe your beliefs. It does not describe those of any conservative with a grasp on reality. "All men are created equal" is a statement of a liberal ideal of what SHOULD be (by a famous agrarian liberal), it is not a realistic statement of what IS. If we set government policy on the premise that all people will be able to compete equally, regardless of their starting points in life, we will ensure a plutocracy and an extreme degree of inequality, with very rich and very poor and very little in between.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are genuinely confused about this reality; there is evidence from prior posts of yours to suggest this is true. For most conservatives, though, that outcome is exactly what is desired. In fact, the evidence for this lies in legislation and court practices that affirmatively FAVOR the rich and powerful.

The many or the few: that's what the disagreement is all about. Anything else is window dressing.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Conservative wants all laws to apply to all citizens equally.  Period.  Hard stop.
> 
> A Conservative believes this because he has a strong faith and belief that "All men are created equal" and that all men are competent agents who can direct and control their own lives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may describe your beliefs. It does not describe those of any conservative with a grasp on reality. "All men are created equal" is a statement of a liberal ideal of what SHOULD be (by a famous agrarian liberal), it is not a realistic statement of what IS. If we set government policy on the premise that all people will be able to compete equally, regardless of their starting points in life, we will ensure a plutocracy and an extreme degree of inequality, with very rich and very poor and very little in between.
> 
> I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are genuinely confused about this reality; there is evidence from prior posts of yours to suggest this is true. For most conservatives, though, that outcome is exactly what is desired. In fact, the evidence for this lies in legislation and court practices that affirmatively FAVOR the rich and powerful.
> 
> The many or the few: that's what the disagreement is all about. Anything else is window dressing.
Click to expand...




So is a freedom a concept that applies to individuals or to herds?

What are the Federal legal decisions or Federally passed laws that you are pointing to "that affirmatively favor the rich and powerful"?  Are these the result of Conservatism, that is to say adherence to the Constitution, or Liberalism which you seem to be saying are based solely in the capricious passions of the moment?

You seem to be saying that outcomes are what need to be made equal regardless of effort or application.  What of the two people who are arguably equal in all ways who hail from the same neighborhood and arrive at dramatically different financial outcomes?  Is one to be penalized for providing for himself while the other is rewarded for failing to make those same provisions?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Conservative wants all laws to apply to all citizens equally.  Period.  Hard stop.
> 
> A Conservative believes this because he has a strong faith and belief that "All men are created equal" and that all men are competent agents who can direct and control their own lives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may describe your beliefs. It does not describe those of any conservative with a grasp on reality. "All men are created equal" is a statement of a liberal ideal of what SHOULD be (by a famous agrarian liberal), it is not a realistic statement of what IS. If we set government policy on the premise that all people will be able to compete equally, regardless of their starting points in life, we will ensure a plutocracy and an extreme degree of inequality, with very rich and very poor and very little in between.
> 
> I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are genuinely confused about this reality; there is evidence from prior posts of yours to suggest this is true. For most conservatives, though, that outcome is exactly what is desired. In fact, the evidence for this lies in legislation and court practices that affirmatively FAVOR the rich and powerful.
> 
> The many or the few: that's what the disagreement is all about. Anything else is window dressing.
Click to expand...




By today's standards, Jefferson was a Conservative.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Conservative wants all laws to apply to all citizens equally.  Period.  Hard stop.
> 
> A Conservative believes this because he has a strong faith and belief that "All men are created equal" and that all men are competent agents who can direct and control their own lives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may describe your beliefs. It does not describe those of any conservative with a grasp on reality. "All men are created equal" is a statement of a liberal ideal of what SHOULD be (by a famous agrarian liberal), it is not a realistic statement of what IS. If we set government policy on the premise that all people will be able to compete equally, regardless of their starting points in life, we will ensure a plutocracy and an extreme degree of inequality, with very rich and very poor and very little in between.
> 
> I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are genuinely confused about this reality; there is evidence from prior posts of yours to suggest this is true. For most conservatives, though, that outcome is exactly what is desired. In fact, the evidence for this lies in legislation and court practices that affirmatively FAVOR the rich and powerful.
> 
> The many or the few: that's what the disagreement is all about. Anything else is window dressing.
Click to expand...




The many or the few?  Hardly.  The disagreement is about the opportunity or the outcome.  I think everyone should be given the same chance to direct their own life and achieve the best life they can for themselves.

You seem to be saying that regardless of effort, talent, success or achievement, all need to have the same outcomes.  You further seem to be demanding that government enforce and regulate any and all achievement to assure that nobody receives any reward greater than a reward that all will be accorded.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Conservative wants all laws to apply to all citizens equally.  Period.  Hard stop.
> 
> A Conservative believes this because he has a strong faith and belief that "All men are created equal" and that all men are competent agents who can direct and control their own lives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may describe your beliefs. It does not describe those of any conservative with a grasp on reality. "All men are created equal" is a statement of a liberal ideal of what SHOULD be (by a famous agrarian liberal), it is not a realistic statement of what IS. If we set government policy on the premise that all people will be able to compete equally, regardless of their starting points in life, we will ensure a plutocracy and an extreme degree of inequality, with very rich and very poor and very little in between.
> 
> I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are genuinely confused about this reality; there is evidence from prior posts of yours to suggest this is true. For most conservatives, though, that outcome is exactly what is desired. In fact, the evidence for this lies in legislation and court practices that affirmatively FAVOR the rich and powerful.
> 
> The many or the few: that's what the disagreement is all about. Anything else is window dressing.
Click to expand...




All men are created equal is more true right here and right now than it has ever been at any time in history or at any place in history.

That you cannot see this is telling.  Out of curiosity, do you think this was more true at the time of and in the place of Jefferson with slavery, very limited access to education, rampant sexism and racism, indentured servitude and a landed gentry?


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> So is a freedom a concept that applies to individuals or to herds?



Both, but applying it to individuals doesn't lead us to the place I suspect you are trying to go. That requires several more (false) assumptions.



> What are the Federal legal decisions or Federally passed laws that you are pointing to "that affirmatively favor the rich and powerful"?



Start with the flattening of the tax code in the 1980s. Go from there to provisions in the tax code and trade agreements that encourage outsourcing. Add in the government policies that fail to enforce workers' rights laws and have resulted in a tremendous increase in illegal firings and other illegal activities by employers in the course of union elections. Plus the tax-code provisions that result in some corporations paying no taxes at all. Then there are the laws and court decisions that treat corporations as persons for all legal purposes benefiting corporate power while still regarding them as non-persons for purposes of criminal liability. There are more, but those will do for a start.

All of them, assuming the result was intended, are the result of conservatism by definition. (That's including the parts that are the work of the Clinton administration. Liberal and Democrat are not synonyms.)



> You seem to be saying that outcomes are what need to be made equal regardless of effort or application.



Not really, since I don't have to. I'm just pointing out that "equality of opportunity" is not a reality. People born into wealthy families have enormous advantages over people born into poor circumstances. They can go to the best schools, have networks of helpful, successful people, and have great jobs or financial resources available to help them succeed. Bill Gates could not have built the fortune he did without his own ability, but someone with twice his ability could not have done it without wealthy parents as Gates had, because they would never have had the chance.

I have yet to find anyone who talks about "equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome" and also wants to do jack-diddly about the inequities described above -- which makes the first part of that statement a falsehood.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> All men are created equal is more true right here and right now than it has ever been at any time in history or at any place in history.
> 
> That you cannot see this is telling.



Yeah, it tells us that I'm living in reality instead of a pipe-dream. At a time when inequality of income is higher than it's been at any time since the 1920s, to say what you just said is so out-of-touch as to be staggering.

You're simply, factually, demonstrably wrong. End of story.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is a freedom a concept that applies to individuals or to herds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both, but applying it to individuals doesn't lead us to the place I suspect you are trying to go. That requires several more (false) assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the Federal legal decisions or Federally passed laws that you are pointing to "that affirmatively favor the rich and powerful"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start with the flattening of the tax code in the 1980s. Go from there to provisions in the tax code and trade agreements that encourage outsourcing. Add in the government policies that fail to enforce workers' rights laws and have resulted in a tremendous increase in illegal firings and other illegal activities by employers in the course of union elections. Plus the tax-code provisions that result in some corporations paying no taxes at all. Then there are the laws and court decisions that treat corporations as persons for all legal purposes benefiting corporate power while still regarding them as non-persons for purposes of criminal liability. There are more, but those will do for a start.
> 
> All of them, assuming the result was intended, are the result of conservatism by definition. (That's including the parts that are the work of the Clinton administration. Liberal and Democrat are not synonyms.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be saying that outcomes are what need to be made equal regardless of effort or application.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, since I don't have to. I'm just pointing out that "equality of opportunity" is not a reality. People born into wealthy families have enormous advantages over people born into poor circumstances. They can go to the best schools, have networks of helpful, successful people, and have great jobs or financial resources available to help them succeed. Bill Gates could not have built the fortune he did without his own ability, but someone with twice his ability could not have done it without wealthy parents as Gates had, because they would never have had the chance.
> 
> I have yet to find anyone who talks about "equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome" and also wants to do jack-diddly about the inequities described above -- which makes the first part of that statement a falsehood.
Click to expand...




Allowing all people to keep more of their own money is your example?  The cuts applied to all people.  The cuts benefitted all people who paid taxes.  Fail.

Today we are on the verge of becoming the country internationally that has the highest corporate tax on the planet.  This is what is chasing business away from our shores.  That and the high cost of hiring unionized labor.  Fail.

Protecting citizens from the illegal acts of any threatening terrorists be they union thugs or public enemies is hardly catering to the wealthy.  Fail.

Tax law is too complex and that is a feature of the social engineering of Liberals.  Simplify the tax code as suggested by Ryan in his budget and you'll see all entities paying taxes.  Fail.

Conservatism by definition is to have a smaller less intrusive government.  You don't seem to understand the the kind of regulation you endorse demands huge government and strangling limitations on personal freedoms.

You hold up Bill Gates who rose from upper middle class to become the richest man in the WORLD as an example of no mobility between classes?  Fail.

There literally millions of people who have immigrated here illegally who barely speak English who are seeking the equality of opportunity you say does not exist.  Fail.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal is more true right here and right now than it has ever been at any time in history or at any place in history.
> 
> That you cannot see this is telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it tells us that I'm living in reality instead of a pipe-dream. At a time when inequality of income is higher than it's been at any time since the 1920s, to say what you just said is so out-of-touch as to be staggering.
> 
> You're simply, factually, demonstrably wrong. End of story.
Click to expand...




You are completely devoured by class envy.  Why does it matter to you what somebody else has?  It has never mattered to me.

I grew up in a family that could not afford opulent vacations.  I put braces on my own teeth because this was an extravagance in my youth.  I wanted straight teeth later on.  There was no money to pay for college so i worked and paid it myself.  I was the second person in my extended family to graduate from college.  

I don't resent those who had parents paying for them to attend college.  i don't care about them.  Why do you?

What I care about is that I wanted braces and they were available for me to buy.  I wanted to go to college and was able to attend as long as I could pay.  In time, i wanted to go to Disneyland, Hawaii, Jamaica and allot of places.  I did.  Because I could pay for it.  There was nobody telling me I could not go or do or buy.

In truth, when I finally went to Disneyland, I was disappointed by it.  The Disneyland in my mind was really terrific.  The one on this planet was crowded, seemed a little outdated, had long lines and was filled by people that i would not choose to spend time with. 

The inequality of Income has nothing to do with anything.  Do you have the opportunity to work and to live a good life with a good result as long as you show up and give your employer value?  Of course.  Do you have the right to keep the fruits of your labor?  As long as the Liberals are kept in check, yes.

How many of my possessions and how much of my money do you need to take from me in order that you feel better about yourself?


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Allowing all people to keep more of their own money is your example?  The cuts applied to all people.



Insofar as there are numbers larger than zero and less than infinity, and how much really does matter, that's not true.

When is a tax cut not a tax cut? When it's more than made up for by tax increases elsewhere, cuts in government services that benefit lower-income people more than those with wealth, and deficit spending which works as a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich over time. The flattening of the tax code in the 1980s was an example of all three.



> Today we are on the verge of becoming the country internationally that has the highest corporate tax on the planet.



By the time you apply all the deductions and credits, that's not true, either.



> Conservatism by definition is to have a smaller less intrusive government.



Wrong. Conservatism includes highly intrusive legal measures trying to police people's private lives, setting aside key features of due process, cutting into free speech on the Internet, and building a huge military machine, and none of that can be described as "smaller less intrusive government." No. Conservatism is government for the few. Liberalism is government for the many. Neither one is for "smaller" government overall. (Nor consistently for "bigger" government overall.)

In fact, there is no political philosophy that's for that, except for libertarianism, which is unworkable.



> You hold up Bill Gates who rose from upper middle class to become the richest man in the WORLD as an example of no mobility between classes?



"No mobility between classes" -- again you are putting words in my mouth. Stop doing that, you dishonest fuck!

I said very clearly what I meant by the example of Gates and it wasn't that. Go back, try again, and this time DON'T FUCKING LIE.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> At a time when inequality of income is higher than it's been at any time since the 1920s,



1) of course its higher the liberals created a huge and growing welfare or bottom class.

2) of course its higher, the liberals destroyed the American family so now you have millions of very very poor single mothers creating a huge bottom class.

3)  of course its higher the liberals let in 20 million illegals who make up much of the bottom class.

4) of course its higher the unions and idiotic tax laws drove million of jobs offshore.

5) its really not higher when you add the trillions and trillions in welfare entitlements that are not counted as income.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> [
> You are completely devoured by class envy.



You can't answer my arguments and so you are trying to attack the person making them. Pathetic.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> Wrong. Conservatism includes highly intrusive legal measures trying to police people's private lives,



of course thats a lie which explains why you were afraid to give your most substantive example. Even BO has kept all of Bush's measures believing too that in war freedom comes from victory over the enemy, not civil liberties at home.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> "Today we are on the verge of becoming the country internationally that has the highest corporate tax on the planet."
> 
> By the time you apply all the deductions and credits, that's not true, either.



Once Japan lowers its tax we will have the highest corporate tax in the world thus encouraging off-shoring of jobs and many other negative things. 

Yes, our corporations pay very little in the end, but that is only because they take advantage of loop holes like moving off-shore. Got it now, liberal??? Now you know why even BO supports lowering the tax. 

Its a hard sell though because idiotic, treasonous liberals are more anti-business than they are pro jobs.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> Neither one is for "smaller" government overall.



of course thats idiotic! Republicans since Jefferson have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments. Newts passed the House and failed in the Senate by one vote. Today the debt would be $0 not $16 trillion! Japan and China would have to buy our products not our Treasuries.

Is that really over a liberal's head??


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Hmm. I just developed a suspicion, based on E. Belaimonte's use of the phrase "too stupid," above. That's not a common turn of phrase, and it's one that is habitually used by another poster, Brutus.
> 
> I'm suspecting now that Belaimonte and Brutus are the same person logging in on two different accounts. Is there a forum policy against that?


Yes, but if were enforced thered be no one left to post. 

And ignorance by any other name is just as ignorant. 



> A Conservative wants all laws to apply to all citizens equally. Period. Hard stop.



Then you have a significant number of conservatives not abiding by that tenet  equal access to marriage laws by same-sex couples being the most prominent example. Period. Hard stop.



> A Conservative believes this because he has a strong faith and belief that "All men are created equal" and that all men are competent agents who can direct and control their own lives. This belief in the abilities and the competence of the individual is the justification for the equal application of law.



Liberals simply follow Constitutional case law on the issue: that all persons are entitled to due process of the law, that all persons are allowed equal access to the law, 



> By your words above, you imply that there are a group of individuals that meet this description, but the vast majority of men are witless, inept dupes who cannot adapt to the modern world and who are condemned to a life of misery being perpetually duped by the elite.
> 
> By your words above, only the benevolent government can lift up the masses by restraining the activities, physically, philosophically, creatively and financially, of the elite.



No, again, Liberals simply follow Constitutional case law on the issue where the state may not deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Liberals have no problem with individuals succeeding or failing in accordance with their own abilities, nor do they advocate penalizing a successful elite simply as a consequence of their success. 



> I think that we both accept that there are people who are simply smarter, prettier, faster, stronger or more talented than the greater majority. The Conservative feels that those who thus blessed are free to exploit their gifts and enjoy the rewards.



As do liberals. 



> The Liberal feels that those who are thus blessed are to be subjected to punishments in view of their gifts and the rewards necessarily must be stripped from them.



Clearly incorrect, as noted above. 



> The role of government in your mind is to do this stripping and confiscate for their own purpose the rewards. It is okay to be better, but it is not okay to have more.



The role of government for any liberal is to be as limited as possible, particularly state and local governments who have a propensity to violate citizens civil liberties. 



> The way this works out in the real world is that a great many people who are really not more talented or more prettier or any of the others, but who just have worked and saved will find a penalty waiting at the end of their efforts.
> 
> No special gifts to penalize there, just a life of limits as opposed to a life of excesses.



Nonsense. What entity would impose such a penalty? And by what authority? 



> Again, by what measure does a "common people" turn into a "wealthy and powerful"?
> Why is a penalty levied by government required?



This also makes no sense, what penalty is being imposed by what government? 



> How much of one's labor must the government confiscate until the government is thought of as benevolent?
> Is any individual ever entitled to keep any of his own wealth?
> Does any individual have any truly private property?



Are these rhetorical questions? One would hop so. 

Otherwise, this seems one of those inane and ill-informed observations by libertarians and others on the far right who are ignorant of  or simply reject  Constitutional case law on the issues of taxation, market regulation as authorized by the Commerce Clause, and eminent domain issues as authorized by the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Hmm. I just developed a suspicion, based on E. Belaimonte's use of the phrase "too stupid," above. That's not a common turn of phrase, and it's one that is habitually used by another poster, Brutus.
> 
> I'm suspecting now that Belaimonte and Brutus are the same person logging in on two different accounts. Is there a forum policy against that?
> Yes, but if were enforced thered be no one left to post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he wants victory with a silly rule because as a liberal he can't defeat libertarianism on substance. Its pathetic.
Click to expand...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> market regulation as authorized by the Commerce Clause,



The Commerce Clause was not intended to authorize all regulation or communist regulation , just to promote free trade among the states . A child would know that, just not a liberal.

It is a treasonous lie to pretend the idiotic liberal case law trumps the Constitution. A justice takes an oath to defend the Republican Libertarian Constitution, not treasonous liberal case law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> The Commerce Clause was not intended to authorize all regulation or communist regulation , just to promote free trade among the states . A child would know that, just not a liberal.
> 
> It is a treasonous lie to pretend the idiotic liberal case law trumps the Constitution. A justice takes an oath to defend the Republican Libertarian Constitution, not treasonous liberal case law.



lol

And what criteria do you use to determine what case law is liberal and what is not? 

Just because you disagree with it in the context of your ignorance doesnt make it liberal' or wrong.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> lol
> 
> And what criteria do you use to determine what case law is &#8216;liberal&#8217; and what is not?
> 
> Just because you disagree with it in the context of your ignorance doesn&#8217;t make it &#8216;liberal' or wrong.



too stupid. Liberals have included everything vaguely related, directly or indirectly,  to commerce (Schecter Chicken) as subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. 

It was only intended to promote capitalist free trade, not liberal sociallism. Are you really too slow, as a brainwashed liberal,  to grasp that?


----------



## regent

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." Chief Justice Hughes


----------



## Brutus

regent said:


> "The Constitution is what the Court say it is." Chief Justice Hughes



"you can do anything you want around here as long as you have 5 votes"-treasonous liberal justice Thurgood Marshall


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You are completely devoured by class envy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't answer my arguments and so you are trying to attack the person making them. Pathetic.
Click to expand...




I am not attacking you.  I'm merely making an observation.  Why is it important to you what someone else has as long as you have what you need?

If you envy those who have more than you and wish to take it from them, what is your motivation if not class envy?


----------



## regent

Brutus said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Constitution is what the Court say it is." Chief Justice Hughes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "you can do anything you want around here as long as you have 5 votes"-treasonous liberal justice Thurgood Marshall
Click to expand...


Why do we tolerate treasonous justices on the Supreme Court? That should be against the law. So if the Court makes a five to four decision on the health care law does it mean one or more is a traitor? How do we identify a treasonous justice?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (this is from Code:
> You hold up Bill Gates who rose from upper middle class to become the richest man in the WORLD as an example of no mobility between classes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (This is from Dragon)
> "No mobility between classes" -- again you are putting words in my mouth. Stop doing that, you dishonest fuck!
> 
> I said very clearly what I meant by the example of Gates and it wasn't that. Go back, try again, and this time DON'T FUCKING LIE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the post to which I referred:
> 
> "Not really, since I don't have to. I'm just pointing out that "equality of opportunity" is not a reality. People born into wealthy families have enormous advantages over people born into poor circumstances. They can go to the best schools, have networks of helpful, successful people, and have great jobs or financial resources available to help them succeed. Bill Gates could not have built the fortune he did without his own ability, but someone with twice his ability could not have done it without wealthy parents as Gates had, because they would never have had the chance."
> 
> 
> I can't read this any other way.
> 
> I'm not trying to lie, I'm trying to find out why you believe what you believe when it's not supported by facts.
> 
> Bill Gates was the richest man in the world.  That is an economic status unrelated to his upbringing.  It happened to a capitalist.  He rose from upper middle class to that lofty perch.  It happened.  It's real.
> 
> You are saying that it could not happen with a poor man, but it happens all the time.
> 
> Steve Jobs is a man who rose from solid middle class. His parents put him up for adoption and he was adopted by a machinist and working mother.  It's pretty obvious that he became successful beyond your vision of American societal limitations.
> 
> When the facts undermine your theory, you really need to examine if reality or your beliefs are suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is a freedom a concept that applies to individuals or to herds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both, but applying it to individuals doesn't lead us to the place I suspect you are trying to go. That requires several more (false) assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the Federal legal decisions or Federally passed laws that you are pointing to "that affirmatively favor the rich and powerful"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start with the flattening of the tax code in the 1980s. Go from there to provisions in the tax code and trade agreements that encourage outsourcing. Add in the government policies that fail to enforce workers' rights laws and have resulted in a tremendous increase in illegal firings and other illegal activities by employers in the course of union elections. Plus the tax-code provisions that result in some corporations paying no taxes at all. Then there are the laws and court decisions that treat corporations as persons for all legal purposes benefiting corporate power while still regarding them as non-persons for purposes of criminal liability. There are more, but those will do for a start.
> 
> All of them, assuming the result was intended, are the result of conservatism by definition. (That's including the parts that are the work of the Clinton administration. Liberal and Democrat are not synonyms.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be saying that outcomes are what need to be made equal regardless of effort or application.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, since I don't have to. I'm just pointing out that "equality of opportunity" is not a reality. People born into wealthy families have enormous advantages over people born into poor circumstances. They can go to the best schools, have networks of helpful, successful people, and have great jobs or financial resources available to help them succeed. Bill Gates could not have built the fortune he did without his own ability, but someone with twice his ability could not have done it without wealthy parents as Gates had, because they would never have had the chance.
> 
> I have yet to find anyone who talks about "equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome" and also wants to do jack-diddly about the inequities described above -- which makes the first part of that statement a falsehood.
Click to expand...





I have held many jobs and i have had many employees.

Most of these folks that reported to me were pretty much equal in all ways save a couple.  The points of differentiation most often had to do with dependability and effort.  These had nothing to do with social strata or nepotism or favoritism.

In this country, if you just show up every day, do a credible job on your assignments and seek the best counsel from your peers and superiors at work, you will advance and find a good life for yourself.

If you decide that work is a secondary pursuit and that drinking or womanizing or fishing or sleeping late are your real goals, then not so much.

Equality of opportunity is what most people want.  Equality of outcome is a penalty for those who do the best they can and watch those who are slacking find the same results.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal is more true right here and right now than it has ever been at any time in history or at any place in history.
> 
> That you cannot see this is telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it tells us that I'm living in reality instead of a pipe-dream. At a time when inequality of income is higher than it's been at any time since the 1920s, to say what you just said is so out-of-touch as to be staggering.
> 
> You're simply, factually, demonstrably wrong. End of story.
Click to expand...




Again, you're talking about outcomes, not opportunity.  This is simply class envy.

My father in law wanted a family and a house in post war USA.  He became an electrician and worked full time.  He used his income to pay for the materials and built a 5 bedroom house with his own hands and that included digging the basement with a shovel.

The family lived in the basement and then in the basement and the first floor and then in the basement, the first floor and the second floor.  As the family grew, so the house grew to accommodate the family.

When the house was completed, he drove a school bus and then he bought a laundromat and all the while rose throughout the ranks of the electricians union to become a Master Electrician.  A very interesting guy with a booming voice, active sense of humor and boundless energy.

If you don't know anyone who has a similar story, you need to open your circle of friends.

Opportunity exists all around us all the time.  If you don't see it, it's not because it's not there, it's because you are concentrating on something else.


----------



## regent

My day begins about noon, my driver brings the limo around and we head for the liquor store. There my man takes in my food stamps and exchanges them for some good booze. Then we head for the unemployment office where I sign up for another week of unemployment checks. Then we go to the local emergency hospital and I get my toenails clipped, I claim one is ingrown, finally the welfare office to sign more forms. Exhausting days, but when one is a liberal one must do his liberal thing.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> I am not attacking you.



Bullshit. Saying i am motivated by "envy" is a personal attack. And you remain a liar.

When you develop some vestige of a conscience, some degree of intellectual integrity, we can proceed. Until then, I have nothing further to say to you.


----------



## code1211

regent said:


> My day begins about noon, my driver brings the limo around and we head for the liquor store. There my man takes in my food stamps and exchanges them for some good booze. Then we head for the unemployment office where I sign up for another week of unemployment checks. Then we go to the local emergency hospital and I get my toenails clipped, I claim one is ingrown, finally the welfare office to sign more forms. Exhausting days, but when one is a liberal one must do his liberal thing.





Your MAN?  What are you?  A sexist, misogynist pig?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not attacking you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Saying i am motivated by "envy" is a personal attack. And you remain a liar.
> 
> When you develop some vestige of a conscience, some degree of intellectual integrity, we can proceed. Until then, I have nothing further to say to you.
Click to expand...




You've responded to no questions yet, but I have enjoyed the quest to try to find out why you believe what you believe.

I, and I suspect you, have not yet discovered that.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not attacking you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Saying i am motivated by "envy" is a personal attack. And you remain a liar.
> 
> When you develop some vestige of a conscience, some degree of intellectual integrity, we can proceed. Until then, I have nothing further to say to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've responded to no questions yet, but I have enjoyed the quest to try to find out why you believe what you believe.
> 
> I, and I suspect you, have not yet discovered that.
Click to expand...


I have discovered it. So have you. You are merely pretending not to. As I said, you are a liar. We can proceed when you stop lying.

I haven't answered your questions because none of them were pertinent; they were directed towards views that you made up yourself and presented as if they were mine, not to ones I had actually expressed.

Stop doing that sort of crap, and we can continue.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Stop doing that sort of crap, and we can continue.



You realize its likely you wont be continuing, yes? 

You also likely realize its pointless to discuss Constitutional issues with libertarians and extreme rightists who reject and otherwise refuse to communicate in the common and established language of Constitutional case law. 

Ill explain to the libertarian/extreme rightist why he is wrong, cite the case law in support, and move on. I do so for the benefit of those wishing to learn, with no delusions that the libertarian/extreme rightist will make any attempt to understand or accept these facts of settled law.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Saying i am motivated by "envy" is a personal attack. And you remain a liar.
> 
> When you develop some vestige of a conscience, some degree of intellectual integrity, we can proceed. Until then, I have nothing further to say to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've responded to no questions yet, but I have enjoyed the quest to try to find out why you believe what you believe.
> 
> I, and I suspect you, have not yet discovered that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have discovered it. So have you. You are merely pretending not to. As I said, you are a liar. We can proceed when you stop lying.
> 
> I haven't answered your questions because none of them were pertinent; they were directed towards views that you made up yourself and presented as if they were mine, not to ones I had actually expressed.
> 
> Stop doing that sort of crap, and we can continue.
Click to expand...





Please state and support what you believe.


----------



## code1211

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Stop doing that sort of crap, and we can continue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize its likely you wont be continuing, yes?
> 
> You also likely realize its pointless to discuss Constitutional issues with libertarians and extreme rightists who reject and otherwise refuse to communicate in the common and established language of Constitutional case law.
> 
> Ill explain to the libertarian/extreme rightist why he is wrong, cite the case law in support, and move on. I do so for the benefit of those wishing to learn, with no delusions that the libertarian/extreme rightist will make any attempt to understand or accept these facts of settled law.
Click to expand...




Dragon and I are discussing a belief system, not Constitutional Law.  i am trying to find out what he believes and am not finding any success.

Is there case law that will reveal this to me?


----------



## regent

code1211 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My day begins about noon, my driver brings the limo around and we head for the liquor store. There my man takes in my food stamps and exchanges them for some good booze. Then we head for the unemployment office where I sign up for another week of unemployment checks. Then we go to the local emergency hospital and I get my toenails clipped, I claim one is ingrown, finally the welfare office to sign more forms. Exhausting days, but when one is a liberal one must do his liberal thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your MAN?  What are you?  A sexist, misogynist pig?
Click to expand...


Of course, "my man" apparently you don't understand how we wealthy people talk. I won't tell you how we refer to you the downtrodden, the miserable little people, that we tell how to vote. Remember it's Romney.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> the libertarian/extreme rightist will[not] make any attempt to understand or accept these facts of settled law.



of course the treasonous liberal knows that Judges pledge to uphold the Constitution, not the scummy liberal "settled" case law.


[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions.
&#8212;Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944).[9]

Justice Antonin Scalia argues in A Matter of Interpretation that America is a civil law nation, not a common law nation. By principle, originalists are generally unwilling to defer to precedent when precedent seems to come into conflict with the Constitution.

Stare decisis is not mandated by the Constitution, and if it causes unconstitutional results then the historical evidence of original understanding can be re-examined. In this opinion, predictable fidelity to the Constitution is more important than fidelity to unconstitutional precedents.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Dragon and I are discussing a belief system, not Constitutional Law.  i am trying to find out what he believes and am not finding any success.



The reason you aren't finding any success is because you have a preconceived preferred answer and are rejecting anything else, or trying to transform what I say into something you are more comfortable answering. Which means you really AREN'T trying to find out what I believe.


----------



## Trillian79

Jefferson did not found the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln did.  It was the Republican Party which pushed for abolition of slavery and equal rights.  It was the Democrats who wanted to retain slavery.  So much for their claims to equality and the party of the common man.


----------



## Dragon

Trillian79 said:


> Jefferson did not found the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln did.  It was the Republican Party which pushed for abolition of slavery and equal rights.  It was the Democrats who wanted to retain slavery.  So much for their claims to equality and the party of the common man.



If you are talking about the Democratic Party as of the 1860s, you are right. If you are talking about the Democratic Party today, you are wrong. Same with the GOP.

The Democratic Party between the Civil War and the Great Depression was a party of Southern white male voters. Democratic presidential candidates always won the South, and could win the White House only when they managed to take some of the normally Republican territory (the Northeast, the Midwest, and the West Coast) from them. In order to retain its hold on the South, the Democratic Party adopted positions on racial equality that were moderate at best and outright racist at worst, which made taking those Republican states harder.

That began to change for the Democrats in the 1930s, and completely changed as of the mid-1960s. It began to change for the Republicans in the late 1960s, and has completely changed today.

Today, the Republican party is a party of Southern white male voters. Republican presidential candidates always win the South, and can win the White House only when they manage to take some of the normally Democratic territory (the Northeast, the Midwest, and the West Coast) from them. In order to retain its hold on the South, the Republican Party has abandoned its traditional commitment to civil rights and racial equality, and today adopts positions on these issues that are moderate at best and outright racist at worst, which makes taking those Democratic states harder.

The parties, in short, have completely exchanged places.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> Today, the Republican party is a party of Southern white male voters.



of course that's perfectly idiotic and 100% liberal given:

1) The Republican Party controls the House which represents the entire country

2) today the Republican Party is the party of freedom and liberty from big liberal government just as it was when Jefferson founded it in 1792 while Democrats spied for Stalin, were hung for it, and are generally without the IQ to understand freedom.


----------



## Uncensored2008

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.
> 
> FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.



Andrew Jackson founded the Democratic party, along with Aaron Burr. The dims go back to the early 19th century.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Trillian79 said:


> Jefferson did not found the Republican Party,




5th Congress (1797-1799) 
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803) 

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Uncensored2008 said:


> Andrew Jackson founded the Democratic party, along with Aaron Burr. The dims go back to the early 19th century.




Well that gets complicated. Jackson hated central government with a passion, but it was the first time the Party was called the Democratic Party. I think its safe to say both parties were generally patriotic and anti-government until the communist inspired New Deal


----------



## Uncensored2008

Not2BSubjugated said:


> It depends on which Republican party you're talking about.  The current GOP doesn't trace it's lineage back to the Democratic-Republican party, and you can probably find that if you read further down that Wiki article.  The current Republican party was formed in the 1860's.



Interesting.

Then how did Lincoln run as a Republican in 1846?

Jefferson's Republicans faltered over the questions of slavery and Indians. Jackson's democrats were pro-slavery and sought genocide of the Indians. (dims haven't changed much!) The Republicans morphed into the Whigs, then back into Republicans. Lincoln was a Republican, then a Whig, then a Republican, never changing stance nor backers - because they were the same thing. The Whigs couldn't get a grip on slavery, so the Abolitionist Republicans became dominant.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Trillian79 said:


> Jefferson did not found the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln did.  It was the Republican Party which pushed for abolition of slavery and equal rights.  It was the Democrats who wanted to retain slavery.  So much for their claims to equality and the party of the common man.



Jefferson founded the Republican party.

Zachary Taylor led the move from Whig to resurgent Republican. Lincoln was following Taylor's lead.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Not2BSubjugated said:


> It depends on which Republican party you're talking about.  The current GOP doesn't trace it's lineage back to the Democratic-Republican party,




Why would it when it can go back to 1792 and Jefferson to find its name(Republican)  and philosophy( freedom) . Also, you're own Wiki quote says there is "no known use" of the term Democratic-Republican in the 18th Century.

You need to think before you post.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon and I are discussing a belief system, not Constitutional Law.  i am trying to find out what he believes and am not finding any success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you aren't finding any success is because you have a preconceived preferred answer and are rejecting anything else, or trying to transform what I say into something you are more comfortable answering. Which means you really AREN'T trying to find out what I believe.
Click to expand...




Then please state what you believe in a succinct, clear statement.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> Trillian79 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson did not found the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln did.  It was the Republican Party which pushed for abolition of slavery and equal rights.  It was the Democrats who wanted to retain slavery.  So much for their claims to equality and the party of the common man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about the Democratic Party as of the 1860s, you are right. If you are talking about the Democratic Party today, you are wrong. Same with the GOP.
> 
> The Democratic Party between the Civil War and the Great Depression was a party of Southern white male voters. Democratic presidential candidates always won the South, and could win the White House only when they managed to take some of the normally Republican territory (the Northeast, the Midwest, and the West Coast) from them. In order to retain its hold on the South, the Democratic Party adopted positions on racial equality that were moderate at best and outright racist at worst, which made taking those Republican states harder.
> 
> That began to change for the Democrats in the 1930s, and completely changed as of the mid-1960s. It began to change for the Republicans in the late 1960s, and has completely changed today.
> 
> Today, the Republican party is a party of Southern white male voters. Republican presidential candidates always win the South, and can win the White House only when they manage to take some of the normally Democratic territory (the Northeast, the Midwest, and the West Coast) from them. In order to retain its hold on the South, the Republican Party has abandoned its traditional commitment to civil rights and racial equality, and today adopts positions on these issues that are moderate at best and outright racist at worst, which makes taking those Democratic states harder.
> 
> The parties, in short, have completely exchanged places.
Click to expand...




The only defining traits of either party are completely based on race?


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon and I are discussing a belief system, not Constitutional Law.  i am trying to find out what he believes and am not finding any success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you aren't finding any success is because you have a preconceived preferred answer and are rejecting anything else, or trying to transform what I say into something you are more comfortable answering. Which means you really AREN'T trying to find out what I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then please state what you believe in a succinct, clear statement.
Click to expand...


Again? (Sigh.) Very well. Liberalism is a political philosophy defined by the core value of the liberty and well-being of the common person, as opposed to the aggrandizement of the rich and powerful. Everything flows from that, given a particular set of material circumstances.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> The only defining traits of either party are completely based on race?



Once again, your words, your thoughts, not mine. Try again.


----------



## Uncensored2008

code1211 said:


> Then please state what you believe in a succinct, clear statement.




Dragon thinks you should take the time to discover what he believes. He shouldn't need to explain his position to you. You should wake up each morning and ask yourself; "What can I do today to make life better for Dragon?"

Dragon is a narcissist - which goes hand in hand with being a communist. Dragon truly believes himself better qualified to run your life than you are.


----------



## Brutus

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you aren't finding any success is because you have a preconceived preferred answer and are rejecting anything else, or trying to transform what I say into something you are more comfortable answering. Which means you really AREN'T trying to find out what I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then please state what you believe in a succinct, clear statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? (Sigh.) Very well. Liberalism is a political philosophy defined by the core value of the liberty and well-being of the common person, as opposed to the aggrandizement of the rich and powerful. Everything flows from that, given a
> particular set of material circumstances.
Click to expand...

100% stupid and liberal!! empty idiotic rhetoric.


conservatism is defined by liberty from the rich and powerful. What did you think the Revolution was about. Was King George rich and powerful?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you aren't finding any success is because you have a preconceived preferred answer and are rejecting anything else, or trying to transform what I say into something you are more comfortable answering. Which means you really AREN'T trying to find out what I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then please state what you believe in a succinct, clear statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? (Sigh.) Very well. Liberalism is a political philosophy defined by the core value of the liberty and well-being of the common person, as opposed to the aggrandizement of the rich and powerful. Everything flows from that, given a particular set of material circumstances.
Click to expand...




Apply this to the Affordable Care Act and please address the impact of the idea of the mandate as it affects liberty.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only defining traits of either party are completely based on race?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, your words, your thoughts, not mine. Try again.
Click to expand...




Your words:

"If you are talking about the Democratic Party as of the 1860s, you are right. If you are talking about the Democratic Party today, you are wrong. Same with the GOP.

The Democratic Party between the Civil War and the Great Depression was a party of Southern white male voters. Democratic presidential candidates always won the South, and could win the White House only when they managed to take some of the normally Republican territory (the Northeast, the Midwest, and the West Coast) from them. In order to retain its hold on the South, the Democratic Party adopted positions on racial equality that were moderate at best and outright racist at worst, which made taking those Republican states harder.

That began to change for the Democrats in the 1930s, and completely changed as of the mid-1960s. It began to change for the Republicans in the late 1960s, and has completely changed today.

Today, the Republican party is a party of Southern white male voters. Republican presidential candidates always win the South, and can win the White House only when they manage to take some of the normally Democratic territory (the Northeast, the Midwest, and the West Coast) from them. In order to retain its hold on the South, the Republican Party has abandoned its traditional commitment to civil rights and racial equality, and today adopts positions on these issues that are moderate at best and outright racist at worst, which makes taking those Democratic states harder.

The parties, in short, have completely exchanged places."

What are the party beliefs you described that are not race related?


----------



## code1211

Uncensored2008 said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then please state what you believe in a succinct, clear statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon thinks you should take the time to discover what he believes. He shouldn't need to explain his position to you. You should wake up each morning and ask yourself; "What can I do today to make life better for Dragon?"
> 
> Dragon is a narcissist - which goes hand in hand with being a communist. Dragon truly believes himself better qualified to run your life than you are.
Click to expand...




He has said this repeatedly as we have discussed this and I am waiting for him to realize what he's saying.

As with most Liberals, he sings of Liberty while building the jails for those he hates.


----------



## code1211

Brutus said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then please state what you believe in a succinct, clear statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again? (Sigh.) Very well. Liberalism is a political philosophy defined by the core value of the liberty and well-being of the common person, as opposed to the aggrandizement of the rich and powerful. Everything flows from that, given a
> particular set of material circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100% stupid and liberal!! empty idiotic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> conservatism is defined by liberty from the rich and powerful. What did you think the Revolution was about. Was King George rich and powerful?
Click to expand...




It's really astonishing that the Liberal sees the government as the agent that will penalize the successful simply because they are successful.

It is the basic tenet of their belief system.

It is astonishing.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

code1211 said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again? (Sigh.) Very well. Liberalism is a political philosophy defined by the core value of the liberty and well-being of the common person, as opposed to the aggrandizement of the rich and powerful. Everything flows from that, given a
> particular set of material circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 100% stupid and liberal!! empty idiotic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> conservatism is defined by liberty from the rich and powerful. What did you think the Revolution was about. Was King George rich and powerful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really astonishing that the Liberal sees the government as the agent that will penalize the successful simply because they are successful.
> 
> It is the basic tenet of their belief system.
> 
> It is astonishing.
Click to expand...


that a liberal will be so astonisihingly slow (plain stupid really) as to not know that  Republican capitalism is the best thing in all of human history to have ever happened to the common man.

Capitalism reduces the rich and powerful to inventing affordable new products that increase the common man's standard of living.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

code1211 said:


> As with most Liberals, he sings of Liberty



In sum, to a liberal, liberty means a welfare check paid for at 
the point of a liberal tax collectors gun.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Apply this to the Affordable Care Act and please address the impact of the idea of the mandate as it affects liberty.



The Affordable Care Act is not a liberal piece of legislation.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> What are the party beliefs you described that are not race related?



The party beliefs I described do not amount to the sum total of all political positions held by both parties. We were, however, discussing civil rights and racial equality, which made those particular views pertinent.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apply this to the Affordable Care Act and please address the impact of the idea of the mandate as it affects liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Affordable Care Act is not a liberal piece of legislation.
Click to expand...


liberal/socilaist would be more accurate. Why do you think the liberals on the court will support it while the conservatives will not? See why we are 100% certain that a liberal will be perfectly without brains? What other explanation is possible?


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apply this to the Affordable Care Act and please address the impact of the idea of the mandate as it affects liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Affordable Care Act is not a liberal piece of legislation.
Click to expand...




Is the Democrat Party a Liberal party?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

code1211 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apply this to the Affordable Care Act and please address the impact of the idea of the mandate as it affects liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Affordable Care Act is not a liberal piece of legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Democrat Party a Liberal party?
Click to expand...



maybe firstly you should ask him if 1+1=2 before you invest too much time on the  liberal. I guess you boxed him in and he panicked and got even slower than usual.
 Good work!


----------



## code1211

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Affordable Care Act is not a liberal piece of legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Democrat Party a Liberal party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> maybe firstly you should ask him if 1+1=2 before you invest too much time on the  liberal. I guess you boxed him in and he panicked and got even slower than usual.
> Good work!
Click to expand...




I'm just trying to find out what he believes.  As i said, i'm not sure he knows this answer, but maybe if I keep searching...


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apply this to the Affordable Care Act and please address the impact of the idea of the mandate as it affects liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Affordable Care Act is not a liberal piece of legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Democrat Party a Liberal party?
Click to expand...


No, although it has a few liberal members. By and large it's a conservative party, in the dictionary-definition sense of that word: protective of tradition and the status quo, skeptical of radical change, cautious and unwilling to go out too far on a limb.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> I'm just trying to find out what he believes.



If that were true, you'd be satisfied now. What you're trying to do is to define what I believe in terms of certain pre-established categories. None of the answers I've given you fit into any of them, and that's why you think I haven't answered.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Affordable Care Act is not a liberal piece of legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Democrat Party a Liberal party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, although it has a few liberal members. By and large it's a conservative party, in the dictionary-definition sense of that word: protective of tradition and the status quo, skeptical of radical change, cautious and unwilling to go out too far on a limb.
Click to expand...




Please name three Liberal officials elected to Federal level offices.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just trying to find out what he believes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true, you'd be satisfied now. What you're trying to do is to define what I believe in terms of certain pre-established categories. None of the answers I've given you fit into any of them, and that's why you think I haven't answered.
Click to expand...





You are right that i have not learned what you believe.  You are using words that have a meaning in today's world, but for which you seem to hold a different definition than the one understood by most people in today's world.

As such, we are speaking different languages and you are not being helpful in trying to bridge the misunderstanding.

As a result, I am trying to find areas that don't depend so much on the definition of particular words.

Your definition of Liberalism is meaningless unless you define the terms by which you have defined the word and you will not.


----------



## Bfgrn

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ascribing to these folks things they may have believed, but did not enact at the Federal Level.
> 
> The Constitution is what we are discussing and you are saying that the Founders imposed heavy regulation on Corporations.
> 
> In the post above you changed this to say that the Founders opposed swindling the common man.  Heavy regulations occur before the swindle and the penalty after the swindle occur afterward.  Obviously.
> 
> Can you produce a federal regulation from pre 1800 that demonstrates your claim?  There is nothing in the Consstitution so that assertion is empty.
> 
> I'm not saying it doesn't exist.  I'm just wondering how it exists in complete secrecy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations
> 
> To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. Its quite the opposite in fact. Corporations like the East India Trading Company were despised by the founders and they were just one reason why they chose to revolt against England. Corporations represented the moneyed interests much like they do today and they often wielded political power, sometimes to the point of governing a colony all by themselves like the Massachusetts Bay Company did.
> 
> But there is more evidence that the Revolutionary generation despised corporations. The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.
> 
> After the nation&#8217;s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. When you think about it, the regulations imposed on corporations in the early days of America were far harsher than they are now. That is hardly proof that the founders supported corporations. In fact its quite the opposite. The corporate entity was so restrictive that many of America&#8217;s corporate giants set up their entities to avoid the corporate restrictions. For example, Andrew Carnegie set up his steel company as a limited partnership and John D. Rockefeller set up his Standard Oil company as a trust which would later be rightfully busted up into smaller companies by Theodore Roosevelt.
> 
> For those who need more evidence, how about statements from the founders themselves. As we all know, big banks are also considered corporations and here is what Thomas Jefferson thought about them. In an 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin, Jefferson said,
> 
> &#8220;If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.&#8221;
> 
> Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,
> 
> &#8220;I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.&#8221;
> 
> Jefferson wasn&#8217;t the only founding father to make statements about corporations. John Adams also had an opinion.
> 
> &#8220;Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.&#8221;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, Blah, Blah...
> 
> Show me the section in the Constitution in which they outlawed Corporations.
> 
> 
> As far as this passage goes:
> 
> &#8220;If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.&#8221;
> 
> Our children don't need banks and corporations to deprive them of their wealth.  The Big 0 has pretty taken care of that with his ran a way spending.
> 
> Did you find any quotes from Jefferson regarding racking up 5 Trillion dollars of debt in three years?
Click to expand...


Here is where the conservative mind is deficient. Polarized thinking is an epidemic in the conservative mind.



code1211 said:


> "Show me the section in the Constitution in which they outlawed Corporations."



Nothing I posted calls for 'outlawing corporations' ....NOTHING...

What our founding fathers clearly understood is that government's role is to regulate corporations and monied interests to protect citizens/consumers from malfeasance. It is something that has been a echoed by succeeding generations and defined by other great Americans like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy...


There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

And that doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process. 

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.
RFK Jr.


"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Please name three Liberal officials elected to Federal level offices.



Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Honda.

The reason you do not understand what I believe has nothing to do with my language. It's because you want to define myself, and liberalism in general, in terms of big or small government (ideally) and more generally in terms of specific government policies. I can't do that. Liberalism isn't about big or small government, although it has at times been about both as a means to an end. And that's what any specific policy is, too: a means to an end. It's the end that's defining, and I made that as clear as I can: the liberty and well-being of the common person, as opposed to the privileges and power of the wealthy elite. Liberalism is politics for the many, rather than the few. That's all it's ever been, and all it ever will be.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please name three Liberal officials elected to Federal level offices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Honda.
> 
> The reason you do not understand what I believe has nothing to do with my language. It's because you want to define myself, and liberalism in general, in terms of big or small government (ideally) and more generally in terms of specific government policies. I can't do that. Liberalism isn't about big or small government, although it has at times been about both as a means to an end. And that's what any specific policy is, too: a means to an end. It's the end that's defining, and I made that as clear as I can: the liberty and well-being of the common person, as opposed to the privileges and power of the wealthy elite. Liberalism is politics for the many, rather than the few. That's all it's ever been, and all it ever will be.
Click to expand...





That is helpful.

The people you cite are in favor of solutions sourced to Washington DC on all or most of the issues that face individuals in this country.  I had to go to Honda's web site as i've never heard of him before.  Both Pelosi and Kucinich are very, very Liberal by today's definition.  They are also absolute party line ideologues.  They are also proponents of government growth to resolve issues.

They are also Democrat spokespeople for the Party's most liberal agenda items.

All of these folks happen to be Democrat, are generally considered to be Liberal, support the Affordable Care act which you say is NOT a Liberal bill and yet the ACA is the signature piece of legislation for this Congress and the Democrat party and for people who call themselves Liberals.  Except you.

You are choosing to label yourself as a Liberal and yet the people who are recognized as Liberals in this society and by you don't fit the description of this word that you reserve to yourself.  This is the basis of my confusion.  You are not using the word as the rest of the country uses it in a political sense.


----------



## code1211

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations
> 
> To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. Its quite the opposite in fact. Corporations like the East India Trading Company were despised by the founders and they were just one reason why they chose to revolt against England. Corporations represented the moneyed interests much like they do today and they often wielded political power, sometimes to the point of governing a colony all by themselves like the Massachusetts Bay Company did.
> 
> But there is more evidence that the Revolutionary generation despised corporations. The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.
> 
> After the nations founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. When you think about it, the regulations imposed on corporations in the early days of America were far harsher than they are now. That is hardly proof that the founders supported corporations. In fact its quite the opposite. The corporate entity was so restrictive that many of Americas corporate giants set up their entities to avoid the corporate restrictions. For example, Andrew Carnegie set up his steel company as a limited partnership and John D. Rockefeller set up his Standard Oil company as a trust which would later be rightfully busted up into smaller companies by Theodore Roosevelt.
> 
> For those who need more evidence, how about statements from the founders themselves. As we all know, big banks are also considered corporations and here is what Thomas Jefferson thought about them. In an 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin, Jefferson said,
> 
> If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,
> 
> I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
> 
> Jefferson wasnt the only founding father to make statements about corporations. John Adams also had an opinion.
> 
> Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, Blah, Blah...
> 
> Show me the section in the Constitution in which they outlawed Corporations.
> 
> 
> As far as this passage goes:
> 
> If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
> 
> Our children don't need banks and corporations to deprive them of their wealth.  The Big 0 has pretty taken care of that with his ran a way spending.
> 
> Did you find any quotes from Jefferson regarding racking up 5 Trillion dollars of debt in three years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is where the conservative mind is deficient. Polarized thinking is an epidemic in the conservative mind.
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Show me the section in the Constitution in which they outlawed Corporations."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I posted calls for 'outlawing corporations' ....NOTHING...
> 
> What our founding fathers clearly understood is that government's role is to regulate corporations and monied interests to protect citizens/consumers from malfeasance. It is something that has been a echoed by succeeding generations and defined by other great Americans like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy...
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.
> 
> And that doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process.
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.
> RFK Jr.
> 
> 
> "Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
> President John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...





The impact, size and influence of Corporations on government is well known.

This is the result of the corrupt and conniving influence peddlers that people our corrupt and greedy political parties.Corporations are not the only Lobbyists in Washington DC.  Any group with an ax to grind has an ax grinder working in DC.

The web od corporate law has been woven over centurions in this country is is usually guided by the corrupt and conniving corporations influencing the corrupt and conniving politicians.

I asked for the citation in the Constitution because while they may have despised corporations, they probably did not see this as a Federal duty to regulate them.  If they both despised them and felt this was a Federal Charge, it would be addressed in the Constitution.

They allowed the existence of corporations so, I would assume, they saw some value in them.

I don't think the Founders anticipated US Steel or GM at its height, but that is the genius of the document.  They did anticipate corporations and chose to both allow them and to regulate them only as they dealt across state lines.  That they became so powerful and in Teddy's time and were actually more powerful than the Federal Government in many important ways speaks more to the corruption of the legislature even then than it does to the Constitution's restriction on them.


----------



## Bfgrn

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, Blah, Blah...
> 
> Show me the section in the Constitution in which they outlawed Corporations.
> 
> 
> As far as this passage goes:
> 
> If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
> 
> Our children don't need banks and corporations to deprive them of their wealth.  The Big 0 has pretty taken care of that with his ran a way spending.
> 
> Did you find any quotes from Jefferson regarding racking up 5 Trillion dollars of debt in three years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where the conservative mind is deficient. Polarized thinking is an epidemic in the conservative mind.
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Show me the section in the Constitution in which they outlawed Corporations."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I posted calls for 'outlawing corporations' ....NOTHING...
> 
> What our founding fathers clearly understood is that government's role is to regulate corporations and monied interests to protect citizens/consumers from malfeasance. It is something that has been a echoed by succeeding generations and defined by other great Americans like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy...
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.
> 
> And that doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process.
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.
> RFK Jr.
> 
> 
> "Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The impact, size and influence of Corporations on government is well known.
> 
> This is the result of the corrupt and conniving influence peddlers that people our corrupt and greedy political parties.Corporations are not the only Lobbyists in Washington DC.  Any group with an ax to grind has an ax grinder working in DC.
> 
> The web od corporate law has been woven over centurions in this country is is usually guided by the corrupt and conniving corporations influencing the corrupt and conniving politicians.
> 
> I asked for the citation in the Constitution because while they may have despised corporations, they probably did not see this as a Federal duty to regulate them.  If they both despised them and felt this was a Federal Charge, it would be addressed in the Constitution.
> 
> They allowed the existence of corporations so, I would assume, they saw some value in them.
> 
> I don't think the Founders anticipated US Steel or GM at its height, but that is the genius of the document.  They did anticipate corporations and chose to both allow them and to regulate them only as they dealt across state lines.  That they became so powerful and in Teddy's time and were actually more powerful than the Federal Government in many important ways speaks more to the corruption of the legislature even then than it does to the Constitution's restriction on them.
Click to expand...


Human foible has always existed, and will continue to exist after we are gone. It is not an excuse to DE-regulate corporations, eviscerate consumer protections or castrate environmental laws. 

ALL of which are the agenda of modern day conservatives. Maybe conservatives just don't understand what the original Boston Tea Party was really about.

A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic "Rusticus." One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world:

"Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them."


----------



## code1211

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human foible has always existed, and will continue to exist after we are gone. It is not an excuse to DE-regulate corporations, eviscerate consumer protections or castrate environmental laws.
> 
> ALL of which are the agenda of modern day conservatives. Maybe conservatives just don't understand what the original Boston Tea Party was really about.
> 
> A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic "Rusticus." One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world:
> 
> "Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The email chain was getting too long.  if the deletion changes any meanings, i apologize.
> 
> The Founders were, obviously, a rebellious group.
> 
> I'm not sure that dialing back the constraints placed on corporations that keep them from irrigating crops in California rises to the level of allowing 15,000 to perish in a famine.  On the contrary, keeping growers from growing crops seems to have the famine inducing effect.
> 
> It's been a while since any rivers in the USA burst into flame.  The question is, just how clean is clean?  How much must we penalize any industry in order to protect the people?  Where is reasonable line to draw in the sand?  Right now, that line is moving away from reasonableness to ridiculousness.
> 
> Just as this administration and Democrat Party Liberals attack business for hiring non-union employees, they are using the power of the EPA to attack business.
> 
> When the goal of the EPA is to regulate for the good of people, that's one thing, but when it is to intimidate to make a point regarding its power and its control that is another.
> 
> Power and control seem to be where the EPA actions are leading.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> It is not an excuse to DE-regulate corporations, eviscerate consumer protections or castrate environmental laws.



Red China just deregulated and instantly saved 30-50 million from liberal en masse starvation. How is that for consumer protection??


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an excuse to DE-regulate corporations, eviscerate consumer protections or castrate environmental laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red China just deregulated and instantly saved 30-50 million from liberal en masse starvation. How is that for consumer protection??
Click to expand...


What's ironic, if conservatives ever gain enough power, America will be an environmental waste land like Russia and China. But, communism is conservative, not liberal. 

The far right teabaggers are the cousin of the Stalinists. 


*What Mao Zedong said about liberalism*

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads.
Combat Liberalism


----------



## code1211

Bfgrn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an excuse to DE-regulate corporations, eviscerate consumer protections or castrate environmental laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red China just deregulated and instantly saved 30-50 million from liberal en masse starvation. How is that for consumer protection??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's ironic, if conservatives ever gain enough power, America will be an environmental waste land like Russia and China. But, communism is conservative, not liberal.
> 
> The far right teabaggers are the cousin of the Stalinists.
> 
> 
> *What Mao Zedong said about liberalism*
> 
> Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.
> 
> It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads.
> Combat Liberalism
Click to expand...





In what ways are the views of the political right in America more like Communism than the views of the political left?


----------



## Bfgrn

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red China just deregulated and instantly saved 30-50 million from liberal en masse starvation. How is that for consumer protection??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's ironic, if conservatives ever gain enough power, America will be an environmental waste land like Russia and China. But, communism is conservative, not liberal.
> 
> The far right teabaggers are the cousin of the Stalinists.
> 
> 
> *What Mao Zedong said about liberalism*
> 
> Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.
> 
> It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads.
> Combat Liberalism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what ways are the views of the political right in America more like Communism than the views of the political left?
Click to expand...


First of all: While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Second: Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.
The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

Third: When the tea partiers say we want our country back, what do they mean by our? 

What polls show us about the tea party is that they are a fringe group diametrically opposed to mainstream America. Among all Americans, George W. Bush has a 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among the tea party he's viewed favorably, 57/27. An almost perfect diametrical difference.

Is there any precedent in history of todays the tea party? 

The answer is YESa parallel to the 'Tea Party" occurred in Russia in the late 1980's. Russian conservatives, the Stalinists, wanted 'their' country back. It was an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups and nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church. 

And like todays tea partiers, they wanted their authoritarian government back. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 27, 1989

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

*MOSCOW, Feb. 26* Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways. 

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals. 
*
A Disparate Alliance *
The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church. 



Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies


----------



## code1211

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's ironic, if conservatives ever gain enough power, America will be an environmental waste land like Russia and China. But, communism is conservative, not liberal.
> 
> The far right teabaggers are the cousin of the Stalinists.
> 
> 
> *What Mao Zedong said about liberalism*
> 
> Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.
> 
> It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads.
> Combat Liberalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what ways are the views of the political right in America more like Communism than the views of the political left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all: While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> Second: Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.
> 
> Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.
> 
> A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.
> 
> Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.
> The Difference Between Socialism and Communism
> 
> Third: When the &#8216;tea partiers&#8217; say &#8220;we want our country back&#8221;, what do they mean by &#8216;our&#8217;?
> 
> What polls show us about the &#8216;tea party&#8217; is that they are a fringe group diametrically opposed to mainstream America. Among all Americans, George W. Bush has a 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among the &#8216;tea party&#8217; he's viewed favorably, 57/27. An almost perfect diametrical difference.
> 
> Is there any precedent in history of today&#8217;s the &#8216;tea party&#8217;?
> 
> The answer is YES&#8230;a parallel to the 'Tea Party" occurred in Russia in the late 1980's. Russian conservatives, the Stalinists, wanted 'their' country back. It was an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups and nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.
> 
> And like today&#8217;s &#8216;tea partiers&#8217;, they wanted their authoritarian government back.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> February 27, 1989
> 
> Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies
> 
> *MOSCOW, Feb. 26*&#8212; Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.
> 
> While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.
> *
> A Disparate Alliance *
> The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.
> 
> 
> 
> Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies
Click to expand...




First let me say that I appreciate your logical approach to this.  I disagree with your interpretation of what the terms mean.

You say that Socialism is a social system and that Communism is an economic system.  Then you say that Authoritarianism is the governing style of Conservatives.  Historically, as the definition of the terms change, any of these things alone or in concert with the others could be true.  

In today's world in this country in specific, we are looking at two branches of the same road.  We are married to a social contract between government and the individual even at the Federal Level and the two choices we have is to expand the involvement and control of the Federal Government into the lives of the individuals or to either stop the intrusion of the involvement where it is or draw it back slightly to a less intrusive stage of the recent past.

In today's terms, Liberals want to expand this intrusion and Conservatives want to limit it.

Your references to Socialism and to Communism are not what I understand the definitions to be.  Socialism is the willing participation of the re-distribution of wealth between those in any defined social group while Communism is sharing of all wealth with no specific ownership by the individual ever recognized eliminating the need to redistribute since all have equal claim to all things in the defined social group.

Communism is the economic system, apparently, in use by the folks in the very evolved society in Star Trek the Next Generation.  Communism and WARP Drive both work just fine in Science Fiction.

Those are economic systems.

Government systems are things like democratic, oligarchic, monarchic, authoritarian or anarchy.  In a perfect form of Communism, Anarchy would work just fine since this exists in a place where there is no greed, no property in a legal sense and no need that is not satisfied.  This won't work in the real world since people are people and disagreements occur.  We need to have referees.

In any economic system that demands that wealth be transferred from any party to another, a government is required.  The greater the amount of transfer, the greater must be the power of the government.  If all wealth is transferred, as in real world Communism, then all power must be centralized to that government.

To the degree that less wealth is transferred, less power is required to be reserved to the government.  In an anarchy, where only the strong survive, all wealth is reserved to the strong so there is no need for government.  Monarchy is the next step away from this state.

I think it's important to not confuse the distinctions between economic and governmental systems.

Saying that all Conservatives are Authoritarian is simply hogwash.  Especially by the standards of today in the USA, Conservatives are asking the power be diffused and devolved to less central concentrations which is the antithesis of Authoritarianism.


----------



## Dragon

Neither liberals nor conservatives in America are identical to Communists from the Soviet era. Which ones are MORE like Communists depends on the lens through which one views matters. Both liberals and conservatives object strongly to Communism, but for different reasons. The Soviet Union implemented many authoritarian, highly illiberal policies: a one-party state, government-controlled media, repression of peaceful dissent, secret police, political imprisonment or execution. The Soviet Union also implemented policies that worked (ostensibly) towards economic equality: guaranteed employment, free education, full health-care coverage for everyone. (In reality, these policies failed because they were not accompanied by political democracy, and the concentration of political power in the hands of the Party elite corrupted the system's socialist ideals, but that's another topic.)

Liberals find the political authoritarianism of Communism anathema. We find the economic egalitarianism admirable, and think it sad that it didn't work (most likely BECAUSE of the political authoritarianism).

Conservatives find the political authoritarianism of Communism excessive (most of them anyway), but it's the economic egalitarianism that truly upsets them. (In the course of fighting Communism, conservatives had no qualms about allying with dictatorships that were just as oppressive or worse.)

The features of Communism that liberals abhor, conservatives treat with a shrug. The features of Communism that conservatives abhor, liberals actually like, with the caveat that they weren't implemented well.

Liberals see conservatives as more like Communists because they are focused on Communist authoritarianism as its essential bad feature, and conservatives are authoritarian in similar (if less extreme) ways. Conservatives see liberals as more like Communists because they are focused on Communist economic egalitarianism as its bad feature, and liberals are egalitarian in similar (if less extreme) ways.

It's all a matter of perspective and focus.


----------



## Bfgrn

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what ways are the views of the political right in America more like Communism than the views of the political left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all: While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> Second: Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.
> 
> Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.
> 
> A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.
> 
> Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.
> The Difference Between Socialism and Communism
> 
> Third: When the tea partiers say we want our country back, what do they mean by our?
> 
> What polls show us about the tea party is that they are a fringe group diametrically opposed to mainstream America. Among all Americans, George W. Bush has a 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among the tea party he's viewed favorably, 57/27. An almost perfect diametrical difference.
> 
> Is there any precedent in history of todays the tea party?
> 
> The answer is YESa parallel to the 'Tea Party" occurred in Russia in the late 1980's. Russian conservatives, the Stalinists, wanted 'their' country back. It was an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups and nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.
> 
> And like todays tea partiers, they wanted their authoritarian government back.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> February 27, 1989
> 
> Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies
> 
> *MOSCOW, Feb. 26* Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.
> 
> While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.
> *
> A Disparate Alliance *
> The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.
> 
> 
> 
> Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First let me say that I appreciate your logical approach to this.  I disagree with your interpretation of what the terms mean.
> 
> You say that Socialism is a social system and that Communism is an economic system.  Then you say that Authoritarianism is the governing style of Conservatives.  Historically, as the definition of the terms change, any of these things alone or in concert with the others could be true.
> 
> In today's world in this country in specific, we are looking at two branches of the same road.  We are married to a social contract between government and the individual even at the Federal Level and the two choices we have is to expand the involvement and control of the Federal Government into the lives of the individuals or to either stop the intrusion of the involvement where it is or draw it back slightly to a less intrusive stage of the recent past.
> 
> *In today's terms, Liberals want to expand this intrusion and Conservatives want to limit it.
> *
> Your references to Socialism and to Communism are not what I understand the definitions to be.  Socialism is the willing participation of the re-distribution of wealth between those in any defined social group while Communism is sharing of all wealth with no specific ownership by the individual ever recognized eliminating the need to redistribute since all have equal claim to all things in the defined social group.
> 
> Communism is the economic system, apparently, in use by the folks in the very evolved society in Star Trek the Next Generation.  Communism and WARP Drive both work just fine in Science Fiction.
> 
> Those are economic systems.
> 
> Government systems are things like democratic, oligarchic, monarchic, authoritarian or anarchy.  In a perfect form of Communism, Anarchy would work just fine since this exists in a place where there is no greed, no property in a legal sense and no need that is not satisfied.  This won't work in the real world since people are people and disagreements occur.  We need to have referees.
> 
> In any economic system that demands that wealth be transferred from any party to another, a government is required.  The greater the amount of transfer, the greater must be the power of the government.  If all wealth is transferred, as in real world Communism, then all power must be centralized to that government.
> 
> To the degree that less wealth is transferred, less power is required to be reserved to the government.  In an anarchy, where only the strong survive, all wealth is reserved to the strong so there is no need for government.  Monarchy is the next step away from this state.
> 
> I think it's important to not confuse the distinctions between economic and governmental systems.
> 
> Saying that all Conservatives are Authoritarian is simply hogwash.  Especially by the standards of today in the USA, Conservatives are asking the power be diffused and devolved to less central concentrations which is the antithesis of Authoritarianism.
Click to expand...


"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter 

Please explain when conservatives have ever limited government intrusion into people's lives? The only government action conservatives consider 'intrusion' is the rightful regulation of corporations, the essential protection of consumers and the environment. 

But if you are a woman, a teacher or an unemployed citizen, conservatives LOVE to intrude into your uterus and bedroom, your workplace and test your bodily fluids.


----------



## code1211

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all: While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> Second: Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.
> 
> Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.
> 
> A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.
> 
> Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.
> The Difference Between Socialism and Communism
> 
> Third: When the tea partiers say we want our country back, what do they mean by our?
> 
> What polls show us about the tea party is that they are a fringe group diametrically opposed to mainstream America. Among all Americans, George W. Bush has a 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among the tea party he's viewed favorably, 57/27. An almost perfect diametrical difference.
> 
> Is there any precedent in history of todays the tea party?
> 
> The answer is YESa parallel to the 'Tea Party" occurred in Russia in the late 1980's. Russian conservatives, the Stalinists, wanted 'their' country back. It was an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups and nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.
> 
> And like todays tea partiers, they wanted their authoritarian government back.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> February 27, 1989
> 
> Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies
> 
> *MOSCOW, Feb. 26* Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.
> 
> While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.
> *
> A Disparate Alliance *
> The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.
> 
> 
> 
> Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First let me say that I appreciate your logical approach to this.  I disagree with your interpretation of what the terms mean.
> 
> You say that Socialism is a social system and that Communism is an economic system.  Then you say that Authoritarianism is the governing style of Conservatives.  Historically, as the definition of the terms change, any of these things alone or in concert with the others could be true.
> 
> In today's world in this country in specific, we are looking at two branches of the same road.  We are married to a social contract between government and the individual even at the Federal Level and the two choices we have is to expand the involvement and control of the Federal Government into the lives of the individuals or to either stop the intrusion of the involvement where it is or draw it back slightly to a less intrusive stage of the recent past.
> 
> *In today's terms, Liberals want to expand this intrusion and Conservatives want to limit it.
> *
> Your references to Socialism and to Communism are not what I understand the definitions to be.  Socialism is the willing participation of the re-distribution of wealth between those in any defined social group while Communism is sharing of all wealth with no specific ownership by the individual ever recognized eliminating the need to redistribute since all have equal claim to all things in the defined social group.
> 
> Communism is the economic system, apparently, in use by the folks in the very evolved society in Star Trek the Next Generation.  Communism and WARP Drive both work just fine in Science Fiction.
> 
> Those are economic systems.
> 
> Government systems are things like democratic, oligarchic, monarchic, authoritarian or anarchy.  In a perfect form of Communism, Anarchy would work just fine since this exists in a place where there is no greed, no property in a legal sense and no need that is not satisfied.  This won't work in the real world since people are people and disagreements occur.  We need to have referees.
> 
> In any economic system that demands that wealth be transferred from any party to another, a government is required.  The greater the amount of transfer, the greater must be the power of the government.  If all wealth is transferred, as in real world Communism, then all power must be centralized to that government.
> 
> To the degree that less wealth is transferred, less power is required to be reserved to the government.  In an anarchy, where only the strong survive, all wealth is reserved to the strong so there is no need for government.  Monarchy is the next step away from this state.
> 
> I think it's important to not confuse the distinctions between economic and governmental systems.
> 
> Saying that all Conservatives are Authoritarian is simply hogwash.  Especially by the standards of today in the USA, Conservatives are asking the power be diffused and devolved to less central concentrations which is the antithesis of Authoritarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
> Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter
> 
> Please explain when conservatives have ever limited government intrusion into people's lives? The only government action conservatives consider 'intrusion' is the rightful regulation of corporations, the essential protection of consumers and the environment.
> 
> But if you are a woman, a teacher or an unemployed citizen, conservatives LOVE to intrude into your uterus and bedroom, your workplace and test your bodily fluids.
Click to expand...




Conservatives and Liberals exist in both parties.  Granted it is more difficult for either to thrive in the opposition political party due to the way money is raised and distributed, but they are still there.

You are confusing the terms Democrat and Republican and Conservative and Liberal.

Nixon and Bush were both Republicans and both worked mightily to expand the scope and power of the Federal Government into the lives of the individual.  I would rate neither of these as Conservative in the legal sense.

The religious right makes allot of noise about their righteousness and so forth but existing case law has pretty solidly limited their impact on any real Federal legislation.  The political Left keeps holding this up as the great boogie man to scare people into voting for those who want to rob them blind.

You make a reference to Ted Sorenson who worked for the man who exhorted all Americans to ask not what their country could do for them...  This is anathema to the Democrat Party today.  The Big 0 exhorts us to employ government to take from the rich and give to the poor, support them for two years of unemployment and revile those who actually pay taxes.

What's wrong with this picture?

Any time we give the government the power to provide anything, we are also giving them the power to tell us how and when to use that thing.  That is control.

I refuse to recognize the authority of the government to make me pray or to take or use birth control devices or to pay for other people to take or use birth control devices.  Why is the freedom to do anything predicated on the concept that someone else needs to pay to provide that freedom?

I also don't see the wisdom or the legitimacy of the government not allowing Boeing to open a manufacturing plant in South Carolina or to shut down Gibson Guitar.  

i don't care if the unreasonable demand of government comes from the poetical right or the political left, the need for the government to take care of me by doing things to me or others is a Liberal intrusion into society and it needs to stop.

I know that there are examples in which this intrusion has resulted in good outcomes, but those same outcomes can usually be accomplished by more local governments and by the enforcement of existing laws fairly applied to all.

Any time that government limits its reach into any life, that is a conservative approach to governance.

I think that more appropriately, your question should be turned around to ask when Liberals have ever limited the intrusion of government into people's lives.  Beyond that, why does government intrude into people's lives and is any intrusion justified by either Liberals or Conservatives?


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Conservatives and Liberals exist in both parties.



Conservatives and liberals exist in the Democratic party. At this point, I don't think there are any liberal Republicans left, and precious few conservative Republicans. Most Republicans at this point are right-wing radicals.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives and Liberals exist in both parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives and liberals exist in the Democratic party. At this point, I don't think there are any liberal Republicans left, and precious few conservative Republicans. Most Republicans at this point are right-wing radicals.
Click to expand...




If you consider the centralization of power to the Federal level a trait of Liberalism, and the legislators that you cited as liberals certainly do, or the expansion of federal spending, I would argue that there are several Liberals in the Republican party.

The talking point is to reduce Federal spending, but the reluctance to actually do so reveals plenty.

Please note that the drive is not to eliminate the spending, but to bring that spending closer to home.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> If you consider the centralization of power to the Federal level a trait of Liberalism



I don't.


----------



## Bfgrn

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First let me say that I appreciate your logical approach to this.  I disagree with your interpretation of what the terms mean.
> 
> You say that Socialism is a social system and that Communism is an economic system.  Then you say that Authoritarianism is the governing style of Conservatives.  Historically, as the definition of the terms change, any of these things alone or in concert with the others could be true.
> 
> In today's world in this country in specific, we are looking at two branches of the same road.  We are married to a social contract between government and the individual even at the Federal Level and the two choices we have is to expand the involvement and control of the Federal Government into the lives of the individuals or to either stop the intrusion of the involvement where it is or draw it back slightly to a less intrusive stage of the recent past.
> 
> *In today's terms, Liberals want to expand this intrusion and Conservatives want to limit it.
> *
> Your references to Socialism and to Communism are not what I understand the definitions to be.  Socialism is the willing participation of the re-distribution of wealth between those in any defined social group while Communism is sharing of all wealth with no specific ownership by the individual ever recognized eliminating the need to redistribute since all have equal claim to all things in the defined social group.
> 
> Communism is the economic system, apparently, in use by the folks in the very evolved society in Star Trek the Next Generation.  Communism and WARP Drive both work just fine in Science Fiction.
> 
> Those are economic systems.
> 
> Government systems are things like democratic, oligarchic, monarchic, authoritarian or anarchy.  In a perfect form of Communism, Anarchy would work just fine since this exists in a place where there is no greed, no property in a legal sense and no need that is not satisfied.  This won't work in the real world since people are people and disagreements occur.  We need to have referees.
> 
> In any economic system that demands that wealth be transferred from any party to another, a government is required.  The greater the amount of transfer, the greater must be the power of the government.  If all wealth is transferred, as in real world Communism, then all power must be centralized to that government.
> 
> To the degree that less wealth is transferred, less power is required to be reserved to the government.  In an anarchy, where only the strong survive, all wealth is reserved to the strong so there is no need for government.  Monarchy is the next step away from this state.
> 
> I think it's important to not confuse the distinctions between economic and governmental systems.
> 
> Saying that all Conservatives are Authoritarian is simply hogwash.  Especially by the standards of today in the USA, Conservatives are asking the power be diffused and devolved to less central concentrations which is the antithesis of Authoritarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
> Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter
> 
> Please explain when conservatives have ever limited government intrusion into people's lives? The only government action conservatives consider 'intrusion' is the rightful regulation of corporations, the essential protection of consumers and the environment.
> 
> But if you are a woman, a teacher or an unemployed citizen, conservatives LOVE to intrude into your uterus and bedroom, your workplace and test your bodily fluids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives and Liberals exist in both parties.  Granted it is more difficult for either to thrive in the opposition political party due to the way money is raised and distributed, but they are still there.
> 
> You are confusing the terms Democrat and Republican and Conservative and Liberal.
> 
> Nixon and Bush were both Republicans and both worked mightily to expand the scope and power of the Federal Government into the lives of the individual.  I would rate neither of these as Conservative in the legal sense.
> 
> The religious right makes allot of noise about their righteousness and so forth but existing case law has pretty solidly limited their impact on any real Federal legislation.  The political Left keeps holding this up as the great boogie man to scare people into voting for those who want to rob them blind.
> 
> You make a reference to Ted Sorenson who worked for the man who exhorted all Americans to ask not what their country could do for them...  This is anathema to the Democrat Party today.  The Big 0 exhorts us to employ government to take from the rich and give to the poor, support them for two years of unemployment and revile those who actually pay taxes.
> 
> What's wrong with this picture?
> 
> Any time we give the government the power to provide anything, we are also giving them the power to tell us how and when to use that thing.  That is control.
> 
> I refuse to recognize the authority of the government to make me pray or to take or use birth control devices or to pay for other people to take or use birth control devices.  Why is the freedom to do anything predicated on the concept that someone else needs to pay to provide that freedom?
> 
> I also don't see the wisdom or the legitimacy of the government not allowing Boeing to open a manufacturing plant in South Carolina or to shut down Gibson Guitar.
> 
> i don't care if the unreasonable demand of government comes from the poetical right or the political left, the need for the government to take care of me by doing things to me or others is a Liberal intrusion into society and it needs to stop.
> 
> I know that there are examples in which this intrusion has resulted in good outcomes, but those same outcomes can usually be accomplished by more local governments and by the enforcement of existing laws fairly applied to all.
> 
> Any time that government limits its reach into any life, that is a conservative approach to governance.
> 
> I think that more appropriately, your question should be turned around to ask when Liberals have ever limited the intrusion of government into people's lives.  Beyond that, why does government intrude into people's lives and is any intrusion justified by either Liberals or Conservatives?
Click to expand...


There are things that are best left to local and state government. And there are things that are not. Environmental protection, protection of our economy, protecting the safety of our food supply and our health care are NOT best handled without federal laws and agencies.

John F. Kennedy was the President who rallied this nation to put a man on the moon. The greatest technological achievement in human history. The space program created so many new industries, spinoffs and inventions, it changed the way we live, thrust America to the top of the heap and created trillions in American wealth.

And John F. Kennedy also gave the best description of what a liberal is and isn't.

*Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960*

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> Most Republicans at this point are right-wing radicals.



that is, most Republicans at this point have the same limited government philosophy as Jefferson and the founders. A liberal with be too stupid to know it though.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> It is not an excuse to DE-regulate corporations, eviscerate consumer protections or castrate environmental laws.



Red China just deregulated and instantly saved 30-50 million from liberal en masse starvation. How is that for consumer protection??[/QUOTE]



Bfgrn said:


> What's ironic,



who cares about irony. You said deregulation was evil when it just saved 30-50 from liberal starvation. Doesn't that make you stupid?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> The far right teabaggers are the cousin of the Stalinists.



actually dear it was the big government liberals who spied for big government Stalin and were hung in some cases?? When McCarthy asked them if they were Stalinist communists thay all took the 5th. Does the liberal know what that means???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

code1211 said:


> Show me the section in the Constitution in which they outlawed Corporations.?



liberals are always and everywhere anti-business even with 20 million unemployed. Accordingly,  we have the worst economy since the Depression, and BO is set to become a one term president with his signature anti-business achievement( regulation of health care)  declared illegal in a free country.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.



This perfectly shows abject liberal ignorance. There is only one issue: freedom versus government. The founders knew liberal government monopolies were inefficient and corrupt at best, and genocidal on average. That is why they gave us freedom and why we became the greatest country by far in all of human history.

The liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand it and should be made illegal as our founders intended with the Constitution..


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an excuse to DE-regulate corporations, eviscerate consumer protections or castrate environmental laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Red China just deregulated *and instantly saved 30-50 million from liberal en masse starvation. How is that for consumer protection??
Click to expand...


Link up there simp...

Red China just became the worlds number one investor in green energy in 2010.

China will invest about $800 billion in seven green energy areas, namely, wind, solar, nuclear, bio-energy, hydro, coal cleaning and smart power grid.

Chinas green energy is expected to generate 290 GW power (wind 52 per cent, nuclear 24 per cent, bio-energy 10 per cent, solar and others 7 per cent each) in 2020. This would be equivalent to 17 per cent of Chinas total generation capacity and 15 per cent of the countrys total energy consumption.

Chinas rapid growth in green energy has been driven by two key factors. First, green energy development in government policies has been promoted as a strategy of providing energy security for the countrys rapidly-expanding economy in the future. Energy prices have gone up rapidly in recent decades. It would be a challenging task to fuel the Chinese economy which overtook the Japanese economy in 2010 and is expected to surpass the American economy within a decade. Competition for energy will be fierce as resources in the world are disappearing quickly and in the meantime, another Asian giant, India is rising too.

Second, as the worlds largest carbon emitter, China has been under tremendous pressure to reduce emissions and show leadership in fighting global climate change. Domestically a rapidly-rising middle class also demands for the improvement in environmental quality. In response to these pressures, two goals are set in the proposed green energy strategy, that is, to reduce carbon emission and the use of fossil fuels.

According to the proposed development strategy, by 2020 Chinas carbon emission per unit of GDP will fall by 40-45 per cent relative to the level in 2005. To reach this target, the Chinese government has launched many energy efficiency programs and industrial restructuring projects in addition to the ambitious green energy development strategy.

Globally green energy development provides a $2.3 trillion business opportunity during 2011-2020 according to the Pew Charitable Trusts report. Chinese government policies are well supported by the countrys private sector which is being rewarded with hefty profits from an early entry into the market.

Chinas major white good producers such as Meidi, Haier and Geli have been active in developing green energy products such as solar-powered refrigerators, televisions and air conditioners. To promote its businesses, for example, in 2010 Changhong, a large TV producer, donated over 20,000 solar-powered digital TVs to herdsmen on the Tibetan plateau.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> Red China just became the world&#8217;s number one investor in green energy in 2010.



dear, our subject was not irony or green energy, rather that China saved 30 million lives by deregulating!!!!! You lack the IQ to even know you are changing the subject when you have no reply!!

You fool yourself but no one else.


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red China just became the worlds number one investor in green energy in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, our subject was not irony or green energy, rather that China saved 30 million lives by deregulating!!!!! You lack the IQ to even know you are changing the subject when you have no reply!!
> 
> You fool yourself but no one else.
Click to expand...


Where is your link?


----------



## code1211

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
> Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter
> 
> Please explain when conservatives have ever limited government intrusion into people's lives? The only government action conservatives consider 'intrusion' is the rightful regulation of corporations, the essential protection of consumers and the environment.
> 
> But if you are a woman, a teacher or an unemployed citizen, conservatives LOVE to intrude into your uterus and bedroom, your workplace and test your bodily fluids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives and Liberals exist in both parties.  Granted it is more difficult for either to thrive in the opposition political party due to the way money is raised and distributed, but they are still there.
> 
> You are confusing the terms Democrat and Republican and Conservative and Liberal.
> 
> Nixon and Bush were both Republicans and both worked mightily to expand the scope and power of the Federal Government into the lives of the individual.  I would rate neither of these as Conservative in the legal sense.
> 
> The religious right makes allot of noise about their righteousness and so forth but existing case law has pretty solidly limited their impact on any real Federal legislation.  The political Left keeps holding this up as the great boogie man to scare people into voting for those who want to rob them blind.
> 
> You make a reference to Ted Sorenson who worked for the man who exhorted all Americans to ask not what their country could do for them...  This is anathema to the Democrat Party today.  The Big 0 exhorts us to employ government to take from the rich and give to the poor, support them for two years of unemployment and revile those who actually pay taxes.
> 
> What's wrong with this picture?
> 
> Any time we give the government the power to provide anything, we are also giving them the power to tell us how and when to use that thing.  That is control.
> 
> I refuse to recognize the authority of the government to make me pray or to take or use birth control devices or to pay for other people to take or use birth control devices.  Why is the freedom to do anything predicated on the concept that someone else needs to pay to provide that freedom?
> 
> I also don't see the wisdom or the legitimacy of the government not allowing Boeing to open a manufacturing plant in South Carolina or to shut down Gibson Guitar.
> 
> i don't care if the unreasonable demand of government comes from the poetical right or the political left, the need for the government to take care of me by doing things to me or others is a Liberal intrusion into society and it needs to stop.
> 
> I know that there are examples in which this intrusion has resulted in good outcomes, but those same outcomes can usually be accomplished by more local governments and by the enforcement of existing laws fairly applied to all.
> 
> Any time that government limits its reach into any life, that is a conservative approach to governance.
> 
> I think that more appropriately, your question should be turned around to ask when Liberals have ever limited the intrusion of government into people's lives.  Beyond that, why does government intrude into people's lives and is any intrusion justified by either Liberals or Conservatives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are things that are best left to local and state government. And there are things that are not. Environmental protection, protection of our economy, protecting the safety of our food supply and our health care are NOT best handled without federal laws and agencies.
> 
> John F. Kennedy was the President who rallied this nation to put a man on the moon. The greatest technological achievement in human history. The space program created so many new industries, spinoffs and inventions, it changed the way we live, thrust America to the top of the heap and created trillions in American wealth.
> 
> And John F. Kennedy also gave the best description of what a liberal is and isn't.
> 
> *Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960*
> 
> What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal."
> 
> But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.
> 
> In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:
> 
> I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
> 
> I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.
> 
> Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.
Click to expand...





Kennedy was not a liberal by today's definitions.  He campaigned to cut taxes to help the economy.  The liberals of today fight hard to stop this.

He was a proponent of individual effort, achievement and reward.  Again, these are not things supported by toddy's Liberalism.

The EPA was not founded by Kennedy.  It was founded by Nixon.  Presumably, if Kennedy supported your feeling that this is best regulated from afar, he would have founded it then.

Protecting our food supply?  Economy?  Health Care?  The economy was nearly wrecked by the poorly improvised and bribe driven regulation of the lending industry.  The food supply is rightly regulated by the feds as it deals with interstate commerce in many cases.  

Health care?  That's such a can of worms that it's hard to know where to start.  Why does it require an extra decade to approve a drug as it does in Europe?  Why is the doctor's cost of avoiding a law suit to perform extra tests?  Why does the regulation of the health care industry encourage higher costs and not reward more efficient treatments?

If the government was a benevolent and caring agent that worked on the behalf of justice, what you say is probably very true.

If the government is a teeming mass of corrupt and greedy thieves seeking nothing more than the benefit of their own bankrolls and party, then not so much.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize a corrupted system that exists to benefit the thieves and that is what we have.

Limiting the scope and control of this cess pool is a good idea.


----------



## Bfgrn

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives and Liberals exist in both parties.  Granted it is more difficult for either to thrive in the opposition political party due to the way money is raised and distributed, but they are still there.
> 
> You are confusing the terms Democrat and Republican and Conservative and Liberal.
> 
> Nixon and Bush were both Republicans and both worked mightily to expand the scope and power of the Federal Government into the lives of the individual.  I would rate neither of these as Conservative in the legal sense.
> 
> The religious right makes allot of noise about their righteousness and so forth but existing case law has pretty solidly limited their impact on any real Federal legislation.  The political Left keeps holding this up as the great boogie man to scare people into voting for those who want to rob them blind.
> 
> You make a reference to Ted Sorenson who worked for the man who exhorted all Americans to ask not what their country could do for them...  This is anathema to the Democrat Party today.  The Big 0 exhorts us to employ government to take from the rich and give to the poor, support them for two years of unemployment and revile those who actually pay taxes.
> 
> What's wrong with this picture?
> 
> Any time we give the government the power to provide anything, we are also giving them the power to tell us how and when to use that thing.  That is control.
> 
> I refuse to recognize the authority of the government to make me pray or to take or use birth control devices or to pay for other people to take or use birth control devices.  Why is the freedom to do anything predicated on the concept that someone else needs to pay to provide that freedom?
> 
> I also don't see the wisdom or the legitimacy of the government not allowing Boeing to open a manufacturing plant in South Carolina or to shut down Gibson Guitar.
> 
> i don't care if the unreasonable demand of government comes from the poetical right or the political left, the need for the government to take care of me by doing things to me or others is a Liberal intrusion into society and it needs to stop.
> 
> I know that there are examples in which this intrusion has resulted in good outcomes, but those same outcomes can usually be accomplished by more local governments and by the enforcement of existing laws fairly applied to all.
> 
> Any time that government limits its reach into any life, that is a conservative approach to governance.
> 
> I think that more appropriately, your question should be turned around to ask when Liberals have ever limited the intrusion of government into people's lives.  Beyond that, why does government intrude into people's lives and is any intrusion justified by either Liberals or Conservatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are things that are best left to local and state government. And there are things that are not. Environmental protection, protection of our economy, protecting the safety of our food supply and our health care are NOT best handled without federal laws and agencies.
> 
> John F. Kennedy was the President who rallied this nation to put a man on the moon. The greatest technological achievement in human history. The space program created so many new industries, spinoffs and inventions, it changed the way we live, thrust America to the top of the heap and created trillions in American wealth.
> 
> And John F. Kennedy also gave the best description of what a liberal is and isn't.
> 
> *Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960*
> 
> What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal."
> 
> But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.
> 
> In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:
> 
> I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
> 
> I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.
> 
> Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was not a liberal by today's definitions.  He campaigned to cut taxes to help the economy.  The liberals of today fight hard to stop this.
> 
> He was a proponent of individual effort, achievement and reward.  Again, these are not things supported by toddy's Liberalism.
> 
> The EPA was not founded by Kennedy.  It was founded by Nixon.  Presumably, if Kennedy supported your feeling that this is best regulated from afar, he would have founded it then.
> 
> Protecting our food supply?  Economy?  Health Care?  The economy was nearly wrecked by the poorly improvised and bribe driven regulation of the lending industry.  The food supply is rightly regulated by the feds as it deals with interstate commerce in many cases.
> 
> Health care?  That's such a can of worms that it's hard to know where to start.  Why does it require an extra decade to approve a drug as it does in Europe?  Why is the doctor's cost of avoiding a law suit to perform extra tests?  Why does the regulation of the health care industry encourage higher costs and not reward more efficient treatments?
> 
> If the government was a benevolent and caring agent that worked on the behalf of justice, what you say is probably very true.
> 
> If the government is a teeming mass of corrupt and greedy thieves seeking nothing more than the benefit of their own bankrolls and party, then not so much.
> 
> It doesn't take a genius to recognize a corrupted system that exists to benefit the thieves and that is what we have.
> 
> Limiting the scope and control of this cess pool is a good idea.
Click to expand...


Jack Kennedy was a liberal by any standards. Here is a quiz for you.

Whose idea was Medicare?
Whose idea was the War in Poverty?
Who proposed the Civil Rights Act?

Kennedy faced a SURPLUS. The top marginal tax rate in 1963 was 91%. It was lowered to 77% in 1964 after Kennedy was assassinated. 

Also, Kennedy proposed a demand side tax cut, not a supply side. Walter Heller was the man behind it and had to sell it to Kennedy.

Now, let's get to your fallacy (an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid)

IF the lending industry wrecked the economy, are you saying they would have been good little boys and girls and done the right thing if it wasn't for mean old government? You really need to think about how stupid that is.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> Kennedy was not a liberal by today's definitions.  He campaigned to cut taxes to help the economy.



Those are not today's definitions. They are your own definitions, adopted for the purpose of defining "liberalism" a something easy to demonize. Liberals consider Kennedy a liberal, hence, he was one.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red China just became the worlds number one investor in green energy in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, our subject was not irony or green energy, rather that China saved 30 million lives by deregulating!!!!! You lack the IQ to even know you are changing the subject when you have no reply!!
> 
> You fool yourself but no one else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is your link?
Click to expand...



the complete fool liberal wants a link to show that our subject was deregulation not irony or green energy??

Should we advise China to reregulate, that it was all a mistake even when the people stopped starving to death and are now getting rich?

Which is better, getting rich or starving to death. Now you see why we are 100% positive a liberal will be very very slow.


----------



## Uncensored2008

code1211 said:


> Is the Democrat Party a Liberal party?



No. 

The democratic party is a leftist party. It promotes a leftist, authoritarian model of government.


----------



## code1211

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was not a liberal by today's definitions.  He campaigned to cut taxes to help the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not today's definitions. They are your own definitions, adopted for the purpose of defining "liberalism" a something easy to demonize. Liberals consider Kennedy a liberal, hence, he was one.
Click to expand...




So, you are saying that a basic tenet of today's Liberals is to cut taxes?

Those you named as people who are Liberals in today's politics are Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Honda.  John Kennedy famously said that all boats are lifted by a rising tide when he cut taxes for ALL AMERICANS.

Do these three campaign constantly to reduce taxes for ALL AMERICANS?

Liberals claim everybody who can gain them some political mileage as a Liberal.  Kennedy, Jefferson, Lincoln...

I claim my daughter as a member of my family.  That doesn't give me a uterus.


----------



## Dragon

code1211 said:


> So, you are saying that a basic tenet of today's Liberals is to cut taxes?



That was not a "basic tenet" of Kennedy's either. The fact that he did it doesn't imply this in any way. His core beliefs and values, as for all liberals, lie elsewhere.

You are trying to define liberalism in terms of what YOU care about. The fact is, liberals DON'T care about these things, or not much.


----------



## konradv

Dragon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are saying that a basic tenet of today's Liberals is to cut taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was not a "basic tenet" of Kennedy's either. The fact that he did it doesn't imply this in any way. His core beliefs and values, as for all liberals, lie elsewhere.
> 
> You are trying to define liberalism in terms of what YOU care about. The fact is, liberals DON'T care about these things, or not much.
Click to expand...


Not to mention that at the time the taxes were much higher.  It doesn't in any way compare to today's situation.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dragon said:


> Most Republicans at this point are right-wing radicals.



that is, most Republicans at this point have the same limited government philosophy as Jefferson and the founders. A liberal will lack the IQ to know it though.


----------



## Moonglow

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Republicans at this point are right-wing radicals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is, most Republicans at this point have the same limited government philosophy as Jefferson and the founders. A liberal will lack the IQ to know it though.
Click to expand...


Jefferson was the founder of the democratic-republican party.



> A founder of the Democratic-Republican Party, Jefferson was elected Vice President in 1796 and served two terms as President (1801-1809).



Office of the Historian - Department History - People - Thomas Jefferson

Now that Ed knows this he will still continue to troll and show his lack of knowledge on the issue of  Jefferson and roots of our parties alive and active in today's politics..


----------



## regent

Moonglow said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Republicans at this point are right-wing radicals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is, most Republicans at this point have the same limited government philosophy as Jefferson and the founders. A liberal will lack the IQ to know it though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jefferson was the founder of the democratic-republican party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A founder of the Democratic-Republican Party, Jefferson was elected Vice President in 1796 and served two terms as President (1801-1809).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Office of the Historian - Department History - People - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Now that Ed knows this he will still continue to troll and show his lack of knowledge on the issue of  Jefferson and roots of our parties alive and active in today's politics..
Click to expand...


I think he/she may have gotten confused with the fact that their were two Republican parties in American history, one liberal, and one conservative, and instead of letting it go, tried to pull the error out of the fire. Sort of like Palin did with the Paul Revere thing.


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> I think he/she may have gotten confused with the fact that their were two Republican parties in American history, one liberal, and one conservative, and instead of letting it go, tried to pull the error out of the fire. Sort of like Palin did with the Paul Revere thing.



Ah, so Jefferson supported government control of medicine, heavy regulation of industry, high taxation, government paid pensions, welfare payments to the indigent, massive public works with a majority of people being employed by the state?

Is that your claim?

LOL, leftists love to pretend that they have knowledge. Knowledge isn't that act of spewing bullshit you read on ThinkProgress, knowledge is an understanding of factual events.


----------



## regent

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he/she may have gotten confused with the fact that their were two Republican parties in American history, one liberal, and one conservative, and instead of letting it go, tried to pull the error out of the fire. Sort of like Palin did with the Paul Revere thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so Jefferson supported government control of medicine, heavy regulation of industry, high taxation, government paid pensions, welfare payments to the indigent, massive public works with a majority of people being employed by the state?
> 
> Is that your claim?
> 
> LOL, leftists love to pretend that they have knowledge. Knowledge isn't that act of spewing bullshit you read on ThinkProgress, knowledge is an understanding of factual events.
Click to expand...


As government changed so did attitudes toward government. Those attitudes of government are not set in cement nor are they part of the core values of liberalism or conservatism, and they change. I think most Americans can see attitudes toward  govenment change today depending on which party controls the government. 
Once Jefferson became the govenment his attitude toward government began to slowly change as did many Americans. In fact, Jefferson's thoughts about property was already changing when he wrote the Declaraton of Independence.


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> As government changed so did attitudes toward government.



I see, so those of us bitterly clinging to the Bill of Rights and quaint notions of individual liberty are simply anachronisms?



> Those attitudes of government are not set in cement nor are they part of the core values of liberalism or conservatism, and they change.



Well, of course.

Words mean just what you want them to mean. "Liberal" is anything good, "Conservative" anything bad. There is no set of ideals or values associated with the terms, just that your side is liberal, and the enemy is conservative.



> I think most Americans can see attitudes toward  govenment change today depending on which party controls the government.



Do you have a plan to ensure only the good party controls the government, that those evil conservatives never foul things up by gaining office?



> Once Jefferson became the govenment his attitude toward government began to slowly change as did many Americans. In fact, Jefferson's thoughts about property was already changing when he wrote the Declaraton of Independence.



Oh, do tell?

Did he wax poetic on how lands should be divided among the proletarians while confiscating all from the bourgeoisie? 

Is it possible that you have Jefferson confused with those who had more influence on your political views?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored2008 said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Democrat Party a Liberal party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> The democratic party is a leftist party. It promotes a leftist, authoritarian model of government.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Republicans at this point are right-wing radicals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is, most Republicans at this point have the same limited government philosophy as Jefferson and the founders. A liberal will lack the IQ to know it though.
Click to expand...


Jefferson would have nothing to do with either party.  He would ally with John Randolph, and the two of them would have beat all of your sorry butts. 

Hamilton, Adams, Jay, and some of the Founders would probably rest between the Dems and the Pubs right now.


----------



## UpAndAbout

Zander said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.
> 
> FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What place do Democrats have in America?
> 
> We could start with putting them all in privately own and run "for profit" prison camps. Then, after being properly re-educated on the benefits of limited government and taking personal responsibility for ones own life, they could be reintroduced into society.....
Click to expand...


LOL - works for me.  Couldn't we find a maybe a portion of Alaska to send them to? They are always whining about global warming, they wouldn't be warm there.  or maybe pick a state and give it to them, a less populated one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he/she may have gotten confused with the fact that their were two Republican parties in American history, one liberal, and one conservative, and instead of letting it go, tried to pull the error out of the fire. Sort of like Palin did with the Paul Revere thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so Jefferson supported government control of medicine, heavy regulation of industry, high taxation, government paid pensions, welfare payments to the indigent, massive public works with a majority of people being employed by the state?
> 
> Is that your claim?
> 
> LOL, leftists love to pretend that they have knowledge. Knowledge isn't that act of spewing bullshit you read on ThinkProgress, knowledge is an understanding of factual events.
Click to expand...


uncensoree is so illiterate about our American narrative.

When has the USA ever had a majority or even a sizeable minority of its citizens on "massive public works with a majority of the people being employed by the state."  Jefferson did not oppose government medicine for the mililtary or the maritime service.  Different world different time.  Same uncensored: illiterate.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> Jefferson would have nothing to do with either party.  He would ally with John Randolph, and the two of them would have beat all of your sorry butts. /



Not really accurate. The Republican Party is an empty vessel that could be filled with the Tea Party or Ron Paul depending on the electorate. Jefferson, then as now, would be a Republican, a Republican who would want the electorate to purify the Party. The Republican Party is 100% shaped by the electorate while the Libertarian Party, for example,  is 100% shaped by ideas.

Accordingly, the Republican Party is about to strike down BO's mandate while the Libertarians impotently watch.





JakeStarkey said:


> Hamilton, Adams, Jay, and some of the Founders would probably rest between the Dems and the Pubs right now.



these men were Federalists. Jefferson defeated the Federalists who were never heard from again. Jefferson called it "The Second American Revolution." This is when America came to be about freedom from all government , not just the government of England.


----------



## regent

The Federalists were running candidates for some time after 1800 and since the Supreme Court and  lower courts were filled with Federalists the courts remained a potent conservative force for almost thirty years. During that period the Federalists proceeded to dismantle state's rights, court case after court case. Some of  the laws Federalists  had passed such as the Alien and Sedition laws remained in force until the laws expired. But the period of few or no conservatives being elected has been called the "era of good feelings."


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> The Federalists were running candidates for some time after 1800



did someone disagree?????



regent said:


> and since the Supreme Court and  lower courts were filled with Federalists the courts remained a potent conservative force for almost thirty years.



you might say they were a dying force after Jefferson defeated them.
Why be so stupid? If you use term conservative you have to say if you mean conserving something or opposed to government. Modern Conservatives are most noted for opposing big government so that is obviously the most useful definition to use. See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?


----------



## regent

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> As government changed so did attitudes toward government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so those of us bitterly clinging to the Bill of Rights and quaint notions of individual liberty are simply anachronisms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those attitudes of government are not set in cement nor are they part of the core values of liberalism or conservatism, and they change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course.
> 
> Words mean just what you want them to mean. "Liberal" is anything good, "Conservative" anything bad. There is no set of ideals or values associated with the terms, just that your side is liberal, and the enemy is conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most Americans can see attitudes toward  govenment change today depending on which party controls the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a plan to ensure only the good party controls the government, that those evil conservatives never foul things up by gaining office?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once Jefferson became the govenment his attitude toward government began to slowly change as did many Americans. In fact, Jefferson's thoughts about property was already changing when he wrote the Declaraton of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, do tell?
> 
> Did he wax poetic on how lands should be divided among the proletarians while confiscating all from the bourgeoisie?
> 
> Is it possible that you have Jefferson confused with those who had more influence on your political views?
Click to expand...


You might compare John Locke's thoughts on property as compared toJefferson's. Locke was one of Jefferson's idols but Jefferson's views began to change as conditions changed. 
Jefferson was for land distribution but primarily newly acquired lands and believed in America as a farming nation even as the nation was changing to manufacturing. As Conditions changed Jefferson had to adapt his liberal beliefs to the changing conditions.


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson would have nothing to do with either party.  He would ally with John Randolph, and the two of them would have beat all of your sorry butts. /
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really accurate. The Republican Party is an empty vessel that could be filled with the Tea Party or Ron Paul depending on the electorate. Jefferson, then as now, would be a Republican, a Republican who would want the electorate to purify the Party. The Republican Party is 100% shaped by the electorate while the Libertarian Party, for example,  is 100% shaped by ideas.
> 
> Accordingly, the Republican Party is about to strike down BO's mandate while the Libertarians impotently watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hamilton, Adams, Jay, and some of the Founders would probably rest between the Dems and the Pubs right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> these men were Federalists. Jefferson defeated the Federalists who were never heard from again. Jefferson called it "The Second American Revolution." This is when America came to be about freedom from all government , not just the government of England.
Click to expand...


Edward loves revisionism, his illiterate revisionism.  One, the Founders I named would still rest between the Dems and the Pubs.  Jefferson could have called it the silly revolution and still would have changed nothing.  Clay, Webster, the younger Adams, Marshall, Lincoln, Everett, Seward, and thousands of Whigs then Republicans picked up the nationalist and big government themes of the earlier Founders.  Jefferson is merely one thread among several, not the major one.

See, Edward, what it is like when the whole story is told.


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> you might say they were a dying force after Jefferson defeated them.


 Hamiltonianism, like Jeffersonianism, continued: Democratic-Republicans split into  conservative and nationalist wings, then into the Democratic and Whig parties, then the Democratic and Republican parties.  Both major parties have switched back and forth re: the two major influences during the last 150 years.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> Edward loves revisionism, his illiterate revisionism.  One, the Founders I named would still rest between the Dems and the Pubs.



Jefferson( small government) and Hamilton( big government)  were mortal enemies, sorry. Check your history




JakeStarkey said:


> Jefferson could have called it the silly revolution and still would have changed nothing.



Actually Jefferson wrote the Declaration, and defined the Constitution. If he changed nothing what happened to the Federalists who he felt had the oppposite idea about government? Saying Jefferson changed nothing is like saying Lincoln changed nothing. Are you trying to be slow?   




JakeStarkey said:


> Clay, Webster, the younger Adams, Marshall, Lincoln, Everett, Seward, and thousands of Whigs then Republicans picked up the nationalist and big government themes of the earlier Founders.  Jefferson is merely one thread among several, not the major one.



so then why be so afraid to tell us who the major one was? What does your fear tell us?


----------



## JakeStarkey

What fear, Edward?  Yours is the only one showing here.  The strains of Hamilton and Jefferson have infested (infected?) our politics so that two major strains have developed.  Jefferson is not the major one, son.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> What fear, Edward?  Yours is the only one showing here.  The strains of Hamilton and Jefferson have infested (infected?) our politics so that two major strains have developed.  Jefferson is not the major one, son.



Jefferson wrote the Declaration, founded the Republican Party in 1792 to be all about small government, and defined the Constitution. Modern Republicans hold his beliefs identicially. If thats not the major strain what is??

Why be so afraid to tell us?? What does your fear tell you, liberal.


----------



## JakeStarkey

He founded the Democratic-Republican party, which morphed into the Democratic Party, the small government party.

The federalists morphed into the nationalist wing of the Democratic-Republicans, then the Whigs, then the Republicans, the large government party.

Why does you fear keep pulling you down, Edward?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> He founded the Democratic-Republican party,



Would you like to bet 10,000, liberal that you have no primary sources to back that up???? Bet or run away with your liberal tail between your legs once again.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Check any freshman history book, Edward.  You just got your tail stepped on, you little fool.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> Check any freshman history book, Edward.  You just got your tail stepped on, you little fool.




so are you taking the bet on a legal basis or running away with your tail between your legs? Yes or No?????


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalists were running candidates for some time after 1800
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did someone disagree?????
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> and since the Supreme Court and  lower courts were filled with Federalists the courts remained a potent conservative force for almost thirty years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you might say they were a dying force after Jefferson defeated them.
> Why be so stupid? If you use term conservative you have to say if you mean conserving something or opposed to government. Modern Conservatives are most noted for opposing big government so that is obviously the most useful definition to use. See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?
Click to expand...


Yes, a dying force would have been more accurate than "never heard from again." 
You are defining conservatism as being opposed to big government but that is a very flimsy definition and has no historical background. I wonder if any textbooks on political ideology would even use "big government" as a core value of conservatism, you might try some. 
On the practical side can you name a Republican administration that significantly reduced the size of government when in power?


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check any freshman history book, Edward.  You just got your tail stepped on, you little fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so are you taking the bet on a legal basis or running away with your tail between your legs? Yes or No?????
Click to expand...


You want me to prove your point?  Go ahead, prove your point.  You can't

And this is why fron http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Democratic-Republican+Party _The Jeffersonian Republican party, better known as the Democratic-Republican Party, is an ancestor of the modern Democratic Party._


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Yes, a dying force would have been more accurate than "never heard from again."



are dying people often heard from again? See what happens when a liberal tries to think?




regent said:


> You are defining conservatism as being opposed to big government



That is how Jefferson, Reagan, Newt, and Romney define it, sorry





regent said:


> but that is a very flimsy definition and has no historical background.



actually Jefferson is a historical figure. See what happens?





regent said:


> I wonder if any textbooks on political ideology would even use "big government" as a core value of conservatism, you might try some.



why use textbooks when we can use history
???

"My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government."-Jefferson. The purpose of the Constitution was to prevent big government or to  in effect make liberalism illegal.





regent said:


> On the practical side can you name a Republican administration that significantly reduced the size of government when in power?



actually an Administration lacks the authority to, alone, reduce the size of government so your question is absurd.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check any freshman history book, Edward.  You just got your tail stepped on, you little fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so are you taking the bet on a legal basis or running away with your tail between your legs? Yes or No?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want me to prove your point?  Go ahead, prove your point.  You can't
Click to expand...


what point exactly??????????????


----------



## JakeStarkey

This, goes snap on the trap.    And this is why fron http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...publican+Party The Jeffersonian Republican party, better known as the Democratic-Republican Party, is an ancestor of the modern Democratic Party.  
_______


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> This, goes snap on the trap. _




so then do you take the bet on a legal basis or run away with your liberal tail between your legs. All you need is one primary source among the millions of newspapers, speeches, letters, and books from the era??


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a dying force would have been more accurate than "never heard from again."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are dying people often heard from again? See what happens when a liberal tries to think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are defining conservatism as being opposed to big government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is how Jefferson, Reagan, Newt, and Romney define it, sorry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually Jefferson is a historical figure. See what happens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if any textbooks on political ideology would even use "big government" as a core value of conservatism, you might try some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why use textbooks when we can use history
> ???
> 
> "My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government."-Jefferson. The purpose of the Constitution was to prevent big government or to  in effect make liberalism illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the practical side can you name a Republican administration that significantly reduced the size of government when in power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually an Administration lacks the authority to, alone, reduce the size of government so your question is absurd.
Click to expand...


So it was impossible for a Democratic administration to increase the size of government.

The purpose of the Constitution was to increase the size of government and give that government much more power. 

Using a quote from a political figure does not make political ideology for a political party.


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, goes snap on the trap. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so then do you take the bet on a legal basis or run away with your liberal tail between your legs. All you need is one primary source among the millions of newspapers, speeches, letters, and books from the era??
Click to expand...


This, goes snap on the trap agaib. 

And this is why fron http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...publican+Party The Jeffersonian Republican party, better known as the Democratic-Republican Party, is an ancestor of the modern Democratic Party

You asked for a source.  You did not say when.  I am not a liberal, you are certainly not very smart and certainly have no integrity.  You asked, I answer it with a reputable source, and now you wiggle like a rat caught in a trp.


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> You might compare John Locke's thoughts on property as compared toJefferson's. Locke was one of Jefferson's idols but Jefferson's views began to change as conditions changed.
> Jefferson was for land distribution



Let's stop you right there.

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816

Jefferson was an adamant supporter of property rights. Whether you are attempting to rewrite history on your own, or are simply one who was taught the corruption of frauds like Zinn, I cannot say.

Likewise, Locke was an advocate of private property;

{Sec. 39. And thus, without supposing any private Dominion, and property in Adam, over all the World, exclusive of other Men, which can no way be proved, nor any ones Property be made out [i.e., traced in lines of inheritance and descent] from it [Locke spent all of the First Treatise refuting such a claim made by Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha]; but supposing the World given as it was to the Children of Men in common, we see how labour could make Men distinct titles to several parcels of it, for their private uses; wherein there could be no doubt of Right, no room for quarrel.}

The fiction that Jefferson or Locke would advocate distribution of lands by the state is an absurdity,



> but primarily newly acquired lands and believed in America as a farming nation even as the nation was changing to manufacturing.



Jefferson maintained the established system of homesteading uncontested lands. Unlike Jackson, The Jefferson administration required no encumbrance on lands, including those by Indian tribes, prior to homesteading. The founder of the Democratic party, Andrew Jackson, forcibly displacing tribes was policy.  Jefferson though, respected property rights. Not much has changed between Republicans and Democrats, even then, Democrats crushed rights and simply took by force.



> As Conditions changed Jefferson had to adapt his liberal beliefs to the changing conditions.



All men adapt to changes, but the fiction you are attempting to create for Jefferson has no bearing on reality.

One thing Jefferson was consistent about was a dedication to liberty in the market and economic sovereignty.

{To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers 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. }


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> He founded the Democratic-Republican party, which morphed into the Democratic Party, the small government party.



ROFL

What a fool and a liar you are, Fakey Jake.

Jefferson created the Republican party. It was not referred on any ballot as anything other than "Republican." Nor did Jefferson call it anything other than Republican.

The "Democratic-Republican" Moniker was first used after the Civil war to create a distinction between the earlier party and the party of Lincoln, though in fact there is no distinction as the Republicans morphed to Whig, then back to Republican.

Andrew Jackson and Aaron Burr founded the Democratic party. Jackson vowed to destroy "That damned Republican," Jefferson. The plan was to oust Jefferson and put Democrat Burr in. At that time, it was common to have the president and vice president from different parties.



> The federalists morphed into the nationalist wing of the Democratic-Republicans, then the Whigs, then the Republicans, the large government party.



ROFL

What a fucking liar and moron you are.



> Why does you fear keep pulling you down, Edward?



I would think he's laughing his ass off at your absurd attempt to rewrite history.

Comrade Jake, you are more effective simply quoting Mao and campaigning for Obama. Too many people here actually know American history for you to prevail.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Check any freshman history book, Edward.  You just got your tail stepped on, you little fool.



The only "history" book you use is "A Peoples History" by that Marxist fuck, Howard Zinn.

Any legitimate history book shows you to be a fool - which you are.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> You asked for a source.  You did not say when. .



dear, I asked for a primary source, not a liberal source! Do you take the bet or continue to run away with your liberal tail between your legs????



5th Congress (1797-1799) 
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803) 

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34

"Historians do not agree on the details surrounding the origin of Parties. Some believe  that Jefferson forged the Republican party from coalition of existing state and local parties"....[in the 1790's]. 

Page 31, Political Parties in America by Robert Huckshorn( most popular Political Science text on parties in USA.


"Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."

- Susan Dunn, Jefferson's Second Revolution.


"In referring to political parties  I have adopted the names which the respective parties used in self-designation. Thus the Jeffersonian party has been referred to throughout as the Republican Party. This name came into use early in the 1790's among persons who considered themselves of a common political "interest", and the term "Republican interest" was generally used until it was replaced by the more definite "Republican Party". 

The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr.


-During a conciliatory moment at his Inauguration Jefferson said: "today we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." (referring to the two majors parties at the time)  
We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
-  When Jefferson won the election of 1800 the National Gazette headline was, "Complete triumph of Republican firmness over the "obstinacy" of the Aristocrats"! ( what Republicans called big government Federalists)


----------



## regent

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might compare John Locke's thoughts on property as compared toJefferson's. Locke was one of Jefferson's idols but Jefferson's views began to change as conditions changed.
> Jefferson was for land distribution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stop you right there.
> 
> "The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816
> 
> Jefferson was an adamant supporter of property rights. Whether you are attempting to rewrite history on your own, or are simply one who was taught the corruption of frauds like Zinn, I cannot say.
> 
> Likewise, Locke was an advocate of private property;
> 
> {Sec. 39. And thus, without supposing any private Dominion, and property in Adam, over all the World, exclusive of other Men, which can no way be proved, nor any ones Property be made out [i.e., traced in lines of inheritance and descent] from it [Locke spent all of the First Treatise refuting such a claim made by Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha]; but supposing the World given as it was to the Children of Men in common, we see how labour could make Men distinct titles to several parcels of it, for their private uses; wherein there could be no doubt of Right, no room for quarrel.}
> 
> The fiction that Jefferson or Locke would advocate distribution of lands by the state is an absurdity,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but primarily newly acquired lands and believed in America as a farming nation even as the nation was changing to manufacturing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jefferson maintained the established system of homesteading uncontested lands. Unlike Jackson, The Jefferson administration required no encumbrance on lands, including those by Indian tribes, prior to homesteading. The founder of the Democratic party, Andrew Jackson, forcibly displacing tribes was policy.  Jefferson though, respected property rights. Not much has changed between Republicans and Democrats, even then, Democrats crushed rights and simply took by force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Conditions changed Jefferson had to adapt his liberal beliefs to the changing conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All men adapt to changes, but the fiction you are attempting to create for Jefferson has no bearing on reality.
> 
> One thing Jefferson was consistent about was a dedication to liberty in the market and economic sovereignty.
> 
> {To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers 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. }
Click to expand...


You might start with the question so often used when this topic arises: why did Jefferson change Locke's words when he wrote the Declaration of Independence?


----------



## Interpol

Well, I don't really think party names make much of a difference, since things have shifted over time. 

I find it difficult to believe that Jefferson would have been excited about the religious right. Times were so much more simple that it's impossible to say what happens if you take an intellectual like that from then and give him the problems we face today. I don't think Jefferson would have approved of our two long wars, for instance. 

Today, it's the Democratic party that made cuts to Medicare in order to pay for an expanded private insurance pool and to cover the donut hole in Medicare Part D. 

Today it's the Democratic party that wants to cap defense spending and then lower it a bit. 

The Democratic President of today wanted to pass a debt package that included over $2 trillion in cuts to socialism, which is unheard of from what we think of liberals. 

And what of gov't itself? Hundreds of thousands of jobs are gone now. 

I can point the finger at the Democratic party for putting money into stuff that already exists, but I have to point my finger at the Republican party for expanding gov't with Homeland Security and massive new spending in defense because of the wars, and with the mistake that was No Child Left Behind, another unfunded mandate to nowhere. 

For me personally, I kind of feel like I can bring fiscal conservatism to the Democratic party as a main issue to apply pressure in order to get something passed whereas in the Republican tent I can soak up the complaints real good but then don't really see much action more than I see stunts. 

So I'm not so sure where Thomas Jefferson would be today, I sort of feel like he'd be an independent with the self-reliance and liberty message of a Ron Paul, but with equal traits from a Bernie Sanders. Just seems like he'd be that kind of guy, the type of politician you could hang out with and you'd come to respect the guy because of so much more than just his position on a few things.


----------



## JakeStarkey

A variety of venues, all solid and objective, will show that Edward has been deliberately a doosh, a slimy liar.  Why would he do something so easily exposed?  Additionally, go to almost any freshman history book by the major houses and find the party that Jefferson co-founded (Democratic-Republican) that became the Democratic Party.    If Edward had tried this in almost any junior college or college or university, he would have received a failing grade.  Here are samples:

1796 Presidential Election
President Elect - 1800
Presidential Elections, 1789  (1804)
Election of 1808    (1808)

And finally
http://voices.yahoo.com/history-democraticrepublican-2902098.html
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=881
Thomas Jefferson &mdash; History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts   Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), author of the Google

Edward, where did you go?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Edward, we are waiting.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> A variety of venues, all solid and objective, will show that Edward has been deliberately a doosh, a slimy liar.



does this mean you will take the bet?? Yes or No??? I've asked you 4 times now??

It would seem obvious that you can't come up with a primary source to show Jeffferson's Party was called Democratic-Republican, not Republican?? So now you know freedom from big liberal has been the Republican mantra since Jefferson founded the Party in 1792. Welcome to your first lesson in American History.


"In referring to political parties  I have adopted the names which the respective parties used in self-designation. Thus the Jeffersonian party has been referred to throughout as the Republican Party. This name came into use early in the 1790's among persons who considered themselves of a common political "interest", and the term "Republican interest" was generally used until it was replaced by the more definite "Republican Party". 

The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The issue is settled.  Jefferson was the co-founder of the Democratic-Republican Party,  This is settled.  Your concerns about it mean nothing.  I notice that you have expanded to use Jeffersonian-Republican.  There may be hope for you.

You do know that the Jefferson party, the Democratic-Republicans, became the Democratic Party?  You do know that, do you not?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> The issue is settled.



did you take legally binding bet??? I've asked 5 times now?? Did the Congressional Record( primary source)  get it wrong??

5th Congress (1797-1799) 
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803) 

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34


----------



## JakeStarkey

This is already settled, Edward, in post 564 above and you simply won't accept that you are wrong.  That's your right.


----------



## Brutus

JakeStarkey said:


> This is already settled, Edward, in post 564 above and you simply won't accept that you are wrong.  That's your right.



Then why are you afraid to take bet, why not just one primary source??? What does that tell you??


----------



## JakeStarkey

There is no bet to make because the evidence is conclusive: Jefferson co-founded the D-R, which is the antecedent to the Democratic Party.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> There is no bet to make because the evidence is conclusive: Jefferson co-founded the D-R, which is the antecedent to the Democratic Party.



if the evidence is conclusive that Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party in 1792 , not the Republican Party why are you so afraid to make the bet and make $10,000?? See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?

Moreover where did the welfare state tradition in America come from if not Marx? Now you know why the liberals spied for Stalin and remain contemptuous of our Jeffersonian Republican founding.


----------



## JakeStarkey

edward, let me help you.  Study the concept below.  Incorporate it.  Breathe slowly.  Let knowing envelop your being.

Democratic-Republicans led to the Democratic Party 

Federalists led to the nationalist wing of the Democratic-Republicans then to the Whigs and then to the Republican Party

Go back to your history books and show me where any of that is false.

And a question for you: which party celebrates Jefferson and which party celebrates Lincoln?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> Democratic-Republicans led to the Democratic Party



if I disagreed I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??? or run away again with your liberal tail between your legs.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow. You're trying to change the subject with a strawman  but don't even know it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Did the Democratic-Republican Party of Jeffersons morph into the Democratic Party?  Does the party celebrate Jefferson?

Did the Federalists lead to the Whigs which led to the Republicans?  Does the party celebrate Lincoln?

Folks are laughing at you.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> Folks are laughing at you.



of  course if so you would not be so afraid to say exactly why? What does your fear tell you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, folks are laughing at you, edward.  Answer the questions if you want any semblance of knowing what you are discussing.

Did the Democratic-Republican Party of Jeffersons morph into the Democratic Party? Does the party celebrate Jefferson?

Did the Federalists lead to the Whigs which led to the Republicans? Does the party celebrate Lincoln?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, folks are laughing at you, edward.  Answer the questions if you want any semblance of knowing what you are discussing.
> 
> Did the Democratic-Republican Party of Jeffersons morph into the Democratic Party? Does the party celebrate Jefferson?
> 
> Did the Federalists lead to the Whigs which led to the Republicans? Does the party celebrate Lincoln?



if I disagreed with the above I will pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal tail between your legs?


----------



## JakeStarkey

edward, you are not a conservative, merely a far right wing nut, so your characterization of me as a "liberal" (if that meant anything in the first place in this discussion) is silly.

OK, so you agree with the below, which is very smart of you.

_Did the Democratic-Republican Party of Jeffersons morph into the Democratic Party? Does the party celebrate Jefferson?

Did the Federalists lead to the Whigs which led to the Republicans? Does the party celebrate Lincoln?_


----------



## Peach

JakeStarkey said:


> edward, you are not a conservative, merely a far right wing nut, so your characterization of me as a "liberal" (if that meant anything in the first place in this discussion) is silly.
> 
> OK, so you agree with the below, which is very smart of you.
> 
> _Did the Democratic-Republican Party of Jeffersons morph into the Democratic Party? Does the party celebrate Jefferson?
> 
> Did the Federalists lead to the Whigs which led to the Republicans? Does the party celebrate Lincoln?_



BOTH parties came from the Democratic/Republican Party:

Democratic Party - Profile of the Democratic Party


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Peach said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> edward, you are not a conservative, merely a far right wing nut, so your characterization of me as a "liberal" (if that meant anything in the first place in this discussion) is silly.
> 
> OK, so you agree with the below, which is very smart of you.
> 
> _Did the Democratic-Republican Party of Jeffersons morph into the Democratic Party? Does the party celebrate Jefferson?
> 
> Did the Federalists lead to the Whigs which led to the Republicans? Does the party celebrate Lincoln?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BOTH parties came from the Democratic/Republican Party:
> 
> Democratic Party - Profile of the Democratic Party
Click to expand...


most importantly Jefferson Founded the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for freedom from government. Modern Republicans are identical in name and philosophy. Liberals were not present at the founding and so really don't belong in America.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The disaffected nationalist wing of the Democratic-Republican Party became the Whigs.

The GOP was made up of former Know-Nothings, Liberty Party and Free Soil Party members, and former Whigs.

The GOP adopted the nationalist big-government (federal support of internal improvements, high tariffs the right of the national government to enforce constitutional and electoral process on all of the states, westward expansion, and so forth) beliefs best associated with the Federalists and the Whigs.


----------



## Peach

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> edward, you are not a conservative, merely a far right wing nut, so your characterization of me as a "liberal" (if that meant anything in the first place in this discussion) is silly.
> 
> OK, so you agree with the below, which is very smart of you.
> 
> _Did the Democratic-Republican Party of Jeffersons morph into the Democratic Party? Does the party celebrate Jefferson?
> 
> Did the Federalists lead to the Whigs which led to the Republicans? Does the party celebrate Lincoln?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BOTH parties came from the Democratic/Republican Party:
> 
> Democratic Party - Profile of the Democratic Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> most importantly Jefferson Founded the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for freedom from government. Modern Republicans are identical in name and philosophy. Liberals were not present at the founding and so really don't belong in America.
Click to expand...


No, Jefferson founded the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN Party to counter the Federalists.............

The two original national parties were the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party. In 1816, the Federalist Party died out leaving a single political party for a short time. However, a split in the Democratic-Republican Party in the mid-1820s gave rise two factions: the National Republicans and the Democrats. When Andrew Jackson lost in 1824, Jackson's supporters created their own organization to get him elected. After his election in 1828, that organization became known as the Democratic Party.


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> edward, you are not a conservative, merely a far right wing nut, so your characterization of me as a "liberal" (if that meant anything in the first place in this discussion) is silly.
> 
> OK, so you agree with the below, which is very smart of you.
> 
> _Did the Democratic-Republican Party of Jeffersons morph into the Democratic Party? Does the party celebrate Jefferson?
> 
> Did the Federalists lead to the Whigs which led to the Republicans? Does the party celebrate Lincoln?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BOTH parties came from the Democratic/Republican Party:
> 
> Democratic Party - Profile of the Democratic Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> most importantly Jefferson Founded the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for freedom from government. Modern Republicans are identical in name and philosophy. Liberals were not present at the founding and so really don't belong in America.
Click to expand...


I suspect that modern Republicans don't associate their values with archaic slave-holders such as Jefferson, Mason, Madison, Monroe and their ilk from the Old South.

Jefferson belongs to the Democratic Party.  That will never change.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Peach said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOTH parties came from the Democratic/Republican Party:
> 
> Democratic Party - Profile of the Democratic Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most importantly Jefferson Founded the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for freedom from government. Modern Republicans are identical in name and philosophy. Liberals were not present at the founding and so really don't belong in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Jefferson founded the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN Party to counter the Federalists.............
> 
> The two original national parties were the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party. In 1816, the Federalist Party died out leaving a single political party for a short time. However, a split in the Democratic-Republican Party in the mid-1820s gave rise two factions: the National Republicans and the Democrats. When Andrew Jackson lost in 1824, Jackson's supporters created their own organization to get him elected. After his election in 1828, that organization became known as the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...


Peach, edward does not want to get it.  Accept that now.  He is attempting to revise history to fit an ideology that will exclude women, immigrants, and peoples of color from the American dream.


----------



## Peach

The two original national parties were the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party. In 1816, the Federalist Party died out leaving a single political party for a short time. However, a split in the Democratic-Republican Party in the mid-1820s gave rise two factions: the National Republicans and the Democrats. When Andrew Jackson lost in 1824, Jackson's supporters created their own organization to get him elected. After his election in 1828, that organization became known as the Democratic Party.
__________________


----------



## JakeStarkey

Peach said:


> The two original national parties were the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party. In 1816, the Federalist Party died out leaving a single political party for a short time. However, a split in the Democratic-Republican Party in the mid-1820s gave rise two factions: the National Republicans and the Democrats. When Andrew Jackson lost in 1824, Jackson's supporters created their own organization to get him elected. After his election in 1828, that organization became known as the Democratic Party.
> __________________



I can't pos rep you because I am out at the moment.  I will catch you up.  Exactly so.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Peach said:


> No, Jefferson founded the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN Party to counter the Federalists..........



if you have a primary source to corroborate this I will pay you $10,000. Bet


5th Congress (1797-1799) 
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803) 

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34

"Historians do not agree on the details surrounding the origin of Parties. Some believe  that Jefferson forged the Republican party from coalition of existing state and local parties"....[in the 1790's]. 

Page 31, Political Parties in America by Robert Huckshorn( most popular Political Science text on parties in USA.


"Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."

- Susan Dunn, Jefferson's Second Revolution.


"In referring to political parties  I have adopted the names which the respective parties used in self-designation. Thus the Jeffersonian party has been referred to throughout as the Republican Party. This name came into use early in the 1790's among persons who considered themselves of a common political "interest", and the term "Republican interest" was generally used until it was replaced by the more definite "Republican Party". 

The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr.


-During a conciliatory moment at his Inauguration Jefferson said: "today we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." (referring to the two majors parties at the time)  
We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
-  When Jefferson won the election of 1800 the National Gazette headline was, "Complete triumph of Republican firmness over the "obstinacy" of the Aristocrats"! ( what Republicans called big government Federalists)    

.


----------



## Peach

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Jefferson founded the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN Party to counter the Federalists..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you have a primary source to corroborate this I will pay you $10,000. Bet
> 
> 
> 5th Congress (1797-1799)
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6th Congress (1799-1801)
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7th Congress (1801-1803)
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
> 
> "Historians do not agree on the details surrounding the origin of Parties. Some believe  that Jefferson forged the Republican party from coalition of existing state and local parties"....[in the 1790's].
> 
> Page 31, Political Parties in America by Robert Huckshorn( most popular Political Science text on parties in USA.
> 
> 
> "Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."
> 
> - Susan Dunn, Jefferson's Second Revolution.
> 
> 
> "In referring to political parties  I have adopted the names which the respective parties used in self-designation. Thus the Jeffersonian party has been referred to throughout as the Republican Party. This name came into use early in the 1790's among persons who considered themselves of a common political "interest", and the term "Republican interest" was generally used until it was replaced by the more definite "Republican Party".
> 
> The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr.
> 
> 
> -During a conciliatory moment at his Inauguration Jefferson said: "today we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." (referring to the two majors parties at the time)
> We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
> -  When Jefferson won the election of 1800 the National Gazette headline was, "Complete triumph of Republican firmness over the "obstinacy" of the Aristocrats"! ( what Republicans called big government Federalists)
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I do not gamble. And Jefferson found the Democratic Republican Party. 

Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Peach

On the foundation of the Republican Party:

Founded in northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Democratic Party and the briefly popular Know Nothing Party. The main cause was opposition to the Kansas&#8211;Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Kansas. The Republicans saw the expansion of slavery as a great evil. The first public meeting where the name "Republican" was suggested for a new anti-slavery party was held on March 20, 1854 in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin.[5]


----------



## jillian

They would call Lincoln a RINO now.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Peach said:


> I do not gamble. And Jefferson found the Democratic Republican Party.



if true its not gambling. Why are you so afraid to present a primary source to support your point. Perhaps you can't? That must tell you something about your point?


----------



## Peach

jillian said:


> They would call Lincoln a RINO now.



I doubt the term "Whig" would be popular either.


----------



## Peach

MAYBE this will clear it up:

Democratic-Republican

Four presidents were members of the United States Democratic-Republican Party:
Presidents who served two full terms are bolded.
Thomas Jefferson (1801&#8211;1809)
James Madison (1809&#8211;1817)
James Monroe (1817&#8211;1825)
John Quincy Adams (1825&#8211;1829)
Democratic-Republican presidents have governed for 28 years in total. The Democratic-Republican Party is the ancestor of the current Democratic Party.


----------



## JakeStarkey

edward wants his way.  Doesn't matter.  He's wrong.


----------



## Peach

JakeStarkey said:


> edward wants his way.  Doesn't matter.  He's wrong.



I've quoted source after source, yet "ed" does not SEE them, STRANGE.....


----------



## Peach

The best source, I doubt it available ONLINE:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Republic-History-American/dp/0669329703/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335134840&sr=1-3]Amazon.com: The Great Republic: A History of the American People: 1820 to 1920 (9780669329704): Bernard Bailyn, Robert Dallek, David Davis, David Donald, John Thomas: Books[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

"ed" does not want to, like a recalcitrant stubborn little pupil in the second grade, get with it.


----------



## Peach

JakeStarkey said:


> "ed" does not want to, like a recalcitrant stubborn little pupil in the second grade, get with it.



Thanks.


----------



## Uncensored2008

jillian said:


> They would call Lincoln a RINO now.



They would call you a moron now.

In fact, they do....


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensord is a RINO and moronic.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensord is a RINO and moronic.



Fakey Jake is a partisan sycophant and demagogue.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Because I use terms correctly, make succinct and supported arguments, and expose the fakes like Uncensored.  He is no Republican.  We want his vote, just not his input.  Crazy dupe.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Because I use terms correctly,



ROFL;

Terms like "Republican?"



> make succinct and supported arguments, and expose the fakes like Uncensored.



The Obamabot claiming to be a Republican calls others "fakes..."

Too funny...



> He is no Republican.




One thing is sure, you are no Republican,



> We want his vote, just not his input.  Crazy dupe.



Your vote will go to Obama, again.


----------



## Peach

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not gamble. And Jefferson found the Democratic Republican Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if true its not gambling. Why are you so afraid to present a primary source to support your point. Perhaps you can't? That must tell you something about your point?
Click to expand...


THE GREAT REPUBLIC, David Donald, Bernard Bailyn, etc. I took course from BOTH of them.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Peach said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not gamble. And Jefferson found the Democratic Republican Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if true its not gambling. Why are you so afraid to present a primary source to support your point. Perhaps you can't? That must tell you something about your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE GREAT REPUBLIC, David Donald, Bernard Bailyn, etc. I took course from BOTH of them.
Click to expand...


if there is a primary source in the book why be so afraid to present it here?? What does your fear tell us, liberal.


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> if true its not gambling. Why are you so afraid to present a primary source to support your point. Perhaps you can't? That must tell you something about your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE GREAT REPUBLIC, David Donald, Bernard Bailyn, etc. I took course from BOTH of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if there is a primary source in the book why be so afraid to present it here?? What does your fear tell us, liberal.
Click to expand...


Edward is not a conservative, a mere reactionary wing nut weirdo far, far to right.  I guarantee he did not try this nonsense in college.  If he did, he got a solid F.  Edward is simply entrapped in immoral stubbornness that will not permit him to admit he was wrong and to apologize to his betters in this issue.


----------



## Peach

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> if true its not gambling. Why are you so afraid to present a primary source to support your point. Perhaps you can't? That must tell you something about your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE GREAT REPUBLIC, David Donald, Bernard Bailyn, etc. I took course from BOTH of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if there is a primary source in the book why be so afraid to present it here?? What does your fear tell us, liberal.
Click to expand...


I am a MODERATE actually, or centrist some say. And I do not have the BOOKS online. There is more than one volume.


Jefferson formed the party to oppose the economic and foreign policies of the Federalists, a party created a year or so earlier by Hamilton to promote the Treasury policies of the Washington administration. The new party opposed the Jay Treaty of 1794 with Britain (then at war with France) and supported good relations with France (until Napoleon became a dictator after 1799). The party insisted on a strict construction of the Constitution, and denounced many of Hamilton's measures (especially the national bank) as unconstitutional. The party was strongest in the South and weakest in the Northeast; it favored states' rights and the primacy of the yeoman farmer over bankers, industrialists, merchants, and investors.

The presidents selected by the party were: Thomas Jefferson (18011809), James Madison (18091817), and James Monroe (18171825). After 1800 the party dominated Congress and most state governments outside New England. Since the Federalists had practically disappeared by 1820, there was little incentive for organizational vigor. In 1824, the party was deeply divided and most Republican congressmen refused to participate in a nominating caucus. A rump caucus of 66 congressman nominated William H. Crawford for president. Another faction of the party supported Andrew Jackson. This faction evolved into the modern Democratic Party. A third faction, led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, was known as the National Republicans; it evolved into the Whig Party.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> to admit he was wrong and to apologize to his betters in this issue.



I have a primary source to say that Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for freedom and liberty from big liberal government.

You and your attorney were offered $10,000 to present a primary source, and you ran away with your liberal tail between your legs.

What does that tell you?


----------



## Peach

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> to admit he was wrong and to apologize to his betters in this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a primary source to say that Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for freedom and liberty from big liberal government.
> 
> You and your attorney were offered $10,000 to present a primary source, and you ran away with your liberal tail between your legs.
> 
> What does that tell you?
Click to expand...


Quotes referring to "the republic" and "republic" are not statements of party affiliation. The Democratic Republican party BECAME the Democratic party, the Republican party evolved from the Whigs.


----------



## Peach

Jefferson using the term democracy:

"Information is the currency of democracy."

The Founders spoke against "pure democracy"; that may have led to your confusion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> to admit he was wrong and to apologize to his betters in this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a primary source to say that Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for freedom and liberty from big liberal government.
> 
> You and your attorney were offered $10,000 to present a primary source, and you ran away with your liberal tail between your legs.
> 
> What does that tell you?
Click to expand...


Your primary source does not say what you think.  Read Peach.  She will educate you appropriately.


----------



## Peach

JakeStarkey said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> to admit he was wrong and to apologize to his betters in this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a primary source to say that Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for freedom and liberty from big liberal government.
> 
> You and your attorney were offered $10,000 to present a primary source, and you ran away with your liberal tail between your legs.
> 
> What does that tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your primary source does not say what you think.  Read Peach.  She will educate you appropriately.
Click to expand...


The Founders spoke a REPUBLIC, and also spoke of the need for DEMOCRATIC principles guiding the nation. In the end however, the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN party became the Democratic party.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Peach said:


> Jefferson using the term democracy:
> 
> "Information is the currency of democracy."
> 
> The Founders spoke against "pure democracy"; that may have led to your confusion.



Which founders?

{A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.} - Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Peach

Uncensored2008 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson using the term democracy:
> 
> "Information is the currency of democracy."
> 
> The Founders spoke against "pure democracy"; that may have led to your confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which founders?
> 
> {A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.} - Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...


Leaders of the Democratic Party have traced their party's lineage to Jefferson and his Republican Party. Martin Van Buren wrote that the party's name had changed from Republican to Democratic and that Jefferson was the founder of the party. Thomas Jefferson Randolph, grandson of Jefferson, told the 1872 Democratic National Convention of his "life of eighty years spent in the Democratic-Republican party". In 1991 the United States Senate passed "A bill to establish a commission to commemorate the bicentennial of the establishment of the Democratic Party of the United States," thus endorsing the view the party was founded by Jefferson (as opposed to Jackson).


----------



## Uncensored2008

Peach said:


> The Founders spoke a REPUBLIC, and also spoke of the need for DEMOCRATIC principles guiding the nation. In the end however, the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN party became the Democratic party.



Utter nonsense.

First off, the term "Democratic-Republican" was coined after the Civil War. I challenge you to to find any direct reference to such a party by Jefferson. You cannot, as he and all others involved simply termed the party "Republican." 

The additional reference was added to distinguish from the party of Lincoln.

Secondly, the Democratic party was formed by Andrew Jackson and Aaron Burr, who were bitter political enemies of Jefferson. The attempt to attribute the party of Jefferson's most acrimonious foe to him is not just disingenuous, but insulting. Jackson HATED "that damned Republican," as he termed Jefferson.

The democratic party is the party of Jackson, and opposed to the principles of Jefferson from the very inception of the party. Aaron Burr went to some pretty radical extremes to distance the democrats from the party of Jefferson, including treason. (That too is a democrat tradition, it seems.)


----------



## Peach

Democratic-Republican Party legal definition of Democratic-Republican Party. Democratic-Republican Party synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

It was called BOTH the Jefferson Republican party, and the Democratic Republican party; the opposition were the FEDERALISTS. 

 but by 1793 the two groups that they represented had broken off into separate factions. Hamilton's group became the Federalists, while Jefferson's faction adopted the name "Democratic Republicans."


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored demonstrates his lack of knowledge.  He is such a dupe.

The Democratic Party, organized by Andrew Jackson, incorporated the Democratic-Republican limited government politicians.  The Democratic Party celebrates Jefferson.

The Whig Party, counter organized against King Andrew Jackson, was led by the nationalist strong government wing of the Democratic-Party, including but not limited to Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John Q. Adams and others.

The Republican Party was organized by disaffected northern Democrats, former Free Soilers, Liberty Party men, and  Whigs in 1854 to fight against the Democratic Party's support of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  The Republicans celebrate Abraham Lincoln.


----------



## Peach

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored demonstrates his lack of knowledge.  He is such a dupe.
> 
> The Democratic Party, organized by Andrew Jackson, incorporated the Democratic-Republican limited government politicians.  The Democratic Party celebrates Jefferson.
> 
> The Whig Party, counter organized against King Andrew Jackson, was led by the nationalist strong government wing of the Democratic-Party, including but not limited to Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John Q. Adams and others.
> 
> The Republican Party was organized by disaffected northern Democrats, former Free Soilers, Liberty Party men, and  Whigs in 1854 to fight against the Democratic Party's support of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  The Republicans celebrate Abraham Lincoln.



YEP, like it or not.


----------



## Darkwind

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been two Republican parties in America, the first the liberals, the Jeffersonians, the Antifederalists, formed around 1789. It was this group that fought the ratification of the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights were added.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson formed the Republican Party in 1792 when he left the Washington Administration in disgust . The Republican Party stood for, then and now, freedom and liberty from central government. Now you've got the basics.
> 
> WIKI: "The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second Republican party formed in the 1850's and is today's Republican party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course that is absurd since Horace Greely named the 1850's party after Jefferson's Party because it had the same philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course that is 100% absurd since Jefferson was 100% about freedom from liberal central government  while todays Democrats are 100% opposite.
> 
> 
> It seems you have to start over with American History just to get the basics down. Sorry
Click to expand...

You may want to do a bit more reading.  While Jefferson indeed espoused the ideals of limited government in his writings and speeches, his actual governance was a far cry from his philosophy.  When he held power, Jefferson was not above abusing the Freedom of the Press by having newspaper editors print lies about his opponents as well as jailing a few who spoke out against him. 

In truth, the Democrat-Republican Party that Jefferson formed was the first Republican party, it  was formed in opposition to the Federalists Party as a means of keeping them from gaining power in the Supreme Court as well as in the Executive.

The next incarnation of the Republican party was in direct response to the Second Great Awakening which began the abolitionists' moment.  However, in truth, the Republican party of Lincoln was first started in response to keep the Southerners from forcing new states in the west to accept slavery.  The South feared the growing power of the northern states and their slow acquisition of the House of Representatives. Their control of the House would upset the balance of power if they were not able to keep the Senate Representatives to an equal balance of slave states and Union States.  In those days, Senators actually represented their State governments wishes, not the peoples wishes.  As it was written into the Constitution.

Today's Republican Party more closely resembles Hamilton's philosophy of a strong central government in control of the monetary power and policy of the country.  The Democrats....well, they went progressive back in the early 20th century and stopped being for a Free America a long time ago.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored demonstrates his lack of knowledge.  He is such a dupe.
> 
> The Democratic Party, organized by Andrew Jackson, incorporated the Democratic-Republican limited government politicians.  The Democratic Party celebrates Jefferson.



You democrats piss on the ideals of Jefferson, just as Jackson did. 



> The Whig Party, counter organized against King Andrew Jackson, was led by the nationalist strong government wing of the Democratic-Party, including but not limited to Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John Q. Adams and others.



I wonder, Fakey Jake, if you ever posted anything accurate, would your head explode?  First off, the Whigs were formed from basically Federalist, not Republican leaders. Secondly, the longest serving Whig, John Tyler was an adamant supporter of states rights. 



> The Republican Party was organized by disaffected northern Democrats, former Free Soilers, Liberty Party men, and  Whigs in 1854 to fight against the Democratic Party's support of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  The Republicans celebrate Abraham Lincoln.



The Party of Lincoln was driven by the dissolution of the Whigs, who could not come to grips with the slavery issue. Despite your idiocy, Tyler was a states rights man and promoted the rights of new states to adopt slavery. Lincoln, also a Whig, was an abolitionist.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Peach said:


> YEP, like it or not.



Like has nothing to do with it. What Jake posts is historically inaccurate.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am historically correct, and Uncensored is lost.  He needs to go back and read exactly what I posted, and then come back and admit that he screwed up and apologize.  Uncensored, read what I posted.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> I am historically correct, and Uncensored is lost.



You are a partisan hack, reading Wikipedia and attempting to mold the blurbs to meet your partisan goals.



> He needs to go back and read exactly what I posted, and then come back and admit that he screwed up and apologize.  Uncensored, read what I posted.



Jake, you are an ignorant baboon.


----------



## JakeStarkey

In other words, you give up the argument, because you cannot show where I have erred.

You are merely an e-thug who hates being corrected.  The issue is that we have to correct you almost all of the time.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> In other words, you give up the argument, because you cannot show where I have erred.



ROFL

Stupid, where you claimed the Whigs to be proponent of a strong central government, you erred. I pointed out that:

First off, the Whigs were formed from basically Federalist, not Republican leaders. Secondly, the longest serving Whig, John Tyler was an adamant supporter of states rights. 



> You are merely an e-thug who hates being corrected.  The issue is that we have to correct you almost all of the time.



You think ignoring facts will render them irrelevant.

But it's you who are irrelevant, Fakey Jake.

Go re-read Darkwind's post, he put it very well. In fact, I think I'll rep him for it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored the Flake does not quote me accurately.  I said the were for some big government ideas (federal funding for internal improvements, homestead grants on public lands, and so forth), and so they were. Lincoln became a massive statist in pursuing the Civil War and using his power to partially end slavery.

John Tyler was originally a small states rights Democrat who was not happy with his party, switched to the Whigs, was chosen Veep because he could carry Virginia, then ended up being President, opposed by Whigs and Democrats in Congress.  Uncensored the Flake once again does not know the story.  Once again, minion mine, go back and read what I said about the development of the nationalistic wing of the Democratic Republicans, then the Whigs, then the Republicans.

I have had to correct you again, like for the 1000th time.  You prove my points every time you post.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored the Flake does not quote me accurately.



Ah, direct lying, the last refuge of Fakey Jake.

I use the quote function, Fakey Jake. I quote you verbatim.



> I said the were for some big government ideas (federal funding for internal improvements, homestead grants on public lands, and so forth), and so they were. Lincoln became a massive statist in pursuing the Civil War and using his power to partially end slavery.



You're such a complete liar.



> The Whig Party, counter organized against King Andrew Jackson, was led by the nationalist strong government wing of the Democratic-Party, including but not limited to Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John Q. Adams and others.



Hey, at least you have enough self-awareness to be embarrassed by your earlier post.



> John Tyler was originally a small states rights Democrat who was not happy with his party, switched to the Whigs, was chosen Veep because he could carry Virginia, then ended up being President, opposed by Whigs and Democrats in Congress.



Opposed by Whigs...

You just make it up as you go, doncha?

ROFL

What a buffoon.



> Uncensored the Flake once again does not know the story.  Once again, minion mine, go back and read what I said about the development of the nationalistic wing of the Democratic Republicans, then the Whigs, then the Republicans.
> 
> I have had to correct you again, like for the 1000th time.  You prove my points every time you post.



You have spewed ignorant bullshit again, because you are an ignorant fool.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I left out the *bold*, which should read "The Whig Party, counter organized against King Andrew Jackson, was led by the nationalist strong government wing of the Democratic-*Republican *Party, including but not limited to Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John Q. Adams and others."

That is true.  Tyler was a small states rights Democrat selected by the Whigs.  Uncensored missed that.

So, Uncensored is behind 237 to 1 on corrections.    Mine was a typo.  Uncensored will deliberately lie.

Uncensored, go back and read history.  You are truly ignorant of the American narrative.  You, the student, are not yet and never will be the Master.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Come on, don't hide, Uncensored.

Federalists to the nationalist wing of the Democratic-Republican Party to the Whigs to the Republicans, traceable from Washington to Lincoln.

Democratic-Republicans to the small states' rights wing of the Democratic-Party to the Democratic Party, traceable from Jefferson to Jackson to Obama.

A note on John Tyler; "&#8226; He was nicknamed "His Accidency," due to the way in which he assumed office.
&#8226; He was known as *a president without a party, and was threatened with impeachment by both the Whigs and the Democratic party.*  &#8226; He was known as a political outlaw, and named his home "Sherwood Forest."  American Presidents: Life Portraits

Now don't be shy, Uncensored.  Fess up.  Confront your inner jake and man up.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Darkwind said:


> You may want to do a bit more reading.  While Jefferson indeed espoused the ideals of limited government in his writings and speeches, his actual governance was a far cry from his philosophy.  When he held power, Jefferson was not above abusing the Freedom of the Press by having newspaper editors print lies about his opponents as well as jailing a few who spoke out against him.



Jailing????of course if this was true you would not be so afraid to present your evidence?? What does your fear tell you? Jefferson is the source of our ideas about freedom and limited government. Without him American would be nothing.




Darkwind said:


> In truth, the Democrat-Republican Party that Jefferson formed was the first Republican party,



yes indeed and it was called Republican, not Democratic-Republican. Want to bet $10,000??  



Darkwind said:


> it  was formed in opposition to the Federalists Party as a means of keeping them from gaining power in the Supreme Court as well as in the Executive.



more accurately, it was formed to prevent big liberal government by Jefferson in 1792 




Darkwind said:


> Today's Republican Party more closely resembles Hamilton's philosophy of a strong central government in control of the monetary power and policy of the country.



what?? Todays Republicans voted 100% against the stimulus, and are about to defeat the mandate through the courts while impotent libertarians sit it all out. 



Darkwind said:


> The Democrats....well, they went progressive back in the early 20th century and stopped being for a Free America a long time ago.




yes they spied for Stalin and some were hung


----------



## JakeStarkey

edwardbaamonte can present his evidence that the Democratic-Republican Party was called something else.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> edwardbaamonte can present his evidence that the Democratic-Republican Party was called something else.



Congressional Recordprimary source)


5th Congress (1797-1799) 
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803) 

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34


see why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow??????


----------



## JakeStarkey

(Thank you, Edward, as 'sna'p' goes the trap on your silly logic)  Which was Congressional short hand for the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Jefferson, which morphed into the Democratic Party under Jackson.

The Federalists, when the party dissolved, generally voted with the national wing of the Democratic-Republican Party, morphed into the Whigs, which, in part, later became the Republicans, who celebrate Mr. Big Government himself, Abraham Lincoln.

Come on, Edward, this is not hard.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> Which was Congressional short hand for the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Jefferson, .



if you have evidence of shorthand I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away again with your liberal tail between your legs??


When Jefferson said, "today we are all Republican, and we are all Federalists" was he using shorthand too?

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??


----------



## JakeStarkey

It's your claim, Edward, to prove, not mine to disprove.  Go for it, or you lose.


----------



## Darkwind

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to do a bit more reading.  While Jefferson indeed espoused the ideals of limited government in his writings and speeches, his actual governance was a far cry from his philosophy.  When he held power, Jefferson was not above abusing the Freedom of the Press by having newspaper editors print lies about his opponents as well as jailing a few who spoke out against him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jailing????of course if this was true you would not be so afraid to present your evidence?? What does your fear tell you? Jefferson is the source of our ideas about freedom and limited government. Without him American would be nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> In truth, the Democrat-Republican Party that Jefferson formed was the first Republican party,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes indeed and it was called Republican, not Democratic-Republican. Want to bet $10,000??
> 
> 
> 
> more accurately, it was formed to prevent big liberal government by Jefferson in 1792
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's Republican Party more closely resembles Hamilton's philosophy of a strong central government in control of the monetary power and policy of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what?? Todays Republicans voted 100% against the stimulus, and are about to defeat the mandate through the courts while impotent libertarians sit it all out.
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats....well, they went progressive back in the early 20th century and stopped being for a Free America a long time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes they spied for Stalin and some were hung
Click to expand...

Look up James Callendar and get back to Me.

Indeed, it was called the Democrat-Republican party.  You simply must stop living in today when discussing historical events.  The words and their meanings have wholly different connotations today.  If you are just a party acolyte, then say so.  But do try to keep your party support of today out of historical happenings.  I happen to be a great fan of Thomas Jefferson and his writings.  But he was who he was and no amount of embellishment today is going to change that.

More accurately, it was to keep his political enemies from gaining power and shutting his philosophy out of government.  Unfortunately, he failed.

Yes, Hamilton.  Being opposed to the stimulus bill has nothing to do with their philosophy of centralized monetary policy and support of a centralized taxation system as a means of controlling commerce.  This was Hamilton's dream.

The current GOP is no different from the rest of the politicians in that you (the generic you referring to the citizens of this country) are not permitted to do anything unless government can make a profit off it through fees or taxation.

I will never understand why people have some kind of emotional investment into twisting the past to suit their own reality.  That goes for any party supporter.


----------



## Darkwind

*Noun**1.**Democratic-Republican Party*  - a former major political party in the United States in the early 19th  century; opposed the old Federalist party; favored a strict  interpretation of the constitution in order to limit the powers of the  federal government
Democrat-Republican party - definition of Democrat-Republican party by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Where is My fucking 10,000 dollars?


----------



## Darkwind

The Jeffersonian Republican party, better known as the Democratic-Republican Party, is an ancestor of the modern Democratic Party. It evolved in the 1790s during the early days of George Washington's presidency. Washington had been unanimously chosen president in 1789 and had a broad base of support. Thomas Jefferson served as Washington's Secretary of State, while Alexander Hamilton  served as secretary of the treasury. Jefferson and his followers  favored states' rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.  They believed that a powerful central government posed a threat to  individual liberties. They viewed the United States more as a  confederation of sovereign entities woven together by a common interest.  Hamilton and his followers argued that a strong central government was  essential to the unity of the new nation. They favored a broad  interpretation of the Constitution, which they saw as a document that  should evolve with the country as it grew.

 Virtually all the  leading political figures of the new country, starting with Washington,  believed that political parties would polarize citizens and paralyze  government. Hamilton and Jefferson agreed with this notion, but by 1793  the two groups that they represented had broken off into separate  factions. Hamilton's group became the Federalists, while Jefferson's  faction adopted the name "Democratic Republicans."

 One early and  divisive difference between the Federalists and the  Democratic-Republicans was how they approached Britain and France. The  Federalists believed that American foreign policy should favor British  interests, while the Democratic-Republicans wanted to strengthen ties  with the French. The Democratic-Republicans supported the government  that had taken over France after the revolution of 1789.

 On  economic matters, the Jeffersonians differed strongly with the  Federalists. The Democratic-Republicans believed in protecting the  interests of the working classesmerchants, farmers, and laborers. They  believed that an agrarian economy would best serve these citizens. They  saw the establishment of a national Bank of the United States  (which Hamilton strongly favored) as a means of usurping power that  belonged to individual states, and they also believed that it would be  tied too closely to the rich. The Federalists saw industry and  manufacturing as the best means of domestic growth and economic  self-sufficiency. They favored the existence of protective tariffs on  imports (which had Congress had adopted in 1789) both as a means of  protecting domestic production and as a source of revenue.

 The ratification in 1795 of Jay's Treaty (named after John Jay)  sparked anger at the Federalists from a wide array of citizens. The  British were still in control of fur-trading posts in the Northwest  Territories, and they were accused of encouraging Indians to rise up  against the Americans. British ships were seizing American ships and  impressing American sailors; they were also prohibiting American ships  from engaging in trade with the West Indies. Jay, the chief justice of  the U.S. Supreme Court, was sent to England as an envoy and returned  with a treaty that gave the British a deadline for leaving the fur  posts. Almost none of the other issues was addressed. A particularly  unpopular provision of the treaty called for the U.S. to settle  pre-Revolution debts to the British, totaling $2.6 million.
 Jeffersonians,  and even many Federalists, felt that the treaty had been too generous  to the British, although Hamilton saw it as a necessary action because  Britain generated tariff revenues through its exports. In 1796, John Adams  (a Federalist) was elected the nation's second president with 71  electoral votes, defeating Jefferson by three votes. Jefferson became  vice president.

 Meanwhile, relations with France were  deteriorating rapidly. The notorious "XYZ Affair" in 1796 was typical of  what Jeffersonians saw as the weakness of Federalism. The XYZ Affair  involved an unsuccessful attempt by a French agent to exact bribes in  exchange for France's cooperation in negotiating an international trade  treaty. France, angered by the pro-British Jay's Treaty, began to  interfere with American ships. An American delegation was sent to  France, and the French demanded a loan to the French government as well  as a $240,000 bribe.

 Although American public opinion hardened  against the French, President Adams tried to repair the situation  diplomatically, which angered many Federalists who thought that  declaring war on France was the best course of action. This split within  the Federalist Party  helped to ensure Jefferson's victory in the 1800 presidential election.  Democratic-Republicans also won a majority of the seats in Congress.

 Jefferson's  party dominated American politics for the next two decades. One reason  was that the Jeffersonians proved themselves to be willing to adapt to  change. An example was the Louisiana Purchase  of 1803. As a Republican, Jefferson initially felt that the president  did not have the power to make such a large purchase (828,000 square  miles). He recognized, however, that the price of $15 million (about  three cents per acre) was a significant bargain, and that the purchase  would double the size of the U.S. and also eliminate the danger of  having an imperialist French colony on its border. He went against his  partisan instinct and made what he believed was the right decision for  the country.

 During the War of 1812, Jefferson's successor, James Madison,  battled the British overseas and the Federalists at home. Many  Federalists, especially in the New England states, felt that the war  would irreparably damage their ability to trade by sea with Europe. This  anti-war stance proved unpopular, however, since the war ended in what  most Americans perceived as a victory over Great Britain. Thus the  Federalists were soundly defeated in the 1816 presidential election. The  new president, James Monroe,  presided over a time of relative political calm during which many  Federalists came to support the Republicans. This period was known as  the "Era of Good Feeling," and although Monroe enjoyed wide support  during his two terms in office, various factions were developing within  his own party.

 In the election of 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president, narrowly defeating War of 1812 military hero Andrew Jackson.  Although both were Democratic-Republicans, Adams's political philosophy  was closer to that of the Federalists, and during his term in office  the party split into two main factions. When Jackson ran for president  in 1828, he ran as a Democratand won handily. Adams's wing of the party  became known as the National Republicans, many of whom later formed the  Whig Party.

Democrat-Republican party legal definition of Democrat-Republican party. Democrat-Republican party synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Where is My 10,000 dollars?


----------



## Darkwind

*Democratic-Republican Party**,* originally (179298) Republican Party,      first opposition political party in the United States.  Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party, its members held power  nationally between 1801 and 1825. It was the direct antecedent of the  present Democratic Party.  

During the two administrations of President George Washington (178997), many former Anti-Federalistswho had resisted adoption of the new federal Constitution (1787)began to unite in opposition to the fiscal program of Alexander Hamilton, secretary of the treasury. After Hamilton and other proponents of a strong central government and a loose interpretation of the Constitution formed the Federalist Party ... (100 of 769 words)

Democratic-Republican Party (political party, United States) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia


Where is My 10,000 dollars?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Darkwind said:


> Where is My 10,000 dollars?



are you accepting the bet, legally?? Do you have a primary source saying that Jefferson's party was called Democratic -Republican, not Republican?

Did you know the Jefferson's Republican Party believed in freedom from big liberal government just as modern Republicans do? 

5th Congress (1797-1799) 
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803) 

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Darkwind said:


> Where is My 10,000 dollars?



Do you have primary source to say Jefferson founded Democratic Republican party, not Republican Party that stood for freedom from big liberal government??



"In referring to political parties  I have adopted the names which the respective parties used in self-designation. Thus the Jeffersonian party has been referred to throughout as the Republican Party. This name came into use early in the 1790's among persons who considered themselves of a common political "interest", and the term "Republican interest" was generally used until it was replaced by the more definite "Republican Party". 

The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Edward, you have lost.  Give it up.  OP fail, officially.


----------



## Darkwind

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is My 10,000 dollars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you accepting the bet, legally?? Do you have a primary source saying that Jefferson's party was called Democratic -Republican, not Republican?
> 
> Did you know the Jefferson's Republican Party believed in freedom from big liberal government just as modern Republicans do?
> 
> 5th Congress (1797-1799)
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6th Congress (1799-1801)
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7th Congress (1801-1803)
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
Click to expand...

Coward.  

I gave you three legitimate sources that detail historically, the fact that the party was founded as the Democrat-Republican Party. 
What I provided is is  ACCEPTED and RATIFIED historical facts.

If you believe you are some kind of conservative, please stop.  You are embarrassing yourself and making those of us who ARE conservative look like fools.

Pay Me the 10,000 dollars.  You've lost.  

And forever more, I'll call you a partisan, lying coward.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Edward is not a conservative, merely a wack from the far right.


----------



## Darkwind

JakeStarkey said:


> Edward is not a conservative, merely a wack from the far right.


So I'm gathering.

I wonder how he reconciles the fact that the current political party for the republicans is listed a the "Grand Old Party" or GOP.  Their official website lists them as GOP, yet in elections, the tally's are short-handed as Republicans.

I don't think that he understands how political parties are designated vs how reporting agencies refer to them.

Either way, I've proven My point, and of course, history is what it is.

I'm done with him since he lacks the honor to pay up on his wagers.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Edward is not tall, only clever, as the saying goes.  He is for fun and chuckles, nothing more.


----------



## KevinWestern

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government  are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.
> 
> FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired,  as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.



Very strange sort question, Edward. 

Now it seems that there&#8217;s some debate on whether or not Jefferson was in fact the &#8220;founder&#8221; of the modern Republican Party, but...

..even if he _was_, how does that in any way make the case that Democrats &#8220;don&#8217;t belong&#8221; in America? Was Thomas Jefferson an all knowing God figure, who held golden political views that transcended time and space (meaning they were perfect to his time, our time, and time to come), and if one were to hold a contrasting view he/she would be automatically wrong?

Also, FDR was a great President that led our nation out of a difficult time, and was an example of how one can use the government effectively to meaningfully improve the lives of Americans. Bad mouthing FDR just seems un-called for and petty. 

Also, Obama is not a communist, and there&#8217;s no apocalyptic &#8220;Trojan&#8221; horse plot taking place; you just simply have to accept the fact that not all of the 300,000,000+ Americans think exactly like you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hey, I bet at least four Americans think like Edward!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

KevinWestern said:


> Now it seems that there&#8217;s some debate on whether or not Jefferson was in fact the &#8220;founder&#8221; of the modern Republican Party, but...
> 
> ..even if he _was_, how does that in any way make the case that Democrats &#8220;don&#8217;t belong&#8221; in America?



Very simple. Democratic ideas were never American ideas. Now you know why Democrats spied for Stalin and were hung. Now it makes sense that BO, our most liberal President, had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

KevinWestern said:


> Was Thomas Jefferson an all knowing God figure, who held golden political views that transcended time and space (meaning they were perfect to his time, our time, and time to come), and if one were to hold a contrasting view he/she would be automatically wrong?




yes he was a God like figure. He reversed 5 million years of history in an instant when he gave us freedom from big liberal government!
It was the only real revolution in human history, and now you know too


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

KevinWestern said:


> Also, FDR was a great President that led our nation out of a difficult time,



If BO prolonged this depression for 10 years that led us into a world war that killed 60 million would you say he led us out of a difficult time or that he created a difficult time?

Now you know why millions and millions followed Hitler Stalin and Mao. They were as brainwashed as you obviously are. Is it painful to have such a perfect liberal sucker? Do you want to go to your grave in such a condition??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

KevinWestern said:


> Also, Obama is not a communist, and theres no apocalyptic Trojan horse plot taking place; you just simply have to accept the fact that not all of the 300,000,000+ Americans think exactly like you.




Obama said, in his biography,  he gravitated to Marxist professors in college, he had a Marxist preacher best friend for 20 years, said in his auto biography that when he worked on Wall Street he felt as if "he had parachuted behind enemy lines", was more liberal in the Senate the Bernie Sanders( an open socialist) and now, despite 200 years of gov't growth, his deficits  will be bigger than all other American presidents combined, and, he also wants perhaps absolute control over health care (already mostly controlled by gov't), banking, and the auto industry. 

Through Frank Marshall Davis,( Communist Party number: 47544) Obama had an admitted deep and prolonged relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. 
But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."


Bernie Saunders is a Democrat and an open socialist. Obama is to the left of Saunders based on his voting record in the Senate. 

Oleg Klugian (head of KGB in cold war) said that when he wanted to recruit spies he looked among the liberals. When FDR's liberals went to the USSR they came back on  a ship named the "Leviathan" to report, "they had seen the future and it worked." 

Then of course BO appointed at least 4 communists: Mark Lloyd (supporter of communist revolution in Venezuela) and Van Jones who said "give them the wealth, give them the wealth," and Annita Dunn who said, "Mao is my favorite philosopher" , and Bloom who said, "free markets are nonsense." 

Obama:  the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties....... it doesnt say what the federal government [our genius founders forgot?]  or the state government must do on your behalf.

I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive [Marxist] change.

Obama: "I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot."

Obama: the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties....... it doesn't say what the federal government [our genius founders forgot?] or the state government must do on your behalf.

In an article titled "The Impossible is Now Possible: Assessing the Obama Presidency," executive vice chair of the Communist Party United States, Jarvis Tyner hailed the President's "drive to the left." "The health care bill, the stimulus package, the cap-and-trade bill, the elimination of secret elections for union representation-it's a program we dared not dream possible only a year ago," Tyner wrote. "But now it's on the verge of becoming the new blueprint for a truly socialist America."

A quick visit to the CPUSA website yields: 

"In some ways last night's State of the Union address by President Obama was a virtuoso performance. There were stirring moments, memorable turns of phrase, humor, a defense of activist government, and proposals that will be welcomed, and surely help, millions of people in need." Obama State of the Union: He got the ball rolling » cpusa


And, if all that is not enough BO  wrote a book called " Dreams From my Father". His father was a drunken suicidal Marxist who dreamed to  free the world from American imperialism. His mother married 2 communists and urged BO to follow is communist bio dad.


And lets not forget that BO is openly for single payer socialist health care!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Edward, having the lost this OP overwhelmingly, has snuck back in and is posting silly drivel.

Edward, you are loser, know not of what you talk.

Go get and education and come back later, please.  You are a boring, ignorant fool.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Hey, I bet at least four Americans think like Edward!



Hey, I'll bet the entire leadership of North Korea thinks just like Fakey Jake....


----------



## JakeStarkey

UncensoredFascist can't carry an argument.  Never has.  Pathetic at name calling.  Stalks me offering homosexual passes about eating his dingo.  Pathetic.  Simply pathetic.


----------

