# If Jefferson founded Republican Party in 1793, liberalism has no place in our history



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sad but true, our liberals spied for Stalin's big liberal govt and never had any respect or understanding of Jeffersonian/Madisonian freedom from big liberal govt. In fact, our Constitution was little more than an attempt to make liberalism illegal in America.


----------



## norwegen

Lefties think our founding was leftist because the Federalists won the constitutional debate.  However, they ignore the fact that the Constitution prevented Federalist desires to expand the central authority into a fiscal-military, British-style monarchy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

norwegen said:


> Lefties think our founding was leftist because the Federalists won the constitutional debate.  However, they ignore the fact that the Constitution prevented Federalist desires to expand the central authority into a fiscal-military, British-style monarchy.



yes and they also forget that the second Jefferson and Madison got wind of what the Federalists wanted they formed the Republican Party and crushed.


----------



## norwegen

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties think our founding was leftist because the Federalists won the constitutional debate. However, they ignore the fact that the Constitution prevented Federalist desires to expand the central authority into a fiscal-military, British-style monarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes and they also forget that the second Jefferson and Madison got wind of what the Federalists wanted they formed the Republican Party and crushed.
Click to expand...

Indeed, once Madison began to realize the trending power-mongering of the Federalists, he abandoned that party.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

norwegen said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties think our founding was leftist because the Federalists won the constitutional debate. However, they ignore the fact that the Constitution prevented Federalist desires to expand the central authority into a fiscal-military, British-style monarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes and they also forget that the second Jefferson and Madison got wind of what the Federalists wanted they formed the Republican Party and crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, once Madison began to realize the trending power-mongering of the Federalists, he abandoned that party.
Click to expand...


yes and when the Republicans won the election of 1800 they called it the Second American Revolution. It established that the first revolution had not only been abut freedom from the British govt but freedom from all govt in general.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

The party Jefferson founded became the current Democratic Party.

The modern Republican Party didn't exist until right before the Civil War.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

theDoctorisIn said:


> The party Jefferson founded became the current Democratic Party.
> 
> The modern Republican Party didn't exist until right before the Civil War.



1) except the current Democratic Party holds the opposite philosophy of Jefferson's Republican party

2) except the modern Republcan Party holds the exact limited govt philosophy  of Jefferson's Party 

Modern Democrats are more Marxist than American. Do you understand?


----------



## norwegen

theDoctorisIn said:


> The party Jefferson founded became the current Democratic Party.
> 
> The modern Republican Party didn't exist until right before the Civil War.


Jacksonian Democrats held some of the views that Jeffersonian Republicans did, such as opposition to implied powers and national banks, but Jeffersonian Republicans in no way resembled "current" Democrats.

The modern Republican Party - the party founded in 1854 - was as much a party of Whigs as the Jeffersonian party was. In any case, the party of republicanism was always in opposition to parties of government control, be it monarchy or democracy.

That liberals have tried to claim Jefferson as a Democrat only attests to their attempts to revise history.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The party Jefferson founded became the current Democratic Party.
> 
> The modern Republican Party didn't exist until right before the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) except the current Democratic Party holds the opposite philosophy of Jefferson's Republican party
> 
> 2) except the modern Republcan Party holds the exact limited govt philosophy  of Jefferson's Party
> 
> Modern Democrats are more Marxist than American. Do you understand?
Click to expand...


Sounds like your getting ready to declare the size of government as part of of a political ideology. Might want to check on political ideologies first so you don't make that elementary mistake.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Sounds like your getting ready to declare the size of government as part of of a political ideology.



getting ready?? Conservatives have been doing that since Aristotle  introduced the concept of freedom from big liberal govt 2500 years ago. Sorry to rock your world.


----------



## norwegen

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The party Jefferson founded became the current Democratic Party.
> 
> The modern Republican Party didn't exist until right before the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) except the current Democratic Party holds the opposite philosophy of Jefferson's Republican party
> 
> 2) except the modern Republcan Party holds the exact limited govt philosophy of Jefferson's Party
> 
> Modern Democrats are more Marxist than American. Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like your getting ready to declare the size of government as part of of a political ideology. Might want to check on political ideologies first so you don't make that elementary mistake.
Click to expand...

Misspelling _you're_ is an elementary mistake.

 Democracy - a government in which the people rule - is a huge government.


----------



## JakeStarkey

norwegen said:


> Lefties think our founding was leftist because the Federalists won the constitutional debate.  However, they ignore the fact that the Constitution prevented Federalist desires to expand the central authority into a fiscal-military, British-style monarchy.



I will ignore, other than this comment, Eddy's many-times failed OP on Jefferson and the Democratic-Party.  Not to worry, paperview will be along to torment him on this (once again) in awhile.

My point is, norwegan, that Marshall, Washington, Adams, Hamilton, the young Madison, Jay, etc., would smile at you, shake their collective head, and give you a piece of cheese.

The federalists had no desire for a monarchy, not even Adams and Hamilton.


----------



## norwegen

JakeStarkey said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties think our founding was leftist because the Federalists won the constitutional debate. However, they ignore the fact that the Constitution prevented Federalist desires to expand the central authority into a fiscal-military, British-style monarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ignore, other than this comment, Eddy's many-times failed OP on Jefferson and the Democratic-Party. Not to worry, paperview will be along to torment him on this (once again) in awhile.
> 
> My point is, norwegan, that Marshall, Washington, Adams, Hamilton, the young Madison, Jay, etc., would smile at you, shake their collective head, and give you a piece of cheese.
> 
> The federalists had no desire for a monarchy, not even Adams and Hamilton.
Click to expand...

Sure, no one thought Washington ought to be a king, eh.


----------



## rightwinger

How many of these lame Jefferson was a Republican threads has Eddie started now?

Been a while but good to see him back to his old self trying to sneak the same crap through


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

norwegen said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties think our founding was leftist because the Federalists won the constitutional debate. However, they ignore the fact that the Constitution prevented Federalist desires to expand the central authority into a fiscal-military, British-style monarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ignore, other than this comment, Eddy's many-times failed OP on Jefferson and the Democratic-Party. Not to worry, paperview will be along to torment him on this (once again) in awhile.
> 
> My point is, norwegan, that Marshall, Washington, Adams, Hamilton, the young Madison, Jay, etc., would smile at you, shake their collective head, and give you a piece of cheese.
> 
> The federalists had no desire for a monarchy, not even Adams and Hamilton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, no one thought Washington ought to be a king, eh.
Click to expand...


OMG yes Jefferson founded the Republican Party( in his mind anyway)  at a dinner party with Hamilton during which Hamilton said he admired the British govt more than any other!
That spelled the end of Federalism!


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will ignore, other than this comment, Eddy's many-times failed OP on Jefferson and the Democratic-Party. Not to worry, paperview will be along to torment him on this (once again) in awhile.
> 
> My point is, norwegan, that Marshall, Washington, Adams, Hamilton, the young Madison, Jay, etc., would smile at you, shake their collective head, and give you a piece of cheese.
> 
> The federalists had no desire for a monarchy, not even Adams and Hamilton.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, no one thought Washington ought to be a king, eh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG yes Jefferson founded the Republican Party( in his mind anyway)  at a dinner party with Hamilton during which Hamilton said he admired the British govt more than any other!
> That spelled the end of Federalism!
Click to expand...


norwegan can share his cheese with you, but since you are both capitalists, he will charge you


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like your getting ready to declare the size of government as part of of a political ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> getting ready?? Conservatives have been doing that since Aristotle  introduced the concept of freedom from big liberal govt 2500 years ago. Sorry to rock your world.
Click to expand...


Of course Aristotle believed that the state was all, but where did he mention size?


----------



## JakeStarkey

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like your getting ready to declare the size of government as part of of a political ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> getting ready?? Conservatives have been doing that since Aristotle  introduced the concept of freedom from big liberal govt 2500 years ago. Sorry to rock your world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Aristotle believed that the state was all, but where did he mention size?
Click to expand...



Aristotle was the teacher of kings: he of course was a statist


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Of course Aristotle believed that the state was all,



actually you mean Plato. If Aristotle believed that I will pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal tail between your legs


----------



## JWBooth

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The party Jefferson founded became the current Democratic Party.
> 
> The modern Republican Party didn't exist until right before the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) except the current Democratic Party holds the opposite philosophy of Jefferson's Republican party
> 
> 2) except the modern Republcan Party holds the exact limited govt philosophy  of Jefferson's Party
> 
> Modern Democrats are more Marxist than American. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.


----------



## Votto

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sad but true, our liberals spied for Stalin's big liberal govt and never had any respect or understanding of Jeffersonian/Madisonian freedom from big liberal govt. In fact, our Constitution was little more than an attempt to make liberalism illegal in America.



You have to understand, that was a different time.  The Founding Fathers had no concept of what modern life would bring.  Now we have cell phones, so the Constitution should be thrown out the window entirely.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.



Are you talking Jefferson Repubican party or Lincolns??


----------



## Votto

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Aristotle believed that the state was all,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually you mean Plato. If Aristotle believed that I will pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal tail between your legs
Click to expand...


Plato wrote "The Republic".  It is essentially Marxism hundreds of years prior to Marx.  Plato sets up his perfect utopia where masterminds run the lives of everyone.  In this world, people are told what they will eat, drink, who they will marry, what occupation they will attain etc.  The citizens will work only for food and board as the Materminds run their lives.

The collectivist ideology is as old as dirt, yet they keep reinventing the wheel.  Now they call themselves progressives and everyone else is called a regressive.  The truth is, their ideology is so old that it is the most regressive ideology known to man.


----------



## JWBooth

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking Jefferson Repubican party or Lincolns??
Click to expand...

Are you remotely familiar with history? There was no Whig party to collapse in the 1790s.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking Jefferson Repubican party or Lincolns??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you remotely familiar with history? There was no Whig party to collapse in the 1790s.
Click to expand...


nobody said there was a whig party to collapse in the 1790's. You are trying to ignore Jefferson's Republican party which held the same philosophy as the modern Republican Party.

Welcome to your first lesson in American history!


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking Jefferson Repubican party or Lincolns??
> 
> 
> 
> Are you remotely familiar with history? There was no Whig party to collapse in the 1790s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nobody said there was a whig party to collapse in the 1790's. You are trying to ignore Jefferson's Republican party which held the same philosophy as the modern Republican Party.
> 
> Welcome to your first lesson in American history!
Click to expand...


Poor Ed, he just has never been able to figure out those Republican parties in our history. I think at one time he offered his usual $10,000 reward to prove something about the difference or whatever. His total definition of political ideology seems to be the size of government. In defense of Ed, he does put up a lot of posts that invite response.


----------



## kiwiman127

Here is a little history for Edward from the radical left wing Britannica Encyclopedia:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157244/Democratic-Party
Republican Party (political party, United States, 1854-present) -- Encyclopedia Britannica


----------



## JWBooth

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking Jefferson Repubican party or Lincolns??
> 
> 
> 
> Are you remotely familiar with history? There was no Whig party to collapse in the 1790s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nobody said there was a whig party to collapse in the 1790's. You are trying to ignore Jefferson's Republican party which held the same philosophy as the modern Republican Party.
> 
> Welcome to your first lesson in American history!
Click to expand...

Since all this went beyond your limited comprehension, lets do this at the crayon and big chief tablet level so you (hopefully) can figure it out.
In the 1790's it was the Republicans (nee Democratic Republicans) led by Jefferson and Madison vs the Federalists led by Hamilton and Adams. The Republicans were advocates of decentralized power. The federalists were more inclined toward strong activist national power, and British style merchantilism.
Following so far? 
Over the next few years, after some internal disagreements the Republicans evolved into the Democrat party, still advocates of limited central government.
The Federalists faded and rebranded as the Whigs. As Whigs they still pushed for debt, government growth, and mercantilism, now styled as the "American System".
If these big words and concepts confuse we can go back and simplify for you.
By the 1850's the Whigs were a spent force. The Democrats (remember if you can, these folks were rooted in the original Republican Party) still opposed handing the treasury over to corporate looters, government debt, or expanding the powers of the national government. 
Still with us?
So from the remains of the Whig Party, and cobbling together some smaller organized groups (Know Nothings), the modern Republican Party was founded. Philosophically nothing changed, strong central government and corporate subsidy their primary goals. One of their primary leaders was an Illinois Senator who had enriched himself as a corporate lobbyist for railroads.
A direct line can be drawn from the modern Democrat party back to Jefferson, though the philosophy of government has changed. The modern Republican owes his roots to Hamilton, Adams, and Clay, and their core philosophy is much as it was in 1856 and 1820.

So far you haven't displayed the knowledge in the subject matter to be offering lessons to amybody.


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Aristotle believed that the state was all,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually you mean Plato. If Aristotle believed that I will pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal tail between your legs
Click to expand...


Alexander the Great and Aristotle - Livius
Livius - Articles on ancient history  ...  ancient Persia  ancient Greece  Alexander
Livius
*Alexander was educated by the great philosopher Aristotle of Stagira.* ... for it, that as he had received life from the one, so the other had taught him to live well.

You already sent me $10 grand for losing the Jefferson was the founder of the modern day GOP, so you can send me another $10 grand to the same bank account.

Yes, Plato was a statist, which he taught to Aristotle, who used it to teach Alexander.


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking Jefferson Repubican party or Lincolns??
Click to expand...

Lincoln's GOP.

There was no Jeffersonian republican party that became the GOP of big business and big statism of today.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> A direct line can be drawn from the modern Democrat party back to Jefferson, though the philosophy of government has changed.



got it!!! so a direct line can be drawn back from the modern Democrats to Jefferson's Republicans despite having opposite political philosophies and different names!! The direct line is owning to the color of the socks they wore-right??

Of course, that makes perfect sense now!!


----------



## JWBooth

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> A direct line can be drawn from the modern Democrat party back to Jefferson, though the philosophy of government has changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> got it!!! so a direct line can be drawn back from the modern Democrats to Jefferson's Republicans despite having opposite political philosophies and different names!! The direct line is owning to the color of the socks they wore-right??
> 
> Of course, that makes perfect sense now!!
Click to expand...


So, are you intentionally being obtuse, or are you this dull by nature?
Yes, Jefferson's Republicans devolved into FDR's Democrats. Shit happens. What is so tough to comprehend about it?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> A direct line can be drawn from the modern Democrat party back to Jefferson, though the philosophy of government has changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> got it!!! so a direct line can be drawn back from the modern Democrats to Jefferson's Republicans despite having opposite political philosophies and different names!! The direct line is owning to the color of the socks they wore-right??
> 
> Of course, that makes perfect sense now!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, are you intentionally being obtuse, or are you this dull by nature?
> Yes, Jefferson's Republicans devolved into FDR's Democrats. Shit happens. What is so tough to comprehend about it?
Click to expand...



as long as you agree that today's Republicans  were at the founding in name and philosphy with Jefferson and Madison while today's Democrats were  not at the founding in either name or philosophy. In fact, today's Democrats can trace their origins to Marx whcih explains why they spied for Stalin and elected Obama who had 3 communist parents and voted to left of Bernnie Sanders.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jefferson and Madison were not for big business, big banks, and lack of civil liberties as are the Republicans today, yes, Edward, you have it right.


----------



## JWBooth

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> got it!!! so a direct line can be drawn back from the modern Democrats to Jefferson's Republicans despite having opposite political philosophies and different names!! The direct line is owning to the color of the socks they wore-right??
> 
> Of course, that makes perfect sense now!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you intentionally being obtuse, or are you this dull by nature?
> Yes, Jefferson's Republicans devolved into FDR's Democrats. Shit happens. What is so tough to comprehend about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as long as you agree that today's Republicans  were at the founding in name and philosphy with Jefferson and Madison while today's Democrats were  not at the founding in either name or philosophy. In fact, today's Democrats can trace their origins to Marx whcih explains why they spied for Stalin and elected Obama who had 3 communist parents and voted to left of Bernnie Sanders.
Click to expand...

As it is the intentionally obtuse course that you have set for yourself, I have found nothing in your intellectually vacant and historically inaccurate musings with which to agree.

One might as well tie the Republican Party of Spain in the late 1800's to Jefferson's party with equal accuracy using your reasoning, as they share the same name.
Your modern Republicans are as alike the party of Jefferson as wheat is to crabgrass. Modern Republicans are truly the party of Lincoln, centralised power, government indebtedness, empire building, and a direct line from the treasury to corporate boardrooms.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> One might as well tie the Republican Party of Spain in the late 1800's to Jefferson's party with equal accuracy using your reasoning, as they share the same name.



of course I said they share the same name and political philosophy. Have you become a liar as you begin to lose the debate?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> Modern Republicans are truly the party of Lincoln, centralised power, government.



of course if that was true Ted Cruz  Rand Paul Wm Buckley Barry Goldwater Reagan Milton Friedman etcetc would not be or have been Republicans, they would have been Democrats.

Feeling silly now?


----------



## JakeStarkey

*If Jefferson founded Republican Party in 1793, liberalism has no place in our history* has been proven false.  Let's close the thread.


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> One might as well tie the Republican Party of Spain in the late 1800's to Jefferson's party with equal accuracy using your reasoning, as they share the same name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course I said they share the same name and political philosophy. Have you become a liar as you begin to lose the debate?
Click to expand...


Neither the party of 1793 nor the modern GOP share the same political philosophy.

The GOP today supports welfare, a form of regulated business, weak civil liberties, strong powerful statist government.

In what world do you live?


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern Republicans are truly the party of Lincoln, centralised power, government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course if that was true Ted Cruz  Rand Paul Wm Buckley Barry Goldwater Reagan Milton Friedman etcetc would not be or have been Republicans, they would have been Democrats.  Feeling silly now?
Click to expand...


You are trolling.


----------



## JWBooth

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern Republicans are truly the party of Lincoln, centralised power, government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course if that was true Ted Cruz  Rand Paul Wm Buckley Barry Goldwater Reagan Milton Friedman etcetc would not be or have been Republicans, they would have been Democrats.
> 
> Feeling silly now?
Click to expand...

Your unwarranted belief that you have bested anyone here is the only silliness on this day.
You are wrong, stupidly so, and I have wasted enough time on this nonsense. I bid you adieu.


----------



## Agit8r

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes and they also forget that the second Jefferson and Madison got wind of what the Federalists wanted they formed the Republican Party and crushed.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, once Madison began to realize the trending power-mongering of the Federalists, he abandoned that party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes and when the Republicans won the election of 1800 they called it the Second American Revolution. It established that the first revolution had not only been abut freedom from the British govt but freedom from all govt in general.
Click to expand...


Sorry to interrupt this circle-jerk, but there was yet to be any history in this thread. 
Quite the contrary, it is "conservatism" that has no historical basis prior to the 20th Century:

Crackpot Doom Scandal: "Conservatism"


----------



## Picaro

JWBooth said:


> *Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.*



Yes. It was called 'the American system', and the key reasons for Lincoln's 'preserving the Union' scam; they needed the tariffs and land give-aways the South would be lop-sidedly paying to subsidize railroads and other Federal projects they wanted that the South wouldn't benefit from, the same as the tariffs implemented after the War of 1812. 

Ironically, the New England states' politicians started a secessionist movement after the election of Jefferson, for the same reasons; at the time they thought they would be paying for the bulk of Federal spending while receiving few benefits for their taxes. The prosperity of the cotton kingdoms had reversed that tariff burden by the 1820's, if not earlier.


----------



## gipper

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern Republicans are truly the party of Lincoln, centralised power, government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course if that was true Ted Cruz  Rand Paul Wm Buckley Barry Goldwater Reagan Milton Friedman etcetc would not be or have been Republicans, they would have been Democrats.
> 
> Feeling silly now?
Click to expand...


Today's R party is not that different from the D party.  They both believe in big centralized government...and both want more power and wealth for themselves and their donors.  The Constitution is meaningless to them, until they can twist it to meet their nefarious purposes.

Now there are a few pols in the R party that align with Jefferson's view of federalism.  Problem is they are very very few...and they are demonized by all on the left, including most of the R party.  

Individual liberty and limited government are quaint ideas to many Americans, because most have been duped by the leftist elite.  The pols in both parties know this.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

gipper said:


> Today's R party is not that different from the D party.



absurd of course!!


1) Republican cant  always be conservative since they need to get elected and reelected which often require the middle and even some from the left. 

2) and even when they are conservative they often don't act that way when they need votes from the middle and the party oppopsite to get reelected.

3) when they hold one office they don't hold the entire govt so even if they are conservative and don't need the middle or party opposite they still may not produce conservative govt.

4) they have proposed 30 Balanced Budget Amendments( all killed by liberals), shut down the govt numerous times, nominated Goldwater and Reagan, voted 32 times against Obamacare, voted against stimulus, and most have signed Grovers pledge to never raise taxes!

5) the job in Congress pays $175,000 so the second conservative libertarians can be elected they will appear. The Party is merely a reflection of who can be elected so it is never to be blamed, 
the voters are to be blamed.


----------



## Picaro

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 1) Republican cant  always be conservative since they need to get elected and reelected which often require the middle and even some from the left.



In other words, they're hacks whose word means nothing when it comes to their own skins. 



> 2) and even when they are conservative they often don't act that way when they need votes from the middle and the party oppopsite to get reelected.


See above ...



> 3) when they hold one office they don't hold the entire govt so even if they are conservative and don't need the middle or party opposite they still may not produce conservative govt.


That's because they don't really have any 'conservative' principles to uphold.



> 4) they have proposed 30 Balanced Budget Amendments( all killed by liberals), shut down the govt numerous times, nominated Goldwater and Reagan, voted 32 times against Obamacare, voted against stimulus, and most have signed Grovers pledge to never raise taxes!


And in the meantime, they pile on pork for their own constituencies, and have no real objection to spending the hell out of Federal tax monies, backing corporate welfare, etc. Their 'balanced budget' nonsense doesn't last past the second they get a majority of Congress.



> 5) the job in Congress pays $175,000 so the second conservative libertarians can be elected they will appear. The Party is merely a reflection of who can be elected so it is never to be blamed,
> the voters are to be blamed.


Lol yeah right ... and who decides who the voters get to vote for again? ...


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes and they also forget that the second Jefferson and Madison got wind of what the Federalists wanted they formed the Republican Party and crushed.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, once Madison began to realize the trending power-mongering of the Federalists, he abandoned that party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes and when the Republicans won the election of 1800 they called it the Second American Revolution. It established that the first revolution had not only been abut freedom from the British govt but freedom from all govt in general.
Click to expand...


It wasn't freedom from all governments, just conservative governments.   After all America  had  13 liberal governments  operating at the time, most with their own liberal Constitutions. Liberals were leery of establishing another central government fearing it would be like the other European governments, conservative. 
In any case the convention was operating under the liberal ideas of the Age of Enlightenment and, with a liberal Bill of Rights promised, enough liberals voted to ratify the new liberal Constitution, and a new liberal nation was underway leading other people to establish liberal nations.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> After all America  had  13 liberal governments  operating at the time,



if liberal means very very very limited govt then you are right that they were liberal. And certainly the Articles of Confederation were liberal too in that they created a very very very limited govt. Isn't thinking fun?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> , and a new liberal nation was underway leading other people to establish liberal nations.



if liberal means very very very limited govt with only a few enumerated powers then you are right. Dont forget, our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the A bomb because they loved his very very unlimited govt. Never mind that he killed 65 million with his unlimited govt!!


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all America  had  13 liberal governments  operating at the time,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if liberal means very very very limited govt then you are right that they were liberal. And certainly the Articles of Confederation were liberal too in that they created a very very very limited govt. Isn't thinking fun?
Click to expand...



The Articles created government with limited powers, too limited, and the framers dumped the Articles as unworkable. The framers then created a  new document, the Constitution, with vast new powers, and that worked. The days of government with few powers didn't last long but it was a nice try and we learned, or some did. The bigger question is what is the purpose of government.


----------



## emilynghiem

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties think our founding was leftist because the Federalists won the constitutional debate.  However, they ignore the fact that the Constitution prevented Federalist desires to expand the central authority into a fiscal-military, British-style monarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes and they also forget that the second Jefferson and Madison got wind of what the Federalists wanted they formed the Republican Party and crushed.
Click to expand...


   [MENTION=34008]EdwardBaiamonte[/MENTION]
the liberal voters I talk with don't even have this much history or knowledge.

Most I know live hand to mouth.
Few I talk with even understand the difference between city, state and federal govt.

Too many people today think whoever you elect can just vote "whatever they want" into law. And nobody can fight the govt so you get stuck with that.

This board was the first place I found this many people who believed in enforcing Constitutional principles directly. I'm usually the odd one out, especially among Democrats.

I think by starting with Constitutional principles, that is plenty of work to educate people on due process, checks and balances, consent of the governed, and equal protection of laws.

Most people don't get "due process," because they are used to judging and projecting punishment on people without giving them a chance to redress the accusations!

So if they do this in everyday life, of course, they have no concept of govt being required to resolve grievances instead of just issuing judgment and punishment based solely on belief.

That issue of "due process" and "consent of the governed" alone is a full time job
trying to cultivate respect for in relationships in order to set the standard by example.
If more people were taught conflict resolution and mediation, maybe the concept of self-govt would be more established
instead of overrun by politics that profit by making people dependent on Party instead of invoking Constitutional principles directly to check and reform govt.

If we can even establish equal respect for Constitutional principles, why not focus there and bypass all the blame from this party or that one. Why not recognize people's political beliefs like religions, and let each have their own; while agreeing to keep these biased agenda out of govt policy and process, and just stick to Constitutional points where we agree.

If people don't get the connection between people and govt by Constitutional democratic process, no amount of arguing about party history is going to matter. They will keep using party politics to oppose and bully whatever group they blame. History will not change that impression, once you or a group is pegged as the problem, it doesn't matter what the past is with that party, they only care about trying to outvote the people they are against NOW,
and they think the only way is to elect someone of the opposing party and let them do for them.

They have no concept of empowering people to enforce Constitutional principles directly.
If we are going to address this problem, I believe the whole party system needs to be called out as establishing political religions
that should be kept separate from govt instead of competing with each other to impose their own national religion on the public.


----------



## emilynghiem

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all America  had  13 liberal governments  operating at the time,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if liberal means very very very limited govt then you are right that they were liberal. And certainly the Articles of Confederation were liberal too in that they created a very very very limited govt. Isn't thinking fun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Articles created government with limited powers, too limited, and the framers dumped the Articles as unworkable. The framers then created a  new document, the Constitution, with vast new powers, and that worked. The days of government with few powers didn't last long but it was a nice try and we learned, or some did. The bigger question is what is the purpose of government.
Click to expand...


The purpose of government is to represent, protect and serve all the people of the nation, based on their consent.
The problem is where parties do not agree, and different things represent them,
then they fight over which platform is going to be pushed through govt.

Instead of that, why not keep separate agenda "out of govt" and develop that independently to govern just those populations that each party policy represents.

if we keep federal govt limited to just the policies and programs that ALL taxpayers agree to fund, then it would stay at manageable levels. And the rest can be delegated out and supported by groups who AGREE, so there is no conflict and waste of resources fighting or competing; all resources can go directly into the programs that people/groups select.

I think that is the best way to clean up govt: stick to where we agree, and separate the rest to delegate to groups who agree to their own solutions and reforms for cleaning up.
I believe the parties can and should share responsibility for taking this on.
Given that is where people tend to collect in likeminded groups, who do want to serve as either community, businesses or public leaders, 
it makes sense to delegate the responsibility to parties for their own agenda, and use their structures and democratic representation to manage their own members and resources.

This would take huge burdens off govt, end the need for political conflict since power and responsibility would be shared, 
and reward citizens and groups for participating in reforms and creating the most cost-effective sustainable solutions.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

emilynghiem said:


> if we keep federal govt limited to just the policies and programs that ALL taxpayers agree to fund, then it would stay at manageable levels.



great idea except liberals are naturally violent; they want the majority to force the minority at the point of a gun to do what they want. Freedom, the very purpose of our country means nothing to them, It is no surprise they spied for stalin and gave him the bomb!


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> if we keep federal govt limited to just the policies and programs that ALL taxpayers agree to fund, then it would stay at manageable levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> great idea except liberals are naturally violent; they want the majority to force the minority at the point of a gun to do what they want. Freedom, the very purpose of our country means nothing to them, It is no surprise they spied for stalin and gave him the bomb!
Click to expand...


Can't blame you for not wanting to get into the purpose of government, so switch to Stalin and the bomb.


----------



## emilynghiem

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> if we keep federal govt limited to just the policies and programs that ALL taxpayers agree to fund, then it would stay at manageable levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> great idea except liberals are naturally violent; they want the majority to force the minority at the point of a gun to do what they want. Freedom, the very purpose of our country means nothing to them, It is no surprise they spied for stalin and gave him the bomb!
Click to expand...


Dear [MENTION=34008]EdwardBaiamonte[/MENTION]:

Where I am guessing the combativeness and defensiveness is coming from,
for my liberal Democrat friends who do not feel "equally empowered" and able to "invoke" authority directly from the laws and Constitution as Conservatives and Christians,
they become dependent on Party to smash, block, oppose or outvote whatever they fear the opposing party is doing, in order to have any control or representation.

I THOUGHT, at first, this could be changed by educating and empowering people to invoke the authority of law directly. But in the meantime the political machine is too powerful, so more people give in and just let the politicians use the party to steamroll whatever they can.

And you know who takes control of the votes and parties, the worst candidates who bypass consent of constituents and take shortcuts to push media image and campaigns to win.

I am searching other sources for ANYONE who is ready to declare these parties as political religions, call them out for what they are, and quit playing victim and bully back and forth.

Most people are too caught up in the game.

Why can't we step back and recognize that even if the Democrat Party does push for "majority rule" to impose agenda, that's still a Political Religion that others don't believe in, and should NOT be established through law or govt, any more than any other religion!

So what does it take to get everyone on the same page, to come to this same realization?
That this game of pushing one party's BELIEFS is already abuse of law to begin with.

Why can't we just recognize it for what it is, and quit playing like it's okay
to push one party over another by majority rule and just have it out?

If Hindus and Muslims competed with each other to push a policy on the rest of the nation, we'd say no, keep your agenda private, separate from Govt which is under the Constitution.

So why not tell both Parties to keep their agenda separate, and only let God represent where all people and parties agree? Why not stand for the Constitution and quit this mess?


----------



## Agit8r

emilynghiem said:


> Why can't we step back and recognize that even if the Democrat Party does push for "majority rule" to impose agenda, that's still a Political Religion that others don't believe in, and should NOT be established through law or govt, any more than any other religion!



UnAmerican much?

"we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it"
-- *James Madison; from Federalist #39*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

emilynghiem said:


> .
> 
> So why not tell both Parties to keep their agenda separate, and only let God represent where all people and parties agree? Why not stand for the Constitution and quit this mess?



dear, the Republican party does stand for the Constitution.  It was the liberals who spied for Stalin. Have you read about this?


----------



## Dante

rightwinger said:


> How many of these lame Jefferson was a Republican threads has Eddie started now?
> 
> Been a while but good to see him back to his old self trying to sneak the same crap through


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of these lame Jefferson was a Republican threads has Eddie started now?
> 
> Been a while but good to see him back to his old self trying to sneak the same crap through
Click to expand...


sadly a liberal can call names but lacks the IQ to say why it is "crap"


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of these lame Jefferson was a Republican threads has Eddie started now?
> 
> Been a while but good to see him back to his old self trying to sneak the same crap through
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sadly a liberal can call names but lacks the IQ to say why it is "crap"
Click to expand...


have you ever debated anyone one-on-one and had people who were watching ad listening just walk away from you?


----------



## Agit8r

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of these lame Jefferson was a Republican threads has Eddie started now?
> 
> Been a while but good to see him back to his old self trying to sneak the same crap through
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sadly a liberal can call names but lacks the IQ to say why it is "crap"
Click to expand...


I'll give you a few hints:

"The Gothic idea that we are to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion & government, by whom it has been recommended, & whose purposes it would answer."
 -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly (Jan, 27, 1800) 


"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."
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; letter to James Madison (1785) 


"Instead, therefore, of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious inquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts"
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from 'Notes on Virginia' Query XIV 


"Our present enemy... may burn New York, indeed, by her ships and congreve rockets, in which case we must burn the city of London by hired incendiaries, of which her starving manufacturers will furnish abundance. A people in such desperation as to demand of their government aut parcem, aut furcam, either bread or the gallows, will not reject the same alternative when offered by a foreign hand. Hunger will make them brave every risk for bread."
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to Thaddeus Kosciusko (June 28, 1812) 


"Although I do not, with some enthusiasts, believe that the human condition will ever advance to such a state of perfection as that there shall no longer be pain or vice in the world, yet I believe it susceptible of much improvement, and most of all, in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is to be effected."
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to P. S. Dupont de Nemours (April 24, 1816)


"The tone of your letters had for some time given me pain, on account of the extreme warmth with which they censured the proceedings of the Jacobins of France... It was necessary to use the arm of the people, a machine not quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to a certain degree... My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated."
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to William Short (January 3, 1793)


"The appeal to the rights of man, which had been made in the U S. was taken up by France, first of the European nations. From her the spirit has spread over those of the South. The tyrants of the North have allied indeed against it, but it is irresistible. Their opposition will only multiply it's millions of human victims; their own satellites will catch it, and the condition of man thro' the civilized world will be finally and greatly ameliorated."
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from his Autobiography (1821)


"the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid are foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of Federal powers."
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from 6th State of the Union Address (Dec. 2, 1806)


----------



## Peach

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sad but true, our liberals spied for Stalin's big liberal govt and never had any respect or understanding of Jeffersonian/Madisonian freedom from big liberal govt. In fact, our Constitution was little more than an attempt to make liberalism illegal in America.



Both parties claim Jefferson began their party, Democrats hold "Jefferson/Jackson"(?) days, and Republicans claim Jefferson. If Jefferson founded the Republican Party however, Adams was the first Democrat; as Adams was an abolitionist, that does create some questions.

*Jackson isn't an encouraging "founder", known as the "INDIAN KILLER", I'd prefer "Jefferson/Truman" day myself.


----------



## JWBooth

Other than the rhetorical use of the name Republican there is no tie from Jefferson to the modern Republican party.
The early Republicans became the Democratic Republicans which became the Democrat Party.
Federalists and Tories became Whigs, Whigs and Know Nothings became Republicans.

Along the way both groups have changed their basic philosophies a few times.
Now they both represent the all encompassing corporate state while feigning concern for other constituencies.


----------



## gipper

JWBooth said:


> Other than the rhetorical use of the name Republican there is no tie from Jefferson to the modern Republican party.
> The early Republicans became the Democratic Republicans which became the Democrat Party.
> Federalists and Tories became Whigs, Whigs and Know Nothings became Republicans.
> 
> Along the way both groups have changed their basic philosophies a few times.
> Now they both represent the all encompassing corporate state while feigning concern for other constituencies.



So true, especially about where the two parties are today.  And yet, millions of Americans think they are different and argue ad nauseum about it, which divides us so the power elite can continue their charade. What a total waste of time and proof that the elites can FOOL some of the people ALL the time.


----------



## regent

How easy it must be for Republicans to change American history on these boards. But when Republicans change history on these boards, does it mean history is actually changed and now historians will have to change the history books? So much of the Republican board-history is different from the history books on my shelves.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Agit8r said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sadly a liberal can call names but lacks the IQ to say why it is "crap"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll give you a few hints:
> 
> "The Gothic idea that we are to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion & government, by whom it has been recommended, & whose purposes it would answer."
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly (Jan, 27, 1800)
> 
> 
> "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."
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; letter to James Madison (1785)
> 
> 
> "Instead, therefore, of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious inquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts"
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from 'Notes on Virginia' Query XIV
> 
> 
> "Our present enemy... may burn New York, indeed, by her ships and congreve rockets, in which case we must burn the city of London by hired incendiaries, of which her starving manufacturers will furnish abundance. A people in such desperation as to demand of their government aut parcem, aut furcam, either bread or the gallows, will not reject the same alternative when offered by a foreign hand. Hunger will make them brave every risk for bread."
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to Thaddeus Kosciusko (June 28, 1812)
> 
> 
> "Although I do not, with some enthusiasts, believe that the human condition will ever advance to such a state of perfection as that there shall no longer be pain or vice in the world, yet I believe it susceptible of much improvement, and most of all, in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is to be effected."
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to P. S. Dupont de Nemours (April 24, 1816)
> 
> 
> "The tone of your letters had for some time given me pain, on account of the extreme warmth with which they censured the proceedings of the Jacobins of France... It was necessary to use the arm of the people, a machine not quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to a certain degree... My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated."
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to William Short (January 3, 1793)
> 
> 
> "The appeal to the rights of man, which had been made in the U S. was taken up by France, first of the European nations. From her the spirit has spread over those of the South. The tyrants of the North have allied indeed against it, but it is irresistible. Their opposition will only multiply it's millions of human victims; their own satellites will catch it, and the condition of man thro' the civilized world will be finally and greatly ameliorated."
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from his Autobiography (1821)
> 
> 
> "the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid are foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of Federal powers."
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from 6th State of the Union Address (Dec. 2, 1806)
Click to expand...


dear, if you can say why Jefferson was not a Republican for  very very limited govt please try. How will you learn if you are afriad to try?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> How easy it must be for Republicans to change American history on these boards.



please present your most substantive example or admit to being little more than a liar.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> Other than the rhetorical use of the name Republican there is no tie from Jefferson to the modern Republican party.



No Tie??? Jefferson created the Republican party in 1793 to stand against Hamilton for very very limited govt. Modern Republicans sign Grover's pledge to never raise taxes because they too are for very very limited govt.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Peach said:


> If Jefferson founded the Republican Party however, Adams was the first Democrat; as Adams was an abolitionist, that does create some questions.



More importantly Jefferson hated Adams and the Federalists, and found them treasonous. Thats why he founded the Republican Party to destroy them and drive  their concept of big liberal govt out of American History. He succeeded in what he called the Second American Revolutin of 1800. Federalism was dead,...at least until the New Deal when Democrats were spying for Stalin.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> Now they both represent the all encompassing corporate state while feigning concern for other constituencies.



all encompassing corporate state? Dear, Republicans sign Grover's pledge to limit more and more the state while liberals do the exact opposite, like with Obamacare.

Do you understand now?


----------



## jillian

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sad but true, our liberals spied for Stalin's big liberal govt and never had any respect or understanding of Jeffersonian/Madisonian freedom from big liberal govt. In fact, our Constitution was little more than an attempt to make liberalism illegal in America.



okey dokey 

you are aware that the GOP was founded by abolotionists in the 1800's right?

you'd call the founders rhinos if they were around today.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

jillian said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad but true, our liberals spied for Stalin's big liberal govt and never had any respect or understanding of Jeffersonian/Madisonian freedom from big liberal govt. In fact, our Constitution was little more than an attempt to make liberalism illegal in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> okey dokey
Click to expand...


Translation: I know in my heart he's wrong but I lack the IQ to say why.


----------



## regent

So after Jefferson and the liberals took the government from the conservatives in 1800  Jefferson buys Louisiana from France? The Louisiana Purchase meant a future expansion of government, and was based on loose construction of the Constitution. With Jefferson's, Louisiana purchase America is on her way not to just a .more liberal nation but to a larger government.  
And then Jackson comes on the scene, with even more government, even looser construction, and America was on her way to her future. So our history begins with the the Age of Enlightenment carried into the Constitution. is given a kick by Jefferson and we have what we have today, thanks to Jefferson, Locke and many others.   
If the conservatives had not tried to stop free speech during Adam's presidency the conservatives might have lasted a little longer their first time around.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> The Louisiana Purchase meant a future expansion of government,



actually it was an expansion of land, not govt. Hate to rock your world!


----------



## Agit8r

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> sadly a liberal can call names but lacks the IQ to say why it is "crap"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a few hints:
> 
> "The Gothic idea that we are to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion & government, by whom it has been recommended, & whose purposes it would answer."
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly (Jan, 27, 1800)
> 
> 
> "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."
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; letter to James Madison (1785)
> 
> 
> "Instead, therefore, of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious inquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts"
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from 'Notes on Virginia' Query XIV
> 
> 
> "Our present enemy... may burn New York, indeed, by her ships and congreve rockets, in which case we must burn the city of London by hired incendiaries, of which her starving manufacturers will furnish abundance. A people in such desperation as to demand of their government aut parcem, aut furcam, either bread or the gallows, will not reject the same alternative when offered by a foreign hand. Hunger will make them brave every risk for bread."
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to Thaddeus Kosciusko (June 28, 1812)
> 
> 
> "Although I do not, with some enthusiasts, believe that the human condition will ever advance to such a state of perfection as that there shall no longer be pain or vice in the world, yet I believe it susceptible of much improvement, and most of all, in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is to be effected."
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to P. S. Dupont de Nemours (April 24, 1816)
> 
> 
> "The tone of your letters had for some time given me pain, on account of the extreme warmth with which they censured the proceedings of the Jacobins of France... It was necessary to use the arm of the people, a machine not quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to a certain degree... My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated."
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to William Short (January 3, 1793)
> 
> 
> "The appeal to the rights of man, which had been made in the U S. was taken up by France, first of the European nations. From her the spirit has spread over those of the South. The tyrants of the North have allied indeed against it, but it is irresistible. Their opposition will only multiply it's millions of human victims; their own satellites will catch it, and the condition of man thro' the civilized world will be finally and greatly ameliorated."
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from his Autobiography (1821)
> 
> 
> "the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid are foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of Federal powers."
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from 6th State of the Union Address (Dec. 2, 1806)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, if you can say why Jefferson was not a Republican for  very very limited govt please try. How will you learn if you are afriad to try?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say a _very_ limited government, but obviously he didn't support the functions of government which "Republicans" hold the most dear:

"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 eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion"
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to Danbury Baptists (Jan. 1. 1802.)


"...who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe?"
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to N. G. Dufief (April 19, 1814)


"Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which have never happened, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place"
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from 6th State of the Union Address (Dec. 2, 1806)


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Louisiana Purchase meant a future expansion of government,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually it was an expansion of land, not govt. Hate to rock your world!
Click to expand...


Think carefully now, what happened to that expansion of land does it still just set there unoccupied. The purchase doubled the land size of the United States and that area would be turned into states with people, lots of people, people needing governments. Did it double the size of government, probably not, but certainly enlarged. 
As Jefferson was changing his tune about strict construction, so the conservatives were changing their tune. Now the Federalists accused Jefferson of violating the Constitution with a purchase, not authorized by that document. 
And that's how things change. The size of government is not part of any ideology, but more dependent on which party is in power and for how long and who it is trying to help.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Agit8r said:


> I wouldn't say a _very_ limited government,



why??? given he founded the Republican Party to stand for nothing else except very very limited govt. It was the entire reason for his political life!!


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

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


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say a _very_ limited government,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why??? given he founded the Republican Party to stand for nothing else except very very limited govt. It was the entire reason for his political life!!
> 
> 
> "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature" -Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...


The best thing Jefferson did to help reduce the size and cost of government was to reduce the military. Good Idea.


----------



## Agit8r

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say a _very_ limited government,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why??? given he founded the Republican Party to stand for nothing else except very very limited govt. It was the entire reason for his political life!!
> 
> 
> "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature" -Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...


Again, you are talking about a myth, as if it was reality:

That government is best which governs least. (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Louisiana Purchase meant a future expansion of government,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually it was an expansion of land, not govt. Hate to rock your world!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think carefully now, what happened to that expansion of land does it still just set there unoccupied. The purchase doubled the land size of the United States and that area would be turned into states with people, lots of people, *people needing governments*. Did it double the size of government, probably not, but certainly enlarged.
> As Jefferson was changing his tune about strict construction, so the conservatives were changing their tune. Now the Federalists accused Jefferson of violating the Constitution with a purchase, not authorized by that document.
> And that's how things change. The size of government is not part of any ideology, but more dependent on which party is in power and for how long and who it is trying to help.
Click to expand...


People do not NEED government.  Needs are essential for life and government is not essential for life...on the contrary it destroys life. One would think after all the horrors caused by centralized government, throughout all human history, you would know this.  

Government is force.  It is corrupt and extremely wasteful.  It destroys liberty, wealth, and prosperity.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

gipper said:


> The purchase doubled the land size of the United States and that area would be turned into states with people, lots of people, *people needing governments*. Did it double the size of government, probably not, but certainly enlarged.



dear a larger govt is not one that represents more people but one that assumes more power over each individual! If the USA took over North America it would not necessarily mean a larger govt in the sense that conservatives care large govt. 

In fact, Jefferson wanted the territory so everyone could be an independent framer farther away from the, in effect, smaller central govt and its control. Sorry to break it to you.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purchase doubled the land size of the United States and that area would be turned into states with people, lots of people, *people needing governments*. Did it double the size of government, probably not, but certainly enlarged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear a larger govt is not one that represents more people but one that assumes more power over each individual! If the USA took over North America it would not necessarily mean a larger govt in the sense that conservatives care large govt.
> 
> In fact, Jefferson wanted the territory so everyone could be an independent framer farther away from the, in effect, smaller central govt and its control. Sorry to break it to you.
Click to expand...


Maybe your're right, but of the 14 states,  six or so were the new states and they figured the Constitution gave them the right  to elect new state governments, make Constitutions, pass laws and be just like the big boys. Jefferson may have told those new states, no new governments and no growth, but  you know how states are, they never listen. so new governments came into being and all 14 grew bigger with time.


----------



## Agit8r

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purchase doubled the land size of the United States and that area would be turned into states with people, lots of people, *people needing governments*. Did it double the size of government, probably not, but certainly enlarged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear a larger govt is not one that represents more people but one that assumes more power over each individual! If the USA took over North America it would not necessarily mean a larger govt in the sense that conservatives care large govt.
> 
> In fact, Jefferson wanted the territory so everyone could be an independent framer farther away from the, in effect, smaller central govt and its control. Sorry to break it to you.
Click to expand...


Well, the native peoples had NO formal government, so automatically it would be a larger government


----------



## gipper

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purchase doubled the land size of the United States and that area would be turned into states with people, lots of people, *people needing governments*. Did it double the size of government, probably not, but certainly enlarged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear a larger govt is not one that represents more people but one that assumes more power over each individual! If the USA took over North America it would not necessarily mean a larger govt in the sense that conservatives care large govt.
> 
> In fact, Jefferson wanted the territory so everyone could be an independent framer farther away from the, in effect, smaller central govt and its control. Sorry to break it to you.
Click to expand...


I see your point, but you do not see mine.

I do not believe we NEED a centralized government at all.  Eliminate it altogether and we will be much better off.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purchase doubled the land size of the United States and that area would be turned into states with people, lots of people, *people needing governments*. Did it double the size of government, probably not, but certainly enlarged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear a larger govt is not one that represents more people but one that assumes more power over each individual! If the USA took over North America it would not necessarily mean a larger govt in the sense that conservatives care large govt.
> 
> In fact, Jefferson wanted the territory so everyone could be an independent framer farther away from the, in effect, smaller central govt and its control. Sorry to break it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your point, but you do not see mine.
> 
> 
> I do not believe we NEED a centralized government at all.  Eliminate it altogether and we will be much better off.
Click to expand...


Your point is that we do not need a centralized government, but that like Jefferson's desire that America be a nation of farmers is also not to be. 
If we double the size of America again with almost uninhabited land, government
will grow some more.


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> *If Jefferson founded Republican Party in 1793, liberalism has no place in our history*
> 
> Sad but true, our liberals spied for Stalin's big liberal govt and never had any respect or understanding of Jeffersonian/Madisonian freedom from big liberal govt. In fact, our Constitution was little more than an attempt to make liberalism illegal in America.



Wow.  How do you even get your pants on in the morning?

First, by the time the Republican Party was founded, Jefferson had been dead 28 years.  Second, the fact that some political philosophy may match up here or not match up there doesn't mean they are or are not the same party.  Third, the Constitution was hardly "making Liberalism illegal"; it was making Liberalism *fly*.  Liberalism is the ingredient that birthed our Constitution and our country, like it or lump it.  It was the _whole new idea_ we were trying.  What it was making illegal was the old system of the dominant state comprised of royal nobility and the church, and put it instead in the hands of "We the People".  That is in fact what that phrase _means._

You need to go back to square one.  You got this thread in the correct forum, after that it was straight downhill.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> First, by the time the Republican Party was founded, Jefferson had been dead 28 years.



If Jefferson and Madison didn't found the Republican party in 1793 or so I'll pay you $10,000. Bet? What party do you think they founded?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> the Constitution was hardly "making Liberalism illegal"; it was making Liberalism fly



if liberalism means very very limited govt you are correct!!

here are some quotes from our founders to get you started. Welcome to 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-Thomas Jefferson


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> What it was making illegal was the old system of the dominant state comprised of royal nobility and the church, and put it instead in the hands of "We the People".  That is in fact what that phrase _means._



dear, if liberals beleive in govt having all the power how can we the people have power? Do you see why our liberals spied for Stalin and elected Obama with his 3 communist parents and voting record to left of Bernie Sanders?

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

Please notice that liberty and govt  were seen as opposites by our Founders.

Welcome to your second lesson in American History.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> If we double the size of America again with almost uninhabited land, government
> will grow some more.



As I said Jefferson purchased the land to get people farther away from the power of central govt, not to increase the power of the govt. You got it backwards


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> but  you know how states are, they never listen. so new governments came into being and all 14 grew bigger with time.



well it is sadly true that they grew larger as did the Federal govt. This is due to the cancer of liberalism that has been the source of evil in human history!


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, by the time the Republican Party was founded, Jefferson had been dead 28 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Jefferson and Madison didn't found the Republican party in 1793 or so I'll pay you $10,000. Bet? What party do you think they founded?
Click to expand...


The "Democratic-Republican" Party, which, like the Whigs and the Federalists, no longer exists and is unrelated to the current Republican Party, founded in *1854*.

Pay up.


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Constitution was hardly "making Liberalism illegal"; it was making Liberalism fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if liberalism means very very limited govt you are correct!!
> 
> here are some quotes from our founders to get you started. Welcome to 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-Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...


You are clearly in no position to be giving me or anyone else lessons in American history.  

What's more, we did all this a year ago and in the intervening time you haven't bothered to crack a history book.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear a larger govt is not one that represents more people but one that assumes more power over each individual! If the USA took over North America it would not necessarily mean a larger govt in the sense that conservatives care large govt.
> 
> In fact, Jefferson wanted the territory so everyone could be an independent framer farther away from the, in effect, smaller central govt and its control. Sorry to break it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your point, but you do not see mine.
> 
> 
> I do not believe we NEED a centralized government at all.  Eliminate it altogether and we will be much better off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point is that we do not need a centralized government, but that like Jefferson's desire that America be a nation of farmers is also not to be.
> If we double the size of America again with almost uninhabited land, government
> will grow some more.
Click to expand...


America does not need to double in geographic size for government to grow.  Government growing is a certainty...like the sun raising in the East.  

A great man said it well...long ago...too bad so many Americans are clueless...
*Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

George Washington*


----------



## Agit8r

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see your point, but you do not see mine.
> 
> 
> I do not believe we NEED a centralized government at all.  Eliminate it altogether and we will be much better off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is that we do not need a centralized government, but that like Jefferson's desire that America be a nation of farmers is also not to be.
> If we double the size of America again with almost uninhabited land, government
> will grow some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America does not need to double in geographic size for government to grow.  Government growing is a certainty...like the sun raising in the East.
> 
> A great man said it well...long ago...too bad so many Americans are clueless...
> *Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
> 
> George Washington*
Click to expand...


And he also said:

"The Men who oppose a strong & energetic government are, in my opinion, narrow minded politicians"
-- *George Washington*; from letter to Alexander Hamilton (July 10, 1787)


And, yes; too bad so many Americans are clueless!


----------



## gipper

Agit8r said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is that we do not need a centralized government, but that like Jefferson's desire that America be a nation of farmers is also not to be.
> If we double the size of America again with almost uninhabited land, government
> will grow some more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America does not need to double in geographic size for government to grow.  Government growing is a certainty...like the sun raising in the East.
> 
> A great man said it well...long ago...too bad so many Americans are clueless...
> *Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
> 
> George Washington*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he also said:
> 
> "The Men who oppose a strong & energetic government are, in my opinion, narrow minded politicians"
> -- *George Washington*; from letter to Alexander Hamilton (July 10, 1787)
> 
> 
> And, yes; too bad so many Americans are clueless!
Click to expand...


That quote only proves that even great men can be wrong occasionally. However, if you believe he meant by that statement, he would find acceptable the uncontrolled omnipresent government we have today, you need to think again.

A short analysis of the history of government, throughout human history, proves it to be the most detrimental force ever devised by man.  It is a simple fact.  The history of the 20th century alone, proves this fact conclusively.


----------



## Agit8r

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Jefferson wanted the territory so everyone could be an independent framer farther away from the, in effect, smaller central govt...



No, and no:

"I am also much pleased with the proposition to the states to invest Congress with the regulation of their trade... I am very differently affected towards the new plan of opening our land office by dividing the lands among the states and selling them at vendue. It separates still more the interests of the states which ought to be made joint in every possible instance in order to cultivate the idea of our being one nation, and to multiply the instances in which the people shall look up to Congress as their head. And when the states get their portions they will either fool them away, or make a job of it to serve individuals" 
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to James Monroe (June 17, 1785)


"manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort; and if those who quote me as of a different opinion, will keep pace with me in purchasing nothing foreign where an equivalent of domestic fabric can be obtained, without regard to difference of price, it will not be our fault if we do not soon have a supply at home equal to our demand"
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to Benjamin Austin (Jan 9, 1816)


----------



## regent

Certainly Jefferson changed some of his views as he and the nation aged. His terms as president also had an effect on his perspective. I usually check the dates on his quotes to see where he was at, at the time of the quote.


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, by the time the Republican Party was founded, Jefferson had been dead 28 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Jefferson and Madison didn't found the Republican party in 1793 or so I'll pay you $10,000. Bet? What party do you think they founded?
Click to expand...


Eddy has already paid me $10K _twice _for proving to him and making him admit that Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

gipper said:


> Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
> 
> George Washington




and that makes liberals anti-American which explains why they spied for Stalin when he was slowing starving 60 million to death and why they elected Obama.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Agit8r said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson wanted the territory so everyone could be an independent framer farther away from the, in effect, smaller central govt...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, and no:
Click to expand...



so you feel in your liberal heart that Jefferson wanted the purchase to draw people closer to a more powerful central govt? Why?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

gipper said:


> .  It is a simple fact.  The history of the 20th century alone, proves this fact conclusively.



yes, the 20th Century was the most recent, most liberal, and bloodiest in human history yet  liberals are not detered. It demonstrates perfectly  how utterly brainless and worthy of the disrespect they get they are. Is any other conclusion possible?


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
> 
> George Washington
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that makes liberals anti-American which explains why they spied for Stalin when he was slowing starving 60 million to death and why they elected Obama.
Click to expand...


First of all, Liberalism IS America.  It's what we're made of.  It's what the whole Constitution is about.

Second, got a source for that Washington quote?



No?  Didn't think so.  Here, try this.  James Fenimore Cooper says hey.

That'll be another $10,000.  I take PayPal.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, by the time the Republican Party was founded, Jefferson had been dead 28 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Jefferson and Madison didn't found the Republican party in 1793 or so I'll pay you $10,000. Bet? What party do you think they founded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Democratic-Republican" Party, which, like the Whigs and the Federalists, no longer exists and is unrelated to the current Republican Party, founded in *1854*.
> 
> Pay up.
Click to expand...


Dear, what makes you think he founded the Democratic-Republican Party rather than the Republican Party?


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, Eddy, you have tell us, not the other way around.

Why do you think it so when it is not and you have admitted that before?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> First of all, Liberalism IS America.



of course you are a typical liberal liar!! if that was true the Constitution would not have limited the govt to a few enumerated powers!!

Liberals judges could intrepret in literally rather than any way they want and its writer would not have said:

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


How does he feel to be a liar?Are you proud of yourself?


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Jefferson and Madison didn't found the Republican party in 1793 or so I'll pay you $10,000. Bet? What party do you think they founded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "Democratic-Republican" Party, which, like the Whigs and the Federalists, no longer exists and is unrelated to the current Republican Party, founded in *1854*.
> 
> Pay up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear, what makes you think he founded the Democratic-Republican Party rather than the Republican Party?
Click to expand...


Uh-- all the history books in the world.  And the fact that the actual Republican Party that exists now, would not be formed until over sixty years after the date in your idiotic OP.  Which, again, we refuted a year ago when the history books all said the same thing then too.  Dumbass.

Postal money order will be OK too.


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Liberalism IS America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course you are a typical liberal liar!! if that was true the Constitution would not have limited the govt to a few enumerated powers!!
Click to expand...


Of course it would.  That was the whole point of Liberalism.

>>  Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property[7] and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.

The revolutionaries of the Glorious Revolution, American Revolution, segments of the French Revolution, and other liberal revolutionaries from that time used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Spanish America, and North America. << (Wiki - I kept it basic for your simplistic reading level)​
You've got one fuck of a nerve making up bullshit threads based on nothing and then calling other people liars.  Eat a hot red neg.  After that, go fuck yourself.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Eddy is slow but persistent.

He is a paid blogger, with a company where only number of posts counts.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear, what makes you think he founded the Democratic-Republican Party rather than the Republican Party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-- all the history books in the world. .
Click to expand...


well its worth $10,000 if you have one  good history book that says that. Is it a bet?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Liberalism IS America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course you are a typical liberal liar!! if that was true the Constitution would not have limited the govt to a few enumerated powers!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it would.  That was the whole point of Liberalism.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


ah, so you are saying the whole point of liberalism was to limit govt to a few enumerated powers?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson wanted the territory so everyone could be an independent framer farther away from the, in effect, smaller central govt...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, and no:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you feel in your liberal heart that Jefferson wanted the purchase to draw people closer to a more powerful central govt? Why?
Click to expand...


There were a number of reasons Jefferson wanted Louisiana besides the 3 cents an acre part; the Mississippi River meant, commerce and trade on that river and it meant, New Orleans. Three eighths of our trade went through that port. It was the highlight of Jefferson's presidency.


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear, what makes you think he founded the Democratic-Republican Party rather than the Republican Party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-- all the history books in the world. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well its worth $10,000 if you have one  good history book that says that. Is it a bet?
Click to expand...


Better than that DUMBASS --

>> Grand New Party

It began in a little schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, in *1854*. A small group of dedicated abolitionists gathered to fight the expansion of slavery, and they gave birth to a Party dedicated to freedom and equal opportunity.
The name Republican was chosen, alluding to Thomas Jeffersons Democratic-Republican Party and conveying a commitment to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

The Party was formally organized in July *1854* by thousands of anti-slavery activists at a convention in Jackson, Michigan. And it was no accident that two years later, *in 1856, the first Republican National Convention took place* in Philadelphia, where the Constitution was written. <<  Source: *gop.com* <<​
Now pay the fuck up.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-- all the history books in the world. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well its worth $10,000 if you have one  good history book that says that. Is it a bet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better than that DUMBASS --
> 
> >> Grand New Party
> 
> It began in a little schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, in *1854*. A small group of dedicated abolitionists gathered to fight the expansion of slavery, and they gave birth to a Party dedicated to freedom and equal opportunity.
> The name Republican was chosen, alluding to Thomas Jeffersons Democratic-Republican Party and conveying a commitment to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> The Party was formally organized in July *1854* by thousands of anti-slavery activists at a convention in Jackson, Michigan. And it was no accident that two years later, *in 1856, the first Republican National Convention took place* in Philadelphia, where the Constitution was written. <<  Source: *gop.com* <<​
> Now pay the fuck up.
Click to expand...


But this does not account for Jefferson's party does it? Do you accept the bet as legally binding?


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> well its worth $10,000 if you have one  good history book that says that. Is it a bet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better than that DUMBASS --
> 
> >> Grand New Party
> 
> It began in a little schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, in *1854*. A small group of dedicated abolitionists gathered to fight the expansion of slavery, and they gave birth to a Party dedicated to freedom and equal opportunity.
> The name &#8220;Republican&#8221; was chosen, alluding to Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s Democratic-Republican Party and conveying a commitment to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> The Party was formally organized in July *1854* by thousands of anti-slavery activists at a convention in Jackson, Michigan. And it was no accident that two years later, *in 1856, the first Republican National Convention took place* in Philadelphia, where the Constitution was written. <<  Source: *gop.com* <<​
> Now pay the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this does not account for Jefferson's party does it? Do you accept the bet as legally binding?
Click to expand...


It doesn't NEED to account for Jefferson's party any more than September needs to account for April.  *They're not connected.*  In 1854 the Democratic Party already existed, so they took the other half of Jefferson's party's name.

The party Jefferson founded, which opposed the *Federalists*, split into two parties, one of which was called the *National Republican Party* -- which lasted all of nine years (1824-1833) and evolved with some other factions into the *Whig Party* (which no longer exists) --- the other party formed in the 1824 split was the *Democratic Party*, which still exists today as the oldest political party in the world.

The Democratic-Republican Party -- the one Jefferson and Madison actually DID invent, *was dissolved in 1825*.  A hundred and eighy-nine years ago.  Its only living descendant is the Democratic Party.

*NONE* of these were ancestors of the Republican Party which exists now.  As for Thomas Jefferson, if anything one side of the party he founded became the modern _*Democratic *_Party, not the modern Republican Party.  The latter still didn't exist.

The First Party System (1791 to about 1820) included the Federalists (the "big government" advocates) and the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson who opposed the Federalists.

The Second Party System (1820s to 1850s) featured the Democratic Party (which we still have today), the Whigs, and several minor parties such as the Free Soilers.

The Third Party System began with the collapse of the Whigs in 1852 and the formation of the Republican Party in 1854 (noted above).  *THIS *is where your Republican Party comes from.  Not Jefferson.

For Chissake, lift a mental finger and crack a history book instead of looking like an idiot on a message board, getting yourself schooled, and then coming back a year later to dig yourself into the same hole all over again expecting different results.


----------



## whitehall

It's a moot point. Jefferson was the poster child for liberalism in his day. Republicans were the party of liberalism during the revolution and it's aftermath. The problem is that today's version of liberalism would be unrecognizable to the FF. JFK was the last liberal democrat. Today's liberals are some sort of hybrid cross between Joe Stalin and Al Capone.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear, what makes you think he founded the Democratic-Republican Party rather than the Republican Party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-- all the history books in the world. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well its worth $10,000 if you have one  good history book that says that. Is it a bet?
Click to expand...


What's a "good" history book, does that mean you have to approve of the book as being good? How about a government book, would that qualify? And how long would it be before you paid the money?


----------



## Wry Catcher

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sad but true, our liberals spied for Stalin's big liberal govt and never had any respect or understanding of Jeffersonian/Madisonian freedom from big liberal govt. In fact, our Constitution was little more than an attempt to make liberalism illegal in America.



You're incredibly ignorant.

Having now read other posts on this thread, don't feel too bad - you're not alone.


----------



## Pogo

whitehall said:


> It's a moot point. Jefferson was the poster child for liberalism in his day. *Republicans were the party of liberalism during the revolution* and it's aftermath. The problem is that today's version of liberalism would be unrecognizable to the FF. JFK was the last liberal democrat. Today's liberals are some sort of hybrid cross between Joe Stalin and Al Capone.



Wrong.  Wrong wrong wrong and unspeakably ignorant.

As already spelled out, above, in the same thread a year ago, and in every history book in the last century and a half, the Republican Party _*didn't even exist*_ at the time of the Revolution.  In fact _*no*_ parties existed.

Gotta wonder where the fuck some people pull their history from.  This one thinks the Revolution was a party platform that was voted in.


----------



## JWBooth

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> well its worth $10,000 if you have one  good history book that says that. Is it a bet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better than that DUMBASS -->> Grand New Party
> 
> It began in a little schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, in *1854*. A small group of dedicated abolitionists gathered to fight the expansion of slavery, and they gave birth to a Party dedicated to freedom and equal opportunity.
> The name &#8220;Republican&#8221; was chosen, alluding to Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s Democratic-Republican Party and conveying a commitment to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> The Party was formally organized in July *1854* by thousands of anti-slavery activists at a convention in Jackson, Michigan. And it was no accident that two years later, *in 1856, the first Republican National Convention took place* in Philadelphia, where the Constitution was written. <<  Source: *gop.com* <<​Now pay the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this does not account for Jefferson's party does it? Do you accept the bet as legally binding?
Click to expand...



Edwena is gonna keep dodging, ducking and denying that the tip of the foil ever made contact.  Something akin to Monty Python's black knight.


----------



## Pogo

JWBooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better than that DUMBASS -->> Grand New Party
> 
> It began in a little schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, in *1854*. A small group of dedicated abolitionists gathered to fight the expansion of slavery, and they gave birth to a Party dedicated to freedom and equal opportunity.
> The name Republican was chosen, alluding to Thomas Jeffersons Democratic-Republican Party and conveying a commitment to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> The Party was formally organized in July *1854* by thousands of anti-slavery activists at a convention in Jackson, Michigan. And it was no accident that two years later, *in 1856, the first Republican National Convention took place* in Philadelphia, where the Constitution was written. <<  Source: *gop.com* <<​Now pay the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this does not account for Jefferson's party does it? Do you accept the bet as legally binding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Edwena is gonna keep dodging, ducking and denying that the tip of the foil ever made contact.  Something akin to Monty Python's black knight.
Click to expand...


Special Ed's new avatar:


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> But this does not account for Jefferson's party does it? Do you accept the bet as legally binding?


  Of course it does not, dear.  You finally got something right.  You see, the modern Democratic Party evolved from Jefferson's party and the GOP began in 1854.


----------



## JWBooth

JakeStarkey said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this does not account for Jefferson's party does it? Do you accept the bet as legally binding?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does not, dear.  You finally got something right.  You see, the modern Democratic Party evolved from Jefferson's party and the GOP began in 1854.
Click to expand...


Edwina has been schooled numerous times on the evolution of both modern parties but, as with the black knight, he refuses to acknowledge when he has been bested and is nothing more than a comic buffoon.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this does not account for Jefferson's party does it? Do you accept the bet as legally binding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't NEED to account for Jefferson's party any more than September needs to account for April.  *They're [Jefferson's Republicans and Lincoln's Republicans]not connected.*.
Click to expand...


Not connected?

In 1838 leading Whig politicians selected him[Horace Greely] to edit a major national campaign newspaper, the Jeffersonian, which reached 15,000 circulation


not connected???? "The name &#8220;Republican&#8221; was chosen[by Greely], alluding to Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s Democratic-Republican Party and conveying a commitment to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Sorry to rock your world,dear.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, eddy dear, the paper edited by Greely was a Whig publication, foreshadowing the Republican connection sixteen years later, and having nothing to do with the Jeffersonian party or the Democratic Party.

Where did you study, eddy?  You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, and no:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you feel in your liberal heart that Jefferson wanted the purchase to draw people closer to a more powerful central govt? Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were a number of reasons Jefferson wanted Louisiana besides the 3 cents an acre part; the Mississippi River meant, commerce and trade on that river and it meant, New Orleans. Three eighths of our trade went through that port. It was the highlight of Jefferson's presidency.
Click to expand...


dear, the question was about Jefferson's thoughts on individual liberty and the purchase. Can you answer the question?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

whitehall said:


> It's a moot point. Jefferson was the poster child for liberalism in his day.



that is true only if you mean the poster child for freedom from big liberal govt.


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this does not account for Jefferson's party does it? Do you accept the bet as legally binding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't NEED to account for Jefferson's party any more than September needs to account for April.  *They're [Jefferson's Republicans and Lincoln's Republicans]not connected.*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not connected?
> 
> In 1838 leading Whig politicians selected him[Horace Greely] to edit a major national campaign newspaper, the Jeffersonian, which reached 15,000 circulation
> 
> 
> not connected???? "The name &#8220;Republican&#8221; was chosen[by Greely], alluding to Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s Democratic-Republican Party and conveying a commitment to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Sorry to rock your world,dear.
Click to expand...


In 1838, neither Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, nor the current Republican Party, _*existed*_.  Matter of fact neither did Jefferson himself.

The word "Republican" was already a hundred years old before Jefferson and Madison used it.  _The fact that two disconnected entities in different times and places employ the same word in no way means they are the same entities_.

Trust me, "dear", you haven't rocked anything except my underestimation of the bounds of abject human stupidity.


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a moot point. Jefferson was the poster child for liberalism in his day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is true only if you mean the poster child for freedom from *big liberal govt*.
Click to expand...


That's an oxymoron.

Take off the _oxy_ part and you have a mirror.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-- all the history books in the world. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well its worth $10,000 if you have one  good history book that says that. Is it a bet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's a "good" history book, does that mean you have to approve of the book as being good? How about a government book, would that qualify? And how long would it be before you paid the money?
Click to expand...


a good history book would be one that used primary sources to show the name of Jefferson's Party in the 18th Century. A newspaper article or Congressional Record would be excellent primary sources.


"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.

Again, welcome to your first lesson in American History


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Jeffersonian Party has been considered throughout the forerunner of the Democratic Party.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a moot point. Jefferson was the poster child for liberalism in his day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is true only if you mean the poster child for freedom from *big liberal govt*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an oxymoron.
> 
> Take off the _oxy_ part and you have a mirror.
Click to expand...


dear, can you say why its an oxymoron?

liberals spied for Stalin because they hate freedom not beuase they love it. Do you understand?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conservatives aided Hitler because they hated freedom.  Do you understand?


----------



## Wry Catcher

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> well its worth $10,000 if you have one  good history book that says that. Is it a bet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's a "good" history book, does that mean you have to approve of the book as being good? How about a government book, would that qualify? And how long would it be before you paid the money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a good history book would be one that used primary sources to show the name of Jefferson's Party in the 18th Century. A newspaper article or Congressional Record would be excellent primary sources.
> 
> 
> "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.
> 
> Again, welcome to your first lesson in American History
Click to expand...


The Congressional Record is a fiction.  It is only a record of what each member of congress chooses to edit and have published.

"In order to get the Record printed and available to members for the next day of business, a daily Record is produced. By custom and by the rules of each House, members can Ã¢â¬Årevise and extendÃ¢â¬? the remarks they actually made on the floor before the debates are published in the daily Record and in the final Congressional Record. The final, paper-bound Record takes several years to be published."

See:  10. The Congressional Record | The Open House Project


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Wry Catcher said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's a "good" history book, does that mean you have to approve of the book as being good? How about a government book, would that qualify? And how long would it be before you paid the money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a good history book would be one that used primary sources to show the name of Jefferson's Party in the 18th Century. A newspaper article or Congressional Record would be excellent primary sources.
> 
> 
> "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.
> 
> Again, welcome to your first lesson in American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Congressional Record is a fiction.  It is only a record of what each member of congress chooses to edit and have published.
> 
> "In order to get the Record printed and available to members for the next day of business, a daily Record is produced. By custom and by the rules of each House, members can Ã¢â¬Årevise and extendÃ¢â¬? the remarks they actually made on the floor before the debates are published in the daily Record and in the final Congressional Record. The final, paper-bound Record takes several years to be published."
> 
> See:  10. The Congressional Record | The Open House Project
Click to expand...


not true in the 1790's and certainly there was no reason then for them not to know and use the correct names of political parties then. Here's an example:

1)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





2)
On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. 
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823


----------



## JakeStarkey

delusional eddy rants on

let's move this to the badlands, please.


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> well its worth $10,000 if you have one  good history book that says that. Is it a bet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's a "good" history book, does that mean you have to approve of the book as being good? How about a government book, would that qualify? And how long would it be before you paid the money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a good history book would be one that used primary sources to show the name of Jefferson's Party in the 18th Century. A newspaper article or Congressional Record would be excellent primary sources.
> 
> 
> "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.
> 
> Again, welcome to your first lesson in American History
Click to expand...


You are a true blind idiot.

Once again, using the same word does not mean it's the same entity.  Jefferson's party also used the word "Democratic".  For that matter the National Republican Party (1824) used the word Republican and it ceased to exist in 1833.  Then there was the American Republican Party, which devolved into the Know Nothings and dissolved by 1860 -- which is six years AFTER today's Republican Party formed.  Are you trying to tell the world that there were two Republican Parties for six years that were the same thing?  Some kind of "holy trinity" in twos?  Moreover I quoted you the history of the Republican Party _*from the Republican Party's own website*_ confirming the 1854 date.  You're saying they're _lying about their own history_?

Exactly how stupid a hole are you willing to dig here? 

Here's the Republican People's Party of Turkey -- same thing as the so-called "GOP"?

Germany has four different parties with the word _Democratic_ in their name.  Are we to believe they're all the same party as Jefferson's?  With four different philosophies ranging from far left to far right?


Let's dumb it down to a level maybe even your tiny mind might grasp:

This is a *Lancer*, made by the Dodge division of the Chrysler Corporation, Detroit Michigan, USA:




This is a *Lancer*, made by the Mitsubishi Corporation of Tokyo, Japan:




Same car, right?  Must be the same car -- it has the same name!

By your thread title's logic then:
"If Dodge invented the Lancer in 1955, Japanese cars have no place on our roads".

Idiot.


----------



## Pogo

Interesting found object: world map of perceived perception in national political parties.  Check us out:.





Go Morrocco!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> Jefferson's party also used the word "Democratic". ?



I will bet you $10,000 that it did not use the word Democratic in the 18th Century. Bet? Yes or no? 1000 primary sources can confirm or deny this.

So, we have established that Jefferson's Party and the modern version went/go by the name Republican and more importantly both stood for very very limited govt or freedom from big liberal govt.

Are you catching on now?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson's party also used the word "Democratic". ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will bet you $10,000 that it did not use the word Democratic in the 18th Century. Bet? Yes or no? 1000 primary sources can confirm or deny this.
> 
> So, we have established that Jefferson's Party and the modern version went/go by the name Republican and more importantly both stood for very very limited govt or freedom from big liberal govt.
> 
> Are you catching on now?
Click to expand...


I think it would be more accurate to say the Jeffersonian's were against big conservative government, as Britain's, not big liberal government. When did America have big liberal government until it was allowed under the new liberal Constitution?


----------



## JakeStarkey

That Jefferson opposed Hamilton and his version of American economic and cultural goals: yes.

That either were liberal or conservative by our standards today is impossible to pin down: different world, different times.

EB, at the very least, is guilty of 'pre-sentism' and a lack of understanding the era of federalism.


----------



## DriftingSand

JakeStarkey said:


> That Jefferson opposed Hamilton and his version of American economic and cultural goals: yes.
> 
> That either were liberal or conservative by our standards today is impossible to pin down: different world, different times.
> 
> EB, at the very least, is guilty of 'pre-sentism' and a lack of understanding the era of federalism.



I'd say that Hamilton was likely the more liberal of the two. I believe he was more fond of a big, powerful, central government than Jefferson was but I'd have to brush up on my history to be sure.  I certainly lean towards Jeffersonian politics and philosophy.


----------



## bendog

Well, he and strom had weakness for the darker side, but beyond that .... fail.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> I think it would be more accurate to say the Jeffersonian's were against big conservative government,



of course thats 100% illiterate and liberal. THe battle in human history from Plato forward was between freedom (modern conservative) and big government ( modern liberal). So, big government is by definition liberal! Jefferson is by definition conservative.

A child could grasp that just not your typical liberal!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

DriftingSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That Jefferson opposed Hamilton and his version of American economic and cultural goals: yes.
> 
> That either were liberal or conservative by our standards today is impossible to pin down: different world, different times.
> 
> EB, at the very least, is guilty of 'pre-sentism' and a lack of understanding the era of federalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that Hamilton was likely the more liberal of the two. I believe he was more fond of a big, powerful, central government than Jefferson was but I'd have to brush up on my history to be sure.  I certainly lean towards Jeffersonian politics and philosophy.
Click to expand...


yes Jefferson despised Hamilton and  left the Washington administration to form the Republican party with Madison to bury Hamilton and his Federalist big govt liberal scams.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would be more accurate to say the Jeffersonian's were against big conservative government,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course thats 100% illiterate and liberal. THe battle in human history from Plato forward was between freedom (modern conservative) and big government ( modern liberal). So, big government is by definition liberal! Jefferson is by definition conservative.
> 
> A child could grasp that just not your typical liberal!
Click to expand...


Next Jefferson will become a female and Truman a Republican. Jefferson disliked big government until he became the government and then it seems his fear began to die, slowly to be true, but dying. 
If this were 1776 many of us would be fearful of big government but this is not 1776 and liberals now see government as a tool to be used to better people's lives.  In 1776 the elites saw government as their tool. The government tool has now changed hands, democracy can do that. Welcome to 2014.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> and liberals now see government as a tool to be used to better people's lives.



Yes Hitler Stalin and Mao were excellent examples of what liberalism can do!! Why do you think our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb? Why do you think our liberals attacked and destroyed the American family and schools attempting to better peoples lives?!! And why do you think they drove 40 millions jobs away with their taxes and unions if not to better peoples lives?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> and liberals now see government as a tool to be used to better people's lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Hitler Stalin and Mao were excellent examples of what liberalism can do!! Why do you think our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb? Why do you think our liberals attacked and destroyed the American family and schools attempting to better peoples lives?!! And why do you think they drove 40 millions jobs away with their taxes and unions if not to better peoples lives?
Click to expand...


I was discussing Jefferson and his take on the size of government and you bring in Stalin and Mao. That's desperation.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> and liberals now see government as a tool to be used to better people's lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Hitler Stalin and Mao were excellent examples of what liberalism can do!! Why do you think our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb? Why do you think our liberals attacked and destroyed the American family and schools attempting to better peoples lives?!! And why do you think they drove 40 millions jobs away with their taxes and unions if not to better peoples lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was discussing Jefferson and his take on the size of government and you bring in Stalin and Mao. That's desperation.
Click to expand...


why when they are related!!  

"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


----------



## JakeStarkey

Eddy is what far right nuttiness does: leads to the Hitlers and such.


----------



## Pogo

DriftingSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That Jefferson opposed Hamilton and his version of American economic and cultural goals: yes.
> 
> That either were liberal or conservative by our standards today is impossible to pin down: different world, different times.
> 
> EB, at the very least, is guilty of 'pre-sentism' and a lack of understanding the era of federalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I'd say that Hamilton was likely the more liberal of the two. I believe he was more fond of a big, powerful, central government than Jefferson was* but I'd have to brush up on my history to be sure.  I certainly lean towards Jeffersonian politics and philosophy.
Click to expand...


Your second sentence is correct, but that makes him _less_ liberal, not more.


----------



## Pogo

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson's party also used the word "Democratic". ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will bet you $10,000 that it did not use the word Democratic in the 18th Century. Bet? Yes or no? 1000 primary sources can confirm or deny this.
> 
> So, we have established that Jefferson's Party and the modern version went/go by the name Republican and more importantly both stood for very very limited govt or freedom from big liberal govt.
> 
> Are you catching on now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it would be more accurate to say the Jeffersonian's were against big conservative government, as Britain's, not big liberal government. When did America have big liberal government until it was allowed under the new liberal Constitution?
Click to expand...


Exactly -- but trying to converse with Special Ed is like trying to discuss elements of microbiology with Pee Wee Herman.


----------



## Agit8r

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson's party also used the word "Democratic". ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will bet you $10,000 that it did not use the word Democratic in the 18th Century. Bet? Yes or no? 1000 primary sources can confirm or deny this.
> 
> So, we have established that Jefferson's Party and the modern version went/go by the name Republican and more importantly both stood for very very limited govt or freedom from big liberal govt.
> 
> Are you catching on now?
Click to expand...


Around that time, yes:

"Is there not, my friend, reason to believe, that the principles of Democratic Republicanism are already better understood than they were before; and that by the continued efforts of Men of Science and Virtue, they will extend more and more till the turbulent and destructive Spirit of War shall cease?*The proud oppressors over the Earth shall be totally broken down and those classes of Men who have hitherto been the victims of their rage and cruelty shall perpetually enjoy perfect Peace and Safety till time shall be no more."
-- *Samuel Adams*; letter to Thomas Jefferson (Nov, 18th 1801) 

"We of the United States, you know, are constitutionally and conscientiously democrats."
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to P. S. Dupont de Nemours (April 24, 1816)


----------



## Agit8r

DriftingSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That Jefferson opposed Hamilton and his version of American economic and cultural goals: yes.
> 
> That either were liberal or conservative by our standards today is impossible to pin down: different world, different times.
> 
> EB, at the very least, is guilty of 'pre-sentism' and a lack of understanding the era of federalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that Hamilton was likely the more liberal of the two. I believe he was more fond of a big, powerful, central government than Jefferson was but I'd have to brush up on my history to be sure.  I certainly lean towards Jeffersonian politics and philosophy.
Click to expand...


I'll help you brush up:

"legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." 
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to James Madison, (Oct. 28, 1785)


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Agit8r said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That Jefferson opposed Hamilton and his version of American economic and cultural goals: yes.
> 
> That either were liberal or conservative by our standards today is impossible to pin down: different world, different times.
> 
> EB, at the very least, is guilty of 'pre-sentism' and a lack of understanding the era of federalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that Hamilton was likely the more liberal of the two. I believe he was more fond of a big, powerful, central government than Jefferson was but I'd have to brush up on my history to be sure.  I certainly lean towards Jeffersonian politics and philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll help you brush up:
> 
> "legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
> -- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to James Madison, (Oct. 28, 1785)
Click to expand...


of course one quote does not tell you much especially when property was granted by govt and inequality was caused by govt!!

I'll help you brush up:

"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." --37)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." --38)Thomas Jefferson: Note 
in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.

Do you see why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?


----------



## Agit8r

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> when property was granted by govt and inequality was caused by govt!!



Which is precisely how it is now.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Agit8r said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> when property was granted by govt and inequality was caused by govt!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely how it is now.
Click to expand...


now we have lib govt massively interfering with families and business causing huge inequality.


----------



## Agit8r

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> when property was granted by govt and inequality was caused by govt!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely how it is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> now we have lib govt massively interfering with families and business causing huge inequality.
Click to expand...


Really?  Examples?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Agit8r said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely how it is now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now we have lib govt massively interfering with families and business causing huge inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Examples?
Click to expand...


Too easy!!! welfare programs destroyed the American family and the highest tax rates in the world drove many corporations in whole or in part off shore thus creating huge inequality! See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?


----------



## Agit8r

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> now we have lib govt massively interfering with families and business causing huge inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too easy!!! welfare programs destroyed the American family and the highest tax rates in the world drove many corporations in whole or in part off shore thus creating huge inequality! See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?
Click to expand...


I asked for examples and you gave talking points uncorroborated by any evidence.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Agit8r said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Examples?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too easy!!! welfare programs destroyed the American family and the highest tax rates in the world drove many corporations in whole or in part off shore thus creating huge inequality! See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked for examples and you gave talking points uncorroborated by any evidence.
Click to expand...


dear, highest taxes in world is a fact and a talking point! See why we say slow?


----------



## Agit8r

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too easy!!! welfare programs destroyed the American family and the highest tax rates in the world drove many corporations in whole or in part off shore thus creating huge inequality! See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for examples and you gave talking points uncorroborated by any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, highest taxes in world is a fact and a talking point! See why we say slow?
Click to expand...


Though I do agree with bringing corporate tax rates down (while replacing said revenue with taxes on stock transactions) it is not a certain fact that we have the "highest taxes" because most companies avail themselves of various loopholes and incentives, that bring their particular tax burden down.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Agit8r said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for examples and you gave talking points uncorroborated by any evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, highest taxes in world is a fact and a talking point! See why we say slow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though I do agree with bringing corporate tax rates down (while replacing said revenue with taxes on stock transactions) it is not a certain fact that we have the "highest taxes" because most companies avail themselves of various loopholes and incentives, that bring their particular tax burden down.
Click to expand...


dear, the loopholes require them to move out of the country in order to reduce their tax burden. Now you can see why taxes should be eliminated to end Obama's recession and create a huge boom! 

Ireland dropped their rates to 12.5% and most corporations relocated there in whole or on part. NYC state and many others are currently offering tax incentives for companies to move there!!.

A child can understand just not a liberal. Sad- right?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, highest taxes in world is a fact and a talking point! See why we say slow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though I do agree with bringing corporate tax rates down (while replacing said revenue with taxes on stock transactions) it is not a certain fact that we have the "highest taxes" because most companies avail themselves of various loopholes and incentives, that bring their particular tax burden down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, the loopholes require them to move out of the country in order to reduce their tax burden. Now you can see why taxes should be eliminated to end Obama's recession and create a huge boom!
> 
> Ireland dropped their rates to 12.5% and most corporations relocated there in whole or on part. NYC state and many others are currently offering tax incentives for companies to move there!!.
> 
> A child can understand just not a liberal. Sad- right?
Click to expand...


Corporations pay for those tax loopholes and if the loopholes do not cover some areas those corporations have elected not to buy some loopholes.


----------



## Agit8r

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dear, the loopholes require them to move out of the country in order to reduce their tax burden.



Now u are regurgitating Democratic talking points?  Wow.



> Now you can see why taxes should be eliminated to end Obama's recession and create a huge boom!



eliminate, right... okey doke 



> Ireland dropped their rates to 12.5% and most corporations relocated there in whole or on part.



If most corporations had relocated to Ireland and paid 12.5%, then why did the EU have to bail Ireland out?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Agit8r said:


> If most corporations had relocated to Ireland and paid 12.5%, then why did the EU have to bail Ireland out?



dear, there was an international financial collapse that had nothing to do with corporate tax rates. You are not intelligent enough to be here. Sorry.


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> If most corporations had relocated to Ireland and paid 12.5%, then why did the EU have to bail Ireland out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, there was an international financial collapse that had nothing to do with corporate tax rates. You are not intelligent enough to be here. Sorry.
Click to expand...


Ironic dropping from a moron who tries to tell us the RP was founded 60 years before it existed, gets completely taken to the woodshed, then comes back a year later and posts the same thing AGAIN, and even after getting completley refuted by the Republican Party's own website history, STILL goes on with it.

Frickin'  wacko.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> If most corporations had relocated to Ireland and paid 12.5%, then why did the EU have to bail Ireland out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, there was an international financial collapse that had nothing to do with corporate tax rates. You are not intelligent enough to be here. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic dropping from a moron who tries to tell us the RP[Republican] was founded 60 years before it existed, gets completely taken to the woodshed, then comes back a year later and posts the same thing AGAIN, and even after getting completley refuted by the Republican Party's own website history, STILL goes on with it.
> 
> Frickin'  wacko.
Click to expand...


If Jefferson and Madison did not found  Republican Party in 1793 I"ll pay you $10,000. Bet? or run away with your liberal tail between your legs yet again.


----------



## Darkwind

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sad but true, our liberals spied for Stalin's big liberal govt and never had any respect or understanding of Jeffersonian/Madisonian freedom from big liberal govt. In fact, our Constitution was little more than an attempt to make liberalism illegal in America.


I hate to break it to you, but the Founding Fathers were what is termed, "Classic Liberals' by today's standards....Meaning they were more closely attenuated with today's Conservatives.....but back then, they WERE the liberals.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Darkwind said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad but true, our liberals spied for Stalin's big liberal govt and never had any respect or understanding of Jeffersonian/Madisonian freedom from big liberal govt. In fact, our Constitution was little more than an attempt to make liberalism illegal in America.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to you, but the Founding Fathers were what is termed, "Classic Liberals' by today's standards....Meaning they were more closely attenuated with today's Conservatives.....but back then, they WERE the liberals.
Click to expand...


1) attenuated does not mean aligned

2)  our Founders  were conservatives in that they were for very very limited govt exactly like modern conservatives. The liberal idea, i.e., big govt, is really socialism lite and has no place in American history or ideology.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad but true, our liberals spied for Stalin's big liberal govt and never had any respect or understanding of Jeffersonian/Madisonian freedom from big liberal govt. In fact, our Constitution was little more than an attempt to make liberalism illegal in America.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to you, but the Founding Fathers were what is termed, "Classic Liberals' by today's standards....Meaning they were more closely attenuated with today's Conservatives.....but back then, they WERE the liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) attenuated does not mean aligned
> 
> 2)  our Founders  were conservatives in that they were for very very limited govt exactly like modern conservatives. The liberal idea, i.e., big govt, is really socialism lite and has no place in American history or ideology.
Click to expand...


If the size of government were the definition of liberal and conservative it would not matter then what government does, but I think most people see what government does as more indicative of ideology than size.  America was founded on liberal ideas and the liberal ideas continue their slow/fast domination of American progress.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> America was founded on liberal ideas and the liberal ideas continue their slow/fast domination of American progress.



if by liberal ideas you mean conservative ideas about very very limited govt you are right! Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> If the size of government were the definition of liberal and conservative it would not matter then what government does, but I think most people see what government does as more indicative of ideology than size.



dear, the ideology of conservatives  is freedom from govt or small sized government. Do you get it now?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> America was founded on liberal ideas and the liberal ideas continue their slow/fast domination of American progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if by liberal ideas you mean conservative ideas about very very limited govt you are right! Do you understand?
Click to expand...


No, I meant liberal ideas not conservative ideas. Do you have any idea of a definition of liberal/conservatism besides the size of government?


----------



## guno

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sad but true, our liberals spied for Stalin's big liberal govt and never had any respect or understanding of Jeffersonian/Madisonian freedom from big liberal govt. In fact, our Constitution was little more than an attempt to make liberalism illegal in America.



"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors".
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

guno said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad but true, our liberals spied for Stalin's big liberal govt and never had any respect or understanding of Jeffersonian/Madisonian freedom from big liberal govt. In fact, our Constitution was little more than an attempt to make liberalism illegal in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors".
> -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
Click to expand...


???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Do you have any idea of a definition of liberal/conservatism besides the size of government?



no because that [freedom versus govt] is the central idea of human history and the central idea of modern Republicans and Democrats. You might say Republicans are smart and Democrats are dumb.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea of a definition of liberal/conservatism besides the size of government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no because that [freedom versus govt] is the central idea of human history and the central idea of modern Republicans and Democrats. You might say Republicans are smart and Democrats are dumb.
Click to expand...


So one more time, if governments take away freedom,  why do people establish governments? People seem to see it as a trade-off, giving up some freedom to have the  security of government? 
We have in our own nation the best example of people giving up freedom to establish a bigger stronger government. After the American revolution Americans had a super duper limited government. We had a government that  could do almost nothing, powerless, not just limited, but almost nonexistent. The founders decided they wanted a stronger larger government with less limits, and more power. So the people created a new stronger government and many of us are grateful for the creation.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> So one more time, if governments take away freedom,  why do people establish governments?.



to establish and maintain freedom, obviously.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> The founders decided they wanted a stronger larger government .



too stupid of course. The Articles gave us a very very very limited govt. Many of our founders did not want a larger govt and accordingingly did not show up for first convention. They did not want a Bill Of Rights, for example, out of fear that if evil govt was given the responsibility to protect rights it would instead subvert that responsibility and use it to instead take away rights. The new govt they created gave us a very very limited govt about 1% the size of the current one on an inflation adjusted per capita basis.

Liberals oppose the concept of limited govt and so are not really Americans. Now you know why they spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb.


Please post on fridge for daily review. Thanks


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, there was an international financial collapse that had nothing to do with corporate tax rates. You are not intelligent enough to be here. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic dropping from a moron who tries to tell us the RP[Republican] was founded 60 years before it existed, gets completely taken to the woodshed, then comes back a year later and posts the same thing AGAIN, and even after getting completley refuted by the Republican Party's own website history, STILL goes on with it.
> 
> Frickin'  wacko.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Jefferson and Madison did not found  Republican Party in 1793 I"ll pay you $10,000. Bet? or run away with your liberal tail between your legs yet again.
Click to expand...



Is that another 10k on top of the 20 you already owe me?  

The RP itself refuted you, right in this thread.  Pay up.

By the way we use articles in English.  You don't "found party", you "found *a* party" or found *the* party.  Jefferson and Madison founded *a* party.  They did not found *the* party.  Don't think you're going to save money with your childish ignorance dance.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> The RP itself refuted you, right in this thread.  Pay up.




PLease tell us what the Republican Party said about Jefferson's Republican Party. Thanks



When Jefferson declared in the passage he did include in his first inaguural that: we are all republicans; we are all federalists." he meant really that the party wars were over; that the Republicans had won;and that the Federalists should fit themselves in...

A.James Reichley "The Life of the Parties"( most thorough look at Party history ever written) Page 52


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that another 10k on top of the 20 you already owe me?
> 
> The RP itself refuted you, right in this thread. Pay up.
> 
> By the way we use articles in English. You don't "found party", you "found *a* party" or found *the* party. Jefferson and Madison founded *a* party. They did not found *the* party.  Don't think you're going to save money with your childish ignorance dance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLease tell us what the Republican Party said about Jefferson's Republican Party. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> When Jefferson declared in the passage he did include in his first inaguural that: we are all *republicans*; we are all federalists." he meant really that the party wars were over; that the Republicans had won;and that the Federalists should fit themselves in...
> 
> A.James Reichley "The Life of the Parties"( most thorough look at Party history ever written) Page 52
Click to expand...


"republicans"  -- small R.  Learn how English works.  If you meant to capitalize them as proper names, then what Jefferson is saying is that we are all Americans regardless of party.  Nothing in that passage indicates a hierarchy.

Please tell me what the bank says about that $30,000 money transfer.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that another 10k on top of the 20 you already owe me?
> 
> The RP itself refuted you, right in this thread. Pay up.
> 
> By the way we use articles in English. You don't "found party", you "found *a* party" or found *the* party. Jefferson and Madison founded *a* party. They did not found *the* party.  Don't think you're going to save money with your childish ignorance dance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLease tell us what the Republican Party said about Jefferson's Republican Party. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> When Jefferson declared in the passage he did include in his first inaguural that: we are all *republicans*; we are all federalists." he meant really that the party wars were over; that the Republicans had won;and that the Federalists should fit themselves in...
> 
> A.James Reichley "The Life of the Parties"( most thorough look at Party history ever written) Page 52
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "republicans"  -- small R.  Learn how English works.  If you meant to capitalize them as proper names, then what Jefferson is saying is that we are all Americans regardless of party.  Nothing in that passage indicates a hierarchy.
> 
> Please tell me what the bank says about that $30,000 money transfer.
Click to expand...

dear Republicans and Federalists were the two parties in the election. SLOW?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> If most corporations had relocated to Ireland and paid 12.5%, then why did the EU have to bail Ireland out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, there was an international financial collapse that had nothing to do with corporate tax rates. You are not intelligent enough to be here. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic dropping from a moron who tries to tell us the RP was founded 60 years before it existed, gets completely taken to the woodshed, then comes back a year later and posts the same thing AGAIN, and even after getting completley refuted by the Republican Party's own website history, STILL goes on with it.
> 
> Frickin'  wacko.
Click to expand...


He did the same thing about China. 

He spouted clueless nonsense, ran off, then came back and regurged the very same stuff. 

He also posted he's a published author ... 

Isn't that right [MENTION=34008]EdwardBaiamonte[/MENTION]


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Luddly Neddite said:


> He spouted clueless nonsense,



can you present an example or admit to being little more than an liar.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Darkwind said:


> I hate to break it to you, but the Founding Fathers were what is termed, "Classic Liberals' by today's standards....Meaning they were more closely attenuated with today's Conservatives.....



this is true the liberal idea of always bigger govt and more welfare is in no way part of the founder's thinking.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

norwegen said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties think our founding was leftist because the Federalists won the constitutional debate. However, they ignore the fact that the Constitution prevented Federalist desires to expand the central authority into a fiscal-military, British-style monarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes and they also forget that the second Jefferson and Madison got wind of what the Federalists wanted they formed the Republican Party and crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, once Madison began to realize the trending power-mongering of the Federalists, he abandoned that party.
Click to expand...


yes and then it promptly died since big liberal government was not part of our Founding. It is an utter lie that modern Democrats have some connection to basic American principles.


----------



## Pogo

norwegen said:


> *Lefties think our founding was leftist*..



Ridiculous.  Where has anyone ever suggested that?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Lefties think our founding was leftist*.../QUOTE]
> 
> Where has anyone ever suggested that?
Click to expand...


to this day liberals claim Jefferson and Jackson as Democrats. Its a great lie that has worked to make it seem Democrats were present at the creation when really they have no place here.


----------



## Pogo

JWBooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The party Jefferson founded became the current Democratic Party.
> 
> The modern Republican Party didn't exist until right before the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) except the current Democratic Party holds the opposite philosophy of Jefferson's Republican party
> 
> 2) except the modern Republcan Party holds the exact limited govt philosophy  of Jefferson's Party
> 
> Modern Democrats are more Marxist than American. Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.
Click to expand...


Indeed. 

And that was in 1854.  When worms were crawling in and out of the eye sockets of the decomposing body of Thomas Jefferson, who died _*freaking 1828*_.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The party Jefferson founded became the current Democratic Party.
> 
> The modern Republican Party didn't exist until right before the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) except the current Democratic Party holds the opposite philosophy of Jefferson's Republican party
> 
> 2) except the modern Republcan Party holds the exact limited govt philosophy  of Jefferson's Party
> 
> Modern Democrats are more Marxist than American. Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> And that was in 1854.  When worms were crawling in and out of the eye sockets of the decomposing body of Thomas Jefferson, who died _*freaking 1828*_.
Click to expand...


Dear, what Party do you think Jefferson Founded in 1793 with Madison?


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Lefties think our founding was leftist*.../QUOTE]
> 
> Where has anyone ever suggested that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> to this day liberals claim Jefferson and Jackson as Democrats. Its a great lie that has worked to make it seem Democrats were present at the creation when really they have no place here.
Click to expand...


"Democrats" didn't exist until around the same time as Jefferson died -- the 1820s.  That accounts for Jackson.

But the poster didn't say "liberals" -- he said "lefties".  I know you don't know the difference since you can't even read a calendar.  But that doesn't mean _he_ doesn't know the difference.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> .
> 
> But the poster didn't say "liberals" -- he said "lefties".



dear, either you're for govt or not. Lefties and liberals spied for Stalin becuase they were for govt.


----------



## JWBooth

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The party Jefferson founded became the current Democratic Party.
> 
> The modern Republican Party didn't exist until right before the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) except the current Democratic Party holds the opposite philosophy of Jefferson's Republican party
> 
> 2) except the modern Republcan Party holds the exact limited govt philosophy  of Jefferson's Party
> 
> Modern Democrats are more Marxist than American. Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> And that was in 1854.  When worms were crawling in and out of the eye sockets of the decomposing body of Thomas Jefferson, who died _*freaking 1828*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear, what Party do you think Jefferson Founded in 1793 with Madison?
Click to expand...




Pogo said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The party Jefferson founded became the current Democratic Party.
> 
> The modern Republican Party didn't exist until right before the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) except the current Democratic Party holds the opposite philosophy of Jefferson's Republican party
> 
> 2) except the modern Republcan Party holds the exact limited govt philosophy  of Jefferson's Party
> 
> Modern Democrats are more Marxist than American. Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> And that was in 1854.  When worms were crawling in and out of the eye sockets of the decomposing body of Thomas Jefferson, who died _*freaking 1828*_.
Click to expand...

Eddie is stuck on stupid, convinced that because nearly  two hundred years ago a group chose to lable itself with a name, a name that they subsequently stopped using, said name directly ties the current group using the lable to the old.


----------



## JWBooth

The silly bugger also suffers under the delusion that because there are some minor rhetorical similarities between the odd goper and Jefferson or Madison, this cements a philosophical tie. Emperrical evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Pogo

JWBooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The party Jefferson founded became the current Democratic Party.
> 
> The modern Republican Party didn't exist until right before the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) except the current Democratic Party holds the opposite philosophy of Jefferson's Republican party
> 
> 2) except the modern Republcan Party holds the exact limited govt philosophy  of Jefferson's Party
> 
> Modern Democrats are more Marxist than American. Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> And that was in 1854.  When worms were crawling in and out of the eye sockets of the decomposing body of Thomas Jefferson, who died _*freaking 1828*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear, what Party do you think Jefferson Founded in 1793 with Madison?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The party Jefferson founded became the current Democratic Party.
> 
> The modern Republican Party didn't exist until right before the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) except the current Democratic Party holds the opposite philosophy of Jefferson's Republican party
> 
> 2) except the modern Republcan Party holds the exact limited govt philosophy  of Jefferson's Party
> 
> Modern Democrats are more Marxist than American. Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> And that was in 1854.  When worms were crawling in and out of the eye sockets of the decomposing body of Thomas Jefferson, who died _*freaking 1828*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eddie is stuck on stupid, convinced that because nearly  two hundred years ago a group chose to lable itself with a name, a name that they subsequently stopped using, said name directly ties the current group using the lable to the old.
Click to expand...


I imagine he thinks Hillary Clinton and George Clinton are the same person too.


----------



## Agit8r

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, there was an international financial collapse that had nothing to do with corporate tax rates. You are not intelligent enough to be here. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic dropping from a moron who tries to tell us the RP[Republican] was founded 60 years before it existed, gets completely taken to the woodshed, then comes back a year later and posts the same thing AGAIN, and even after getting completley refuted by the Republican Party's own website history, STILL goes on with it.
> 
> Frickin'  wacko.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Jefferson and Madison did not found  Republican Party in 1793 I"ll pay you $10,000. Bet? or run away with your liberal tail between your legs yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is that another 10k on top of the 20 you already owe me?
> 
> The RP itself refuted you, right in this thread.  Pay up.
> 
> By the way we use articles in English.  You don't "found party", you "found *a* party" or found *the* party.  Jefferson and Madison founded *a* party.  They did not found *the* party.  Don't think you're going to save money with your childish ignorance dance.
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting for the $10K I'm owed for completely debunking the argument near the beginning of the thread, so don't hold your breath.


----------



## Pogo

Agit8r said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, there was an international financial collapse that had nothing to do with corporate tax rates. You are not intelligent enough to be here. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic dropping from a moron who tries to tell us the RP[Republican] was founded 60 years before it existed, gets completely taken to the woodshed, then comes back a year later and posts the same thing AGAIN, and even after getting completley refuted by the Republican Party's own website history, STILL goes on with it.
> 
> Frickin'  wacko.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Jefferson and Madison did not found  Republican Party in 1793 I"ll pay you $10,000. Bet? or run away with your liberal tail between your legs yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is that another 10k on top of the 20 you already owe me?
> 
> The RP itself refuted you, right in this thread.  Pay up.
> 
> By the way we use articles in English.  You don't "found party", you "found *a* party" or found *the* party.  Jefferson and Madison founded *a* party.  They did not found *the* party.  Don't think you're going to save money with your childish ignorance dance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for the $10K I'm owed for completely debunking the argument near the beginning of the thread, so don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...


Yeah but I debunked him last year when he tried to float this same turd, so ... line forms at da rear Bud.


----------



## Agit8r

gipper said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is that we do not need a centralized government, but that like Jefferson's desire that America be a nation of farmers is also not to be.
> If we double the size of America again with almost uninhabited land, government
> will grow some more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America does not need to double in geographic size for government to grow.  Government growing is a certainty...like the sun raising in the East.
> 
> A great man said it well...long ago...too bad so many Americans are clueless...
> *Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
> 
> George Washington*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he also said:
> 
> "The Men who oppose a strong & energetic government are, in my opinion, narrow minded politicians"
> -- *George Washington*; from letter to Alexander Hamilton (July 10, 1787)
> 
> 
> And, yes; too bad so many Americans are clueless!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That quote only proves that even great men can be wrong occasionally. However, if you believe he meant by that statement, he would find acceptable the uncontrolled omnipresent government we have today, you need to think again.
Click to expand...


Well, let's see...

"Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power."
-- *George Washington*; from letter to John Jay (Aug. 1, 1786)

He may not be a modern liberal, but he wasn't on your side by a long shot


----------



## rdean

Stepping away from the crown and founding an independent country is the ultimate in "liberalism".  This is why conservative Benedict Arnold hated "liberals".
The fact that right wingers don't understand this proves why a lack of education leads to failure.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> , said name directly ties the current group using the lable to the old.



no dear, Jefferson used a name "and philosophy" that are identical to the name "and philosophy" used by modern Republicans. You cant ask for a connection more solid than that can you? If so what would it be?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

rdean said:


> Stepping away from the crown and founding an independent country is the ultimate in "liberalism".



actually liberalism is about very big and always growing govt while our founders stepped away and wanted very very limited conservative govt. See why we say slow?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> The silly bugger also suffers under the delusion that because there are some minor rhetorical similarities between the odd goper and Jefferson or Madison, this cements a philosophical tie. Emperrical evidence to the contrary.



Can the illiterate liberal tell us where Jefferson was not identical to modern Republicans and 100% opposed to modern Democrats? Welcome to your first lesson in American History!

Thomas Jefferson:
*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.

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” 
― James Madison


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.*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Agit8r said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> now we have lib govt massively interfering with families and business causing huge inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too easy!!! welfare programs destroyed the American family and the highest tax rates in the world drove many corporations in whole or in part off shore thus creating huge inequality! See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked for examples and you gave talking points uncorroborated by any evidence.
Click to expand...


you think the Black family is intact and corporations are moving in? See why we are positive liberalism is based in pure and perfect ignorance? When  liberal loses a point he simple lies and pretends he is correct. Its disgusting and 100% liberal.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Agit8r said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> now we have lib govt massively interfering with families and business causing huge inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too easy!!! welfare programs destroyed the American family and the highest tax rates in the world drove many corporations in whole or in part off shore thus creating huge inequality! See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked for examples and you gave talking points uncorroborated by any evidence.
Click to expand...


Examples: Too easy!!! welfare programs destroyed the American family and the highest tax rates in the world drove many corporations in whole or in part off shore thus creating huge inequality! See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?


----------



## Agit8r

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> now we have lib govt massively interfering with families and business causing huge inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too easy!!! welfare programs destroyed the American family and the highest tax rates in the world drove many corporations in whole or in part off shore thus creating huge inequality! See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked for examples and you gave talking points uncorroborated by any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you think the Black family is intact and corporations are moving in? See why we are positive liberalism is based in pure and perfect ignorance? When  liberal loses a point he simple lies and pretends he is correct. Its disgusting and 100% liberal.
Click to expand...


Actually pure and perfect ignorance is the person who wants America to be like China, but who calls all who disagree "communists"


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Agit8r said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> now we have lib govt massively interfering with families and business causing huge inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too easy!!! welfare programs destroyed the American family and the highest tax rates in the world drove many corporations in whole or in part off shore thus creating huge inequality! See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked for examples and you gave talking points uncorroborated by any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you think the Black family is intact and corporations are moving in? See why we are positive liberalism is based in pure and perfect ignorance? When  liberal loses a point he simple lies and pretends he is correct. Its disgusting and 100% liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually pure and perfect ignorance is the person who wants America to be like China, but who calls all who disagree "communists"
Click to expand...


dear, at this point America is more capitalist than China so capitalists are encouraging China to keep the capitalist reforms coming. Simple enough for a very slow liberal?


----------



## Agit8r

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> now we have lib govt massively interfering with families and business causing huge inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too easy!!! welfare programs destroyed the American family and the highest tax rates in the world drove many corporations in whole or in part off shore thus creating huge inequality! See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked for examples and you gave talking points uncorroborated by any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you think the Black family is intact and corporations are moving in? See why we are positive liberalism is based in pure and perfect ignorance? When  liberal loses a point he simple lies and pretends he is correct. Its disgusting and 100% liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually pure and perfect ignorance is the person who wants America to be like China, but who calls all who disagree "communists"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, at this point America is more capitalist than China so capitalists are encouraging China to keep the capitalist reforms coming. Simple enough for a very slow liberal?
Click to expand...


And yet, China is "pro-business" the same way that red states are "pro-business"

Ohhhhhhhh, now I get where the "red" comes from...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Agit8r said:


> And yet, China is "pro-business" the same way that red states are "pro-business"
> .



can the liberal idiot tell us who on earth said that?? You make stuff up and actually beleive it dont you?


----------



## Agit8r

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, China is "pro-business" the same way that red states are "pro-business"
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can the liberal idiot tell us who on earth said that?? You make stuff up and actually beleive it dont you?
Click to expand...


It's common knowledge.  China is anti-union.  They confiscate people's land to build factories for foreign companies.  There are minimal pollution regulations, worker protections, wages, etc.  Same basic blueprint as Idaho, or South Carolina, or Texas.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Agit8r said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, China is "pro-business" the same way that red states are "pro-business"
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can the liberal idiot tell us who on earth said that?? You make stuff up and actually beleive it dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common knowledge.  China is anti-union.  They confiscate people's land to build factories for foreign companies.  There are minimal pollution regulations, worker protections, wages, etc.  Same basic blueprint as Idaho, or South Carolina, or Texas.
Click to expand...


and your point is? if you have any idea


----------



## Pogo

You meanie.  You made Special Ed cry.


----------



## regent

Yeah, those two political parties, both taking the name "Republican" has caused a lot of problems with elementary students over the years at least up to the 8th. grade, but then as the teacher explained it it started to become clearer. Don't worry Eddie you will get it, read some more history and political ideology, and bingo one of these days you  will have it.


JWBooth said:


> The silly bugger also suffers under the delusion that because there are some minor rhetorical similarities between the odd goper and Jefferson or Madison, this cements a philosophical tie. Emperrical evidence to the contrary.


----------



## rdean

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stepping away from the crown and founding an independent country is the ultimate in "liberalism".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually liberalism is about very big and always growing govt while our founders stepped away and wanted very very limited conservative govt. See why we say slow?
Click to expand...


You know that's bullshit.  You just made it up.


----------



## rdean

Agit8r said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, China is "pro-business" the same way that red states are "pro-business"
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can the liberal idiot tell us who on earth said that?? You make stuff up and actually beleive it dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common knowledge.  China is anti-union.  They confiscate people's land to build factories for foreign companies.  There are minimal pollution regulations, worker protections, wages, etc.  Same basic blueprint as Idaho, or South Carolina, or Texas.
Click to expand...


Oh, you made a terrible mistake.  China isn't "anti union".  In fact, the government runs the unions.  It's only "independent" unions they won't allow.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

norwegen said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The party Jefferson founded became the current Democratic Party.
> 
> The modern Republican Party didn't exist until right before the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> Jacksonian Democrats held some of the views that Jeffersonian Republicans did, such as opposition to implied powers and national banks, but Jeffersonian Republicans in no way resembled "current" Democrats.
> 
> The modern Republican Party - the party founded in 1854 - was as much a party of Whigs as the Jeffersonian party was. In any case, the party of republicanism was always in opposition to parties of government control, be it monarchy or democracy.
> 
> That liberals have tried to claim Jefferson as a Democrat only attests to their attempts to revise history.
Click to expand...


yes exactly,  the Democrats are trying to rewrite American history to include themselves in it. In reality their big govt liberalism is opposed to the most basic and fundamental principles of America. It is easy to understand why they spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb and why they elected Obama, a man who had 3 communist parents and voted to left of Bernie Sanders.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.



You're talking about Lincoln's Republican Party, not Jefferson's. Do you know the difference?


----------



## JakeStarkey

You don't know the difference, EB, as been shown repeatedly.

Slavery is the ultimate in conservatism, not classical liberalism, and Jeff and most of his buddies were slavers.


----------



## Samson

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Modern Democrats are more Marxist than American. Do you understand?



No.

*Modern Democrats* compose a political party in the USA

*Marxism* is a worldview and method of societal analysis

*American* a citizen of the United States

To make any sense of your statement, one must assume that BOTH Marxism and...American are methods of societal analysis, and that Modern Democrats subscribe more to the former than the undefined latter. In fact, there is no ONE "American" worldview.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Samson said:


> *Marxism* is a worldview and method of societal analysis



dear, when you copy a definition from wiki you must credit them or risk going to jail!!


Here's a more practical definition that perhaps won't leave you so confused:

"Marxism is the movement founded by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels which fights for the _self-emancipation_ of the working class,"
Marxism by Andy Blunden

Marxism by Andy Blunden


----------



## Samson

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Marxism* is a worldview and method of societal analysis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, when you copy a definition from wiki you must credit them or risk going to jail!!
> 
> 
> Here's a more practical definition that perhaps won't leave you so confused:
> "Marxism is the movement founded by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels which fights for the _self-emancipation_ of the working class,"
> Marxism by Andy Blunden
Click to expand...


So you wanna play, "who can look up more definitions of Marxism" so you can avoid defending the absurd notion that there is some sort of "American movement" to which Modern Democrats don't subscribe?



Keep Trying, but so far your ridiculous thesis has jumped the shark of credibility if this is the best you have to offer as rebuttal.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Samson said:


> In fact, there is no ONE "American" worldview.



You mean our Constitution could incorporate the Nazi,  Marxist, and ISIS worldview?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Samson said:


> the absurd notion that there is some sort of "American movement" to which Modern Democrats don't subscribe?




dear, Democrats spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb, then elected Obama, a man who had 3 libcommie parents and voted to left of Bernie Sanders. What does that teach you?


----------



## Samson

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, there is no ONE "American" worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean our Constitution could incorporate the Nazi,  Marxist, and ISIS worldview?
Click to expand...


So, you believe that Modern Democrats do not believe in the Constitution, which you have defined as the ONLY way an American can associate with the Universe.

How do you imagine Modern Democrats, an American Political Party, cannot be American?

When an answer to this silly notion occurs to you, please share it: if nothing else it will be very amusing.


----------



## Samson

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> the absurd notion that there is some sort of "American movement" to which Modern Democrats don't subscribe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, Democrats spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb, then elected Obama, a man who had 3 libcommie parents and voted to left of Bernie Sanders. What does that teach you?
Click to expand...


It teaches me that all crazy conspiracy theories are not confined to the correct forum.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Samson said:


> In fact, there is no ONE "American" worldview.





EdwardBaiamonte said:


> You mean our Constitution could incorporate the Nazi,  Marxist, and ISIS worldview?



you have failed to answer the question??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Samson said:


> How do you imagine Modern Democrats, an American Political Party, cannot be American?



same way we imagine the Nazi and Communist party cannot be American.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Samson said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> the absurd notion that there is some sort of "American movement" to which Modern Democrats don't subscribe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, Democrats spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb, then elected Obama, a man who had 3 libcommie parents and voted to left of Bernie Sanders. What does that teach you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It teaches me that all crazy conspiracy theories are not confined to the correct forum.
Click to expand...


its a crazy conspiracy theory that  liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb??


----------



## Samson

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, there is no ONE "American" worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean our Constitution could incorporate the Nazi,  Marxist, and ISIS worldview?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have failed to answer the question??
Click to expand...



You mean instead of being rhetorical you really meant to be idiotic?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Samson said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, there is no ONE "American" worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean our Constitution could incorporate the Nazi,  Marxist, and ISIS worldview?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have failed to answer the question??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean instead of being rhetorical you really meant to be idiotic?
Click to expand...


dear, for 3rd time: you have failed to answer the question? How will you learn if you are afriad to try


----------



## JWBooth

Samson said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, there is no ONE "American" worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean our Constitution could incorporate the Nazi,  Marxist, and ISIS worldview?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have failed to answer the question??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean instead of being rhetorical you really meant to be idiotic?
Click to expand...

You had to ask? Of course he does.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, there is no ONE "American" worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean our Constitution could incorporate the Nazi,  Marxist, and ISIS worldview?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have failed to answer the question??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean instead of being rhetorical you really meant to be idiotic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You had to ask? Of course he does.
Click to expand...


if he does please show how or admit as a typical liberal  you lack the IQ to defend what you say.


----------



## JWBooth

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking about Lincoln's Republican Party, not Jefferson's. Do you know the difference?
Click to expand...


I am quite capable of differentiating between the two, yet you keep insisting the party of Lincoln, of Dole, of Bush, of Reagan is the party of Jefferson simply because of the name. The philosophy of Jefferson, who espoused a philosophy of limited government and power devolved to the states, is given mere lip service by the modern GOP.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> The philosophy of Jefferson, who espoused a philosophy of limited government and power devolved to the states, is given mere lip service by the modern GOP.



it is?? most Republicans have signed the pledge while  no Democrats have. See why we say slow?


----------



## JWBooth

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The philosophy of Jefferson, who espoused a philosophy of limited government and power devolved to the states, is given mere lip service by the modern GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is?? most Republicans have signed the pledge while  no Democrats have. See why we say slow?
Click to expand...


Ohhhh a pledge, wow, not like they ever have any intention of following up. Mere lip service.
When was the last time GOPers, when they actually had the power to do so, actually shrank government?
In real terms now, not the rate of growth, but actually shrank the scope, the reach, the spending of government.

What's this "we" shit, got another mental midget sitting there helping you type?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> Ohhhh a pledge, wow, not like they ever have any intention of following up.



what??? can you explain?? Go for it!!


----------



## JWBooth

With but few exceptions, the GOPers shat all over the last member of their party in congress who legitimately desired to shrink the scope of government and advance the cause of liberty.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> When was the last time GOPers, when they actually had the power to do so, actually shrank government?



dear to reverse a 200 year trend they'd need very solid control of all 3 branches of govt plus control of press and public.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> With but few exceptions, the GOPers shat all over the last member of their party in congress who legitimately desired to shrink the scope of government and advance the cause of liberty.



so? it can only happen when  there is a big enough majority i the country to make it happen, obviously! See why we say slow?


----------



## JWBooth

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> With but few exceptions, the GOPers shat all over the last member of their party in congress who legitimately desired to shrink the scope of government and advance the cause of liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so? it can only happen when  there is a big enough majority i the country to make it happen, obviously! See why we say slow?
Click to expand...



Keep believing sonny. Your gopers could have a 75% majority in both houses and they'd still grow government, expand its powers and fail to move on meaningful deregulation.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> With but few exceptions, the GOPers shat all over the last member of their party in congress who legitimately desired to shrink the scope of government and advance the cause of liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so? it can only happen when  there is a big enough majority i the country to make it happen, obviously! See why we say slow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keep believing sonny. Your gopers could have a 75% majority in both houses and they'd still grow government, expand its powers and fail to move on meaningful deregulation.
Click to expand...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> Keep believing sonny. Your gopers could have a 75% majority in both houses and they'd still grow government, expand its powers and fail to move on meaningful deregulation.



so what? that would merely mean that they weren't real conservatives. And???


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> the absurd notion that there is some sort of "American movement" to which Modern Democrats don't subscribe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, Democrats spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb, then elected Obama, a man who had 3 libcommie parents and voted to left of Bernie Sanders. What does that teach you?
Click to expand...


That you have no concept of linear time?

Oh wait, we already knew that...


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking about Lincoln's Republican Party, not Jefferson's. Do you know the difference?
Click to expand...


Tell me, who puts your clothes on for you?  This entire thread has tried to tell the world that Jefferson founded the RP 28 years after his own death ----- now all of a sudden out of nowhere you're acknowledging you've been full of shit the whole time?


----------



## JWBooth

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep believing sonny. Your gopers could have a 75% majority in both houses and they'd still grow government, expand its powers and fail to move on meaningful deregulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what? that would merely mean that they weren't real conservatives. And???
Click to expand...



In a four year old the belief in Santa is precious, for an adult to have a similar belief in something as contemptable as politicians is just sad.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JWBooth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep believing sonny. Your gopers could have a 75% majority in both houses and they'd still grow government, expand its powers and fail to move on meaningful deregulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what? that would merely mean that they weren't real conservatives. And???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a four year old the belief in Santa is precious, for an adult to have a similar belief in something as contemptable as politicians is just sad.
Click to expand...


Too completely stupid of course. Liberals beleived in Obama and he delivered them Obamacare just as they wanted! Conservatives believed in Reagan, he defeated the USSR, and he set 1 billion people free just as they wanted

Did you know that Reagan and Obama were/are politicians?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking about Lincoln's Republican Party, not Jefferson's. Do you know the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, who puts your clothes on for you?  This entire thread has tried to tell the world that Jefferson founded the RP 28 years after his own death ----- now all of a sudden out of nowhere you're acknowledging you've been full of shit the whole time?
Click to expand...



For 2nd time:
You're talking about Lincoln's Republican Party, not Jefferson's. Do you know the difference?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> the absurd notion that there is some sort of "American movement" to which Modern Democrats don't subscribe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, Democrats spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb, then elected Obama, a man who had 3 libcommie parents and voted to left of Bernie Sanders. What does that teach you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you have no concept of linear time?
> .
Click to expand...


no concept?? Do you have a reason to think that? Notice, it does not even occcur to a liberal to have a reason. Liberalism is based in pure ignorance.


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking about Lincoln's Republican Party, not Jefferson's. Do you know the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, who puts your clothes on for you?  This entire thread has tried to tell the world that Jefferson founded the RP 28 years after his own death ----- now all of a sudden out of nowhere you're acknowledging you've been full of shit the whole time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For 2nd time:
> You're talking about Lincoln's Republican Party, not Jefferson's. Do you know the difference?
Click to expand...




I've been _*TELLING YOU*_ the difference since the last time you tried to float this malarkey a year ago.  So has everybody else.  1854 / 1793 ... _know the difference_.

Are you just too fucking stupid to figure out a way to admit you've been wrong all this time?   Is that it?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> you've been wrong all this time?



dear, can you say exactly what you feel I've been wrong about?


----------



## JWBooth

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking about Lincoln's Republican Party, not Jefferson's. Do you know the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, who puts your clothes on for you?  This entire thread has tried to tell the world that Jefferson founded the RP 28 years after his own death ----- now all of a sudden out of nowhere you're acknowledging you've been full of shit the whole time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For 2nd time:
> You're talking about Lincoln's Republican Party, not Jefferson's. Do you know the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been _*TELLING YOU*_ the difference since the last time you tried to float this malarkey a year ago.  So has everybody else.  1854 / 1793 ... _know the difference_.
> 
> Are you just too fucking stupid to figure out a way to admit you've been wrong all this time?   Is that it?
Click to expand...

The boy is thick as a brick.


----------



## Pogo

JWBooth said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking about Lincoln's Republican Party, not Jefferson's. Do you know the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, who puts your clothes on for you?  This entire thread has tried to tell the world that Jefferson founded the RP 28 years after his own death ----- now all of a sudden out of nowhere you're acknowledging you've been full of shit the whole time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For 2nd time:
> You're talking about Lincoln's Republican Party, not Jefferson's. Do you know the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been _*TELLING YOU*_ the difference since the last time you tried to float this malarkey a year ago.  So has everybody else.  1854 / 1793 ... _know the difference_.
> 
> Are you just too fucking stupid to figure out a way to admit you've been wrong all this time?   Is that it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The boy is thick as a brick.
Click to expand...


His box now says "Senior Member" -- I'd amend that to "Senior Moment".


----------



## JakeStarkey

TheEB is a hoot.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> I've been _*TELLING YOU*_ the difference.



For 3rd time:
You're talking about Lincoln's Republican Party, not Jefferson's. Do you know the difference?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Eddy for 15 months did not know the difference.  Now she does, and has not the balls (or she doesn't, I guess to admit that Jefferson is the founder of the slave-driven democratic-republican party.


----------

