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

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How about the Bill of Rights?

Was added by Republicans who were scared to death of what liberal government might do unless what rights the people had were perfectly spelled out

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What is an example of a Liberal idea in the Constitution?

Here are several:

Democracy -- "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" (Article II, Section 2)

too stupid!!! by 1000%. the idea of the people having power and not liberal government is 1000% Republican conservative!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Egalitarianism -- "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" (Article I, Section 9); "No State shall . . . grant any Title of Nobility" (Article I, Section 10)

too stupid by 1000%. Hamilton and the liberal Federalists wanted powerful central government officials which in effect created a titled class of powerful liberals. BO just took over the health care industry. Thats makes him far more powerful than King George was!!

 

[regent]

Egalitarianism -- "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" (Article I, Section 9); "No State shall . . . grant any Title of Nobility" (Article I, Section 10)

too stupid by 1000%. Hamilton and the liberal Federalists wanted powerful central government officials which in effect created a titled class of powerful liberals. BO just took over the health care industry. Thats makes him far more powerful than King George was!!

So the liberal-Federalists wanted a powerful central government with the govenment officials getting titles. Titles like president? Can you define liberal? Maybe this is the problem? Everything and everybody seem to be liberal.
And what health care industry did Bo just take over?
And worse, I guess you missed my question as to what evidence you would accept regarding the name Democratic-Republican being used before 1800? You know the $10,000 buck thing.

 

[code1211]

What is an example of a Liberal idea in the Constitution?

Here are several:

Democracy -- "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" (Article II, Section 2)

Egalitarianism -- "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" (Article I, Section 9); "No State shall . . . grant any Title of Nobility" (Article I, Section 10)

Political liberty -- "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" (Article III, Section 3)

Freedom of religion, free speech, free press, right of assembly and petition -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (First Amendment)

Due process of law, rights of the accused -- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Fourth Amendment); "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (Fifth Amendment); "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." (Sixth Amendment)

Racial equality -- "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." (15th Amendment)

Gender equality -- "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." (19th Amendment)

Will that do?

NO.

For you, what is the basic and defining characteristic of Liberalism? Just one, single clear idea.

I don't want hear about philosophy. I want to know what you think is the one, single idea of Liberalism, in a political sense, that defines it. Philosophical ideals like "justice" or "liberty" have no place in this.

Philosophical ideals are like the resort you vacation within. A political system is the vehicle that gets you there. I think that you have the two confused and I would like to hear what you believe in this very narrow and specified question.

 

[code1211]

Egalitarianism -- "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" (Article I, Section 9); "No State shall . . . grant any Title of Nobility" (Article I, Section 10)

too stupid by 1000%. Hamilton and the liberal Federalists wanted powerful central government officials which in effect created a titled class of powerful liberals. BO just took over the health care industry. Thats makes him far more powerful than King George was!!

So the liberal-Federalists wanted a powerful central government with the govenment officials getting titles. Titles like president? Can you define liberal? Maybe this is the problem? Everything and everybody seem to be liberal.
And what health care industry did Bo just take over?
And worse, I guess you missed my question as to what evidence you would accept regarding the name Democratic-Republican being used before 1800? You know the $10,000 buck thing.

As I read Dragon's post above, it occurred to me that we are talking past each other.

You and Dragon seem to be thinking philosophical beliefs are political systems and that is not the case.

Philosophical beliefs, whether they be a defined code of ethics like the Ten Commandments or the Boy Scout's Oath are not a system of government but are the goals that any government might want to find.

I asked dragon to state in one clear and concise statement the basic principle of Liberalism as a political device that might help to achieve the philosophical goals espoused by Liberals.

I ask the same of you.

Remember, the philosophical beliefs are the finished product and the political system is the tool that you use to build it.

 

[Dragon]

For you, what is the basic and defining characteristic of Liberalism? Just one, single clear idea.

I don't want hear about philosophy.

Can't comply with both of these, because liberalism IS a philosophy. Choose between them, please.

I know the difference between a philosophy and a political system. Liberalism is the former.

 

[code1211]

For you, what is the basic and defining characteristic of Liberalism? Just one, single clear idea.

I don't want hear about philosophy.

Can't comply with both of these, because liberalism IS a philosophy. Choose between them, please.

I know the difference between a philosophy and a political system. Liberalism is the former.

If that is so, then Liberalism has no place in a discussion on politics.

I believe there is a section on this site for religion.

 

[Dragon]

If that is so, then Liberalism has no place in a discussion on politics.

I believe there is a section on this site for religion.

Philosophy is not confined to religion. It is any discussion of ideas that lie outside the scope of scientific method, including values. Politics involves an articulation and expression of values. Strip politics of that, and you are left with no basis for choosing between one political system and another.

 

[rdean]

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




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

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

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

Clearly, the evidence is the number of gays, liberals and blacks in the Republican Party. Did that really need to be "explained"?

 

[code1211]

If that is so, then Liberalism has no place in a discussion on politics.

I believe there is a section on this site for religion.

Philosophy is not confined to religion. It is any discussion of ideas that lie outside the scope of scientific method, including values. Politics involves an articulation and expression of values. Strip politics of that, and you are left with no basis for choosing between one political system and another.

You are saying that an agenda of goals is all that is required for politics.

Both parties say that they are in favor of the same things and both parties have different plans on how to achieve those similar goals.

Our political process clumsily chooses one party or the other to guide us to the achievement of our national goals. If the goals are the only thing you have, you have nothing worth anything beyond a nursery rhyme.

If you have an idea and no method to implement that idea, what good is that idea? i was looking forward to flying cars at the age of 20 and have seen none on sale to date. That's an idea. What good is it?

Philosphy is philosophy and politics is politics. Both can influence the other, but neither is what the other is.

If you are saying that Liberalism is all ideas and no system, and you have said this, then Liberalism is a religion and not a political system.

What is the system by which Liberalism proposes to achieve the goals that it espouses?

 

[Dragon]

You are saying that an agenda of goals is all that is required for politics.

No. I am making an argument based on "necessary," not on "sufficient." I am not saying that an agenda of goals, or any other single thing, is "all" that is required for politics. Try again.

 

[code1211]

You are saying that an agenda of goals is all that is required for politics.

No. I am making an argument based on "necessary," not on "sufficient." I am not saying that an agenda of goals, or any other single thing, is "all" that is required for politics. Try again.

Well, I have to admit that you seem to have nailed the Liberal approach to getting things done.

1. Define a problem. It doesn't matter what it is or if it actually exists.
2. Say that it is important that everyone care about this problem and pity the victims of the problem who are helpless.
3. Create an enemy that is said either does not care about the problem or is not working sufficiently hard to solve the problem. Whatever effort is made is not enough.
4. Demand that money be spent to help the victims of the problem.
5. Condemn any opponent of the spending as racist, sexist, homophobic or mean spirited.
6. Never, ever, under any circumstance solve the problem or actually address the causes of the problem.
7. Repeat.

By not having an overarching and guiding principle, no issue has the possibility of being resolved. No problem has the possibility of finding corrected.

The only function of Liberalism is to divide and create factions that will compete for wealth created by others to solve problems created, often out of thin air, by themselves.

 

[Dragon]

Well, I have to admit that you seem to have nailed the Liberal approach to getting things done.

Please don't put words in my mouth. At the moment we are talking about this:

By not having an overarching and guiding principle

I would like to answer your question of what overarching and guiding principle guides liberalism, but you rendered it impossible by simultaneously rejecting any "philosophical" consideration. You have posed a question of philosophy, and it must be answered philosophically.

When you recognize this and remove the objection to philosophy -- an absurd objection given that you are yourself TALKING philosophy -- then I can answer your question and we can go from there. Until then, there's nothing more to be said; you have simply closed the door to any possible discussion.

 

[code1211]

Well, I have to admit that you seem to have nailed the Liberal approach to getting things done.

Please don't put words in my mouth. At the moment we are talking about this:

By not having an overarching and guiding principle

I would like to answer your question of what overarching and guiding principle guides liberalism, but you rendered it impossible by simultaneously rejecting any "philosophical" consideration. You have posed a question of philosophy, and it must be answered philosophically.

When you recognize this and remove the objection to philosophy -- an absurd objection given that you are yourself TALKING philosophy -- then I can answer your question and we can go from there. Until then, there's nothing more to be said; you have simply closed the door to any possible discussion.

What is the ideal modus operandi for Liberalism? I don't need to know what needs to be accomplished or what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. I want to know how you intend to get it done.

Is the basic premise to centralize all government to as singular a point as possible or diffuse it to the the lowest level that will accomplish the work? Does it depend on empowering the individual or in creating cooperatives? Allowing entrepreneurial achievement or directing corporate direction by government?

This is not a hard thing to do if you know what you believe.

In terms of a governmental system, what do you believe?

 

[Dragon]

What is the ideal modus operandi for Liberalism? I don't need to know what needs to be accomplished or what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. I want to know how you intend to get it done.

In whatever way works best, while causing the least harm. And that is going to be different for different situations.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What is the ideal modus operandi for Liberalism? I don't need to know what needs to be accomplished or what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. I want to know how you intend to get it done.

In whatever way works best, while causing the least harm. And that is going to be different for different situations.

Of course that is vague general worthless empty BS. Has this BS ever worked? Is the liberal afraid to provide his best 2 examples for the whole world to see??

 

[regent]

And all this because someone confused the Republican party of the late 1700's with today's Republican party. A very common mistake, then to cover the mistake tried to convert the Republican party of today into today's liberal party or something like that? In any case it is a mistake that is quite common with high school students and even lower division college students.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And all this because someone confused the Republican party of the late 1700's with today's Republican party.

why confused when they have the same name and political philosophy, and when they both were named for their association with Thomas Jefferson??????

WIKI: The party's founding members chose the name "Republican Party" in the mid-1850s as homage to the values of republicanism promoted by Thomas Jefferson's Republican party."[12]

"The [modern]Republican Party name was christened in an editorial written by New York newspaper magnate Horace Greeley. Greeley printed in June 1854: "We should not care much whether those thus united (against slavery) were designated 'Whig,' 'Free Democrat' or something else; though we think some simple name like 'Republican' would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery."

 

[code1211]

And all this because someone confused the Republican party of the late 1700's with today's Republican party. A very common mistake, then to cover the mistake tried to convert the Republican party of today into today's liberal party or something like that? In any case it is a mistake that is quite common with high school students and even lower division college students.

What difference does it make which word was used by what political to describe his group of sympathizers 200 years ago?

Getting a Liberal of today to state clearly what he believes like asking him to reveal the secret of the Universe. He simply will not do it because he simply does not know.