The Constitution -- Merely A Guide?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Which is not what they say when it comes to abortion, where free choice is more important.

yes, the only freedom liberals want is the freedom to kill their babies!! That way they can have cheap meaningless sex with whomever they want and continue to preside over the death of love and family in America! Who needs love and family-right??

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
-

too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
"The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."

Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte

hmm...

I put him on "ignore" a couple of months ago. He's the only one that I've put on ignore. You can imagine why. It's like trying to reason with a fence post. And, he can't conduct a conversation without "look dear", or some other ridiculous remark. His name calling and personal attacks account for 99% of his conversations. Good luck with him. I failed in my attempts to have meaningful conversations with him. Finally, I gave up, which is very rare for me.

Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??

It proves Dante is well read.

the end

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Which is not what they say when it comes to abortion, where free choice is more important.

yes, the only freedom liberals want is the freedom to kill their babies!! That way they can have cheap meaningless sex with whomever they want and continue to preside over the death of love and family in America! Who needs love and family-right??

actually we want to kill other people's babies, not our own

 

[emilynghiem]

Which is not what they say when it comes to abortion, where free choice is more important.

yes, the only freedom liberals want is the freedom to kill their babies!! That way they can have cheap meaningless sex with whomever they want and continue to preside over the death of love and family in America! Who needs love and family-right??

actually we want to kill other people's babies, not our own

Just because people want FREEDOM from govt mandates
DOES NOT MEAN we want to kill people with guns, abortion, war, etc.

I don't know anyone who wouldn't prefer PREVENTION over abortion.
Same with guns and war powers used for DEFENSE and DETERRENCE,
not necessarily to kill, which would be prevented if security is maintained properly.

Wanting freedom of religion for Muslims, Atheists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.
does NOT mean wanting to practice any of those things per se.

 

[emilynghiem]

Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
-

too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
"The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."

Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte

hmm...

I put him on "ignore" a couple of months ago. He's the only one that I've put on ignore. You can imagine why. It's like trying to reason with a fence post. And, he can't conduct a conversation without "look dear", or some other ridiculous remark. His name calling and personal attacks account for 99% of his conversations. Good luck with him. I failed in my attempts to have meaningful conversations with him. Finally, I gave up, which is very rare for me.

Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??

Maybe he doesn't think Jefferson would necessarily recognize where these things led.
Similar to how Buddhism was built around the teachings of Buddha, who would not recognize a lot of the religious rites these traditions turned into. (Not to mention the followings built around Jesus and the Bible that many people do not think Jesus would recognize either!)

If Jefferson or Jesus were to give their opinions today, on the status of church and state
institutions, do you think they'd have more to say "yay" or "nay" about?

My guess is the very narrow areas they might agree are on the right track may be in the minority, but finding key points of agreement lends focus to unite and resolve the rest of the messes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
-

too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
"The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."

Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte

hmm...

I put him on "ignore" a couple of months ago. He's the only one that I've put on ignore. You can imagine why. It's like trying to reason with a fence post. And, he can't conduct a conversation without "look dear", or some other ridiculous remark. His name calling and personal attacks account for 99% of his conversations. Good luck with him. I failed in my attempts to have meaningful conversations with him. Finally, I gave up, which is very rare for me.

Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??

Maybe he doesn't think Jefferson would necessarily recognize where these things led.
Similar to how Buddhism was built around the teachings of Buddha, who would not recognize a lot of the religious rites these traditions turned into. (Not to mention the followings built around Jesus and the Bible that many people do not think Jesus would recognize either!)

If Jefferson or Jesus were to give their opinions today, on the status of church and state
institutions, do you think they'd have more to say "yay" or "nay" about?

My guess is the very narrow areas they might agree are on the right track may be in the minority, but finding key points of agreement lends focus to unite and resolve the rest of the messes.

Nope. The Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party was not formed by Jefferson. The first Republican party never called themselves Jeffersonian Republicans or even Democratic-Republicans. They did not even think of themselves as a 'party' as we understand the usage of the term today. Look it up

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party was not formed by Jefferson. The first Republican party never called themselves Jeffersonian Republicans or even Democratic-Republicans. They did not even think of themselves as a 'party' as we understand the usage of the term today. Look it up

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

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

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

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

from Congressional Record: ( a primary source, not a liberal historian)

(1797-1799)



Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)


Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

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

6th Congress (1799-1801)

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

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

7th Congress (1801-1803)

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. The Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party was not formed by Jefferson.

of course if true the liberal illiterate would not be so afraid to say who formed it an what the evidence of that is. What can we learn from his fear?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
-

too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
"The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."

Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte

hmm...

I put him on "ignore" a couple of months ago. He's the only one that I've put on ignore. You can imagine why. It's like trying to reason with a fence post. And, he can't conduct a conversation without "look dear", or some other ridiculous remark. His name calling and personal attacks account for 99% of his conversations. Good luck with him. I failed in my attempts to have meaningful conversations with him. Finally, I gave up, which is very rare for me.

Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??

It proves Dante is well read.

the end

Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party was not formed by Jefferson. The first Republican party never called themselves Jeffersonian Republicans or even Democratic-Republicans. They did not even think of themselves as a 'party' as we understand the usage of the term today. Look it up

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

"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.

your ignorant arse is quoting almost every single item out of context. You have no clue what you are cutting and pasting.

Read a fucking Book you moron

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
"The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."

Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte

hmm...

I put him on "ignore" a couple of months ago. He's the only one that I've put on ignore. You can imagine why. It's like trying to reason with a fence post. And, he can't conduct a conversation without "look dear", or some other ridiculous remark. His name calling and personal attacks account for 99% of his conversations. Good luck with him. I failed in my attempts to have meaningful conversations with him. Finally, I gave up, which is very rare for me.

Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??

It proves Dante is well read.

the end

Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??

Fact: Jefferson had little to do with the formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Fact: Jefferson had little to do with the formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party

100% stupid and liberal of course which explains why the liberal cant say who had most to do with formation of Jefferson Republican Party, if not Jefferson, in 1793 and what the evidence of that is.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Fact: Jefferson had little to do with the formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party

a liberal too slow to know that anyone can assert a fact, but that assertion is very different from having evidence that it is a fact.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Fact: Jefferson had little to do with the formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party

100% stupid and liberal of course which explains why the liberal cant say who had most to do with formation of Jefferson Republican Party, if not Jefferson, in 1793 and what the evidence of that is.

name given pages back.

go do your homework

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Fact: Jefferson had little to do with the formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party

100% stupid and liberal of course which explains why the liberal cant say who had most to do with formation of Jefferson Republican Party, if not Jefferson, in 1793 and what the evidence of that is.

name given pages back.

go do your homework

100% stupid and liberal of course which explains why the goof liberal cant say who had most to do with formation of Jefferson Republican Party, if not Jefferson, in 1793 and what the evidence of that is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Special Ed is always ignoring posts and ignoring content of posts

he just posts as if what anyone else posts is not really there

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ed can ruin a perfectly good topic. I guess we all are to blame for taking him seriously

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Special Ed is always ignoring posts and ignoring content of posts

he just posts as if what anyone else posts is not really there

From Congressional Record( a primary source, not liberal historian)

5th Congress (1797-1799)

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Special Ed is always ignoring posts and ignoring content of posts

he just posts as if what anyone else posts is not really there

From Congressional Record( a primary source, not liberal historian)
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