Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 42

Thread: Do Democrats really belong in America?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    421

    Do Democrats really belong in America?

    Few realize that Jefferson founded the first Republican Party in 1794. He was scared to death by Washington, Hamilton, and Adams (the Federalists or liberals) who did not seem to understand that the American Revolution had been about freedom and liberty from government. In fact, when Jefferson won in 1800 he called it the Second American Revolution because it confirmed that the first revolution had been about freedom from all government, not just freedom from the government of England.

    Liberals like to claim the Party was called the Democrat-Republican Party so they, then, have a connection to the founding, but this is simply not true. In the 1820's the name did evolve to Democrat-Republican and then to Democrat but he philosophy stayed pure Jeffersonian.

    Jefferson's Party was called Republican in the 1790's, in all speeches, letters, newspapers, and the Congressional Record. Moreover, it stood for freedom and liberty from government just as modern Republicans do. Accordingly, liberals belong in Cuba more than America, I'm afraid while modern Republicans stand perfectly consistent with traditional American principles .

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus View Post
    Accordingly, liberals belong in Cuba more than America, I'm afraid while modern Republicans stand perfectly consistent with traditional American principles .
    Yes yes screwing over the American worker, giving kickbacks to the fat cats that line their pockets for deregulation and the stripping of workers rights while raping the middle class....

    A prejudice against minorities as well as stigmas held by the elite with a undertone of vileness and scorn to those who would dare to oppose their views in which they are then deemed un American or aligning with ideals of treason....

    Yes "traditional American principles" led by the Republican Party... If that's truly American Principle I want nothing to do with this Country...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    421
    Jazyjason: Yes yes screwing over the American worker, giving kickbacks to the fat cats that line their pockets for deregulation and the stripping of workers rights while raping the middle class....


    Brutus: any examples or just pretending??

    Jazy: A prejudice against minorities as well as stigmas held by the elite with a undertone of vileness and scorn to those who would dare to oppose their views in which they are then deemed un American or aligning with ideals of treason....


    Brutus: wow but very very vague. Can you be specific or do you just know it in your heart??

    Jazy: Yes "traditional American principles" led by the Republican Party... If that's truly American Principle I want nothing to do with this Country...[/QUOTE]

    Brutus: why do you want nothing to do, exactly? You are ranting not thinking . Grow up!!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus View Post
    Few realize that Jefferson founded the first Republican Party in 1794. He was scared to death by Washington, Hamilton, and Adams (the Federalists or liberals) who did not seem to understand that the American Revolution had been about freedom and liberty from government. In fact, when Jefferson won in 1800 he called it the Second American Revolution because it confirmed that the first revolution had been about freedom from all government, not just freedom from the government of England.

    Liberals like to claim the Party was called the Democrat-Republican Party so they, then, have a connection to the founding, but this is simply not true. In the 1820's the name did evolve to Democrat-Republican and then to Democrat but he philosophy stayed pure Jeffersonian.

    Jefferson's Party was called Republican in the 1790's, in all speeches, letters, newspapers, and the Congressional Record. Moreover, it stood for freedom and liberty from government just as modern Republicans do. Accordingly, liberals belong in Cuba more than America, I'm afraid while modern Republicans stand perfectly consistent with traditional American principles .
    First, welcome! Second, a quick lesson in the "quote" function...it always takes new people a while to figure it out and it makes your posts/responses a LOT easier to follow. To quote something another poster said, just C&P it into your new post, highlight it, then click the little thing that looks like a cartoon speech bubble. It is right above the text input box, third button from the left.

    Finally, the idea that modern republicans are AT ALL...much less PERFECTLY consistent with traditional American principals is laughable. Compared to the founding fathers, modern Americans are a bunch of fascists. In virtually every area...economics....personal rights/freedoms....roll of government...SIZE of government....republicans are FAR, FAR away from traditional american principals.

    Your post is FAR, FAR away from traditional American principals. Thomas Jefferson would shoot you in the face for suggesting that an entire group of Americans don't belong here because they hold political ideas that are different than your own.

    The truth is that most republicans hold a view of american history that has virtually no connection to reality. Thomas Jefferson, along with all the rest of the founding fathers, were viewed as radical liberals with no respect for personal property rights by the rest of the world. That does not mesh well with the republicans view of themselves as keepers of the founding fathers legacy.

    On the other hand, the liberals/democrats are certainly not keepers of the fouding fathers legacy, but they dont pretend to be. They freely admit that they want to try something new. While I disagree with most if not all of their ideas, at least they are honest and are not pretending to be advancing traditional american values when in fact they are destroying them, so they do get a point for honesty.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    421
    Daewoo: Finally, the idea that modern republicans are AT ALL...much less PERFECTLY consistent with traditional American principals is laughable. Compared to the founding fathers, modern Americans are a bunch of fascists.

    Brutus: the subject was modern Republicans, not modern Americans!!!


    Daewoo: In virtually every area...economics....personal rights/freedoms....roll of government...SIZE of government....republicans are FAR, FAR away from traditional american principals.

    Brutus: BO wants to socialize health care, Republicans oppose and want to repeal. Jefferson and modern Republicans want a Balanced Budget Amendment to cut liberal government down to size. Democrats opppose. Its stuff in the papers everyday


    Daewoo: Your post is FAR, FAR away from traditional American principals. Thomas Jefferson would shoot you in the face for suggesting that an entire group of Americans don't belong here because they hold political ideas that are different than your own.


    Brutus: it is not that they are different it is that they are anti American. America stands for freedom, not government!! Is that really so hard to understand? The purpose of the Constitution was to make liberals illegal!! America stands for something, not everything!!

    Daewoo: The truth is that most republicans hold a view of american history that has virtually no connection to reality. Thomas Jefferson, along with all the rest of the founding fathers, were viewed as radical liberals with no respect for personal property rights by the rest of the world.

    Brutus: no idea where you got that, nor have you presented any evidence or logical arguments to support it. It seems absurd give that modern Tea Party Republicans want limited government so people can keep more of their personal property out of thieving liberal hands.


    Daewoo: That does not mesh well with the republicans view of themselves as keepers of the founding fathers legacy.


    Brutus: Republican founders stood for freedom and liberty from government exactly as modern Republicans do, particularily as Tea Party Republicans do or as National Review Republicans do.

    Daewoo: On the other hand, the liberals/democrats are certainly not keepers of the fouding fathers legacy, but they dont pretend to be. They freely admit that they want to try something new.

    Brutus: according to Republican theory, since Aristotle, there is nothing new under the sun, politicially. There is only freedom or government. Jeffefrson gave us freedom from all forms of new government becuase he had studied history and learned that all government was bad government. That is why he gave us freedom from all of it.
    This is political philosophy 101 at best.

    Daewoo: While I disagree with most if not all of their ideas, at least they are honest and are not pretending to be advancing traditional american values when in fact they are destroying them, so they do get a point for honesty.[/QUOTE]

    Brutus: well, for example, they do claim Jefferson as a Democrat despite the exact opposite philosophy. So they do need to pretend that they belong in America and respect its traditions and founding. That is the biggest lie of American History. The liberals spied for Stalin because they like the statist philosophy more than the freedom philosophy. BO voted to the left of Sanders( open socialist) for the same reason but still lies about it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus View Post
    Brutus: BO wants to socialize health care, Republicans oppose and want to repeal. Jefferson and modern Republicans want a Balanced Budget Amendment to cut liberal government down to size. Democrats opppose. Its stuff in the papers everyday
    Ne, he doesnt. Look up the definition of "socialist" and stop listening to Rush. Requiring that every american purchase a health insurance policy form a private company certainly reeks of fascism, but has no relationshiop whatsoever to socialism.

    Also, very few modern republicans want a balanced budget amendment. The last time they made a run at that, Newt was leading the charge. Since then republicans had total control of the government for 8 years....boht houses of congress and the white house...and not only was a balanced budget amendment not proposed, we saw the fastest growth of government since WWII.

    Maybe you have missed this little factoid, but for the last 50 years the government has typically grown FASTER under REPUBLICAN administrations than democrat ones. It looks like Obama is going to buck that trend, and be the first democrat in over 50 years to increase the size of government faster than the republicans, but we cant actually make that determination until the end of his first term.

    Frankly the government is as big as it is because the REPUBLICANS, starting with Reagan, made it that big.


    Brutus: it is not that they are different it is that they are anti American. America stands for freedom, not government!! Is that really so hard to understand? The purpose of the Constitution was to make liberals illegal!! America stands for something, not everything!!
    The purpose of the constitution was not to make liberals illegal. The purpose of the constitution was to provide a framework for self rule.


    Brutus: Republican founders stood for freedom and liberty from government exactly as modern Republicans do, particularily as Tea Party Republicans do or as National Review Republicans do.
    There is no such thing as a "republican founder". That term is silly. The republican party was started in 1854. All the founders were dead by then. Second, the founders did not stand for freedom and liberty from government. They CREATED a new government.

    As far as tea baggers are concerned, some of them are not bad, but a lot of them are stoopid. Our founding fathers believed in, above all else, responsible governance. Most of them advocated running balanced budgets and not running up debts. Every single one of the founding fathers at one time or another supported LARGE tax increases to pay for our government.


    Tea baggers are not that good. They talk about fiscal responsibility, but at the same time advocate tax cuts, which right now is the most irresponsible thing we could possibly do.



    Brutus: according to Republican theory, since Aristotle, there is nothing new under the sun, politicially. There is only freedom or government. Jeffefrson gave us freedom from all forms of new government becuase he had studied history and learned that all government was bad government. That is why he gave us freedom from all of it.
    This is political philosophy 101 at best.
    Actually, political philosophy 101, and the basic principals of jeffersonian democracy, would tell you that government is what PROVIDES the freedom you are talking about. Citizens abdicate power to the government and in return the government provides security and infrastructure so that the citizen may thrive. Without government you have anarchy. Nobody of any intelligence wants that.

    Franky your claim that jefferson "gave us freedom from all forms of new government" is completely nonsensical. The guy was one of the authors of the constitution. He is primarily known for creating a new form of government. If not for that, nobody would know who the guy was.

    Brutus: well, for example, they do claim Jefferson as a Democrat despite the exact opposite philosophy. So they do need to pretend that they belong in America and respect its traditions and founding. That is the biggest lie of American History. The liberals spied for Stalin because they like the statist philosophy more than the freedom philosophy. BO voted to the left of Sanders( open socialist) for the same reason but still lies about it.
    And you are pretending Jefforson was a republican, which is just silly since the republican party was not founded until 1854 (jefferson died in 1826).
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    421
    Daewoo: Requiring that every american purchase a health insurance policy form a private company certainly reeks of fascism, but has no relationshiop whatsoever to socialism.


    Brutus: that is dumber than dumb!! Socialism, liberalism, Nazism, fascism, monarchism are all statist ideologies. Jefferson gave us freedom from all of them because they are all the same, i.e., statist. Now you too understand the Founding. This is a huge day in your life. It was my honor to play a small part.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    421
    Daewoo: Frankly the government is as big as it is because the REPUBLICANS, starting with Reagan, made it that big.



    Brutus: again dumber than dumb!!Jefferson wanted to make debt illegal as part of his freedom philosophy. Newt proposed a Balanced Budget Amendment and got 32 states to sign up. Last year Republicans proposed 4 balanced amendments. This year they are threatening to shut down the government. The Democrats have resisted it all for 200 years as a matter of statist philosophy! Any way you look at it, 100% of the incentive to make deficits and debt illegal is Republican regardless of what some Republicans do to get elected by independents. Is that really over your head?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus View Post
    Brutus: that is dumber than dumb!! Socialism, liberalism, Nazism, fascism, monarchism are all statist ideologies. Jefferson gave us freedom from all of them because they are all the same, i.e., statist. Now you too understand the Founding. This is a huge day in your life. It was my honor to play a small part.
    Socialism is an economic system. Liberalism is catch all phrase that is almost impossible to define. Nazism and Fascism are both political systems that incorporate economic systems.

    Socialism was supposed to be the first step to a Utopian anarchy. To say it is a statist system is foolish.

    The idea that requiring Americans to buy insurance from private insurance companies is socialist is just plain dumb. In a socialist system, there would BE no private insurance companies.

    It does, however, reek of corporatism, which is the cornerstone of fascism.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    421
    Daewoo: There is no such thing as a "republican founder". That term is silly. The republican party was started in 1854. All the founders were dead by then.


    Brutus: again this is worse than dumb:

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



    Daewoo: Second, the founders did not stand for freedom and liberty from government. They CREATED a new government.

    Brutus: they created a new government designed to make liberals illegal or to keep govenrment small. Liberals stand for the exact oppposite and so really would be more at home in Cuba. Now even you understand why it was liberal who spied for Stalin, not conservatives.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    421
    Daewoo: Every single one of the founding fathers at one time or another supported LARGE tax increases to pay for our government.


    Brutus: of course you are liar. Sorry Here are some quotes from Jefferson to help you understand your own country: Here are some quotes from Jefferson which are exactly on point:

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

    -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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    -I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.


    Brutus: now then, wouldn't you be happier in Cuba?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    Franky your claim that jefferson "gave us freedom from all forms of new government" is completely nonsensical. The guy was one of the authors of the constitution. He is primarily known for creating a new form of government. If not for that, nobody would know who the guy was.



    Daewoo: And you are pretending Jefforson was a republican, which is just silly since the republican party was not founded until 1854 (jefferson died in 1826).

    Brutus: would you like to real the greatest historian of the era and the most popular Poli Sci text book on that very subject?

    "Historians do not agree on the details surrounding the origin of Parties. Some believe that Jefferson forged the Republican party from coalition of existing state and local parties"....[in the 1790's]. Page 31, Political Parties in America by Robert Huckshorn( most popular Political Science text on parties in USA.


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

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus View Post
    Brutus: again this is worse than dumb:

    "Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."-Susan Dunn,Jefferson's Second Revolution
    No, what you are posting here is worse than dumb.

    Jeffersons party was the Democratic-Republican party. That is not revisionism by the liberals. It was a name that actually made sense if you know what the term "democratic" means and the term "republican" means.

    The Democratic repubulican party was founded by Jefferson and Madison.

    The party broke down in 1824. One faction supported Andrew Jackson and evolved into the modern democratic party. The other faction went with John Quincey Adams and became the national republican party. The national republican party became teh whigs, which later united with the free soilers to become the modern GOP.


    Brutus: they created a new government designed to make liberals illegal or to keep govenrment small. Liberals stand for the exact oppposite and so really would be more at home in Cuba. Now even you understand why it was liberal who spied for Stalin, not conservatives.
    The idea that you can define "what liberals stand for" is foolish. The idea that the government was designed to make "liberals illegal" is ignorant, childish and foolish.

    First, all of the founding fathers were liberals. Lets actually look at the definition of the word:

    Liberal | Define Liberal at Dictionary.com

    1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
    2.( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
    3.of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
    4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
    5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
    6.of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
    Yep...that is pretty much the founding fathers to a T.

    You need to pull off the partisan blinders and quit acting as a partisan hack. First, there is not a good party and a bad party...both parties are run by elitists and are out to screw us. Both parties suck.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    421
    Daewoo: Jeffersons party was the Democratic-Republican party.


    Brutus: I gave you the most important historian of the era and the most used polit sci text book. What more could an intelligen person want? Why be stupid on purpose?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    421
    Daewoo: First, all of the founding fathers were liberals.


    Brutus: Obama is a liberal openly for expanding government. Jefferson was a conservative openly for shrinking government even in 1794!

    PLease don't be stupid on purpose!!. Try to learn somehting!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •