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

[JakeStarkey]

Jefferson would have nothing to do with either party. He would ally with John Randolph, and the two of them would have beat all of your sorry butts. /

Not really accurate. The Republican Party is an empty vessel that could be filled with the Tea Party or Ron Paul depending on the electorate. Jefferson, then as now, would be a Republican, a Republican who would want the electorate to purify the Party. The Republican Party is 100% shaped by the electorate while the Libertarian Party, for example, is 100% shaped by ideas.

Accordingly, the Republican Party is about to strike down BO's mandate while the Libertarians impotently watch.

Hamilton, Adams, Jay, and some of the Founders would probably rest between the Dems and the Pubs right now.

these men were Federalists. Jefferson defeated the Federalists who were never heard from again. Jefferson called it "The Second American Revolution." This is when America came to be about freedom from all government , not just the government of England.

Edward loves revisionism, his illiterate revisionism. One, the Founders I named would still rest between the Dems and the Pubs. Jefferson could have called it the silly revolution and still would have changed nothing. Clay, Webster, the younger Adams, Marshall, Lincoln, Everett, Seward, and thousands of Whigs then Republicans picked up the nationalist and big government themes of the earlier Founders. Jefferson is merely one thread among several, not the major one.

See, Edward, what it is like when the whole story is told.

 

[JakeStarkey]

you might say they were a dying force after Jefferson defeated them.

Hamiltonianism, like Jeffersonianism, continued: Democratic-Republicans split into conservative and nationalist wings, then into the Democratic and Whig parties, then the Democratic and Republican parties. Both major parties have switched back and forth re: the two major influences during the last 150 years.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Edward loves revisionism, his illiterate revisionism. One, the Founders I named would still rest between the Dems and the Pubs.

Jefferson( small government) and Hamilton( big government) were mortal enemies, sorry. Check your history

Jefferson could have called it the silly revolution and still would have changed nothing.

Actually Jefferson wrote the Declaration, and defined the Constitution. If he changed nothing what happened to the Federalists who he felt had the oppposite idea about government? Saying Jefferson changed nothing is like saying Lincoln changed nothing. Are you trying to be slow?

Clay, Webster, the younger Adams, Marshall, Lincoln, Everett, Seward, and thousands of Whigs then Republicans picked up the nationalist and big government themes of the earlier Founders. Jefferson is merely one thread among several, not the major one.

so then why be so afraid to tell us who the major one was? What does your fear tell us?

 

[JakeStarkey]

What fear, Edward? Yours is the only one showing here. The strains of Hamilton and Jefferson have infested (infected?) our politics so that two major strains have developed. Jefferson is not the major one, son.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What fear, Edward? Yours is the only one showing here. The strains of Hamilton and Jefferson have infested (infected?) our politics so that two major strains have developed. Jefferson is not the major one, son.

Jefferson wrote the Declaration, founded the Republican Party in 1792 to be all about small government, and defined the Constitution. Modern Republicans hold his beliefs identicially. If thats not the major strain what is??

Why be so afraid to tell us?? What does your fear tell you, liberal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He founded the Democratic-Republican party, which morphed into the Democratic Party, the small government party.

The federalists morphed into the nationalist wing of the Democratic-Republicans, then the Whigs, then the Republicans, the large government party.

Why does you fear keep pulling you down, Edward?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He founded the Democratic-Republican party,

Would you like to bet 10,000, liberal that you have no primary sources to back that up???? Bet or run away with your liberal tail between your legs once again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Check any freshman history book, Edward. You just got your tail stepped on, you little fool.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Check any freshman history book, Edward. You just got your tail stepped on, you little fool.

so are you taking the bet on a legal basis or running away with your tail between your legs? Yes or No?????

 

[regent]

The Federalists were running candidates for some time after 1800

did someone disagree?????

and since the Supreme Court and lower courts were filled with Federalists the courts remained a potent conservative force for almost thirty years.

you might say they were a dying force after Jefferson defeated them.
Why be so stupid? If you use term conservative you have to say if you mean conserving something or opposed to government. Modern Conservatives are most noted for opposing big government so that is obviously the most useful definition to use. See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?

Yes, a dying force would have been more accurate than "never heard from again."
You are defining conservatism as being opposed to big government but that is a very flimsy definition and has no historical background. I wonder if any textbooks on political ideology would even use "big government" as a core value of conservatism, you might try some.
On the practical side can you name a Republican administration that significantly reduced the size of government when in power?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Check any freshman history book, Edward. You just got your tail stepped on, you little fool.

so are you taking the bet on a legal basis or running away with your tail between your legs? Yes or No?????

You want me to prove your point? Go ahead, prove your point. You can't

And this is why fron http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Democratic-Republican+Party The Jeffersonian Republican party, better known as the Democratic-Republican Party, is an ancestor of the modern Democratic Party.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, a dying force would have been more accurate than "never heard from again."

are dying people often heard from again? See what happens when a liberal tries to think?

You are defining conservatism as being opposed to big government

That is how Jefferson, Reagan, Newt, and Romney define it, sorry

but that is a very flimsy definition and has no historical background.

actually Jefferson is a historical figure. See what happens?

I wonder if any textbooks on political ideology would even use "big government" as a core value of conservatism, you might try some.

why use textbooks when we can use history
???

"My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government."-Jefferson. The purpose of the Constitution was to prevent big government or to in effect make liberalism illegal.

On the practical side can you name a Republican administration that significantly reduced the size of government when in power?

actually an Administration lacks the authority to, alone, reduce the size of government so your question is absurd.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Check any freshman history book, Edward. You just got your tail stepped on, you little fool.

so are you taking the bet on a legal basis or running away with your tail between your legs? Yes or No?????

You want me to prove your point? Go ahead, prove your point. You can't

what point exactly??????????????

 

[JakeStarkey]

This, goes snap on the trap. And this is why fron http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...publican+Party The Jeffersonian Republican party, better known as the Democratic-Republican Party, is an ancestor of the modern Democratic Party.
_______

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This, goes snap on the trap. _

so then do you take the bet on a legal basis or run away with your liberal tail between your legs. All you need is one primary source among the millions of newspapers, speeches, letters, and books from the era??

 

[regent]

Yes, a dying force would have been more accurate than "never heard from again."

are dying people often heard from again? See what happens when a liberal tries to think?

You are defining conservatism as being opposed to big government

That is how Jefferson, Reagan, Newt, and Romney define it, sorry





actually Jefferson is a historical figure. See what happens?

I wonder if any textbooks on political ideology would even use "big government" as a core value of conservatism, you might try some.

why use textbooks when we can use history
???

"My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government."-Jefferson. The purpose of the Constitution was to prevent big government or to in effect make liberalism illegal.

On the practical side can you name a Republican administration that significantly reduced the size of government when in power?

actually an Administration lacks the authority to, alone, reduce the size of government so your question is absurd.

So it was impossible for a Democratic administration to increase the size of government.

The purpose of the Constitution was to increase the size of government and give that government much more power.

Using a quote from a political figure does not make political ideology for a political party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This, goes snap on the trap. _

so then do you take the bet on a legal basis or run away with your liberal tail between your legs. All you need is one primary source among the millions of newspapers, speeches, letters, and books from the era??

This, goes snap on the trap agaib.

And this is why fron http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...publican+Party The Jeffersonian Republican party, better known as the Democratic-Republican Party, is an ancestor of the modern Democratic Party

You asked for a source. You did not say when. I am not a liberal, you are certainly not very smart and certainly have no integrity. You asked, I answer it with a reputable source, and now you wiggle like a rat caught in a trp.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You might compare John Locke's thoughts on property as compared toJefferson's. Locke was one of Jefferson's idols but Jefferson's views began to change as conditions changed.
Jefferson was for land distribution

Let's stop you right there.

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816

Jefferson was an adamant supporter of property rights. Whether you are attempting to rewrite history on your own, or are simply one who was taught the corruption of frauds like Zinn, I cannot say.

Likewise, Locke was an advocate of private property;

{Sec. 39. And thus, without supposing any private Dominion, and property in Adam, over all the World, exclusive of other Men, which can no way be proved, nor any ones Property be made out [i.e., traced in lines of inheritance and descent] from it [Locke spent all of the First Treatise refuting such a claim made by Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha]; but supposing the World given as it was to the Children of Men in common, we see how labour could make Men distinct titles to several parcels of it, for their private uses; wherein there could be no doubt of Right, no room for quarrel.}

The fiction that Jefferson or Locke would advocate distribution of lands by the state is an absurdity,

but primarily newly acquired lands and believed in America as a farming nation even as the nation was changing to manufacturing.

Jefferson maintained the established system of homesteading uncontested lands. Unlike Jackson, The Jefferson administration required no encumbrance on lands, including those by Indian tribes, prior to homesteading. The founder of the Democratic party, Andrew Jackson, forcibly displacing tribes was policy. Jefferson though, respected property rights. Not much has changed between Republicans and Democrats, even then, Democrats crushed rights and simply took by force.

As Conditions changed Jefferson had to adapt his liberal beliefs to the changing conditions.

All men adapt to changes, but the fiction you are attempting to create for Jefferson has no bearing on reality.

One thing Jefferson was consistent about was a dedication to liberty in the market and economic sovereignty.

{To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. }

 

[Uncensored2008]

He founded the Democratic-Republican party, which morphed into the Democratic Party, the small government party.

ROFL

What a fool and a liar you are, Fakey Jake.

Jefferson created the Republican party. It was not referred on any ballot as anything other than "Republican." Nor did Jefferson call it anything other than Republican.

The "Democratic-Republican" Moniker was first used after the Civil war to create a distinction between the earlier party and the party of Lincoln, though in fact there is no distinction as the Republicans morphed to Whig, then back to Republican.

Andrew Jackson and Aaron Burr founded the Democratic party. Jackson vowed to destroy "That damned Republican," Jefferson. The plan was to oust Jefferson and put Democrat Burr in. At that time, it was common to have the president and vice president from different parties.

The federalists morphed into the nationalist wing of the Democratic-Republicans, then the Whigs, then the Republicans, the large government party.

ROFL

What a fucking liar and moron you are.

Why does you fear keep pulling you down, Edward?

I would think he's laughing his ass off at your absurd attempt to rewrite history.

Comrade Jake, you are more effective simply quoting Mao and campaigning for Obama. Too many people here actually know American history for you to prevail.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Check any freshman history book, Edward. You just got your tail stepped on, you little fool.

The only "history" book you use is "A Peoples History" by that Marxist fuck, Howard Zinn.

Any legitimate history book shows you to be a fool - which you are.