Was Jefferson or Lincoln first Republican??

[Iceweasel]

"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights." ---- George Washington, 1790​

Again, context helps. The didn't call themselves liberals or conservatives or use the words the way libs think. That was a letter to a Hebrew congregation and was trying to put their religious fears to rest.

"...May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants — while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.

May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy."

Not liberal policies, as in socialism and gay marriage.

You're actually trying to out-doofus Special Ed?

"Socialism and gay marriage" are not Liberal policies. Actually the link I just gave you explains in copious detail what Liberalism is, and you completely whiffed on it. Not that we didn't already know you were clueless about it but then that's why I gave you a link --- which sailed right over your hood.

Narrated Wiki:

>> Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms 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,[11] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.

Prominent revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. <<​

LOL, he used wikipedia!

Yes, I pointed out that calling a founder a liberal is stupid or dishonest. In your case, both.

 

[Picaro]

Jefferson also attended church services regularly, and in services held in Federal buildings while Washington, DC. was being built; they were held in the Treasury bldg. as well as in the building Congress was using, another historical fact that annoys assorted deviants and fetishists.

 

[Divine Wind]

True, and sad. Also sad is the same applies to the Democratic party.

What do you think we should do now/

I've stated it numerous times here, it's time to break up the country.

For what purpose?....other than to destroy the US and let China and/or Russia become the world's leading powers?

No to avoid a civil war.It is on the horizon, the Republicans do not follow the Constitution any more. It's over. Just a matter of how it's going to end.

Neither do the Democrats. Why are you so biased?

Fine, let's have another Civil War. You are free to start shooting first. How good are you with a weapon? Are you prepared to fight?

False equivalency. The two political parties do not do everything equally. This is a false construction of conservative media. The rely on the False Equivalency as someone lost in the desert dives into the first pool of water they see.

Straw man argument. Have fun in the war you are predicting.

 

[Divine Wind]

The never ending propensity of conservatives to try to couch their own beliefs in all the saccharine goodness of the founding fathers..

yes the nerve of them wanting to read the Constitution for the original meaning the founders gave it!!!

liberals are the real Americans since the Constitution means to them anything they want it to mean and that, oddly, always means [ regardless of what the founders wrote] always closer to liberal communism!! What a affirmation of the saccharine goodness of the founding fathers!!! This smug Newton has the brains of a retard!!!

The Republican party in the Senate decided THEY will decide how many years a president's term is, not the Constitution. So they decided it is 3 years for any president they don't like and denied the last president the Constitutional right to pick a Supreme Court judge and have him confirmed. Republicans have given up on the Constitution, to which I say ok you've made the choice and the rest of us don't have to live by it if you aren't going to.

Conservatives waving dead founders around is like they wave dead criminal Reagan around. You have nothing of value to offer today, so you try to wave a carcass in people's faces so they forget how bad your ideas smell.

The dems have had total control from time to time, why haven't they changed the term limits? How is it the Republican's fault?

Of course the details of government management is up to congress, you don't even know what the Constitution is. Obama had the right to appoint another activist on the bench and the senate had the right to say no. Democrats matter, Republicans don't. We get it. Criminal Reagan? You're on dope.

Agreed. The Democrats held the House for 40 years straight. There have been Democrat Presidents and a Democrat Senate in those times. So why do they wait until they aren't in control to set term limits? The answer is obvious, because they didn't think they'd lose control and didn't want to limit themselves.

 

[Divine Wind]

Thanks for the condescension. No, Republicans today claim they want smaller government, but they also want FEDERAL LAW to ban abortion, gay marriage and other bullshit.

Some may but it's bullshit to make that claim. Most want those issues to go back to the states where they belong. How would that make the federal government bigger?

When they seek to use Federal law to ban abortion and gay marriage.

When did that become the Republican party platform?

1990s. When the the Christian Coalition became the loudest squeaky wheels in the RNC.

It's also when the Republicans stopped being the GOP and simply became the RNC. The Republican party isn't the party I joined in 1974. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "I didn't leave the Republican party. The Republican party left me".


Barry Goldwater - Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
Source: the Congressional Record Volume 127 - Part 16, Pages 20589 through 20590
"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being.

But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly.

The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

In the past couple years, I have seen many news items that referred to the moral majority, pro-life and other religious groups as "the new right," and the "new conservatism." Well, I have spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the "old conservatism." And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics.

The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength.

As it is, they are diverting us away from the vital issues that our Government needs to address. We are facing serious economic and military dangers in this country today, and we need to make a concerted effort to correct our problems in these areas.

But far too much of the time of Members of Congress and officials in the executive branch is used up dealing with special interest groups on issues like abortion, school busing, ERA, prayer in schools, and pornaography. While these are important moral issues, they are secondary right now to our national security and economic survival.

I must make it clear that I do not condemn these groups for what they believe. I happen to share many of the values emphasized by these organizations.

I, too, believe that we Americans should return to our traditional values concerning morality, family closeness, self-reliance, and a day's work for a day's pay. These are the values our forebears clung to as they built this Nation into the citadel of freedom it is today.

And, I, too, have been pleased with the swing of the pendulum for in recent years to the conservative , moral end of the spectrum.

But I object to certain groups jumping on that pendulum and then claiming that they caused it to swing in the first place.

And I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate.

I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"

This unrelenting obsession with a particular goal destroys the perspective of many decent people with whom I think I agree on most issues. In the quest for moral righteousness they have become easy prey to manipulation and misjudgment.

A prime example was the recent nomination of Sandra O'Connor as a Supreme Court justice and the ensuing uproar over her stand on abortion.

The abortion issue has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal. I happen to oppose abortion, but there are many fine conservatives who would go along with regulated abortions. In fact, my own wife believe that a woman should have the freedom of choice for herself whether she is capable of continuing the pregnancy and then raising the child.

I disagree with her on that. Yet I respect her right to disagree. If I expected her toa gree with me on every issue we would be in a lot of trouble.

And the same goes for prospective Supreme Court justices. No single issue should ever decide the fitness of a Supreme Court justice. To think otherwise is to go against the integrity of the Constitution.

...

And the religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy.

They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternative.

The great decision of Government cannot be dictated by the concerns of religios factions. this was true in the days of Madison, and it is just as true today.

We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of State separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we must not stop now.

To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic."

 

[Iceweasel]

Thanks for the condescension. No, Republicans today claim they want smaller government, but they also want FEDERAL LAW to ban abortion, gay marriage and other bullshit.

Some may but it's bullshit to make that claim. Most want those issues to go back to the states where they belong. How would that make the federal government bigger?

When they seek to use Federal law to ban abortion and gay marriage.

When did that become the Republican party platform?

1990s. When the the Christian Coalition became the loudest squeaky wheels in the RNC.

It's also when the Republicans stopped being the GOP and simply became the RNC. The Republican party isn't the party I joined in 1974. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "I didn't leave the Republican party. The Republican party left me".

The party has moved way left so I don't get your point. Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition was making noise, haven't heard from them in a looooong time. The TEA party types play a bigger role. I'm not a party member so don't really understand the mentality in the first place. I don't feel the need to belong and feel jilted if things don't go my way. But I damn sure won't vote for dem since they have gone socialist.

 

[Divine Wind]

Thanks for the condescension. No, Republicans today claim they want smaller government, but they also want FEDERAL LAW to ban abortion, gay marriage and other bullshit.

Some may but it's bullshit to make that claim. Most want those issues to go back to the states where they belong. How would that make the federal government bigger?

When they seek to use Federal law to ban abortion and gay marriage.

When did that become the Republican party platform?

1990s. When the the Christian Coalition became the loudest squeaky wheels in the RNC.

It's also when the Republicans stopped being the GOP and simply became the RNC. The Republican party isn't the party I joined in 1974. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "I didn't leave the Republican party. The Republican party left me".

The party has moved way left so I don't get your point. Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition was making noise, haven't heard from them in a looooong time. The TEA party types play a bigger role. I'm not a party member so don't really understand the mentality in the first place. I don't feel the need to belong and feel jilted if things don't go my way. But I damn sure won't vote for dem since they have gone socialist.

How do you think the Republicans have moved further left?

Yes, the Democrats have moved further left to an extreme just as I think the Republicans have also moved to an extreme on the right.

 

[Iceweasel]

Some may but it's bullshit to make that claim. Most want those issues to go back to the states where they belong. How would that make the federal government bigger?

When they seek to use Federal law to ban abortion and gay marriage.

When did that become the Republican party platform?

1990s. When the the Christian Coalition became the loudest squeaky wheels in the RNC.

It's also when the Republicans stopped being the GOP and simply became the RNC. The Republican party isn't the party I joined in 1974. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "I didn't leave the Republican party. The Republican party left me".

The party has moved way left so I don't get your point. Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition was making noise, haven't heard from them in a looooong time. The TEA party types play a bigger role. I'm not a party member so don't really understand the mentality in the first place. I don't feel the need to belong and feel jilted if things don't go my way. But I damn sure won't vote for dem since they have gone socialist.

How do you think the Republicans have moved further left?

Yes, the Democrats have moved further left to an extreme just as I think the Republicans have also moved to an extreme on the right.

Ever heard the term RINO? They've been running the party.

 

[Divine Wind]

When they seek to use Federal law to ban abortion and gay marriage.

When did that become the Republican party platform?

1990s. When the the Christian Coalition became the loudest squeaky wheels in the RNC.

It's also when the Republicans stopped being the GOP and simply became the RNC. The Republican party isn't the party I joined in 1974. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "I didn't leave the Republican party. The Republican party left me".

The party has moved way left so I don't get your point. Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition was making noise, haven't heard from them in a looooong time. The TEA party types play a bigger role. I'm not a party member so don't really understand the mentality in the first place. I don't feel the need to belong and feel jilted if things don't go my way. But I damn sure won't vote for dem since they have gone socialist.

How do you think the Republicans have moved further left?

Yes, the Democrats have moved further left to an extreme just as I think the Republicans have also moved to an extreme on the right.

Ever heard the term RINO? They've been running the party.

Yes, I have. Please define what separates a RINO from a true Republican.

 

[Iceweasel]

When did that become the Republican party platform?

1990s. When the the Christian Coalition became the loudest squeaky wheels in the RNC.

It's also when the Republicans stopped being the GOP and simply became the RNC. The Republican party isn't the party I joined in 1974. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "I didn't leave the Republican party. The Republican party left me".

The party has moved way left so I don't get your point. Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition was making noise, haven't heard from them in a looooong time. The TEA party types play a bigger role. I'm not a party member so don't really understand the mentality in the first place. I don't feel the need to belong and feel jilted if things don't go my way. But I damn sure won't vote for dem since they have gone socialist.

How do you think the Republicans have moved further left?

Yes, the Democrats have moved further left to an extreme just as I think the Republicans have also moved to an extreme on the right.

Ever heard the term RINO? They've been running the party.

Yes, I have. Please define what separates a RINO from a true Republican.

There's no such thing as a true Republican, Democrat or anything else. It's a loaded question. RINOs favor big government solutions, regulations taxes, etc. like the Democrats. It's a political party, not a church.

 

[Divine Wind]

1990s. When the the Christian Coalition became the loudest squeaky wheels in the RNC.

It's also when the Republicans stopped being the GOP and simply became the RNC. The Republican party isn't the party I joined in 1974. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "I didn't leave the Republican party. The Republican party left me".

The party has moved way left so I don't get your point. Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition was making noise, haven't heard from them in a looooong time. The TEA party types play a bigger role. I'm not a party member so don't really understand the mentality in the first place. I don't feel the need to belong and feel jilted if things don't go my way. But I damn sure won't vote for dem since they have gone socialist.

How do you think the Republicans have moved further left?

Yes, the Democrats have moved further left to an extreme just as I think the Republicans have also moved to an extreme on the right.

Ever heard the term RINO? They've been running the party.

Yes, I have. Please define what separates a RINO from a true Republican.

There's no such thing as a true Republican, Democrat or anything else. It's a loaded question. RINOs favor big government solutions, regulations taxes, etc. like the Democrats. It's a political party, not a church.

Nice dodge of the question. Interesting.

Could it be that the reason you don't want to answer the question is because it would prove that Ronald Reagan would fit the definition of RINO?

 

[IsaacNewton]

The never ending propensity of conservatives to try to couch their own beliefs in all the saccharine goodness of the founding fathers. They were radical liberals of their day, many of the Deists who thought Christianity an enslavement to human beings. Lincoln was the first elected president of the Republican party, and after Eisenhower there haven't been any Republicans, only demagogues that view being president as tantamount to becoming king with unquestionable power. The Republican party died long ago, now it's just a mishmash of neocons, end-of-the-worlders, corporatists that think the middle class and poor can never be stepped on hard enough, and fake kristians who are pro-birth but once you are out of the whom they couldn't careless if you died in the street the next day because of hunger or you couldn't afford healthcare.

lol there were very few 'Deists' around. 'Deism' was just another pseudo-intellectual fashion, among a very tiny set of aristocrats and their sycophants and had zero influence on anything. The vast majority of founders were Christians, period. Get over it; it's still going to be a long time before you can marry your favorite puppy or whatever other animal you're in love with at the moment.

You need to believe your religious dogma not matter that you have no facts. Carry on Wendell, whatever floats your boat.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The never ending propensity of conservatives to try to couch their own beliefs in all the saccharine goodness of the founding fathers. They were radical liberals of their day, many of the Deists who thought Christianity an enslavement to human beings. Lincoln was the first elected president of the Republican party, and after Eisenhower there haven't been any Republicans, only demagogues that view being president as tantamount to becoming king with unquestionable power. The Republican party died long ago, now it's just a mishmash of neocons, end-of-the-worlders, corporatists that think the middle class and poor can never be stepped on hard enough, and fake kristians who are pro-birth but once you are out of the whom they couldn't careless if you died in the street the next day because of hunger or you couldn't afford healthcare.

You are 180 degrees off. Both parties have shifted left but Democrats rule like dictators, we just got rid of one. Your memory is that flawed?

You are brainwashed to a clinical degree Jesus H.

 

[Iceweasel]

The never ending propensity of conservatives to try to couch their own beliefs in all the saccharine goodness of the founding fathers. They were radical liberals of their day, many of the Deists who thought Christianity an enslavement to human beings. Lincoln was the first elected president of the Republican party, and after Eisenhower there haven't been any Republicans, only demagogues that view being president as tantamount to becoming king with unquestionable power. The Republican party died long ago, now it's just a mishmash of neocons, end-of-the-worlders, corporatists that think the middle class and poor can never be stepped on hard enough, and fake kristians who are pro-birth but once you are out of the whom they couldn't careless if you died in the street the next day because of hunger or you couldn't afford healthcare.

You are 180 degrees off. Both parties have shifted left but Democrats rule like dictators, we just got rid of one. Your memory is that flawed?

You are brainwashed to a clinical degree Jesus H.

The mirror speaks.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, I have. Please define what separates a RINO from a true Republican.

how silly , the flip floppers in the middle determine who wins elections so all Republicans and Democrats are in the middle to one degree or another. Some can stand more on principle than others, like Barry Sanders and Rand Paul, based on on the district from which they come. You know them not because of who they are or the purity of their principles but because of where they come from. So, Republicans are RINOs and Democrats are DINOs.

That gets us back to the original question: which is 100 times smarter, the Republican philosophy of freedom that created our country or the communist philosophy of the Democrats?

 

[Picaro]

The never ending propensity of conservatives to try to couch their own beliefs in all the saccharine goodness of the founding fathers. They were radical liberals of their day, many of the Deists who thought Christianity an enslavement to human beings. Lincoln was the first elected president of the Republican party, and after Eisenhower there haven't been any Republicans, only demagogues that view being president as tantamount to becoming king with unquestionable power. The Republican party died long ago, now it's just a mishmash of neocons, end-of-the-worlders, corporatists that think the middle class and poor can never be stepped on hard enough, and fake kristians who are pro-birth but once you are out of the whom they couldn't careless if you died in the street the next day because of hunger or you couldn't afford healthcare.

lol there were very few 'Deists' around. 'Deism' was just another pseudo-intellectual fashion, among a very tiny set of aristocrats and their sycophants and had zero influence on anything. The vast majority of founders were Christians, period. Get over it; it's still going to be a long time before you can marry your favorite puppy or whatever other animal you're in love with at the moment.

You need to believe your religious dogma not matter that you have no facts. Carry on Wendell, whatever floats your boat.

I don't have any religious dogma; I do have a knowledge of American history as well as world history; that's why anybody else who bothers to study American history knows you're an idiot. You don't even know what is meant by 'separation of church and state' or even who invented the idea.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The never ending propensity of conservatives to try to couch their own beliefs in all the saccharine goodness of the founding fathers. They were radical liberals of their day, many of the Deists who thought Christianity an enslavement to human beings. Lincoln was the first elected president of the Republican party, and after Eisenhower there haven't been any Republicans, only demagogues that view being president as tantamount to becoming king with unquestionable power. The Republican party died long ago, now it's just a mishmash of neocons, end-of-the-worlders, corporatists that think the middle class and poor can never be stepped on hard enough, and fake kristians who are pro-birth but once you are out of the whom they couldn't careless if you died in the street the next day because of hunger or you couldn't afford healthcare.

lol there were very few 'Deists' around. 'Deism' was just another pseudo-intellectual fashion, among a very tiny set of aristocrats and their sycophants and had zero influence on anything. The vast majority of founders were Christians, period. Get over it; it's still going to be a long time before you can marry your favorite puppy or whatever other animal you're in love with at the moment.

You need to believe your religious dogma not matter that you have no facts. Carry on Wendell, whatever floats your boat.

I don't have any religious dogma; I do have a knowledge of American history as well as world history; that's why anybody else who bothers to study American history knows you're an idiot. You don't even know what is meant by 'separation of church and state' or even who invented the idea.

So you are a mind reader? You know what other people know. One would think such powers are reserved to 'a god' but lordy you done cracked the case.

In reality you are a projectionist. You project your demons out onto others to make the world appear the same as in thought. It isn't of course, but the need to twist reality outweighs reality. Carry on. Lincoln was the first Republican as the question is being asked in 2017 and thus 99% of humans would reference it's meaning to that time period.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The never ending propensity of conservatives to try to couch their own beliefs in all the saccharine goodness of the founding fathers. They were radical liberals of their day, many of the Deists who thought Christianity an enslavement to human beings. Lincoln was the first elected president of the Republican party, and after Eisenhower there haven't been any Republicans, only demagogues that view being president as tantamount to becoming king with unquestionable power. The Republican party died long ago, now it's just a mishmash of neocons, end-of-the-worlders, corporatists that think the middle class and poor can never be stepped on hard enough, and fake kristians who are pro-birth but once you are out of the whom they couldn't careless if you died in the street the next day because of hunger or you couldn't afford healthcare.

lol there were very few 'Deists' around. 'Deism' was just another pseudo-intellectual fashion, among a very tiny set of aristocrats and their sycophants and had zero influence on anything. The vast majority of founders were Christians, period. Get over it; it's still going to be a long time before you can marry your favorite puppy or whatever other animal you're in love with at the moment.

You need to believe your religious dogma not matter that you have no facts. Carry on Wendell, whatever floats your boat.

I don't have any religious dogma; I do have a knowledge of American history as well as world history; that's why anybody else who bothers to study American history knows you're an idiot. You don't even know what is meant by 'separation of church and state' or even who invented the idea.

So you are a mind reader? You know what other people know. One would think such powers are reserved to 'a god' but lordy you done cracked the case.

In reality you are a projectionist. You project your demons out onto others to make the world appear the same as in thought. It isn't of course, but the need to twist reality outweighs reality. Carry on. Lincoln was the first Republican as the question is being asked in 2017 and thus 99% of humans would reference it's meaning to that time period.

Why would you say Lincoln when Lincoln doesn't share the limited government principles that Jefferson does with modern Republicans?

 

[IsaacNewton]

The never ending propensity of conservatives to try to couch their own beliefs in all the saccharine goodness of the founding fathers. They were radical liberals of their day, many of the Deists who thought Christianity an enslavement to human beings. Lincoln was the first elected president of the Republican party, and after Eisenhower there haven't been any Republicans, only demagogues that view being president as tantamount to becoming king with unquestionable power. The Republican party died long ago, now it's just a mishmash of neocons, end-of-the-worlders, corporatists that think the middle class and poor can never be stepped on hard enough, and fake kristians who are pro-birth but once you are out of the whom they couldn't careless if you died in the street the next day because of hunger or you couldn't afford healthcare.

lol there were very few 'Deists' around. 'Deism' was just another pseudo-intellectual fashion, among a very tiny set of aristocrats and their sycophants and had zero influence on anything. The vast majority of founders were Christians, period. Get over it; it's still going to be a long time before you can marry your favorite puppy or whatever other animal you're in love with at the moment.

You need to believe your religious dogma not matter that you have no facts. Carry on Wendell, whatever floats your boat.

I don't have any religious dogma; I do have a knowledge of American history as well as world history; that's why anybody else who bothers to study American history knows you're an idiot. You don't even know what is meant by 'separation of church and state' or even who invented the idea.

So you are a mind reader? You know what other people know. One would think such powers are reserved to 'a god' but lordy you done cracked the case.

In reality you are a projectionist. You project your demons out onto others to make the world appear the same as in thought. It isn't of course, but the need to twist reality outweighs reality. Carry on. Lincoln was the first Republican as the question is being asked in 2017 and thus 99% of humans would reference it's meaning to that time period.

Why would you say Lincoln when Lincoln doesn't share the limited government principles that Jefferson does with modern Republicans?

Check on when the Republican party was formed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

lol there were very few 'Deists' around. 'Deism' was just another pseudo-intellectual fashion, among a very tiny set of aristocrats and their sycophants and had zero influence on anything. The vast majority of founders were Christians, period. Get over it; it's still going to be a long time before you can marry your favorite puppy or whatever other animal you're in love with at the moment.

You need to believe your religious dogma not matter that you have no facts. Carry on Wendell, whatever floats your boat.

I don't have any religious dogma; I do have a knowledge of American history as well as world history; that's why anybody else who bothers to study American history knows you're an idiot. You don't even know what is meant by 'separation of church and state' or even who invented the idea.

So you are a mind reader? You know what other people know. One would think such powers are reserved to 'a god' but lordy you done cracked the case.

In reality you are a projectionist. You project your demons out onto others to make the world appear the same as in thought. It isn't of course, but the need to twist reality outweighs reality. Carry on. Lincoln was the first Republican as the question is being asked in 2017 and thus 99% of humans would reference it's meaning to that time period.

Why would you say Lincoln when Lincoln doesn't share the limited government principles that Jefferson does with modern Republicans?

Check on when the Republican party was formed.

I did it was formed in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. What party did you think they formed?????????????????