What James Madison (1793 Founder of Republican Party and author of Constitution) said about how lib

[Faun]

Now explain to the nice people who the conservatives were during our founding

1) conservatives are for limited govt so conservatives would be Jefferson and Madison as opposed to Adams and Hamilton who wanted unlimited govt

2) another definition hold that conservatives are against change so the would be those loyal to England before the revolution, and those loyal to Articles of Confederation and opposed to Constitution after the Revolution.

Federalists begat the National Republicans; and National Republicans begat Whigs; and Whigs begat Republicans.

 

[Syriusly]

Not in the least.

Jesus challenged the Jewish hierarchy.[not Roman govt]

a religious scholar too!!!!

Persecution of Christians in Rome. Christian martyrs in the Colosseum Under Roman rule, Christians were denied business opportunities and status in society, prohibited from worshiping, attacked by mobs, persecuted, tortured and killed in organized campaigns by the Romans government.

I don't remember Jesus making it to Rome....I guess your Bible is different than mine

 

[Syriusly]

What Party was President Lincoln the second Presidential candidate of?

a second Republican anti slavery party largely irrelevant today given that slavery is long over while main argument in human history is between freedom (Jefferson) and govt (Marx Obama Sanders, etc). Now do you understand?

President Lincoln was the second Presidential candidate of the modern Republican Party.

And the freedom issue between Jefferson- and Obama- is that Jefferson believed it was appropriate for white men to own black slaves.

That is the 'freedom' that Jefferson believed in.

Modern Republican Party is for freedom from big liberal govt so is much closer to Jefferson's Republican Party which stood for same thing.

Yes Jefferson believed it was appropriate to own slaves having been born owning them but Jesus believed the same thing and yet the 2 men set in motion the process by which billions of human being were freed from slavery, the latest example being 1.4 billion Chinese being freed from libcommunism. Do you understand now?

1.4 billion Chinese 'being freed from libcommunism'

Yes it is more and more clear that you are delusional.

China is still an authoritarian communist country- it just that now they have ultra rich and a middle class- but if you aren't sure whether this is still true just try using the internet while in China.

 

[Syriusly]

the Republican Party. Which was founded, for the 1854th time, IN 1854.
.

You seem to have Jefferson's Republican Party confused with Lincolns. Do you understand?

There is one existing Republican Party- and that is Lincolns.

 

[Pogo]

Now explain to the nice people who the conservatives were during our founding

1) conservatives are for limited govt so conservatives would be Jefferson and Madison as opposed to Adams and Hamilton who wanted unlimited govt

2) another definition hold that conservatives are against change so the would be those loyal to England before the revolution, and those loyal to Articles of Confederation and opposed to Constitution after the Revolution.

Federalists begat the National Republicans; and National Republicans begat Whigs; and Whigs begat Republicans.

Not exactly. Henry Clay and crew organized the "anti-Jacksonians" which begat Whiggery and were briefly called National Republicans, not to be confused with the American Republican Party (1843) which were a bunch of nativist assholes. The Whigs fell apart a couple of decades later when they couldn't come to a consensus on the Slavery question. Some were for it, some agin' it. The ones that were agin' it later joined the Republican Party (the one that still exists) once it was founded in 1854.

Pertinent to the ridiculous timefuck fantasy of this thread, the Whigs in their heyday were the party of doing big things with government, so the trace back to the Federalists is well taken at least ideologically on that account. When they infused the nascent Republican Party with new blood it made them the party of "big government" while the Democrats were all about decentralization and "states rights". And that's a snapshot that blows up Special Ed's childish fantasy of political parties that never evolve over time.

The "Jacksonians" meanwhile were organized by Jackson's successor Martin van Buren into the Democratic Party, which first used that name in 1834.

The "Democratic-Republican Party" of Jefferson/Adams is thus unrelated to any of the succeeding parties that used either of those terms, and confoundingly enough, were in their time called "Republicans" for short, or "Democrats"--- interchageably.

 

[Faun]

if you have 18th century primary source showing Democratic Republican Party I will pay you $10000. Bet??

I'll take that bet ...

United States presidential election of 1800, American presidential election held in 1800 in which Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson was elected as the country’s third president.

Now pay up!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now explain to the nice people who the conservatives were during our founding

1) conservatives are for limited govt so conservatives would be Jefferson and Madison as opposed to Adams and Hamilton who wanted unlimited govt

2) another definition hold that conservatives are against change so the would be those loyal to England before the revolution, and those loyal to Articles of Confederation and opposed to Constitution after the Revolution.

Federalists begat the National Republicans; and National Republicans begat Whigs; and Whigs begat Republicans.

so???? do you have any idea what your point is??

 

[Faun]

Now explain to the nice people who the conservatives were during our founding

1) conservatives are for limited govt so conservatives would be Jefferson and Madison as opposed to Adams and Hamilton who wanted unlimited govt

2) another definition hold that conservatives are against change so the would be those loyal to England before the revolution, and those loyal to Articles of Confederation and opposed to Constitution after the Revolution.

Federalists begat the National Republicans; and National Republicans begat Whigs; and Whigs begat Republicans.

so???? do you have any idea what your point is??

Yeah, my point is — where’s the $10,000.00 you owe me...?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now explain to the nice people who the conservatives were during our founding

1) conservatives are for limited govt so conservatives would be Jefferson and Madison as opposed to Adams and Hamilton who wanted unlimited govt

2) another definition hold that conservatives are against change so the would be those loyal to England before the revolution, and those loyal to Articles of Confederation and opposed to Constitution after the Revolution.

Federalists begat the National Republicans; and National Republicans begat Whigs; and Whigs begat Republicans.

so???? do you have any idea what your point is??

Yeah, my point is — where’s the $10,000.00 you owe me...?

How do you figure IOU $10,000

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

if you have 18th century primary source showing Democratic Republican Party I will pay you $10000. Bet??

I'll take that bet ...

United States presidential election of 1800, American presidential election held in 1800 in which Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson was elected as the country’s third president.

Now pay up!

If you ac except the bet you need a primary source from the 18th century showing at the party of Jefferson and Madison was called Democrat Republican. And article from a children’s encyclopedia is not sufficient

 

[Faun]

if you have 18th century primary source showing Democratic Republican Party I will pay you $10000. Bet??

I'll take that bet ...

United States presidential election of 1800, American presidential election held in 1800 in which Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson was elected as the country’s third president.

Now pay up!

If you ac except the bet you need a primary source from the 18th century showing at the party of Jefferson and Madison was called Democrat Republican. And article from a children’s encyclopedia is not sufficient

Nope, that wasn’t the bet. You don’t get to change it after you lose. Your bet — ”if you have 18th century primary source showing Democratic Republican Party I will pay you $10000. Bet??”

And I just showed you evidence of the Democratic-Republican party in the 18th century.

Now pay up, Crazy Eddie......

 

[emilynghiem]

Special Ed returns. For those who joined in the last year or so the reason we call him "Special Ed" will make itself readily apparent.

Now on to the refutation. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 in Ripon Wisconsin. James Madison was already dead for eighteen years. These are simple historical facts. This is however a tiny bit closer to Special Ed's previous claim where he had Jefferson founding the Party --- 28 years after his own death.

"Liberals" were Madison himself and the rest of the crew that wrote the Constitution. Liberalism was its driving force. "Federalists" were a political party that organized after that was done. Madison was a member (and founder) of the "Democratic-Republican" Party, which has no direct connection to either of the modern parties by those names.

As far as Madison's "regrets" I couldn't say what his "greatest" one was but he did call for a Constitutional Amendment that would have made the insane "winner take all" system the Electoral College uses, illegal.

I think the most hilariousest part of the OP is his trying to sell the idea that Madison wanted to make himself illegal.

Dear Pogo and rightwinger
The best explanation and distinction I've seen clarifying Liberals and Conservatives beliefs
came from Allen West's book "Guardian of the Republic":

* today's Liberals came from the Radical Liberal approach made famous by Rousseau
This approach is using Govt to establish the collective will of the people

* today's Conservatives came from the Classical Liberal approach by John Locke
This is where the tradition came from that the Constitution LIMITS and CHECKS the powers of govt (where people do NOT rely on Govt for natural rights that come from Nature or God,
so the PEOPLE have the power and authority of Govt, not the other way around)

So the two groups use govt in different ways.
One (the Liberals) believe in RELYING on Govt as the Central Authority for establishing laws for everyone.
And usually the emphasis is on "promoting the general welfare" so this is proactive toward social programs and benefits
based on what Liberals push for TODAY.

The Other (the Conservatives believe in LIMITING Govt so that the authority of decisions remains vested in the people.

So this is where the pushing and shoving comes from, where one side appears to want to expand govt to "control"
all the services and decisions FOR the people; while the other appears to want to get rid of govt and excess legislation.
The problem being that Corporations already have collective power and influence similar to Govt but have no
regulatory means to prevent abuses of power, as the Constitution serves to check official govt but not corporations.

Because of the disproportionate influence of corporations and media in the democratic process of govt and parties,
this is why Liberals push for more dependence on Govt for protections from this source of abusive oppression
that the Constitution doesn't check against. While Conservatives continue to argue for "free market" solutions
against the massive monopolies of corporate interests that bypass checks and balances.

Pogo and rightwinger Regardless where Madison or Jefferson, or Mason or other past leaders
stood on federalism anti-federalism,
do you agree with West's explanation that the
* Liberals depend on Govt as the central authority for establishing laws for the public and/or promoting general welfare
* Conservatives only agree to grant CERTAIN powers to Govt as defined in the Constitution,
believe in Limited Govt and push for enforcing Constitutional limits, check and balances, and separation of power to prevent too much control of people's choices and resources from being vested in the hands of a few officials running govt (instead of the PEOPLE being the authority that govt has the duty to represent and reflect the consent of).

Is that a fair delineation between the two camps?

According to West, even the Black leadership was split between these two ideologies,
where DuBois believed in relying on the political process through GOVT to "establish political rights and equality"
while Booker T. Washington believed that equality and true empowerment would be gained by
teaching INDEPENDENCE of govt, and for Blacks especially to own their own property and businesses in order to be equal.

This stems from the "difference in beliefs" where
Conservatives tend to believe that the natural rights of man come from Natural Laws (not from govt)
while Liberals don't believe in God given rights or laws (which is faith based or just plain "made up" as a religious cult following for class control)
and believe that people depend on GOVT to establish protections of rights.

So that's the summary of political beliefs from left and right.
Does this seem accurate to you?
Or what would you clarify? Thanks!

 

[cnm]

I've had to stop reading this thread on the first page. Rightard revisionism is threatening to break one or more of my ribs. I may be back if I can find a corset.

 

[cnm]

If you ac except the bet you need a primary source from the 18th century showing at the party of Jefferson and Madison was called Democrat Republican. And article from a children’s encyclopedia is not sufficient

I think we'd all agree that calling the Encyclopedia Britannica a children's encyclopedia is sufficiently the act of a pussy.

 

[cnm]

This has the look of a primary source document. What do you reckon?

Founders Online: To Thomas Jefferson from Delaware Democratic Republicans, [on …

Oh, it's from the 19th century. Not to worry, getting closer...

 

[Syriusly]

So James Madison- the founder of the Republican Slavery Party.......how is he relevant today?

 

[cnm]

How about this one?

Kent County, Delaware, Democratic Republican Citizens to Thomas Jefferson, January 13, 1807
Kent County, Delaware, Democratic Republican Citizens to Thomas Jefferson, January 13, 1807

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This has the look of a primary source document. What do you reckon?

Founders Online: To Thomas Jefferson from Delaware Democratic Republicans, [on …

Oh, it's from the 19th century. Not to worry, getting closer...

Getting closer to what? In the Text republican is used with a capital letter when referring to the Republican Party and not with a capital letter when referring to ordinary people. Do you understand? And no where is there a reference to the Democratic Republican Party. Now you can see that Jefferson was a Republican just like modern Republicans and both believed in very very limited government Or freedom from government. Let’s make no mistake about it Modern Democrats have no association with any of the founding principles of America. Republicans can claim a direct association with Jefferson and Lincoln while Democrats have a direct association only with Karl Marx.

 

[Pogo]

Special Ed returns. For those who joined in the last year or so the reason we call him "Special Ed" will make itself readily apparent.

Now on to the refutation. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 in Ripon Wisconsin. James Madison was already dead for eighteen years. These are simple historical facts. This is however a tiny bit closer to Special Ed's previous claim where he had Jefferson founding the Party --- 28 years after his own death.

"Liberals" were Madison himself and the rest of the crew that wrote the Constitution. Liberalism was its driving force. "Federalists" were a political party that organized after that was done. Madison was a member (and founder) of the "Democratic-Republican" Party, which has no direct connection to either of the modern parties by those names.

As far as Madison's "regrets" I couldn't say what his "greatest" one was but he did call for a Constitutional Amendment that would have made the insane "winner take all" system the Electoral College uses, illegal.

I think the most hilariousest part of the OP is his trying to sell the idea that Madison wanted to make himself illegal.

Dear Pogo and rightwinger
The best explanation and distinction I've seen clarifying Liberals and Conservatives beliefs
came from Allen West's book "Guardian of the Republic":

* today's Liberals came from the Radical Liberal approach made famous by Rousseau
This approach is using Govt to establish the collective will of the people

* today's Conservatives came from the Classical Liberal approach by John Locke
This is where the tradition came from that the Constitution LIMITS and CHECKS the powers of govt (where people do NOT rely on Govt for natural rights that come from Nature or God,
so the PEOPLE have the power and authority of Govt, not the other way around)

So the two groups use govt in different ways.
One (the Liberals) believe in RELYING on Govt as the Central Authority for establishing laws for everyone.
And usually the emphasis is on "promoting the general welfare" so this is proactive toward social programs and benefits
based on what Liberals push for TODAY.

The Other (the Conservatives believe in LIMITING Govt so that the authority of decisions remains vested in the people.

So this is where the pushing and shoving comes from, where one side appears to want to expand govt to "control"
all the services and decisions FOR the people; while the other appears to want to get rid of govt and excess legislation.
The problem being that Corporations already have collective power and influence similar to Govt but have no
regulatory means to prevent abuses of power, as the Constitution serves to check official govt but not corporations.

Because of the disproportionate influence of corporations and media in the democratic process of govt and parties,
this is why Liberals push for more dependence on Govt for protections from this source of abusive oppression
that the Constitution doesn't check against. While Conservatives continue to argue for "free market" solutions
against the massive monopolies of corporate interests that bypass checks and balances.

Pogo and rightwinger Regardless where Madison or Jefferson, or Mason or other past leaders
stood on federalism anti-federalism,
do you agree with West's explanation that the
* Liberals depend on Govt as the central authority for establishing laws for the public and/or promoting general welfare
* Conservatives only agree to grant CERTAIN powers to Govt as defined in the Constitution,
believe in Limited Govt and push for enforcing Constitutional limits, check and balances, and separation of power to prevent too much control of people's choices and resources from being vested in the hands of a few officials running govt (instead of the PEOPLE being the authority that govt has the duty to represent and reflect the consent of).

Is that a fair delineation between the two camps?

According to West, even the Black leadership was split between these two ideologies,
where DuBois believed in relying on the political process through GOVT to "establish political rights and equality"
while Booker T. Washington believed that equality and true empowerment would be gained by
teaching INDEPENDENCE of govt, and for Blacks especially to own their own property and businesses in order to be equal.

This stems from the "difference in beliefs" where
Conservatives tend to believe that the natural rights of man come from Natural Laws (not from govt)
while Liberals don't believe in God given rights or laws (which is faith based or just plain "made up" as a religious cult following for class control)
and believe that people depend on GOVT to establish protections of rights.

So that's the summary of political beliefs from left and right.
Does this seem accurate to you?
Or what would you clarify? Thanks!

No. It doesn't.

Allen West is a certifiable nutjob. Again you can't use the same term to mean two opposite things -- he's trying to play a single word both ways. Liberalism believes that government, should, outside of regulating obvious common necessities, stand out of the way and let People be People. The opposite of that, the belief that government should be stepping in and controlling People, is Statism, not "Liberalism". It should be obvious ("should" be) that you can't simultaneously pull in opposite directions. You cannot stand up and walk in an "eastwest" direction. It's either "east" or else it's "west".

It's impossible for "Liberalism" to mean its own opposite. We don't say something is "bright" when we actually mean it's "dark". That's pure bullshit intended to break down communication and slander an entire faction the bullshitter sees as a threat.

Anyone notice that this is exactly what George Orwell was describing in the term "Doublethink"?

 

[jillian]

Madison said faction is to freedom what air is to fire.

To prevent faction and civil war he gave us the greatest gift in human history, the Constitution. Immediately thereafter liberals (called Federalists a the time) appeared to represent a faction that wanted the Constitution to mean anything they wanted it to mean and thus the blueprint Madison gave us was undermined if not destroyed. Today, as a result, we are perhaps more divided than ever before thanks to those who lack the wisdom to understand Madison's Constitution. What was Madison's greatest regret: he wasn't even more clear in his Constitution about the need to make the liberal faction instantly illegal whenever it appeared.

Madison was one FACTION of the government at the time. And he lost most battles to the Hamilltonian wing.

just saying....


and your misstating what he believed is a disservice to madison and an embarrassment to you.

but watching partisan hacks spout what they pretend the constitutional means is always amusing.