• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

History is nothing more than the struggle between freedom and govt?

Harshaw said:
I don't think they do.
Click to expand...
They don't. The twin engines of history are the forces of energy development and centralization of management socially, governmentally, and corporately. The rise of human liberty and freedom rise as humans gain economic freedom to pursue their interests beyond sustainability; the conflict over sustainability and personal freedom clashes within the society and also among competing societies. Jefferson may go to hell for adultery and slavery, but he will be a saint in the heaven as a contributing founder of the American dream, as corrupt an individual as he was.
 
JamesBY said:
Jefferson may go to hell for adultery and slavery, but he will be a saint in the heaven as a contributing founder of the American dream, as corrupt an individual as he was.
Click to expand...

corrupt??? do you have an example?????
 
JamesBY said:
Slaver? Fornicator? Rapist? Sally Hemings had no right to consent to relations with TJ.
Click to expand...

who knows, most women would consent to love the greatest man in human history
 
James972 said:
who knows, most women would consent to love the greatest man in human history
Click to expand...
Slaver? Fornicator? Rapist? Sally Hemings had no right to consent to relations with TJ.

I am reposting because you went right over it. You have no idea if SH loved him, and she had no legal right to consent. She probably had no legal contest to rape, either, for that matter.
 
JamesBY said:
Slaver? Fornicator? Rapist? Sally Hemings had no right to consent to relations with TJ.

I am reposting because you went right over it. You have no idea if SH loved him, and she had no legal right to consent. She probably had no legal contest to rape, either, for that matter.
Click to expand...

and since he was probably the greatest man in the world she probably did love him.
 
JamesBY said:
Probably not. But he did free his children by her. Yeah, he was a slob but a slob of his time.
Click to expand...

slob?? He was born owning slaves and did as much as anyone to free them as anyone alive, not to mention that his idea about freedom just freed 1.4 billion in China. Slob?? More like God!!
 
James972 said:
slob?? He was born owning slaves and did as much as anyone to free them as anyone alive, not to mention that his idea about freedom just freed 1.4 billion in China. Slob?? More like God!!
Click to expand...
You don't your American or Virginia or slave history, do you. Jefferson did not free anyone in China. Capitalism did not free anyone in China. Do you know Jefferson created the Democratic Party in cahoots with Aaron Burr?:mrgreen:
 
JamesBY said:
Capitalism did not free anyone in China.
Click to expand...

what did capitalism do in China if not free the Chinese from the liberal govt that had slowly starved 60 million to death??
 
JamesBY said:
Do you know Jefferson created the Democratic Party in cahoots with Aaron Burr?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

wrong he created the Republican Party with Madison in 1793 to stand for freedom against the Federalists.
 
James972 said:
wrong he created the Republican Party with Madison in 1793 to stand for freedom against the Federalists.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. They created the Democratic-Republican Party. "The Democratic-Republican Party was an American political party formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791–93 to oppose the centralizing policies of the new Federalist Party run by Alexander Hamilton, who was then Secretary of the Treasury and chief architect of George Washington's administration.[2] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

The Republicans were for wealth and business. You love Alexander Hamilton and the big businessmen. You loved the Whig Party. You love the Republican Party. You love the concentration of wealth in unregulated capitalism, which only enslaves and never frees humans.
 
Last edited:
JamesBY said:
Wrong again, Edward. They created the Democratic-Republican Party. "The Democratic-Republican Party was an American political party formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791–93 to oppose the centralizing policies of the new Federalist Party run by Alexander Hamilton, who was then Secretary of the Treasury and chief architect of George Washington's administration.[2] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

The Republicans were for wealth and business.
Click to expand...

if you have evidence from primary source that it was not called Republican Party in 19th Century I will pay you $10,000. Bet??
 
James972 said:
if you have evidence from primary source that it was not called Republican Party in 19th Century I will pay you $10,000. Bet??
Click to expand...
You have the lost bet several times before in several other places. You know that. This is based on primary sources. "Democratic-Republican Party". The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. Retrieved December 7, 2014.
 
Last edited:
JamesBY said:
Edward, you have the lost bet several times before in several other places. You know that. This is based on primary sources. "Democratic-Republican Party". The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. Retrieved December 7, 2014.
Click to expand...

a primary source would be newspaper speech congressional record govt documents private letters etc. etc all of which exist in the millions!!!!


A.James Reichley "The Life of the Parties"( most thorough look at Party history ever written) Page 52


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

You on the other hand have quoted yourself. That's a no no.

Witcover, Jules (2003), "1.."", Party of the People: A History of the Democrats

Micklethwait, John; Wooldridge, Adrian (2004). The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America. p. 15.

Kenneth Janda; Jeffrey M. Berry; Jerry Goldman (2010).

The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in Global Politics. Cengage Learning. p. 276.

A poorly written and deliberate misrepresentation of the Democratic and Republican parties can be found at Understanding the Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (A Republican Perspective) by Edward Baiamonte
 
Last edited:
JamesBY said:
Or all based on primary sources.

Witcover, Jules (2003), "1.."", Party of the People: A History of the Democrats

Micklethwait, John; Wooldridge, Adrian (2004). The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America. p. 15.

Kenneth Janda; Jeffrey M. Berry; Jerry Goldman (2010).

The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in Global Politics. Cengage Learning. p. 276.

A poorly written and misrepresentation of the Democratic and Republican parties can be found at Understanding the Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (A Republican Perspective) by Edward Baiamonte
Click to expand...

so do you have a primary source calling Jefferson's Party the Democratic-Republican Party in the 18th Century or just pretend allusions to such????
 
James972 said:
so do you have a primary source calling Jefferson's Party the Democratic-Republican Party in the 18th Century or just pretend allusions to such????
Click to expand...
All of the following do just that, with plenty of primary sources.

Or all based on primary sources.

You on the other hand have quoted yourself. That's a no no.

Witcover, Jules (2003), "1.."", Party of the People: A History of the Democrats

Micklethwait, John; Wooldridge, Adrian (2004). The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America. p. 15.

Kenneth Janda; Jeffrey M. Berry; Jerry Goldman (2010).

The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in Global Politics. Cengage Learning. p. 276.

A poorly written and deliberate misrepresentation of the Democratic and Republican parties can be found at Understanding the Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (A Republican Perspective) by Edward Baiamonte
 
JamesBY said:
All of the following do just that, with plenty of primary sources.

Or all based on primary sources.

You on the other hand have quoted yourself. That's a no no.

Witcover, Jules (2003), "1.."", Party of the People: A History of the Democrats

Micklethwait, John; Wooldridge, Adrian (2004). The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America. p. 15.

Kenneth Janda; Jeffrey M. Berry; Jerry Goldman (2010).

The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in Global Politics. Cengage Learning. p. 276.

A poorly written and deliberate misrepresentation of the Democratic and Republican parties can be found at Understanding the Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (A Republican Perspective) by Edward Baiamonte
Click to expand...

so why so afraid to show us the primary source??? When you persist after seeing what greatest history on subject said you are showing a lack of character or a liberal character.


A.James Reichley "The Life of the Parties"( most thorough look at Party history ever written) Page 52


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

Or all based on primary sources.

You on the other hand have quoted yourself. That's a no no.

Witcover, Jules (2003), "1.."", Party of the People: A History of the Democrats

Micklethwait, John; Wooldridge, Adrian (2004). The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America. p. 15.

Kenneth Janda; Jeffrey M. Berry; Jerry Goldman (2010).

The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in Global Politics. Cengage Learning. p. 276.

A poorly written and deliberate misrepresentation of the Democratic and Republican parties can be found at Understanding the Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (A Republican Perspective) by Edward Baiamonte
Click to expand...


From the Congressional Record , a primary source:

5th Congress (1797-1799)
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

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

6th Congress (1799-1801)

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

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

7th Congress (1801-1803)

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34
 
James972 said:
so why so afraid to show us the primary source??? When you persist after seeing what greatest history on subject said you are showing a lack of character or a liberal character.


A.James Reichley "The Life of the Parties"( most thorough look at Party history ever written) Page 52


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

I have given the sources where they are all listed.

The Jefferson Party came to be known as the Democratic-Republican Party and was commonly used as such. It was based on slave owning interests and perverted neo-capitalism interested only in captive slave economies.

The Democratic-Republicans were for wealth and business and became the Whigs and later the Republicans, as the Federalist Party failed and joined the D-R. You love Alexander Hamilton and the big businessmen. You loved the Whig Party. You love the Republican Party. You love the concentration of wealth in unregulated capitalism, which only enslaves and never frees humans.

Show me where I am wrong, but you can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom