Political Parties

[waste gate]

These are the parties which emerged during the ratification of the US constitution. Some of the issues may be dated. That being said which party would you be affiliated with, or would most closely identify.


Federalists


Favored strong central government.
"Loose" interpretation of the Constitution.
Encouragement of commerce and manufacturing.
Strongest in Northeast.
Favored close ties with Britain.
Emphasized order and stability. Republicans

Emphasized states' rights.
"Strict" interpretation of the Constitution.
Preference for agriculture and rural life.
Strength in South and West.
Foreign policy sympathized with France.
Stressed civil liberties and trust in the people

[Stealth Hunter]

Damn the Republicans!

May the Federalists live long and successfully!

[waste gate]

Damn the Republicans!

May the Federalists live long and successfully!

What points made you choose the Federalist? Why didn't you vote?

[Stealth Hunter]

Oh I voted Federalist, don't worry.

Sorry for not posting a reason, I was busy.

I favor the Federalists because I believe that they are what the United States defines; they symbolize what the nation was created for: equality, freedom, justice, and the right to a happy life.

To me, the Republicans are like a Democratic form of a Dictatorship. They believe that the Constitution is to be taken strictly into account, but hasn't free thinking about it taught us that we must build upon the base of our government to advance into a better nation? I'm not saying that they're wrong, I'm just saying that I strongly disagree with their political ideas.

One of the good points you made was in regards to the Republican idea of trust in the people. If history has taught us anything, it's that the people cannot be trusted fully. True, they deserve their rights, but too much can be a bad thing (the Roman Empire taught us that). To me, it seems that we should act as if we are holding the reigns of a horse: there's a time to loosen your grip and there's a time to hold tight and stand fast. FDR, for instance, exercised this idea during World War II. He didn't give us the truth about the war because we came very close to losing (perhaps luck saw us through). He gave us what he knew was best: motivation and new ideas.

Then there's the states' rights issue that I must make with the Republicans. This idea influences that the states should act as their own country in some respects, not as a united nation. The Articles of Confederation gave us this idea abroad, but we know today how much of a failure that was. States shouldn't be independent; they should be forced to work together to make an exceptional nation, like a watch. All the cogs and screws must work in perfect synchronization. Making the states work together also gives us the opportunity to cut down on the amount of arguments that might break out between them.

Commerce and manufacturing, however, is what I admire best in the Federalist beliefs. IF the United States were to become a nation that was based off manufacturing and trade, we could become like China, only much better (with rights, currency, and what have you). Assuming that we were to become a major power in manufacturing, like China, in which a majority of the Earth depended on us, we could have them by the balls. The idea: "Meet our demands and follow us or we shut down with you and watch you fall apart." Simple and effective, if used correctly.

[waste gate]

Oh I voted Federalist, don't worry.

Sorry for not posting a reason, I was busy.

I favor the Federalists because I believe that they are what the United States defines; they symbolize what the nation was created for: equality, freedom, justice, and the right to a happy life.

To me, the Republicans are like a Democratic form of a Dictatorship. They believe that the Constitution is to be taken strictly into account, but hasn't free thinking about it taught us that we must build upon the base of our government to advance into a better nation? I'm not saying that they're wrong, I'm just saying that I strongly disagree with their political ideas.

One of the good points you made was in regards to the Republican idea of trust in the people. If history has taught us anything, it's that the people cannot be trusted fully. True, they deserve their rights, but too much can be a bad thing (the Roman Empire taught us that). To me, it seems that we should act as if we are holding the reigns of a horse: there's a time to loosen your grip and there's a time to hold tight and stand fast. FDR, for instance, exercised this idea during World War II. He didn't give us the truth about the war because we came very close to losing (perhaps luck saw us through). He gave us what he knew was best: motivation and new ideas.

Then there's the states' rights issue that I must make with the Republicans. This idea influences that the states should act as their own country in some respects, not as a united nation. The Articles of Confederation gave us this idea abroad, but we know today how much of a failure that was. States shouldn't be independent; they should be forced to work together to make an exceptional nation, like a watch. All the cogs and screws must work in perfect synchronization. Making the states work together also gives us the opportunity to cut down on the amount of arguments that might break out between them.

Commerce and manufacturing, however, is what I admire best in the Federalist beliefs. IF the United States were to become a nation that was based off manufacturing and trade, we could become like China, only much better (with rights, currency, and what have you). Assuming that we were to become a major power in manufacturing, like China, in which a majority of the Earth depended on us, we could have them by the balls. The idea: "Meet our demands and follow us or we shut down with you and watch you fall apart." Simple and effective, if used correctly.

Thank you for your input Stealth Hunter.

[August]

IF the United States were to become a nation that was based off manufacturing and trade, we could become like China, only much better (with rights, currency, and what have you). Assuming that we were to become a major power in manufacturing, like China, in which a majority of the Earth depended on us, we could have them by the balls. The idea: "Meet our demands and follow us or we shut down with you and watch you fall apart." Simple and effective, if used correctly.

That's an interesting observation because at one time the US was the mightest industrial power on the planet.

[DeepIron]

Well, personally, I'd endorse the Klingons if I thought it would precipitate a change in the US political scene... :shifty:

[waste gate]

Well, personally, I'd endorse the Klingons if I thought it would precipitate a change in the US political scene... :shifty:

Pardon my cynism, but that is why the left cannot be taken seriously.

Always looking toward comedians, movies or star trek. Reality is much too scary.

Vote in the poll!

[DeepIron]

Vote in the poll!
I would but the Romulans aren't listed... ;)

The question was: That being said which party would you be affiliated with, or would most closely identify.

"Neither" wasn't a choice... This is a good demonstration of just how the US political system has evolved/devolved.... If you're not in one party or the other, your not taken seriously and run the risk of incurring other people cynical remarks... LOL...

Beyond that, it becomes a choice of "party" not "ability", not "is he/she really the right person for the job"? BTW, that's what I measure, the persons abililty... not how much $$$ they raise or their party affiliation...

When was the last time, or any time, an 'independent' was elected? :hmm:

[waste gate]

Vote in the poll!

I would but the Romulans aren't listed... ;)

The question was: That being said which party would you be affiliated with, or would most closely identify.

"Neither" wasn't a choice... This is a good demonstration of just how the US political system has evolved/devolved.... If you're not in one party or the other, your not taken seriously and run the risk of incurring other people cynical remarks... LOL...

When was the last time, or any time, an 'independent' was elected? :hmm:




You are absolutely correct DI. The last time a serious independent canditate (other than Joe Liberman in Connecticut, b/c the Democrats didn't like his stance on the actions in Iraq, what does that tell you) was Ross Perot. He sucked votes from GHWB and Bill Clinton was elected as a result.

Independents are nothing more than 'blood suckers' for the fringe. That is why you'll never see an independent candidate so long as the current system is in place. They have been even more marginalized.

Remember:
Every country gets the government it deserves.

[P_Funk]

Well, personally, I'd endorse the Klingons if I thought it would precipitate a change in the US political scene... :shifty:
Pardon my cynism, but that is why the left cannot be taken seriously.

Always looking toward comedians, movies or star trek. Reality is much too scary.

Vote in the poll! Yea the lefties are the deluded ones... And having a sense of humour isn't a bad thing. The right won't take the left seriously simply because... and the reason is whatever the loudest a$$hat pundit can latch onto that isn't even politically relevant. You might scoff at comedians but they say alot more truth than many politicians or 'serious' commentators, the only problem is you dismiss it and use the person's appearance against them. ad hominems galore. oh and don't forget the broad generalizations. LOTS AND LOTS OF GENERLIZATIONS!

[elite_hunter_sh3]

whichever one slows down immigration to the country and starts kicking out and blocking the building of mosques in britain would be my choice...:shifty::yep:

[DeepIron]

Every country gets the government it deserves.

Undoubtably...

[waste gate]

Well, personally, I'd endorse the Klingons if I thought it would precipitate a change in the US political scene... :shifty:
Pardon my cynism, but that is why the left cannot be taken seriously.

Always looking toward comedians, movies or star trek. Reality is much too scary.

Vote in the poll! Yea the lefties are the deluded ones... And having a sense of humour isn't a bad thing. The right won't take the left seriously simply because... and the reason is whatever the loudest a$$hat pundit can latch onto that isn't even politically relevant. You might scoff at comedians but they say alot more truth than many politicians or 'serious' commentators, the only problem is you dismiss it and use the person's appearance against them. ad hominems galore. oh and don't forget the broad generalizations. LOTS AND LOTS OF GENERLIZATIONS!

I didn't say deluded. Following the wrong folks. You, P-funk, of all people should should be disgusted with the profit that these people make for the big corporations in the name of comedy. Jon Stewart's production company owns Colbert's show, and makes a profit catering to peoples lowest denominator. Its like NASCAR for the left.

[DeepIron]

and makes a profit catering to peoples lowest denominator...

Yipes! And all these years I thought sitcoms (which also make obscene amounts of $$$ for their respective companies and networks) were 'intellectual manna"... Thx for setting me straight WG... LOL... ;)

C'mon, if you can't laugh or parody or lampoon, you end up constipated with stomach ulsers...

[nikimcbee]

I'm just surprised our Constitution has survived all these years. We argue this all the time at work. As long as we are not a monolithic utopia, there will always be parties, atleast 2 of the cursed things. I think the "independent" person is a fence-sitter who doesn't want to take sides. I guess it's not perfect, but I like the 2 party system, at least you know where a politician stands (more or less):roll: . I think more parties= more chaos. Just look at the Russian political system. How many parties do they have, and what the hell do they believe in?

[nikimcbee]

These are the parties which emerged during the ratification of the US constitution. Some of the issues may be dated. That being said which party would you be affiliated with, or would most closely identify.


Federalists

Favored strong central government.
"Loose" interpretation of the Constitution.
Encouragement of commerce and manufacturing.
Strongest in Northeast.
Favored close ties with Britain.
Emphasized order and stability. Republicans

Emphasized states' rights.
"Strict" interpretation of the Constitution.
Preference for agriculture and rural life.
Strength in South and West.
Foreign policy sympathized with France.
Stressed civil liberties and trust in the people

This is interesting to look at in a modern perspective:know: .



Republicans:
1. States rights, as long as it suits them:dead:
2. "Strict" interpretation of the Constitution?
3. Preference for Business'
4. Still strong in South and Mountain West.
5. Foreign policy sympathized with ourself.
6. Stressed civil liberties ( does not include terrorists) and trust in the people (still true?)

Democrats:
1.Central gov't is the center of the universe, run by themselves.
2. Constitution??? As long as it is politically correct.
3. Panders to unions.
4. East Coast, West Coast, union states.
5. All power to UN
6. What evere feels good at the moment and doesn't challenge their control (then look out):dead:

[DeepIron]

I think the "independent" person is a fence-sitter who doesn't want to take sides. Ouch! I'd prefer to think of independents as folks who just "think and believe" differently than the "established" political parties...

I guess it's not perfect, but I like the 2 party system, at least you know where a politician stands (more or less):roll: . Well, the "more or less" clause is what gets us in trouble IMO... I usually end up voting for the "less", believing he or she to be the "more"...

I think more parties= more chaos. Glorious, isn't it? Personally, I think the more parties, the better. Why? Anyone who wishes to make an educated decision about the electoral/political system should be better informed considering the number of choices. Not just the same old "republican vs. democrats" schtick...

Not only that, but it injects a bit of uncertainty into the system, a "spoiler" can make or break victory for a particular candidate forcing changes (good/bad) that would otherwise not happen.

[bradclark1]

I think the "independent" person is a fence-sitter who doesn't want to take sides. I guess it's not perfect, but I like the 2 party system, at least you know where a politician stands (more or less):roll: .
I think the independent is someone who is disenchanted with the two party system. Look what we have a choice of:

Republican: A party of corrupt business oriented leeches no matter the repercussions. The public is stupid and deserve to be taken advantage of. Live life how I say not as I doers. Who is against everything the other party tries to do just because they are the other party no matter how good the idea.
OR
Democrat: A party of corrupt, promise anything. Socially unrealistic. Give country away, borderline insane whose leadership is frighteningly idiotic. Who is against everything the other party tries to do just because they are the other party no matter how good the idea.

I'm disillusioned to the max. It's time to take back the country.

[DeepIron]

@Brad, LOL! :rotfl:

As my friend Wes (a political science major from WSU, Class of '71) puts it; "Voting is now the choice of the evil of two lessers." :damn:

I'm disillusioned to the max. It's time to take back the country.
Yup. The America I grew up in (HS grad in 1975) no longer exists... Big $$$, career politicians, special interest groups, a politically apathetic citizenry and illegal aliens are putting the US "down the tubes"... :nope:

[Camaero]

I like the strict following of the constitution. Following that tightly will secure us from ever turning into... something bad. Ever notice how that is going out the window slowly but surely? There are so many cases of judges not caring about what the constitution says.

I can't say I like the French part though. I would rather support the Brits. :lol:

[Sailor Steve]

This is interesting to look at in a modern perspective:know: .



Republicans:
1. States rights, as long as it suits them:dead:
2. "Strict" interpretation of the Constitution?
3. Preference for Business'
4. Still strong in South and Mountain West.
5. Foreign policy sympathized with ourself.
6. Stressed civil liberties ( does not include terrorists) and trust in the people (still true?)

Democrats:
1.Central gov't is the center of the universe, run by themselves.
2. Constitution??? As long as it is politically correct.
3. Panders to unions.
4. East Coast, West Coast, union states.
5. All power to UN
6. What evere feels good at the moment and doesn't challenge their control (then look out):dead:

McBee, old hoss, you are closer than you think. First of all, the so-called "parties" weren't parties at all in the modern sense. George Washington is almost always called a "Federalist", but he belonged to no party. The first factions in Washington's cabinet were Alexander Hamilton and anyone who opposed him, primarily James Madison, who felt that the Constitution did not provide for the Federal Government to charter organizations. John Adams was supported in his presidential bid by Hamilton, but Adams was so much his own man that Hamilton did everything he could to destroy him in 1800. Thomas Jefferson called himself a "Republican", because he believed in the republic. Hamilton accused Madison and Jefferson of creating the first American political party just to oppose him, and there may be some truth in this; Madison did organize a grass-roots movement to elect Jefferson that same year (1800).

But let's look at the differences as listed:
Federalists

1. Favored strong central government.

True. Hamilton saw that the whole thing was falling apart under the Articles Of Confederation, under which the Congress had no power to enforce anything. But then, so did Madison, who was co-author of the "Federalist" papers, but is still called a Republican, due to his opposition to Hamilton's National Bank movement.

2. "Loose" interpretation of the Constitution.

Not necessarily. In fact the prime movers, Madison and Hamilton, argued many times over what they actually meant. They didn't agree about what "strict" and "loose" interpretations were.

3. Encouragement of commerce and manufacturing.

True, but even Jefferson finally came to see that those were the wave of the future.

4. Strongest in Northeast.

Again true, primarily because that was where they were from.

5. Favored close ties with Britain.

Mostly because they distrusted Revolutionary France. While Hamilton was a prime mover behind Jay's Treaty, which prompted Jefferson to write the letter which ended up with Washington refusing to speak to him ever again, Hamilton also spoke fluent French and was declared an honorary member of the French parliament, an honor never accorded to Jefferson.

6. Emphasized order and stability.

Except when they tried to have several New England states seceed during the War Of 1812.

Republicans

1. Emphasized states' rights.

Except when Jefferson and Madison were president, and they both tightened the reigns as much as they possibly could.

2. "Strict" interpretation of the Constitution.

Except when Jefferson ignored due process in his attempts to get Aaron Burr hanged for treason.

3. Preference for agriculture and rural life.

True, but because that was what they grew up with. Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were all rich southern landowners. Oops, so was Washington, the leading "Federalist".

4. Strength in South and West.

Again true, but that's because they were mostly from the South, and everyone there knew them. Well, except for Aaron Burr, who was, like Hamilton and John Jay, from New York.

5. Foreign policy sympathized with France.

As with their opponents, they didn't sympathize with France so much as they distrusted Britain. While Secretary Of State Jefferson and Secretary Of The Treasury Hamilton were wrangling over whom to trust less, President Washington was doing everything he could to keep America neutral in the most recent Anglo-French war.

6. Stressed civil liberties and trust in the people

Madison? The guy who created the Electoral College, which in his original version is appointed by the state legislatures? Yes, they stressed civil liberties, so much so that any carefule reading of the Declaration and the Bill Of Rights will show that they believed that government only existed to guarantee absolute freedom for everyone to do anything they wanted, so long as they also recognized that same right for everyone else.

Of course Jefferson the "Civil Libertarian" was giving lip service to Abolition while going against the law he had helped create ending interstate commerce in slave trading. While presisdent he asked the governor of South Carolina to allow his son-in-law special dispensation to move a group of slaves through his state and into Georgia for sale.

On the other hand, the leading "Federalist", Hamilton, spent many years alongside "Republican" Burr as a New York lawyer, campaigning for Abolition and trying (and winning) 'false enslavement' lawsuits. When asked to join the French Les Amis Des Noir ("Friends Of The Blacks"), Hamilton said he was honored to accept. Jefferson, when asked to join, declined for political reasons.


As with today's parties, no one is always what they seem. The founders were far from perfect, and they had their battles and wars just as much as any other generation's politicians.

Federalist or Republican? Just like today, I stand somewhere in between.

[U49]

Is it unfair to comment this as a non-american?
Dear am's,
take it as a foreign impression of your constitions, and it's ideas supposed benefit to the world:

Number 6. is MY point! Vote goes to rep's.

[P_Funk]

I can't say I like the French part though. I would rather support the Brits. :lol:
Then you're crazy!:D There'd be no America without France supporting America against Britain. I've seen The Patriot, that one French guy saved America!

[bradclark1]

I like the strict following of the constitution. Following that tightly will secure us from ever turning into... something bad. Ever notice how that is going out the window slowly but surely? There are so many cases of judges not caring about what the constitution says.

I don't. Reason being is that it was written 226 years ago. Things are a little different since then and you have to adapt to change. I believe in the spirit of, not the letter of.

[nikimcbee]

This is interesting to look at in a modern perspective:know: .



Republicans:
1. States rights, as long as it suits them:dead:
2. "Strict" interpretation of the Constitution?
3. Preference for Business'
4. Still strong in South and Mountain West.
5. Foreign policy sympathized with ourself.
6. Stressed civil liberties ( does not include terrorists) and trust in the people (still true?)

Democrats:
1.Central gov't is the center of the universe, run by themselves.
2. Constitution??? As long as it is politically correct.
3. Panders to unions.
4. East Coast, West Coast, union states.
5. All power to UN
6. What evere feels good at the moment and doesn't challenge their control (then look out):dead:

McBee, old hoss, you are closer than you think. First of all, the so-called "parties" weren't parties at all in the modern sense. George Washington is almost always called a "Federalist", but he belonged to no party. The first factions in Washington's cabinet were Alexander Hamilton and anyone who opposed him, primarily James Madison, who felt that the Constitution did not provide for the Federal Government to charter organizations. John Adams was supported in his presidential bid by Hamilton, but Adams was so much his own man that Hamilton did everything he could to destroy him in 1800. Thomas Jefferson called himself a "Republican", because he believed in the republic. Hamilton accused Madison and Jefferson of creating the first American political party just to oppose him, and there may be some truth in this; Madison did organize a grass-roots movement to elect Jefferson that same year (1800).

But let's look at the differences as listed:
Federalists

1. Favored strong central government.

True. Hamilton saw that the whole thing was falling apart under the Articles Of Confederation, under which the Congress had no power to enforce anything. But then, so did Madison, who was co-author of the "Federalist" papers, but is still called a Republican, due to his opposition to Hamilton's National Bank movement.

2. "Loose" interpretation of the Constitution.

Not necessarily. In fact the prime movers, Madison and Hamilton, argued many times over what they actually meant. They didn't agree about what "strict" and "loose" interpretations were.

3. Encouragement of commerce and manufacturing.

True, but even Jefferson finally came to see that those were the wave of the future.

4. Strongest in Northeast.

Again true, primarily because that was where they were from.

5. Favored close ties with Britain.

Mostly because they distrusted Revolutionary France. While Hamilton was a prime mover behind Jay's Treaty, which prompted Jefferson to write the letter which ended up with Washington refusing to speak to him ever again, Hamilton also spoke fluent French and was declared an honorary member of the French parliament, an honor never accorded to Jefferson.

6. Emphasized order and stability.

Except when they tried to have several New England states seceed during the War Of 1812.

Republicans

1. Emphasized states' rights.

Except when Jefferson and Madison were president, and they both tightened the reigns as much as they possibly could.

2. "Strict" interpretation of the Constitution.

Except when Jefferson ignored due process in his attempts to get Aaron Burr hanged for treason.

3. Preference for agriculture and rural life.

True, but because that was what they grew up with. Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were all rich southern landowners. Oops, so was Washington, the leading "Federalist".

4. Strength in South and West.

Again true, but that's because they were mostly from the South, and everyone there knew them. Well, except for Aaron Burr, who was, like Hamilton and John Jay, from New York.

5. Foreign policy sympathized with France.

As with their opponents, they didn't sympathize with France so much as they distrusted Britain. While Secretary Of State Jefferson and Secretary Of The Treasury Hamilton were wrangling over whom to trust less, President Washington was doing everything he could to keep America neutral in the most recent Anglo-French war.

6. Stressed civil liberties and trust in the people

Madison? The guy who created the Electoral College, which in his original version is appointed by the state legislatures? Yes, they stressed civil liberties, so much so that any carefule reading of the Declaration and the Bill Of Rights will show that they believed that government only existed to guarantee absolute freedom for everyone to do anything they wanted, so long as they also recognized that same right for everyone else.

Of course Jefferson the "Civil Libertarian" was giving lip service to Abolition while going against the law he had helped create ending interstate commerce in slave trading. While presisdent he asked the governor of South Carolina to allow his son-in-law special dispensation to move a group of slaves through his state and into Georgia for sale.

On the other hand, the leading "Federalist", Hamilton, spent many years alongside "Republican" Burr as a New York lawyer, campaigning for Abolition and trying (and winning) 'false enslavement' lawsuits. When asked to join the French Les Amis Des Noir ("Friends Of The Blacks"), Hamilton said he was honored to accept. Jefferson, when asked to join, declined for political reasons.


As with today's parties, no one is always what they seem. The founders were far from perfect, and they had their battles and wars just as much as any other generation's politicians.

Federalist or Republican? Just like today, I stand somewhere in between.

Steve, you are a true scholar.:know: I miss our Civil War conversation in Burger King, that was quite fun:|\\ .

Regarding my independent party comments, I don't like the politicans that say they are for big government and high taxes, but are pro- [insert issue here] and call themselves an independent. I think we need to take our parties back from the extremes.

[nikimcbee]

[quote] I think more parties= more chaos. Glorious, isn't it? Personally, I think the more parties, the better. Why? Anyone who wishes to make an educated decision about the electoral/political system should be better informed considering the number of choices. Not just the same old "republican vs. democrats" schtick...

Not only that, but it injects a bit of uncertainty into the system, a "spoiler" can make or break victory for a particular candidate forcing changes (good/bad) that would otherwise not happen.

I love the chaos, that means they leave us alone and just fight among themselves.:up: I think both sides are more interested in doing what's best for the "party" and not the country.

If you don't like the politicians, vote the bastards outta office! We did it in 1994- Democrats totally depth- charged outta office! The Republicans didn't deliever, look what happened in our last election cycle.

I'm all for term limits!

[Sailor Steve]

I like the strict following of the constitution. Following that tightly will secure us from ever turning into... something bad. Ever notice how that is going out the window slowly but surely? There are so many cases of judges not caring about what the constitution says.
So, what is a strict following? The main body? The government does have to follow that strictly; it's the law.

The Bill Of Rights? Several of the founders didn't want it at all; they felt that the government had no rights of its own, and couldn't interfere with any rights of the individuals. They also felt that if some rights were listed, any that weren't would ultimately be ignored, and they didn't want anybody telling them what to do. And we still argue about those today. Pick any one, and there are more than a few different opinions. Pick any one of those opinions, take a side, and I can show you where they would have said you are wrong. Why? Because, as I said, they themselves disagreed over what they themselves meant when they wrote the thing.

I can't say I like the French part though. I would rather support the Brits. :lol:
And that was the big argument while Washington was president. Jefferson and friends didn't trust the British - after all, they were the ones we had to rebel against, weren't they. Hamilton and friends didn't trust the French. Everyone had high hopes that the French Revolution would be a bloodless change of power; but then they went and murdered their own king, rather than just kick him out. Besides, wasn't the aid they gave us just so they could stick it to the British?

[waste gate]

I like the strict following of the constitution. Following that tightly will secure us from ever turning into... something bad. Ever notice how that is going out the window slowly but surely? There are so many cases of judges not caring about what the constitution says.
So, what is a strict following? The main body? The government does have to follow that strictly; it's the law.

The Bill Of Rights? Several of the founders didn't want it at all; they felt that the government had no rights of its own, and couldn't interfere with any rights of the individuals. They also felt that if some rights were listed, any that weren't would ultimately be ignored, and they didn't want anybody telling them what to do. And we still argue about those today. Pick any one, and there are more than a few different opinions. Pick any one of those opinions, take a side, and I can show you where they would have said you are wrong. Why? Because, as I said, they themselves disagreed over what they themselves meant when they wrote the thing.

I can't say I like the French part though. I would rather support the Brits. :lol:
And that was the big argument while Washington was president. Jefferson and friends didn't trust the British - after all, they were the ones we had to rebel against, weren't they. Hamilton and friends didn't trust the French. Everyone had high hopes that the French Revolution would be a bloodless change of power; but then they went and murdered their own king, rather than just kick him out. Besides, wasn't the aid they gave us just so they could stick it to the British?

I understand the reasoning behind not wanting to bring up issues which might give the gov't a means to attack people.

I think the Bill of Rights is a prohibition against gov't usurption on the rights of man. If you look at gov'ts, world wide, that don't have written constitutions or have a so called living constitutions, their rights are erroded daily not only by their legislatures, but by every branch of their gov'ts.

[fatty]

Glorious, isn't it? Personally, I think the more parties, the better. Why? Anyone who wishes to make an educated decision about the electoral/political system should be better informed considering the number of choices. Not just the same old "republican vs. democrats" schtick...

Not only that, but it injects a bit of uncertainty into the system, a "spoiler" can make or break victory for a particular candidate forcing changes (good/bad) that would otherwise not happen.

Yep. You cannot realistically expect that every individual will find proper their views sufficiently representated in a biparty system. It's a stretch to call it democracy. I like our system in Canada; the parties represent their views but because the parliament is much more partitioned, politicians are striking deals with other parties rather than demonizing them and mud-slinging since the opposition can bring forth a vote of confidence and call an election at any time.

[waste gate]

It's a stretch to call it democracy.

One of the myths of the left. The US isn't a democracy, its a republic.

Democracies cannot exist in a pluralistic society.

[P_Funk]

It's a stretch to call it democracy.
One of the myths of the left. The US isn't a democracy, its a republic.

Democracies cannot exist in a pluralistic society.
You are ironic wg. You proclaim the evils or the oddities or the inaccuracies of the left in a blanket statement, and in so doing you mimic the dogma of the right. There is little credibility in arguments predicated on broad generalizations. And I might interject that perhaps the left isn't the only body of thoughtful individuals who might be incorrect now and then.

[bradclark1]

It's a stretch to call it democracy.

One of the myths of the left. The US isn't a democracy, its a republic.

Democracies cannot exist in a pluralistic society.
I'm bending a little towards you're stretching a little bit.

In 18th century historical usages, especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" was associated with radical egalitarianism and was often defined to mean what we today call direct democracy. In the same historical context, the word "republic" was used to refer to what we now call representative democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#.22Democracy.22_and__.22Republic.22

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principles of popular sovereignty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty) by the people's representatives. The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives—i.e., not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority) to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy), where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

[fatty]

It's a stretch to call it democracy.

One of the myths of the left. The US isn't a democracy, its a republic.


Sorry, this is silly. Being a republic does not exclude a state from being a liberal democracy. The United States is both. If you are appealing to the Madisonian contrast of a republic being a representation of the people and a democracy being direct rule by the people, fair enough. But this description is a little dated or else there would be no democratic states in the entire world and George W. Bush's democratic proliferation policies would sound really daft. Of course it is representative democracy, but none the less a democracy. Otherwise, whether republic, principality, or constitutional monarchy, etc. they're just meaningless titles. I certainly grant that there are speed bumps in the current U.S. style of electoral system that do not make it a perfect democracy (that's exactly what I was getting at in my last post, anyway), and we could start making a list of them, but it does not change the fact that every four years the state asks the public who they want to represent them.

Democracies cannot exist in a pluralistic society.

You will have to explain this one, although I suspect that as above, our definitions of democracy are not in agreement.

[Sailor Steve]

It's a stretch to call it democracy.

One of the myths of the left. The US isn't a democracy, its a republic.

Democracies cannot exist in a pluralistic society.
I think it's one of the tricks of the right to denigrate the left. A Republic is also referred to as a Representative Democracy.

Jefferson called himself and his friends Republicans. Hamilton liked to refer to them as Democrats, which to his mind meant mob rule. Some history books call them "Democratic-Republicans", a term neither side ever used. The actual Democratic party originated with Andrew Jackson.

[The WosMan]

I only wish more people knew this history. Todays history books are complete garbage that do not teach the correct history of our country because they were a "bunch of slave owning old white dudes" to the PC left of this country. Interesting though how the Dem party started off with a crude president that signed the Indian Removal act into law and committed other crimes against the native americans. I have done a fair bit of reading in my time and I have reached the personal conclusion that Jackson is a president not worthy to be revered or remembered as well as he is and he should not be on the $20 bill.

[bradclark1]

I only wish more people knew this history. Todays history books are complete garbage that do not teach the correct history of our country because they were a "bunch of slave owning old white dudes" to the PC left of this country. Interesting though how the Dem party started off with a crude president that signed the Indian Removal act into law and committed other crimes against the native americans. I have done a fair bit of reading in my time and I have reached the personal conclusion that Jackson is a president not worthy to be revered or remembered as well as he is and he should not be on the $20 bill.
Political zealots do step back in time. It's kinda humorous. Keep up the reading.