Shoshone Sisters Unarmed Fight Against the Federal Government

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foxrac said:
Democratic Party and Republican Party are political parties so you aren't making any sense. :confused:
Click to expand...

Party politics is a different subject altogether from Political Parties.

par·ty pol·i·tics
noun
noun: party politics

politics that relate to political parties rather than to the good of the general public.
Click to expand...
 
Steinhauer said:
That is a strawman - I never mentioned political philosophies - I mentioned the Party that Andrew Jackson founded. It is the modern Democratic Party. They were the "classical liberals" and the "American Liberals". The same political tenets of the Jacksonian Democrats exist today within the Democratic Party - that is why he is considered the founder of the modern day Democratic Party.

Although, the Democratic Party of today is still liberal, it is a form of social liberalism.

And just to clear something up here - I am not looking to start a political war - I am just trying to keep things accurate. It is accurate to say that Andrew Jackson was the founder of the Modern Day Democratic Party, because it is true. It is inaccurate to claim that the entire Democratic Party was responsible for the genocide of the Native Americans. That was not what I was implying or attempting to represent.

What I am attempting to point out, is that when someone ignores Constitutional Law, be it a President, or a Federal Bureau or Federal Organization, Civil Unrest is bound to happen.

I am also trying to point out that when the Federal Government does not adhere to Constitutional Law - who keeps them in check?

I hope that clears some things up. I am not trying to push anyone's hot buttons, I am just attempting to generate discussion as this topic does interest me.

BTW, thanks for the lyrics to the song - that was extremely nice :)
Click to expand...

That's inaccurate, Democratic Party used to be traditional conservatives, not liberalism and they didn't meet definition of liberalism - check the dictionary. The classical liberalism would be Republican Party that formed as anti-slavery movement that abolition of slavery as traditional believe in state rights or pro-slavery. Democratic Party didn't become liberal until Woodrow Wilson admin and FDR made further push of liberalism.

Reba's statement is true and one of most accurate that you should take her claim.

The modern version of Democratic Party isn't same as like original Democratic Party in 1800s. I believe that you attempt to devalue the Democratic Party and give Republican Party as best political party for all Americans, based on the pasts.

If you use pasts to blame on parties so you will lose the argument.
 
Steinhauer said:
Party politics is a different subject altogether from Political Parties.
Click to expand...

It don't matter - Democratic Party and Republican Party are political parties.
 
Foxrac said:
That's inaccurate, Democratic Party used to be traditional conservatives, not liberalism and they didn't meet definition of liberalism - check the dictionary. The classical liberalism would be Republican Party that formed as anti-slavery movement that abolition of slavery as traditional believe in state rights or pro-slavery. Democratic Party didn't become liberal until Woodrow Wilson admin and FDR made further push of liberalism.

Reba's statement is true and one of most accurate that you should take her claim.

The modern version of Democratic Party isn't same as like original Democratic Party in 1800s. I believe that you attempt to devalue the Democratic Party and give Republican Party as best political party for all Americans, based on the pasts.

If you use pasts to blame on parties so you will lose the argument.
Click to expand...

However, Andrew Jackson was Liberal by the standards of his time.
Click to expand...


http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Andrew_Jackson


I am just going to stick to the facts, rather than someone's opinion :ty:

If you attempt to claim this is a modern revision of history, here is an excerpt from a book published in 1989

http://www.whrhs.org/cms/lib07/NJ01... Liberal Capitalism by Richard Hofstadter.pdf

I do hope this clears things up a little, and we can go back and discuss what I was addressing in the OP _ thanks for your understanding.
 
Steinhauer said:
http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Andrew_Jackson


I am just going to stick to the facts, rather than someone's opinion :ty:

If you attempt to claim this is a modern revision of history, here is an excerpt from a book published in 1989

http://www.whrhs.org/cms/lib07/NJ01... Liberal Capitalism by Richard Hofstadter.pdf

I do hope this clears things up a little, and we can go back and discuss what I was addressing in the OP _ thanks for your understanding.
Click to expand...

If you want to claim the fact so you must to get information from Democratic Party website, not wikipedia. The history on Democratic Party shows about progressive era.

Reba is correct about Andrew Jackson and Democratic Party in 1800s are DINO to modern Democratic Party, so I don't see your post as fact, unless you get information from Democratic Party website.
 
Foxrac said:
If you want to claim the fact so you must to get information from Democratic Party website, not wikipedia. The history on Democratic Party shows about progressive era.

Reba is correct about Andrew Jackson and Democratic Party in 1800s are DINO to modern Democratic Party, so I don't see your post as fact, unless you get information from Democratic Party website.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I will just stick to the facts :ty:
 
Foxrac said:
Sorry, your statements aren't fact either.
Click to expand...

...in your opinion.

:ty:

I am reading you loud and clear. Apparently, you do not want to discuss the on topic subject in the OP. You would much rather derail the thread.
 
Steinhauer said:
...in your opinion.

:ty:

I am reading you loud and clear. Apparently, you do not want to discuss the on topic subject in the OP. You would much rather derail the thread.
Click to expand...

Not really, most of your posts are opinion, period.

If you want to claim the fact without direct to official website so it means you are lying to us.

You chose to derail your own thread, not me.
 
Foxrac said:
Not really, most of your posts are opinion, period.

If you want to claim the fact without direct to official website so it means you are lying to us.

You chose to derail your own thread, not me.
Click to expand...

Ah, an accusation of lying? Where the heck did that come from? Perhaps it is you that is trying to derail this thread with ad hominem attacks. Why don't you reference "official documents" yourself when you are explaining your opinions? I will still stick to the facts.

Are you seriously trying to claim that Andrew Jackson was NOT the founder of the modern day Democratic Party? Or, are you implying that he was NOT responsible for the forced removal of Native Americans?

If you want an "official" document for your own perusal, then do the research yourself. It is publicly available. And example below:

http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=1206
 
Steinhauer said:
Ah, an accusation of lying? Where the heck did that come from? Perhaps it is you that is trying to derail this thread with ad hominem attacks.

Are you seriously trying to claim that Andrew Jackson was NOT the founder of the modern day Democratic Party? Or, are you implying that he was NOT responsible for the forced removal of Native Americans?

If you want an "official" document for your own perusal, then do the research yourself. It is publicly available. And example below:

http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=1206
Click to expand...

You chose to claim as fact without source to official website, but most of political discussions are opinion, that what moderator told us about be on own if you disagree with someone. If you don't overuse "fact" so I don't have to bother you with more questioning.

Andrew Jackson is founder of Democratic Party, but it isn't part of modern Democratic Party because they aren't same as 19th Century, that what Reba claimed. Andrew Jackson and the Congress were responsible for removal of Native Indians, also I mentioned the Congress because they passed the law to remove Native Indian. If you don't agree so let agreement to disagreement.

You could have avoid the derail the thread by ignoring my post and move on, so I don't have to discuss more further after you stopping debating, but both of you and I debated about phrases over Democratic Party. Reba's post was fair compromise that where you and I can't reach an agreement about past and present of Democratic Party.
 
Foxrac said:
You chose to claim as fact without source to official website, but most of political discussions are opinion, that what moderator told us about be on own if you disagree with someone. If you don't overuse "fact" so I don't have to bother you with more questioning.

Andrew Jackson is founder of Democratic Party, but it isn't part of modern Democratic Party because they aren't same as 19th Century, that what Reba claimed. Andrew Jackson and the Congress were responsible for removal of Native Indians, also I mentioned the Congress because they passed the law to remove Native Indian. If you don't agree so let agreement to disagreement.

You could have avoid the derail the thread by ignoring my post and move on, so I don't have to discuss more further after you stopping debating, but both of you and I debated about phrases over Democratic Party. Reba's post was fair compromise that where you and I can't reach an agreement about past and present of Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

I will take this post as admission of your intent to derail the thread.
 
Foxrac said:
You chose to derail this thread because you continue to debate with me.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have pointed out facts. It appears you want to argue and say the facts are wrong. This isn't a debate, this is pointing out facts that you have misconstrued.

After that unsuccessful bid, Jackson won the election of 1828 as a Democrat. He and Martin Van Buren were responsible for creating the political organization that was the basis for the modern Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/History/presidents/Presidents_7_Jackson.htm

The above link is used to educate children. Perhaps you should sue all the school boards that are using this software, and teaching this, since apparently, the facts contradict your opinion.
 
Steinhauer said:
Actually, I have pointed out facts. It appears you want to argue and say the facts are wrong. This isn't a debate, this is pointing out facts that you have misconstrued.

http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/History/presidents/Presidents_7_Jackson.htm

The above link is used to educate children. Perhaps you should sue all the school boards that are using this software, and teaching this, since apparently, the facts contradict your opinion.
Click to expand...

Does it affect the reputation of Democratic Party today?

Some of histories have misconception.
 
Here are a few more facts

They opposed government spending and government favoritism, especially in the form of corporate charters for banks and other enterprises. They claimed that all such measures invariably aided the rich, the privileged, and the idle—the aristocracy—against the humble yet meritorious ordinary working people. Again following Jefferson, the Democrats espoused anticlericalism and rigorous separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

At a time of great evangelical fervor, Democrats stood aloof from the nation's powerful interdenominational (but primarily Presbyterian-Congregational) benevolent and philanthropic associations; and they denounced the intrusion into politics of religious crusades such as Sabbatarianism, temperance, and abolitionism. Democrats thus garnered adherents among religious dissenters and minorities, from Catholics to freethinkers.
Click to expand...

Anti "WallStreet", Anti Religion, Hated the Rich and Privileged, while claiming they were against government favoritism yet Andrew Jackson removed the Native Americans, even after they won a Supreme Court Case.

http://millercenter.org/president/biography/jackson-the-american-franchise

So, in modern terminology, which Party does that most represent? :ty:

answer: the Modern Democratic Party - you keep claiming they have changed - the tenets are exactly the same. There are no historians that dispute that Andrew Jackson was the founder of the Modern Democratic Party - so let's move on. Maybe you can start your own thread contending these facts. I would really like to discuss what The People of The United States can do, when the Federal Government breaks Constitutional Law - that was the premise of this thread - it was not put up here to place blame on any political party.
 
Steinhauer said:
Here are a few more facts

Anti "WallStreet", Anti Religion, Hated the Rich and Privileged, while claiming they were against government favoritism yet Andrew Jackson removed the Native Americans, even after they won a Supreme Court Case.

http://millercenter.org/president/biography/jackson-the-american-franchise

So, in modern terminology, which Party does that most represent? :ty:

answer: the Modern Democratic Party - you keep claiming they have changed - the tenets are exactly the same. There are no historians that dispute that Andrew Jackson was the founder of the Modern Democratic Party - so let's move on. Maybe you can start your own thread contending these facts. I would really like to discuss what The People of The United States can do, when the Federal Government breaks Constitutional Law - that was the premise of this thread - it was not put up here to place blame on any political party.
Click to expand...

This article is very confusing but I decided to move on.

I'm out of this thread.
 
Ok, moving on ... hopefully.

Here is a wikipedia article concerning the State of Utah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Transfer_of_Public_Lands_Act

The State of Utah passed legislation in 2012—the Utah Transfer of Public Lands Act—to require the Federal government to grant the majority of federal land in the state back to the state of Utah after 2014. According to Donald J. Kochan, the federal government promised to transfer these lands to the State in the Utah Enabling Act of 1894.[1]


As of December 2015, Utah has not yet filed suit to attempt to carry out the state law and the Devallier Law Group believes the Federal government is likely to "vigorously oppose" any lawsuit that Utah might bring, and would be expected to "use every legal means to stop it."[2]
Click to expand...


And the image that appears - indicating Federally Controlled Land West of the Mississippi River:

1280px-Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg


Hopefully, the image will not be too large after I hit the "submit" button. If it is, I apologize.


I just think it is interesting, that the Federal Government keeps stalling and breaking promises they have made to cede land over to the States once they entered Statehood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top