Would Today's Republican Party Oppose Slavery?

[Jaguar]

Like Imran and me.

[Al B. Sure!]

Impaler:

The US became a 2 party political system very rapidly (like the 3rd 4th presidential election basicaly).

actually, this isn't true. Adams' election and Jefferson's election were hotly contested between the then vague (there was no real political organization) factions of federalists and democratic republicans. After Jefferson's victory, however, the dem. republicans dominated national politics and most local politics except in New England where the federalists remained influential up until the 1810's and the plotted New England Seccession which completely destroyed the federalist party though the dem. repubs. had won every presidential election since jefferson by great majorities.

Thus, by the Quincy Adams vs. Jackson election, you had two dem. repub. candidates running against each other with no federalists in sight. The controversy over that election (and the fact that america was a one-party system at that time would be bound to lead to some division eventually) caused Jackson and a whole arm of the dem. repubs. to shed the repub. title and become Democrats while Quincy Adams briefly wore the mantle of Jefferson's party before the formation of the Whigs.

if anything, up until the 1820's, America was a one-party system.

[Al B. Sure!]

The newest topic is that of Gays and their rights, this has in the last decade gone from an almost unspeakable topic to something near the tipping point, in a hundread years the current liberal position with be universaly accepted and people holding what is currently the "moderate" view will be the equivilant of Douglas (Lincons Democratic oponent who took the "moderate" view that slavery was bad but would naturaly go away on its own and was a states right anyway so the federal goverment shouldn't get involved).

you're trying to equate the gay rights issue with slavery? you do realize there is a major difference in magnitude, right?

similiarly, off of where chegitz was probably thinking, that is like saying that republicans today opposing affirmitive action would mean they would have been pro-slavery... there is a difference in magnitude. just because slavery was an incredible wrong that needed to be ended doesn't mean that affirmitive action should also be supported by an abolitionist, the Freed Man's Bureau aside

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Like Imran and me.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, Kuci was correct.

[chequita guevara]

The full phrase would have been, Like Imran and I do, not, Like Imran and me do.

[Jaguar]

"Like Imran and I do" is acceptable. But "Like Imran and I" alone is not, IIRC.

[chequita guevara]

You are incorrect, goat-lover.

[Al B. Sure!]

you're wrong, jaguar boy

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Who said anything about taxing sex?

Not wanting a baby should be thought of before engaging in sex.




ACK!

So you have to want a baby to have sex?

[Kidlicious]

Someone has some control issue here.

[Kuciwalker]

No. But don't come crying to us if you don't like the results of your sex. Ya know, you don't even have the excuse that otherwise you'll die or something - sex is PURELY a luxury, it's not like you're somehow entitled to demand support from society for it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No. But don't come crying to us if you don't like the results of your sex. Ya know, you don't even have the excuse that otherwise you'll die or something - sex is PURELY a luxury, it's not like you're somehow entitled to demand support from society for it.

What are you talking about? Why would I come crying to you? It has nothing to do with you. All I want is my freedom.

[Kuciwalker]

Sure, and I agree with that. I'm for banning abortion in the third trimester, though.

[Jaguar]

Sky is pwning you, Kid. Give up, or the Mountain Goats might make a return.


And don't give me any BS about a threadjack. You started it.