Teddy seems to be having a good time, which surprises me given his company.

^Teddy was a gregarious prick. I like how the painter left Taft out of the picture. You know, Teddy made Taft cry publicly. That's probably the reason he didn't show up for the card game.

And, I love how the first party members are placed with their backs to us in the same position on the paintings: Lincoln(R) and Jackson(D). What a bunch of assholes.

Theodore Roosevelt was an extraordinairy person, how he was as a president I'll leave for you Americans to decide. His feats and literature are very impressive and I admire him for that.

I think there are few things more disingenuous about the GOP than their insistence on claiming Abe Lincoln as one of their own, when it is obvious to everybody that he never would have been allowed in their ranks today.

Sure he would, rougy. Abe Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, spent money before Congress appropriated it, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. (cited) In a large way, his presidency mimics that of George W. Bush. He was the first Republican.

The first Democrat was Andrew Jackson and equally a terrible president. He was racist and signed in the Indian Removal Act which lead to the trail of tears. The Cherokees, instead of fighting, took the government to the Supreme Court and won, but Jackson didn't care about that. He said, the court "has made [their] decision, now let [them] enforce it!" (cited)

>> ^rougy:
I think there are few things more disingenuous about the GOP than their insistence on claiming Abe Lincoln as one of their own, when it is obvious to everybody that he never would have been allowed in their ranks today.


Not only that, they wouldn't accept Reagan in their ranks anymore.

Oh, and blankfist, Jackson didn't found my party, that'd be your hero Jefferson.

>> ^blankfist:
Sure he would, rougy. Abe Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, spent money before Congress appropriated it, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. (cited) In a large way, his presidency mimics that of George W. Bush. He was the first Republican.


Hmmm...seems that whole "slavery" thing would not have sat well with the country club set. You know...workers having rights and all that. What was that catchy name he gave it?

The Emancipation Proclamation?

What was that all about? Liberation and fairness or some such progressive nonsense?

Emancipation! Ha! A real slave would emancipate himself, then buy a cotton field, and buy more slaves! And the beauty of the free market would continue unabated! As God intended!

And what of his anti-capitalistic tendencies? Especially regarding the Mexican-American war and the spread of slavery into the new territories. Think of the capital gains, lost, lost now forever!

Maybe he was a Marxist?

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^rougy:
I think there are few things more disingenuous about the GOP than their insistence on claiming Abe Lincoln as one of their own, when it is obvious to everybody that he never would have been allowed in their ranks today.

Not only that, they wouldn't accept Reagan in their ranks anymore.
Oh, and blankfist, Jackson didn't found my party, that'd be your hero Jefferson.


Jefferson did not "found" the Democratic party. He founded the Democratic Republican party (cited). Jackson was the first Democrat ("shaping the modern Democratic Party.", The purpose of the first Democratic National Convention was "to choose a running mate for incumbent President Andrew Jackson."). Sorry. Facts.

^ I think you like to state opinions as fact too often. You often claim that today's Democratic party is the same one that filibustered the Civil Rights Act, and that neoconservatives were liberals, and that somehow these things have relevance to the party of Obama.

Fine, if today's Democrats have to bear the stains of their history, despite transformations along the way, then I get to claim (as the Democratic party itself does) that Jefferson was our founder.

After all, the Democratic party is what survives of the Democratic-Republican party. It's not my fault John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson had a pissing contest that makes Hillary vs. Obama look like a friendly game of squash and split the party into competing factions. John Q. Adams formed the "Nobama" party of his day, Jackson figured it's okay to drop the word "Republican" from the name, since that No-Jackson-bama party called itself "National Republicans", and he didn't need a filthy word like "Republican" in the name of his party anymore.

So it split, and transformed, but it did that again in 1968 and again in lesser ways in the leadup to Clinton's election (the DLC Republican-lite era), and again after Kerry's loss (the Howard Dean 50-state era).

It's still the good old party Jefferson started, though. Jackson didn't invent the Democratic party out of thin air, he just pissed off a bunch of proto-PUMA's who ran off and made corrupt bargains to win the Presidency, who eventually formed the Whig party (which was the real, lasting No-Jackson-bama party).

^My facts are opinions? Or are yours revisionist?

I'm sorry if Daily Kos or the Huffington Post claim Jefferson started the Democratic Party, but that's simply not correct. It's okay to take the Andrew Jackson lumps for your party, because the party has changed significantly since then. Also has the Republican Party.

And, to be fair, the Republican Party is also considered to be a descendant of the Democratic Republican Party. To me, all of this wishful pining for the connection to Jefferson and Madison's original party is foolish for both the major parties. Even if their distant ancestry shows they are related to that party, that's like me claiming kinship to Daniel Boone because we all came from the same gene pool.

You wrote: "It's still the good old party Jefferson started, though."

If you're trying to draw some comparison between any of the two major parties and the old Jeffersonian Principles of yesteryear, I don't think that would be a successful venture for anyone.

^ Now you're just changing arguments, and tossing in ad hominem because you know you're wrong.

I buy the argument that both parties can claim, in some sense, to be the party founded by Jefferson.

I buy the argument that neither party can claim to be built on the platform of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party.

I reject the argument that there is a clear break in the identity of the party between Jefferson's party, Jackson's party, FDR's party, LBJ's party, Clinton's party, and Obama's party, despite having different ideals and priorities dominating them through each turn of history.

I think the most neutral phrasing I've seen anyone give to this is to say the Democratic party is "A political party that arose in the 1820s from a split in the Democratic-Republican party", a claim that cannot be made by any other extant party.

Jackson himself ran as a Democratic-Republican, and only after he was in the White House did the party change its name to being just the Democratic party.

Oh, and if all of the above is revisionism, please contact all these sources:

http://www.answers.com/topic/democratic-party

And have them call Tim Kaine and tell him to take his revisionist history off the party's official webpage:

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/history.html

^Why would Tim Kaine (or anyone from the Dem Party) want to claim Andrew Jackson as their founder? He was racist, hated Native Americans, was the cause of the Trail of Tears, and ignored the balance of power.

The truth is he was the first Democrat President. He was the original, technical founder of the party. It's simple. There's a loose relationship between the Dem/Repub parties of today and the old Democratic Republican Party of yesteryear.

And there is a huge "break in the identity of the party between Jefferson's party" and the other big government, interventionist presidents you mentioned above (FDR, LBJ, Clinton, Obama). Jefferson believed the government that governs best is the government that governs least. Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." (cited) None of the recent presidents in either party have been very Jeffersonian. Sorry.

Oh, and my ad hominem attacks, NetRunner? Sorry, pigfucker.

^ Like I said, you have to change arguments to essentially say that since the platform is different, it's a different party.

That's fine.

By the same token, Democrats aren't the party of Jackson anymore, either.

For that matter, we aren't the party of LBJ or Clinton, either.

So confusing, it's almost as much of a chameleon as the Republican party in that way.

Anyways, the people who actually write the history books disagree with you about who founded the Democratic party, just thought you should know.

Oh, and I'm disappointed that comment hasn't gotten 15 upvotes, I thought I was particularly inspired when I wrote that.

^No history book I've ever read has Jefferson as the founder of the Dem party. Either way, it's misinformation to say he's the founder. Period.

I don't think anyone said if the platform is different, then the party is different. Not sure where you got that. It's the party of Jackson.

Quick bit of trivia. Do you know why your party has the donkey? Andrew Jackson was referred to as Andrew Jackass by some of his "enemies", and he liked it so much he made it the official mascot of the party. I bet you won't find that in your Daily Kos history books.

Really? You must not have read any history books on the period then. Or clicked on the link I gave, and scanned the page.

I'm well aware of where the logo comes from...so what? If Democrats decide to start using Obama's logo from now on, does that mean Obama founded the Democratic party?

As for this:

>> ^blankfist:
I don't think anyone said if the platform is different, then the party is different. Not sure where you got that.

It came from this:

>> ^blankfist:
And there is a huge "break in the identity of the party between Jefferson's party" and the other big government, interventionist presidents you mentioned above (FDR, LBJ, Clinton, Obama). Jefferson believed the government that governs best is the government that governs least. Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." (cited) None of the recent presidents in either party have been very Jeffersonian.

That's either a non-sequitor, or it's your only substantiated assertion. Otherwise you're just answering my references with a denial of the existence of the references I already provided, and calling sources like Encyclopedia Britannica revisionist.

I meant "identity" in a more superficial sense. The Colony of Virginia was very different from the State we now call Virginia -- but it's still Virgina. Today's Virginia still carries a thread of identity from its colony days that hasn't been broken, that didn't change when West Virginia split off, and that wouldn't change if they decide tomorrow to change the name of the state to Virg. Its history would still start with being founded as an English colony.

Now, if West Virginia, instead of remaining a distinct entity decided to just merge with Ohio, it wouldn't make Ohio's origins become the same as Virginia's, but the acquisition of that territory would certainly be an important chapter in Ohio's history. That's analogous to the situation we have with the Whigs and the Lincoln-founded Republicans.

Now, you revisionist fucker of pigs, do you have a single source that starts the history of the Democratic party with Andrew Jackson, that never mentions the Democratic-Republican party?

I know you love Jefferson, and hate Democrats, but the former begat the latter, even if you don't like it.

Whoa! Slow down. I never said I hate Democrats. They make up the large majority of my friends. Let's take this slowly so not to confuse you any further.

>> ^NetRunner:
I'm well aware of where the logo comes from...so what? If Democrats decide to start using Obama's logo from now on, does that mean Obama founded the Democratic party?

Huh? That has no relevance. The party started with Jackson. He even laughingly chose the mascot based on a derision toward his name: Andrew Jackass. I've given you sources citing this. The party was started with him. It won't matter if the mascot or logo or whatever changes after Jackson or not, the party started with him.

And, I did read your links. Excuse me if I don't take the one from democrats.org seriously. But this one is accurate: http://www.answers.com/topic/democratic-party

I agree it was a split of the party, because after this point there weren't any other Democratic Republicans that I've read about after Jackson. Andrew Jackson also believed himself to be a Jeffersonian Democrat (though arguably in practice I'd say he wasn't, but that's another discussion altogether). But, it wasn't as if the party was handed over to Jackson. It was split, which means the party was effectively dissolved, not transformed.

The Republicans can lay claim just as easily to the Democratic Republican Party, because Adams and Clay created the National Republican Party (which became the Whigs which was further split into the Republican Party). It's lunacy. None of those two parties have anything to do (at least not in practice) with the Jeffersonian Principles of the original party.

But, by your logic, we could say Thomas Jefferson founded the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, the Whigs Party, the National Republican Party, Free Soil Party and the Know Nothing Party. Hell, you could argue the Democratic Republican Party was molded out of the Anti-Administration Party, so therefore James Madison was the founder of all parties.

The National Republican Party (which ultimately morphed into The Republican Party) is said to be a combination of The Democratic Republican Party and the Federalist Party (which was preceded by the Pro-Administration Party), so does that mean both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington founded that party?! Wow!

When you create a new party, it has a founder at the moment it is created. That founder typically is the politician who personifies it, such as Andrew Jackson for the Democratic Party, Abraham Lincoln for the Republican Party and Thomas Jefferson & James Madison for the Democratic Republican Party.

Okay. First, I'll point out that you still don't have any sources that repeat your own claim that the Democratic-Republican party simply disappeared into thin air, and that there was a clear and clean break between that party and the Democratic Party.

Second, you either didn't understand my explanation of why the Republican party would be different, or well, I guess there is no other real explanation, because you laid out a straw man instead of responding to what I actually said.

Third, your fixation with the logo is unhealthy. Seriously, if we change the logo now to a Fox to mock Fox News, does that mean Bill O'Reilly founded the Democratic party? I'm not being entirely facetious -- if the Democratic-Republican party didn't have a logo before, but during the Jackson presidency they adopted it to spite the people calling him Jackass, does that make him the founder of the Democratic-Republican party? I think it makes him a Jackass, but that's not what we're talking about.

But really, this all comes down to #1. You said the answers.com page was accurate. Here's some of what you deemed accurate:

Encyclopedia Britannica:

In the 1790s a group of Thomas Jefferson's supporters called themselves "Democratic Republicans" or "Jeffersonian Republicans" to demonstrate their belief in the principle of popular government and their opposition to monarchism. The party adopted its present name in the 1830s, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson.

So, one party, that changed its name.

US History Encylcopedia:

By the end of Madison's presidency and throughout Monroe's two terms, known as the "Era of Good Feeling," the Democratic Republican Party largely abandoned its minimalism and supported tariff, banking, and improvements policies originally supported by its Federalist opponents.

After the retirement of James Monroe, the newly renamed "Democratic" Party came to rally around the candidacy of Andrew Jackson. Jackson steered the party back toward its minimalist origins.

The Law Encyclopedia entry starts with:

The modern Democratic party is the descendant of the Democratic-Republican party, an early-nineteenth-century political organization led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Also known as the Jeffersonians, the Democratic-Republican party began as an antifederalist group, opposed to strong, centralized government. The party was officially established at a national nominating convention in 1832. It dropped the Republican portion of its name in 1840.

They don't all agree about the exact timing of the change, but they say it was a change in name, not a newly founded party.

In the course of searching again today, I found a couple original-source documents:

Thomas Jefferson Randolph (Thomas Jefferson's grandson) said at the 1872 Democratic convention that he'd spent 80 years of his life in the Democratic-Republican party (source), and Inquiry Into the Origin and Course of Political Parties in the United States By Martin Van Buren, where he discusses the topic at excruciating length, but frequently talks about the roots of the Democratic party beginning with Jefferson.

Look, you're just wrong. You can disagree with the history as it's written, but that makes you, not me, the revisionist.

It's okay. I don't blame you for being mad. You don't like the thought that Thomas Jefferson and William Jefferson Clinton were both from the same party. Here's a thought, maybe we should change the logo to a brunette sucking cock, to commemorate the founding of Limbaugh's Clinton's Democrat (as opposed to Democratic) party. The logo change, that's really all it takes to found a new party.

Someone call Hillary and let her know she won the nomination at the Democrat National Convention, where only Michigan and Florida count. Best not show her the new logo though.

First, I never said it disappeared into thin air. I get that there was a split, and people left that party. But, the party itself is gone. Just like the National Republican Party is gone. You don't hear people running as a Democratic Republican, do you?

Second, what straw man? The point of a straw man is to deceive. I wasn't trying to deceive you. Just because I don't dance for you when you ask me to dance, doesn't mean I created a straw man. I found your Virginia/West Virginia question to be needlessly verbose and irrelevant. Shall I entertain you like a good monkey and answer it?

Third, I'm not hung up on the "logo". I am trying my best to illustrate to you how that party was created as a separate party under Jackson. Period. Changing a logo or a mascot does not make a new party. Now you're just being childish.

From http://www.bartleby.com/61/39/D0123900.html:
"A political party in the United States that was opposed to the Federalist Party and was founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792 and dissolved in 1828."

And why was it "dissolved" in 1828? What big party was formed in 1828? Hmmm. Oh, that's right, the Democratic Party! Want more examples? How about your own Answers.com site: http://www.answers.com/topic/democratic-republican-party. They claim it was "dissolved" in 1828, as well.

How about here: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Democratic-Republican_Party_United_States_-_History/id/4978465 "In the late 1820s, the party split into factions and dissolved. Along with some ex-Federalists, supporters of Andrew Jackson, led by Martin Van Buren, organized themselves into an offshoot of the Democratic-Republican Party called the Democratic Party. The link between today's Democratic Party and the party founded by Jefferson was a theme emphasized by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and other Democratic politicans throughout the years."

Though, I do see that written history favors the idea of The Democratic Party coming out of the Democratic Republican Party more than it favors the National Republican Party coming out of it. I will concede that much. Still, it appears the Dem-Repub Party was properly dissolved, as I said.

I know you like obtuse analogies to explain your point, so let me try one for you. If you moved out of your home and I moved in after you, am I now you? If I dress up in a Spider-Man costume, am I Spider-Man? If started a band and called it The Rolling, was Mick Jager the founder of my band?

So for sources, you're basically you're holding up a website I've never heard of, and a few dictionary entries? Here I thought you'd at least produce a book written by a historian, or written by one of the National Republicans.

>> ^blankfist:
I know you like obtuse analogies to explain your point, so let me try one for you. If you moved out of your home and I moved in after you, am I now you? If I dress up in a Spider-Man costume, am I Spider-Man? If started a band and called it The Rolling, was Mick Jager the founder of my band?

Your first two analogies they don't apply -- they presuppose that the essence of the Democratic-Republican party left the party with the people who left to create their own party. You're back to saying it's a different party because the platform changed; even though the accounts I read usually point to a clash of personality, not ideology (more like Hillary vs. Obama rather than Humphrey vs. Muskie).

In your Rolling Stones analogy, it's more like if a band member left because he thought Jagger did something illicit to become lead singer, and that band member decided to start his own band named the Spinning Stones. Before, people used to refer to the Rolling Stones as "the Stones" before that split, but they now had to emphasize "Rolling" rather than "Stones" to avoid confusion. Eventually they just dropped the word "Stones" from their name. That's a new band, in your view, because the Rolling Stones "dissolved".

The name "Democratic-Republican party" is what historians have assigned as the name of the party; the members themselves often shortened it to just "Republican". Even in Martin Van Buren's book he frustratingly uses all three names (Democratic, Republican, Democratic-Republican) to refer to the party he's in, which just highlights how irresponsible it is to claim it's a wholly new, distinct party. Also, the fact that many sources disagree on the exact timing of the name change seems to imply it was a gradual, conversational change that wasn't formalized until well after the tussle in 1824.

This is in stark contrast to the National Republicans, who clearly left the party to create a new one.

>> ^blankfist:
Though, I do see that written history favors the idea of The Democratic Party coming out of the Democratic Republican Party more than it favors the National Republican Party coming out of it. I will concede that much. Still, it appears the Dem-Repub Party was properly dissolved, as I said.

Yawn, in other words, you realize you're wrong, but won't admit it because you're a pigfucker Jackass like Jackson. Not surprising.

To be fair, the more I read, the more it becomes clear that this argument is mostly a product of how very formal and factionalized political parties are now, compared to the early 1800's. I think parties back then were very loose, informal arrangements, and no one bothered trying to settle the question of "what is the name of our party?" until well after the whole Jackson/Adams drama had fully played out. Nowadays, you would need to figure such things out before getting your name on the ballot for elections.

I suspect the historians disagree about when the name "Democratic Party" was first used, because they can't agree on what event or document to pin it on. Political parties had not yet become legal entities with official names, so there was no official name change document on record.

I do think that the people who attended the "first" Democratic Party convention all felt that they were part of the party founded by Jefferson, and that the National Republicans and Whigs felt that they "didn't leave the Democratic-Republican Party, the Democratic-Republican party left me", and felt they were in more strict keeping with Jefferson's legacy.

However, I do think they would admit they had left the Democratic-Republican party to form their own, even if they feel it's what Jefferson himself would've done.

You seem to suppose a great deal in your comments. It's as if you're confident with assuming fact rather than researching fact. And, you seem to jump hastily to assumptions, for example: "Yawn, in other words, you realize you're wrong, but won't admit it because you're a pigfucker Jackass like Jackson. Not surprising."

Ad hominem aside, that's a huge leap of logic to assume I was conceding the argument. Bad form, my social liberal friend.

>> ^NetRunner:
So for sources, you're basically you're holding up a website I've never heard of, and a few dictionary entries? Here I thought you'd at least produce a book written by a historian, or written by one of the National Republicans.

First off, is that even a real sentence? Secondly, um, what factual, concrete resource did you give me? Oh right, one of the same ones I used and a partisan site: demcorat.org. I smell a twinge of rhetoric sophist in you, captain straw man.

Secondly, you keep harping on the logo and platform change. That's not my argument. It's a piece of the argument to help illustrate how the parties are different, but you're making a wild assertion that I am resting my entire argument on the parties being different because the mascots or the platform changed. I am not. It is pretty important and credible evidence, I admit, and you obviously see it as the most damning to your argument, as well, because you keep trying to reduce its validity by creating your typical silly and obtuse analogies of Hillary and Obama being representative somehow of the difference in the platforms of the Democratic Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

Pshaw.

The Democratic Party began in 1828. The Democratic Republican Party was dissolved in 1828. Some people left the DR party and formed the Dem party. I've agreed to that. It wasn't like all the Democratic Republicans were shot and buried after that party was dissolved. No, the party was split into factions and dissolved, so obviously some of the same people moved to the Dem party, namely Jackson.

My whole argument is that the DR party isn't the Dem party. Your whole argument is that it is the same party, and the best evidence you can offer is a link to the democrats website that makes claim to the party and a wild assumption that the founders of the National Republican Party probably felt they "didn't leave the Democratic-Republican Party, the Democratic-Republican party left me". Do you realize how absurd that argument is?

As an aside, and if you will humor me while I "harp" on the platform differences, you do know Jefferson was a believer in small government, right? And the Dems are not.

^ I think this conversation has gone past the point of, well, being a conversation.

You claim "the best evidence you can offer is a link to the democrats website that makes claim to the party", despite the fact that I have actually given links to Encylopedia Britannica, US History Encylcopedia, the Law Encyclopedia, a transcript from the Democratic National Convention in 1872 where Jefferson's grandson says he's been in the Democratic-Republican party for 80 years, and Martin van Buren's Inquiry Into the Origin and Course of Political Parties in the United States, but apparently you are only able to notice that I also pointed out the Democratic Party itself makes the same claim.

You say that I "keep harping on the logo and platform change" but then say "that's not my argument," yet you've offered nothing else.

I'd never heard someone claim Jackson founded the Democratic party before, so when you first claimed it, I went and checked, because I thought I might be misremembering (they're both J-named Presidents, after all).

Everything I've said came from what I read, and only in my last response did I really try to draw my own inference.

You have yet to provide a source that frames the situation in the terms of "Andrew Jackson founded the Democratic Party" or even "The Democratic party begain in 1828".

For your convenience, I will provide the sole reference I've found that repeats your revisionist claims: Conservapedia. I'd think twice about trying to cite their credibility as being higher than Encyclopedia Britannica, though.

I'm not sure what, if anything, you're reading that backs you up beyond conservapedia, a single dictionary entry that used the word "dissolve" instead of "split", and your strongly held belief that Jefferson and the Democratic party are like oil and water. Sorry, I forgot, you don't like my analogies. I mean that you think Jefferson and the Democratic party can't possibly be combined.

My argument is pretty hard to refute; the people you claim "founded" the Democratic party themselves say they never left the Democratic-Republican party, they just changed the name.

If they say that, who's the supposed higher authority that gets to say "nice try guys, you really founded your own party"? Perhaps Adams or Clay could dispute it, but I've not found any source that says they made any attempt to dispute it. If they didn't, why are you?

NetRunner, you are out of steam. "dissolve" instead of "split"? Seriously? I said the Democratic Republican Party was split into multiple factions and dissolved. So, I said "dissolve" and "split".

You might want to actually read my comments first before you try to dance around them. And nice sophist move trying to discredit my comments by taking my facts out of context so you can relate them to things on conservapedia. Let's go over this again, shall we?

The Democrats now lay an absolute claim to the Democratic Republican Party. But, that's not accurate history. The Democratic Republican Party was split into factions, namely the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party (which became the Whigs and ultimately split as well into the Republican Party). And then the Democratic Republican Party was dissolved.

The Democratic Party is a descendant of the Democratic Republican Party. And so is the Republican Party. You could consider the Democratic Party to be a closer descendant, however, most appropriately the direct child of the Democratic Republican Party - that would make the Republican Party of today the Great Grandchild (National Republican > Whigs > Republican). That's fair, no?

What NetRunner claims I said: You say that I "keep harping on the logo and platform change" but then say "that's not my argument," yet you've offered nothing else.

What I really said: Secondly, you keep harping on the logo and platform change. That's not my argument. It's a piece of the argument to help illustrate how the parties are different, but you're making a wild assertion that I am resting my entire argument on the parties being different because the mascots or the platform changed.

Yawn.

Yeah, not a conversation anymore.

The burden of proof here was on you. Democrats themselves say they were founded by Jefferson. Even your proposed alternate founder said this. As counter evidence you provided what? A logo? A single dictionary entry?

Was there a contemporary of Jackson who disputed that claim? Was there some historian who disputed it later? I couldn't find anyone who did, except you and Conservapedia, and neither of those sources are exactly reliable sources for history. Imagine turning in a research paper with those citations. Talk about a bloodbath.

I start these fights to try to learn something. You're not teaching me anything, you're just saying "nuh-uh".

At least I've had an excuse/opportunity to read up on my party's history. Puts the more recent tussles into perspective. I wish you'd been able to provide a non-blankfist source for your version of history. Believe it or not, I secretly love being proven wrong.

I wish there were debate judges around to score this, but I'm sure you'd just accuse them of a liberal bias if they said you lost.

Regardless, I'm resting my case. If you find some sourced material to support yours, let me know.

You suck at discourse. You will be forever known from this point on lady-tangent, because you're like a chick in an argument who cannot stay focused on point.