NationStates

Genivaria wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
They were fairly irrelevant by the time of the Louisiana Purchase, and only really saw a brief minor increase in popularity towards the beginning of the War of 1812.

It's also worth noting that their pacifism and near-defeatist rhetoric during the War of 1812 is what killed them as a party, with them holding barely any sway outside of New England by the end of the war, and going completely extinct as a party by the mid-1820's.

If by Federalists he mean't the Whigs then he might have a point, the Whigs supported Manifest Destiny.
But wait he previously said he supports the Whigs.

I assumed he meant the actual political party.

Either way, if he meant the Whigs in general than that's a bit odd, considering how they weren't pacifistic in the slightest.

Sanctissima wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Federalists (who were the moralist party for the most, often coming from Puritan stock) strongly opposed it.

They were fairly irrelevant by the time of the Louisiana Purchase, and only really saw a brief minor increase in popularity towards the beginning of the War of 1812.

It's also worth noting that their pacifism and near-defeatist rhetoric during the War of 1812 is what killed them as a party, with them holding barely any sway outside of New England by the end of the war, and going completely extinct as a party by the mid-1820's.

1812 was a war to annex Canada, total, bs. The Federalist Party later reorganized into the Whigs, though, and then later the Republican Party, which kept largely to the same ideals until the 70's

Genivaria wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
They were fairly irrelevant by the time of the Louisiana Purchase, and only really saw a brief minor increase in popularity towards the beginning of the War of 1812.

It's also worth noting that their pacifism and near-defeatist rhetoric during the War of 1812 is what killed them as a party, with them holding barely any sway outside of New England by the end of the war, and going completely extinct as a party by the mid-1820's.

If by Federalists he mean't the Whigs then he might have a point, the Whigs supported Manifest Destiny.
But wait he previously said he supports the Whigs.

Northern Whigs tended to oppose it, which is what ended Lincoln's first foray into politics.

Sanctissima wrote:

Genivaria wrote:If by Federalists he mean't the Whigs then he might have a point, the Whigs supported Manifest Destiny.
But wait he previously said he supports the Whigs.

I assumed he meant the actual political party.

Either way, if he meant the Whigs in general than that's a bit odd, considering how they weren't pacifistic in the slightest.

Ironic that the 'Party of Peace' was also the party of protecting slavery.
*BREAK THE CHAINS*

Sanctissima wrote:

Genivaria wrote:If by Federalists he mean't the Whigs then he might have a point, the Whigs supported Manifest Destiny.
But wait he previously said he supports the Whigs.

I assumed he meant the actual political party.

Either way, if he meant the Whigs in general than that's a bit odd, considering how they weren't pacifistic in the slightest.

They were not pacifist, but were anti imperialist unlike the Jacksonians

Genivaria wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
I assumed he meant the actual political party.

Either way, if he meant the Whigs in general than that's a bit odd, considering how they weren't pacifistic in the slightest.

Ironic that the 'Party of Peace' was also the party of protecting slavery.
*BREAK THE CHAINS*

You think the Jacksonians were the party of peace?

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Ironic that the 'Party of Peace' was also the party of protecting slavery.
*BREAK THE CHAINS*

You think the Jacksonians were the party of peace?

Considering how broad your definition of 'imperialism' is.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
They were fairly irrelevant by the time of the Louisiana Purchase, and only really saw a brief minor increase in popularity towards the beginning of the War of 1812.

It's also worth noting that their pacifism and near-defeatist rhetoric during the War of 1812 is what killed them as a party, with them holding barely any sway outside of New England by the end of the war, and going completely extinct as a party by the mid-1820's.

1812 was a war to annex Canada, total, bs. The Federalist Party later reorganized into the Whigs, though, and then later the Republican Party, which kept largely to the same ideals until the 70's

I... can't really disagree since I'm both Canadian and nationalist as all hell, but at least from the American perspective, I can't rightly condemn a nation for seeing what appears to be low-hanging fruit and attempting to snatch it, only to get mauled by a passive-aggressive beaver.

As for supposed Republican passivity prior to the 70's, remind me which party was running the show when these events happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Panama_from_Colombia

Nevermind the events of the American Civil War or the handling of the Cold War during Eisenhower's presidency.

I don't really see how the party could rightly be considered pacifistic pre-1970's.

Sanctissima wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:1812 was a war to annex Canada, total, bs. The Federalist Party later reorganized into the Whigs, though, and then later the Republican Party, which kept largely to the same ideals until the 70's

I... can't really disagree since I'm both Canadian and nationalist as all hell, but at least from the American perspective, I can't rightly condemn a nation for seeing what appears to be low-hanging fruit and attempting to snatch it, only to get mauled by a passive-aggressive beaver.

As for supposed Republican passivity prior to the 70's, remind me which party was running the show when these events happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Panama_from_Colombia

Nevermind the events of the American Civil War or the handling of the Cold War during Eisenhower's presidency.

I don't really see how the party could rightly be considered pacifistic pre-1970's.

Canada and the US should be one, we are brothers divided by a British monarch. *nods*

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
I assumed he meant the actual political party.

Either way, if he meant the Whigs in general than that's a bit odd, considering how they weren't pacifistic in the slightest.

They were not pacifist, but were anti imperialist unlike the Jacksonians

They certainly gave zero fucks about tearing the Iroquois Confederacy to shreds.

Or the initial US attempt to capture Canada towards the beginning of the War of Independence, for that matter.

Genivaria wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
I assumed he meant the actual political party.

Either way, if he meant the Whigs in general than that's a bit odd, considering how they weren't pacifistic in the slightest.

Ironic that the 'Party of Peace' was also the party of protecting slavery.
*BREAK THE CHAINS*

I guess liberty and freedom only applied to whitey.

Genivaria wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
I... can't really disagree since I'm both Canadian and nationalist as all hell, but at least from the American perspective, I can't rightly condemn a nation for seeing what appears to be low-hanging fruit and attempting to snatch it, only to get mauled by a passive-aggressive beaver.

As for supposed Republican passivity prior to the 70's, remind me which party was running the show when these events happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Panama_from_Colombia

Nevermind the events of the American Civil War or the handling of the Cold War during Eisenhower's presidency.

I don't really see how the party could rightly be considered pacifistic pre-1970's.

Canada and the US should be one, we are brothers divided by a British monarch. *nods*

tfw, you're anti-monarchy but also fiercely nationalist.

Sorry mate, but no can do. You had your two chances during the War of Independence and 1812.

Sanctissima wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Ironic that the 'Party of Peace' was also the party of protecting slavery.
*BREAK THE CHAINS*

I guess liberty and freedom only applied to whitey.

Genivaria wrote:Canada and the US should be one, we are brothers divided by a British monarch. *nods*

tfw, you're anti-monarchy but also fiercely nationalist.

Sorry mate, but no can do. You had your two chances during the War of Independence and 1812.

Your flag is a leaf. A LEAF.
We're all Americans some by continent some by country, lets just make it one and the same yeah?

As an aside I just took a Pew Research Political quiz and even after saying that I supported the military, foreign intervention, and American nationalism I'm still a liberal democrat.
Funny, since my fellow liberals would accuse me of being a fascist.

Genivaria wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
I guess liberty and freedom only applied to whitey.



tfw, you're anti-monarchy but also fiercely nationalist.

Sorry mate, but no can do. You had your two chances during the War of Independence and 1812.

Your flag is a leaf. A LEAF.
We're all Americans some by continent some by country, lets just make it one and the same yeah?

As an aside I just took a Pew Research Political quiz and even after saying that I supported the military, foreign intervention, and American nationalism I'm still a liberal democrat.
Funny, since my fellow liberals would accuse me of being a fascist.

That's because you're a neoliberal, and most people don't know what fascism is.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Your flag is a leaf. A LEAF.
We're all Americans some by continent some by country, lets just make it one and the same yeah?

As an aside I just took a Pew Research Political quiz and even after saying that I supported the military, foreign intervention, and American nationalism I'm still a liberal democrat.
Funny, since my fellow liberals would accuse me of being a fascist.

That's because you're a neoliberal, and most people don't know what fascism is.

Aren't neo-liberals all about laissez-faire capitalism and no regulations?
*Hiss!*

Sanctissima wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:1812 was a war to annex Canada, total, bs. The Federalist Party later reorganized into the Whigs, though, and then later the Republican Party, which kept largely to the same ideals until the 70's

I... can't really disagree since I'm both Canadian and nationalist as all hell, but at least from the American perspective, I can't rightly condemn a nation for seeing what appears to be low-hanging fruit and attempting to snatch it, only to get mauled by a passive-aggressive beaver.

As for supposed Republican passivity prior to the 70's, remind me which party was running the show when these events happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Panama_from_Colombia

Nevermind the events of the American Civil War or the handling of the Cold War during Eisenhower's presidency.

I don't really see how the party could rightly be considered pacifistic pre-1970's.

Fortunaty I never said they were pacifists.

No doubt Roosevelt was a very abnormal Republican, which is why he broke with the party.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
I... can't really disagree since I'm both Canadian and nationalist as all hell, but at least from the American perspective, I can't rightly condemn a nation for seeing what appears to be low-hanging fruit and attempting to snatch it, only to get mauled by a passive-aggressive beaver.

As for supposed Republican passivity prior to the 70's, remind me which party was running the show when these events happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Panama_from_Colombia

Nevermind the events of the American Civil War or the handling of the Cold War during Eisenhower's presidency.

I don't really see how the party could rightly be considered pacifistic pre-1970's.

Fortunaty I never said they were pacifists.

No doubt Roosevelt was a very abnormal Republican, which is why he broke with the party.

There is a reason that Teddy is a Meme-lord.
\

Genivaria wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:That's because you're a neoliberal, and most people don't know what fascism is.

Aren't neo-liberals all about laissez-faire capitalism and no regulations?
*Hiss!*

Neoliberals are about spreading capitalism. They're the NeoCons of the Liberal world.

I would also say if Huey Long were elected President, the Democrats would have maintained a strong continuity with their Jacksonian, Jeffersonian heritage. But FDR reforged the party.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Aren't neo-liberals all about laissez-faire capitalism and no regulations?
*Hiss!*

Neoliberals are about spreading capitalism. They're the NeoCons of the Liberal world.

Then that's not me.

The Parkus Empire wrote:I would also say if Huey Long were elected President, the Democrats would have maintained a strong continuity with their Jacksonian, Jeffersonian heritage. But FDR reforged the party.

True. Don't forget about this Diabolical Bastard right here.

Genivaria wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Neoliberals are about spreading capitalism. They're the NeoCons of the Liberal world.

Then that's not me.

If you're a "liberal democrat" who supports American imperialism in the world, then that very much sounds like neoliberalism. I mean, the only thing really separating you from a Neocon is that you're pro-regulation.

Genivaria wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
I guess liberty and freedom only applied to whitey.



tfw, you're anti-monarchy but also fiercely nationalist.

Sorry mate, but no can do. You had your two chances during the War of Independence and 1812.

Your flag is a leaf. A LEAF.
We're all Americans some by continent some by country, lets just make it one and the same yeah?

As an aside I just took a Pew Research Political quiz and even after saying that I supported the military, foreign intervention, and American nationalism I'm still a liberal democrat.
Funny, since my fellow liberals would accuse me of being a fascist.

A maple leaf, the most glorious of all the leaves.

And at any rate, we make up for the lackluster patriotic symbolism with our wildlife:



Sort of...



In terms of your political orientation, I figure it's your economic beliefs that more or less peg you liberal rather than moderately conservative. At any rate, liberals historically have tended to be fairly patriotic, even nationalist. It's just the modern socialized crap that's neutered the entire ideology.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Then that's not me.

If you're a "liberal democrat" who supports American imperialism in the world, then that very much sounds like neoliberalism. I mean, the only thing really separating you from a Neocon is that you're pro-regulation.

Not imperialism just not opposed to intervention.
If you want to use those terms synonymously then we're of course going to differ.
And besides if the big names behind neo-liberalism are Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Alan Greenspan then it is a serious stretch to try and put me under that label.

Genivaria wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:If you're a "liberal democrat" who supports American imperialism in the world, then that very much sounds like neoliberalism. I mean, the only thing really separating you from a Neocon is that you're pro-regulation.

Not imperialism just not opposed to intervention.
If you want to use those terms synonymously then we're of course going to differ.
And besides if the big names behind neo-liberalism are Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Alan Greenspan then it is a serious stretch to try and put me under that label.

Where do you differ on them besides economics?

Sanctissima wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Your flag is a leaf. A LEAF.
We're all Americans some by continent some by country, lets just make it one and the same yeah?

As an aside I just took a Pew Research Political quiz and even after saying that I supported the military, foreign intervention, and American nationalism I'm still a liberal democrat.
Funny, since my fellow liberals would accuse me of being a fascist.

A maple leaf, the most glorious of all the leaves.

And at any rate, we make up for the lackluster patriotic symbolism with our wildlife:

Sort of...

In terms of your political orientation, I figure it's your economic beliefs that more or less peg you liberal rather than moderately conservative. At any rate, liberals historically have tended to be fairly patriotic, even nationalist. It's just the modern socialized crap that's neutered the entire ideology.

Yes shame that.
If not for the damn Red Scare we might have a decent Social Market Economy.