Citizenship vs. Liberalism

[norwegen]

In actuality most of the revolutionaries and founders were with money and land it would be somewhat natural that some would believe them to be conservative, and some were. The main point, however, with our revolution and eventual Constitution, was the use of liberal ideas, ideas from Locke and others. The founders and framers conducted a war and set up a new type of government based on liberal ideas.
Liberal ideas, as being ideas as found in scholarly books on political ideologies, not as many posters define liberal and conservative.

"....set up a new type of government based on liberal ideas."

Really?


Well, then, reggie....which, pray tell, of these is a "Liberal" idea?

The view of the Founders: individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


.....exactly where, in that scheme, does ObamaCare fit?




Astounding how many of you Liberals are willing to fabricate in the face of clear and obvious facts.

Want to see our liberal friends distort our founding history even further? Ask them what the purpose of the Progressive Era was.

Hilarity, no doubt, will ensue.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As if someone copies down all the blatantly wrong statements you make.
It has been said on this board by many on the right to leave if you don't like the country, leave.
It has been said over and over.

What is so absolutely asinine about this thread is the OP thinks they have more right to exist in this country and those that disagree with their personal ideology should leave.
Then on the next breath the makes statements about individuality.
How collectively idiotic when you make both statements and they try to prove their point by making both statements.

"...those that disagree with their personal ideology should leave."

I'd like to see you provide where I said that.

So we agree, then, that I've never said such a thing?

The fact is that I encourage debate.....time and again I've found those on the other side demanding that opposition voices be silenced, marginalized, and such folks "leave."




"Obama Tells Ohio State Grads to Reject the "Voices" Warning of Government Tyranny -- and Join the Collective"
Obama Tells Ohio State Grads to Reject the "Voices" Warning of Government Tyranny -- and Join the Collective - The Rush Limbaugh Show

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is my wont to construct a series of quotes that lead to an overwhelming and undeniable conclusion.....but my pal, Mr. H, insists on the bottom line first....so here it is:
Liberalism is the very opposite of the intent of 'citizenship.'





1. 'Citizenship' is the goal and aspiration of Western political systems, and can be recognized by its result: both "human rights" and "natural rights," which are the pre-condition of their consent to be governed.

a. Those values are memorialized in the United States Constitution, the abrogation of which is the justification for revolution.
While conservatives believe it is the citizen's right to replace an unjust government, Liberals believe that the government is the government, for better or for worse.



2. There is a responsibility that flows from citizenship, duties to others, basically to strangers, including a defense of their common territory and the maintenance of the law that applies within said jurisdiction.
Roger Scruton, "The West and the Rest."

a. Note the central idea: territory. There is no common territory without borders, and without national sovereignty.







3. The tenets of Liberalism are counter to this theme. Liberalism endorses open borders, and a 'citizen of the world' view....a construct that never has and never will exist.

a. Since the dawn of politics, some men have envisioned some global authority that would bring peace and harmony….Utopia. During the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant argued in favor of a “united power and law-governed decisions of a united will” to create “perpetual peace.”
Cosmopolitan citizenship and postmodernity

4. ‘Global governance, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasn’t been debated, called for, fought for…and as recently as the 20th century, enforced on large swaths of the planet….called communism.

a. Imaginary, not only unproven: data is available documenting the deleterious effects. Called communism, socialism, Liberalism, whatever, it responsible for over 100 million slaughtered human beings.

How to explain its endorsement by the Western elites? Simple: it is a religious belief, largely based on a tragic misunderstanding of human nature, and the Left’s inability to confront, or even recognize, evil.







5. To recognize those wedded to this view, simply note who supports the communist inception, the United Nations.

a. "A young American diplomat was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done.
He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later).

At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one. At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.

All of this seemed well and good until three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy...."
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know






It is not communism, one-world government, or the loss of national sovereignty that promises peace and security.

"They are migrating in search of citizenship - which is the principal gift of national
jurisdictions, and the origin of peace, law and stability and prosperity that still prevail
in the West."
Roger Scruton, "A Political Philosophy," p. 5



Beware of a President intent on giving away America's sovereignty.

Nobody cares or read what you wrote.

Suffice to say this:

If you want to live like a Republican;
Then you should vote like a Democrat.

"Nobody cares or read what you wrote."


What an ass! You just responded to it.





But....have a happy birthday tomorrow.

April Fool's Day is your birthday....isn't it?

 

[ClosedCaption]

How about we streamline them? How about we be more careful about letting anybody and everybody on them?

I was listening to a 50 year old man telling 4 or 5 teenagers how he was scamming the system and how to do it themselves.

We can argue about whether it's epidemic or not but there is no argument it's a lot money we're giving away right now.

How about we work on the culture a little bit, too?

How about we convince the TV shows to show a little more respect for marriage and the nuclear family?

How about, for the first time, you admit it's a problem?

Eliminate them? I defy you to show me a Conservative that wants to eliminate them.

For somebody who doesn't believe in Christianity, you've sure been on that cross a long time

Weird. This is the first time I'm hearing someone say that those programs hurt the poor while at the same time saying they shouldnt be eliminated.

Hurting the poor is ok, Edge just want the hurt streamlined.

And run TV....totally reasonable.

You're a juvenile douche.

Every study shows that people get a job within 6 weeks of them losing unemployment. Whether they been on it for 6 Months or 2 years.

Same amount of time lapses between their unemployment benefits running out and them getting a job.

Can't say as I blame them, frankly.

But I'm tired of paying for it indirectly... Or directly.

Same with Welfare. You got "X" amount of time and you gotta find a job or give us a very good explanation as to why.

So you still think welfare hurts the poor but you dont want to end the hurt just make the hurt more effective. I never met someone who objected to something but want that thing to continue just in another way

But dimocrap scum, one in particular, the liar in chief, killed the work requirement of welfare.

Jesus...I would ask you to prove that but you and I know you wont because you cant because you're a liar

How come it worked fine under a Republican Congress and a Republican President, but not for the liar in chief?

You're a fucking douche. All you wanna do is talk in circles.

I'm restating what you are saying. Its funny because you talk in circles but dont realize it until someone repeats it

 

[ClosedCaption]

But....have a happy birthday tomorrow.

April Fool's Day is your birthday....isn't it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are the citizen of a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals. You are free to leave if you like? That's part of the Liberty idea they believed in.

Need boxes?

And you're just stupid.

Liberals did in fact NOT found this country. Big fat difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is my wont to construct a series of quotes that lead to an overwhelming and undeniable conclusion.....but my pal, Mr. H, insists on the bottom line first....so here it is:
Liberalism is the very opposite of the intent of 'citizenship.'





1. 'Citizenship' is the goal and aspiration of Western political systems, and can be recognized by its result: both "human rights" and "natural rights," which are the pre-condition of their consent to be governed.

a. Those values are memorialized in the United States Constitution, the abrogation of which is the justification for revolution.
While conservatives believe it is the citizen's right to replace an unjust government, Liberals believe that the government is the government, for better or for worse.



2. There is a responsibility that flows from citizenship, duties to others, basically to strangers, including a defense of their common territory and the maintenance of the law that applies within said jurisdiction.
Roger Scruton, "The West and the Rest."

a. Note the central idea: territory. There is no common territory without borders, and without national sovereignty.







3. The tenets of Liberalism are counter to this theme. Liberalism endorses open borders, and a 'citizen of the world' view....a construct that never has and never will exist.

a. Since the dawn of politics, some men have envisioned some global authority that would bring peace and harmony….Utopia. During the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant argued in favor of a “united power and law-governed decisions of a united will” to create “perpetual peace.”
Cosmopolitan citizenship and postmodernity

4. ‘Global governance, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasn’t been debated, called for, fought for…and as recently as the 20th century, enforced on large swaths of the planet….called communism.

a. Imaginary, not only unproven: data is available documenting the deleterious effects. Called communism, socialism, Liberalism, whatever, it responsible for over 100 million slaughtered human beings.

How to explain its endorsement by the Western elites? Simple: it is a religious belief, largely based on a tragic misunderstanding of human nature, and the Left’s inability to confront, or even recognize, evil.







5. To recognize those wedded to this view, simply note who supports the communist inception, the United Nations.

a. "A young American diplomat was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done.
He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later).

At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one. At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.

All of this seemed well and good until three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy...."
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know






It is not communism, one-world government, or the loss of national sovereignty that promises peace and security.

"They are migrating in search of citizenship - which is the principal gift of national
jurisdictions, and the origin of peace, law and stability and prosperity that still prevail
in the West."
Roger Scruton, "A Political Philosophy," p. 5



Beware of a President intent on giving away America's sovereignty.

Oh my. So you want to lecture people on Citizenship? You, of course, have a dd214 that states Honorable? Because if you do not, I, and many other liberal citizens do. So I would have to say that our devotion to our nation, a duty of a citizen, far exceeds yours.

 

[Old Rocks]

You are the citizen of a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals. You are free to leave if you like? That's part of the Liberty idea they believed in.

Need boxes?

And you're just stupid.

Liberals did in fact NOT found this country. Big fat difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.

Kid, you have proven your ignorance concering the history of this nation repeatedly. The founders of this nation were some of the radical liberals of that period. And, had you been alive then, you would have been a Tory.

 

[Moonglow]

I have 2 DD214's with honorable discharge, one for the OK Army Nasty Guard and another for Regular Army. Now tell me what a bad man I am for my nation...

 

[Moonglow]

You are the citizen of a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals. You are free to leave if you like? That's part of the Liberty idea they believed in.

Need boxes?

And you're just stupid.

Liberals did in fact NOT found this country. Big fat difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.

Kid, you have proven your ignorance concering the history of this nation repeatedly. The founders of this nation were some of the radical liberals of that period. And, had you been alive then, you would have been a Tory.

They were called the lunatic fringe...

 

[regent]

In actuality most of the revolutionaries and founders were with money and land it would be somewhat natural that some would believe them to be conservative, and some were. The main point, however, with our revolution and eventual Constitution, was the use of liberal ideas, ideas from Locke and others. The founders and framers conducted a war and set up a new type of government based on liberal ideas.
Liberal ideas, as being ideas as found in scholarly books on political ideologies, not as many posters define liberal and conservative.

"....set up a new type of government based on liberal ideas."

Really?


Well, then, reggie....which, pray tell, of these is a "Liberal" idea?

The view of the Founders: individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


.....exactly where, in that scheme, does ObamaCare fit?




Astounding how many of you Liberals are willing to fabricate in the face of clear and obvious facts.

Well as most of us know the framers took a government with no power and changed the government, giving it ample powers so that it might exist until now. We have individualism, and limited constitutional government still, and the Court still makes decisions as to what is constitutional. It has been a battle to keep markets free from monopolies and free to serve tainted food and drugs to people.
Where does Obama-care fit? Well it fits as Social Security fits, that governments should work for the people's well-being as well as for business and corporations well-being.

 

[ron4342]

It is my wont to construct a series of quotes that lead to an overwhelming and undeniable conclusion.....but my pal, Mr. H, insists on the bottom line first....so here it is:
Liberalism is the very opposite of the intent of 'citizenship.'





1. 'Citizenship' is the goal and aspiration of Western political systems, and can be recognized by its result: both "human rights" and "natural rights," which are the pre-condition of their consent to be governed.

a. Those values are memorialized in the United States Constitution, the abrogation of which is the justification for revolution.
While conservatives believe it is the citizen's right to replace an unjust government, Liberals believe that the government is the government, for better or for worse.



2. There is a responsibility that flows from citizenship, duties to others, basically to strangers, including a defense of their common territory and the maintenance of the law that applies within said jurisdiction.
Roger Scruton, "The West and the Rest."

a. Note the central idea: territory. There is no common territory without borders, and without national sovereignty.







3. The tenets of Liberalism are counter to this theme. Liberalism endorses open borders, and a 'citizen of the world' view....a construct that never has and never will exist.

a. Since the dawn of politics, some men have envisioned some global authority that would bring peace and harmony….Utopia. During the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant argued in favor of a “united power and law-governed decisions of a united will” to create “perpetual peace.”
Cosmopolitan citizenship and postmodernity

4. ‘Global governance, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasn’t been debated, called for, fought for…and as recently as the 20th century, enforced on large swaths of the planet….called communism.

a. Imaginary, not only unproven: data is available documenting the deleterious effects. Called communism, socialism, Liberalism, whatever, it responsible for over 100 million slaughtered human beings.

How to explain its endorsement by the Western elites? Simple: it is a religious belief, largely based on a tragic misunderstanding of human nature, and the Left’s inability to confront, or even recognize, evil.







5. To recognize those wedded to this view, simply note who supports the communist inception, the United Nations.

a. "A young American diplomat was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done.
He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later).

At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one. At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.

All of this seemed well and good until three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy...."
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know






It is not communism, one-world government, or the loss of national sovereignty that promises peace and security.

"They are migrating in search of citizenship - which is the principal gift of national
jurisdictions, and the origin of peace, law and stability and prosperity that still prevail
in the West."
Roger Scruton, "A Political Philosophy," p. 5



Beware of a President intent on giving away America's sovereignty.

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP! I stopped reading after "While conservatives believe it is the citizen's right to replace an unjust government, Liberals believe that the government is the government, for better or for worse."
I cannot imagine a more loony statement. Read the Preamble of the Constitution and you will see the phrase "... to promote the general welfare, ...." That means that government has the goal of making the life of ALL of its citizens better and not just the lives of the most wealthy. The person who started the republican party knew this very well. Consider this from the Gettysburg Address: "... a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. ..." If people are unable to provide food, shelter, or medical care for themselves or those they look over it is the goal of the government to give these people a hand up. That is "promoting the general welfare." That is being a government "for the people." You would look at that type of Christian behavior and scream "the government needs to be replaced." You people are totally nuts and completely without conscience. You would watch people dying in the street while condemning them for starving and then you would pat yourself on the back and call yourself a good Christian and American citizen.

 

[ron4342]

You are the citizen of a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals. You are free to leave if you like? That's part of the Liberty idea they believed in.

Need boxes?

And you're just stupid.

Liberals did in fact NOT found this country. Big fat difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.

It is truly amazing how much stupidity you manage to cram into your post. IF Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and others were conservatives do you really think they would have pushed for change. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW CONSERVATIVES PUSH TO MOVE THIS COUNTRY FORWARD? When was the last time you saw the conservatives push for change? Have they pushed for change for Blacks? How about Hispanics? How about for those without medical insurance? How about for gays? What about equal pay for women or women's rights? What about those who need jobs? Nada! Nothing! Zero! Zip!
The conservatives of yesterday and today live by the same creed: There shall be NO change. That is the basic tenet of conservatism. Don't believe me? List all the new laws and bills that the House has put forward advocating change that will move this country forward. Have they provided a jobs bill? A different or better health care bill? An immigration bill? A bill to extend SNAP benefits? An extension of the bill to aid the unemployed? Other than to vote to repeal ACA over and over and over and to give themselves 2/3 of the year on vacation, exactly when have they tried to move this country forward. THEY HAVEN'T!
The only reason there is a USA is because the liberals of yesterday, Washington, Jefferson, et al, wanted change! They wanted to control their own lives and they did not want England to stand in their way. That is not the action of a conservative, THAT IS THE ACTION OF A LIBERAL.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You are the citizen of a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals. You are free to leave if you like? That's part of the Liberty idea they believed in.

Need boxes?

And you're just stupid.

Liberals did in fact NOT found this country. Big fat difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.

Liberals little man. Let's mush on...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You are the citizen of a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals. You are free to leave if you like? That's part of the Liberty idea they believed in.

Need boxes?

And you're just stupid.

Liberals did in fact NOT found this country. Big fat difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.

Kid, you have proven your ignorance concering the history of this nation repeatedly. The founders of this nation were some of the radical liberals of that period. And, had you been alive then, you would have been a Tory.

Tory water-boy. on a good day.

 

[norwegen]

It is my wont to construct a series of quotes that lead to an overwhelming and undeniable conclusion.....but my pal, Mr. H, insists on the bottom line first....so here it is:
Liberalism is the very opposite of the intent of 'citizenship.'





1. 'Citizenship' is the goal and aspiration of Western political systems, and can be recognized by its result: both "human rights" and "natural rights," which are the pre-condition of their consent to be governed.

a. Those values are memorialized in the United States Constitution, the abrogation of which is the justification for revolution.
While conservatives believe it is the citizen's right to replace an unjust government, Liberals believe that the government is the government, for better or for worse.



2. There is a responsibility that flows from citizenship, duties to others, basically to strangers, including a defense of their common territory and the maintenance of the law that applies within said jurisdiction.
Roger Scruton, "The West and the Rest."

a. Note the central idea: territory. There is no common territory without borders, and without national sovereignty.







3. The tenets of Liberalism are counter to this theme. Liberalism endorses open borders, and a 'citizen of the world' view....a construct that never has and never will exist.

a. Since the dawn of politics, some men have envisioned some global authority that would bring peace and harmony….Utopia. During the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant argued in favor of a “united power and law-governed decisions of a united will” to create “perpetual peace.”
Cosmopolitan citizenship and postmodernity

4. ‘Global governance, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasn’t been debated, called for, fought for…and as recently as the 20th century, enforced on large swaths of the planet….called communism.

a. Imaginary, not only unproven: data is available documenting the deleterious effects. Called communism, socialism, Liberalism, whatever, it responsible for over 100 million slaughtered human beings.

How to explain its endorsement by the Western elites? Simple: it is a religious belief, largely based on a tragic misunderstanding of human nature, and the Left’s inability to confront, or even recognize, evil.







5. To recognize those wedded to this view, simply note who supports the communist inception, the United Nations.

a. "A young American diplomat was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done.
He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later).

At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one. At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.

All of this seemed well and good until three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy...."
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know






It is not communism, one-world government, or the loss of national sovereignty that promises peace and security.

"They are migrating in search of citizenship - which is the principal gift of national
jurisdictions, and the origin of peace, law and stability and prosperity that still prevail
in the West."
Roger Scruton, "A Political Philosophy," p. 5



Beware of a President intent on giving away America's sovereignty.

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP! I stopped reading after "While conservatives believe it is the citizen's right to replace an unjust government, Liberals believe that the government is the government, for better or for worse."
I cannot imagine a more loony statement. Read the Preamble of the Constitution and you will see the phrase "... to promote the general welfare, ...." That means that government has the goal of making the life of ALL of its citizens better and not just the lives of the most wealthy. The person who started the republican party knew this very well. Consider this from the Gettysburg Address: "... a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. ..." If people are unable to provide food, shelter, or medical care for themselves or those they look over it is the goal of the government to give these people a hand up. That is "promoting the general welfare." That is being a government "for the people." You would look at that type of Christian behavior and scream "the government needs to be replaced." You people are totally nuts and completely without conscience. You would watch people dying in the street while condemning them for starving and then you would pat yourself on the back and call yourself a good Christian and American citizen.

A person started the Republican Party? Who? (Okay, Google it. Go!)

A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is a democratic government, then, correct? A welfare state? Like it was in the 1790s?

 

[norwegen]

You are the citizen of a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals. You are free to leave if you like? That's part of the Liberty idea they believed in.

Need boxes?

And you're just stupid.

Liberals did in fact NOT found this country. Big fat difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.

It is truly amazing how much stupidity you manage to cram into your post. IF Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and others were conservatives do you really think they would have pushed for change. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW CONSERVATIVES PUSH TO MOVE THIS COUNTRY FORWARD? When was the last time you saw the conservatives push for change? Have they pushed for change for Blacks? How about Hispanics? How about for those without medical insurance? How about for gays? What about equal pay for women or women's rights? What about those who need jobs? Nada! Nothing! Zero! Zip!
The conservatives of yesterday and today live by the same creed: There shall be NO change. That is the basic tenet of conservatism. Don't believe me? List all the new laws and bills that the House has put forward advocating change that will move this country forward. Have they provided a jobs bill? A different or better health care bill? An immigration bill? A bill to extend SNAP benefits? An extension of the bill to aid the unemployed? Other than to vote to repeal ACA over and over and over and to give themselves 2/3 of the year on vacation, exactly when have they tried to move this country forward. THEY HAVEN'T!
The only reason there is a USA is because the liberals of yesterday, Washington, Jefferson, et al, wanted change! They wanted to control their own lives and they did not want England to stand in their way. That is not the action of a conservative, THAT IS THE ACTION OF A LIBERAL.

This change that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin pushed for: what was it? Was it liberation from the limited government of the Parliament and Crown? Maybe instead of tea, we should have coffee?

 

[Derideo_Te]

You are the citizen of a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals. You are free to leave if you like? That's part of the Liberty idea they believed in.

Need boxes?

And you're just stupid.

Liberals did in fact NOT found this country. Big fat difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.

Conservatives supported the King of England at that time. They considered everyone who wanted independence to be traitors. They were opposed to the people having the right to set up their own independent government. Conservatives would have hanged all of the liberals like Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, et al.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In actuality most of the revolutionaries and founders were with money and land it would be somewhat natural that some would believe them to be conservative, and some were. The main point, however, with our revolution and eventual Constitution, was the use of liberal ideas, ideas from Locke and others. The founders and framers conducted a war and set up a new type of government based on liberal ideas.
Liberal ideas, as being ideas as found in scholarly books on political ideologies, not as many posters define liberal and conservative.

"....set up a new type of government based on liberal ideas."

Really?


Well, then, reggie....which, pray tell, of these is a "Liberal" idea?

The view of the Founders: individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


.....exactly where, in that scheme, does ObamaCare fit?




Astounding how many of you Liberals are willing to fabricate in the face of clear and obvious facts.

Well as most of us know the framers took a government with no power and changed the government, giving it ample powers so that it might exist until now. We have individualism, and limited constitutional government still, and the Court still makes decisions as to what is constitutional. It has been a battle to keep markets free from monopolies and free to serve tainted food and drugs to people.
Where does Obama-care fit? Well it fits as Social Security fits, that governments should work for the people's well-being as well as for business and corporations well-being.

"We have individualism, and limited constitutional government still, and the Court still makes decisions as to what is constitutional."

Once I reduce you to lying like this, well, ....then we both you know you have lost the argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is my wont to construct a series of quotes that lead to an overwhelming and undeniable conclusion.....but my pal, Mr. H, insists on the bottom line first....so here it is:
Liberalism is the very opposite of the intent of 'citizenship.'





1. 'Citizenship' is the goal and aspiration of Western political systems, and can be recognized by its result: both "human rights" and "natural rights," which are the pre-condition of their consent to be governed.

a. Those values are memorialized in the United States Constitution, the abrogation of which is the justification for revolution.
While conservatives believe it is the citizen's right to replace an unjust government, Liberals believe that the government is the government, for better or for worse.



2. There is a responsibility that flows from citizenship, duties to others, basically to strangers, including a defense of their common territory and the maintenance of the law that applies within said jurisdiction.
Roger Scruton, "The West and the Rest."

a. Note the central idea: territory. There is no common territory without borders, and without national sovereignty.







3. The tenets of Liberalism are counter to this theme. Liberalism endorses open borders, and a 'citizen of the world' view....a construct that never has and never will exist.

a. Since the dawn of politics, some men have envisioned some global authority that would bring peace and harmony….Utopia. During the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant argued in favor of a “united power and law-governed decisions of a united will” to create “perpetual peace.”
Cosmopolitan citizenship and postmodernity

4. ‘Global governance, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasn’t been debated, called for, fought for…and as recently as the 20th century, enforced on large swaths of the planet….called communism.

a. Imaginary, not only unproven: data is available documenting the deleterious effects. Called communism, socialism, Liberalism, whatever, it responsible for over 100 million slaughtered human beings.

How to explain its endorsement by the Western elites? Simple: it is a religious belief, largely based on a tragic misunderstanding of human nature, and the Left’s inability to confront, or even recognize, evil.







5. To recognize those wedded to this view, simply note who supports the communist inception, the United Nations.

a. "A young American diplomat was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done.
He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later).

At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one. At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.

All of this seemed well and good until three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy...."
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know






It is not communism, one-world government, or the loss of national sovereignty that promises peace and security.

"They are migrating in search of citizenship - which is the principal gift of national
jurisdictions, and the origin of peace, law and stability and prosperity that still prevail
in the West."
Roger Scruton, "A Political Philosophy," p. 5



Beware of a President intent on giving away America's sovereignty.

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP! I stopped reading after "While conservatives believe it is the citizen's right to replace an unjust government, Liberals believe that the government is the government, for better or for worse."
I cannot imagine a more loony statement. Read the Preamble of the Constitution and you will see the phrase "... to promote the general welfare, ...." That means that government has the goal of making the life of ALL of its citizens better and not just the lives of the most wealthy. The person who started the republican party knew this very well. Consider this from the Gettysburg Address: "... a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. ..." If people are unable to provide food, shelter, or medical care for themselves or those they look over it is the goal of the government to give these people a hand up. That is "promoting the general welfare." That is being a government "for the people." You would look at that type of Christian behavior and scream "the government needs to be replaced." You people are totally nuts and completely without conscience. You would watch people dying in the street while condemning them for starving and then you would pat yourself on the back and call yourself a good Christian and American citizen.

"I stopped reading...."


Sums up your education, doesn't it.