Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Don't forget (especially you Mr. Nick) that the American revolutionists and Founding Fathers were all liberals.
They were classical liberals.
Modern liberals have nothing to do with classical liberalism.
modern liberals are statist
I am talking about conservative protesters being peaceful and cleaning up after the protest.
The left protesters are always getting arrested and leaving trash all over the place.
It is not propaganda it is the truth.
It is the left who put up propaganda and won't check out the actual sources.
It cost Wisconsin taxpayers like 8 million bucks to clean up after those nuts who squatted in the Madison capitol building... They wrote propaganda on the floor tiles, walls, the statues outside of the capitol building, the streets...
They're disgusting pigs that do nothing but consume and destroy...
Say Nicky, you got some link or some reference to back your comments up with? Nothing more disgusting on a message board than a foul mouthed liar.
THATS A LOT OF CASH.
In court, Renlund said the estimate included $6 million to repair damaged marble inside the Capitol, $1 million for damage outside and $500,000 for costs to inspect the damage.
The culprit: Tape used to put up protest signs. The tape adhesive is acidic, the marble is a base, so, over time, the tape could etch the stone.
The damage claim rocketed around the Internet (such as here and here and here) and on news reports and talk shows around the world (here and here). Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch posted the figure on her Facebook page, generating more than 125 comments -- mostly from people condemning the protesters and the extraordinary level of damage they allegedly caused.
But other testimony and news reports from the Capitol indicated that something was amiss.
Protesters had, by all accounts, policed themselves, including creating cleanup details and other organizational efforts. They used blue painters tape to hang their signs -- at the request of state officials. Some protesters said the state had actually provided the tape to avoid lasting damage.
........
But the memo was not operative for long.
The same day, the state provided a different memo, from Peter Maternowski, deputy administrator of the Division of State Facilities. It was written that day, addressed to Huebsch.
That memo said the cleanup would cost $347,500 if the work did not require a historic preservation specialist. Thats 20 times less than the original claim.
PolitiFact Wisconsin | Wisconsin officials claim cleaning up the state Capitol will cost $7.5 million
The conservatives were the Monarchists.
Remember them? They espoused the "traditional values" of the day which included staying loyal to the British Crown.
So you argue for Austrian School economics, then you go off talking about being pro neo Keynesian economics??
Libertarianism is anarchism in a dress.Then you say you're a feminist but attempt to portray yourself as some kind of odd libertarian..
Actually, Libertarianism, like Objectionism, is only about the Self.No libertarian is a fucking feminist - we're for everyone - not just some select group...
It cost Wisconsin taxpayers like 8 million bucks to clean up after those nuts who squatted in the Madison capitol building... They wrote propaganda on the floor tiles, walls, the statues outside of the capitol building, the streets...
They're disgusting pigs that do nothing but consume and destroy...
Say Nicky, you got some link or some reference to back your comments up with? Nothing more disgusting on a message board than a foul mouthed liar.
THATS A LOT OF CASH.
In court, Renlund said the estimate included $6 million to repair damaged marble inside the Capitol, $1 million for damage outside and $500,000 for costs to inspect the damage.
The culprit: Tape used to put up protest signs. The tape adhesive is acidic, the marble is a base, so, over time, the tape could etch the stone.
The damage claim rocketed around the Internet (such as here and here and here) and on news reports and talk shows around the world (here and here). Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch posted the figure on her Facebook page, generating more than 125 comments -- mostly from people condemning the protesters and the extraordinary level of damage they allegedly caused.
But other testimony and news reports from the Capitol indicated that something was amiss.
Protesters had, by all accounts, policed themselves, including creating cleanup details and other organizational efforts. They used blue painters tape to hang their signs -- at the request of state officials. Some protesters said the state had actually provided the tape to avoid lasting damage.
........
But the memo was not operative for long.
The same day, the state provided a different memo, from Peter Maternowski, deputy administrator of the Division of State Facilities. It was written that day, addressed to Huebsch.
That memo said the cleanup would cost $347,500 if the work did not require a historic preservation specialist. Thats 20 times less than the original claim.
PolitiFact Wisconsin | Wisconsin officials claim cleaning up the state Capitol will cost $7.5 million
Well, with law enforcement included to make sure those little fucks didn't pull a Che Guevara it cost the state almost 9 million.
$8 Million: Thats How Much the Wis. Budget Protests Will Cost Taxpayers | The Blaze
This just came out today...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnKckGHgeu4&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ‪Wisconsin Protests Price Tag Tops $8 Million‬‏[/ame]
Uh, BS!
Strange how you don't mention their faith in God, unlike most liberals that are immoral mouth-breathers.
Don't forget (especially you Mr. Nick
So you argue for Austrian School economics, then you go off talking about being pro neo Keynesian economics??
Both schools are incomplete. The Austrians have a fine grasp of behavioral economics and what influences the day-to-day workings of the market place. However, history teaches us that Keynes, too, had a few fair points- for example, the way in which lack of demand (little to no consumer spending) slows the market down. There are times when only an increase in aggregate demand (for instance, the stimulus seen with food stamps and certain other welfare programs when administered properly) can, through downstream stimulation, kickstart the economy. However, history also shows us that centrally planned economies are utter failures in large part because they stifle creation and tend to be too rigid, lacking the fluidity and dynamism that makes the open market so robust. Furthermore, the Austrian theories seem unable to fully grasp the long-term evolutioon of markets and societies, which is where Marxian Historical Materialism is strong. Marxian theories are great at explaining very long-term social and economic trends but are of very limited in their ability to describe day-to-day operations and recommend appropriate action in the short term.
It is much like the duality between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. each is strong when properly applied at the right level, but both lack the ability to explain matters in areas where the other is strong. Both represent incomplete understandings and highlight the need for a unified model that works consistently at all levels.
Libertarianism is anarchism in a dress.Then you say you're a feminist but attempt to portray yourself as some kind of odd libertarian..
As for feminism, a discussion of feminism can be found here.http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/138366-are-there-any-real-feminists-on-usmb.html
Actually, Libertarianism, like Objectionism, is only about the Self.No libertarian is a fucking feminist - we're for everyone - not just some select group...
You seem to confuse real feminism (which nothing more than one aspect of a greater struggle) with bourgeois feminism and third-wave neofeminism.
This article discusses that issue
Marxism versus feminism - The class struggle and the emancipation of women | In Defence of Marxism
The difference between libertarianism and anarchy is the Bill of Rights and Constitution in general.
Definition of a liberal;
A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing. Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly statist and, as in Europe, socialistic. Liberalism has changed over the years and degenerated into corruption. For example, FDR, one of the few great democratic Presidents, firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, democrats and liberals are almost in bed with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the re-election campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.
According to current dictionaries and their own beliefs, a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets". or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties". In practice, however, liberals are often the most intolerant of people, and frequently are on the side of disorder, chaos, anarchy, and lawbreaking. According to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary - and matched by current observation - liberals are "unchecked by a sense of the decorous, the fitting, or the polite...lacking significant moral restraints" or "...an emancipation from convention, tradition, or dogma that extends from a belief in altering institutions to fit altering conditions to a preference for lawlessness" Polling data over several decades has consistently shown more Americans identify themselves as conservative than liberal, by a ratio of 2-1.
Our Founding Father's were not libeal.
They were very religious, very logical and certainly were not self centered.
It is what they (lefties) do; they take something that is honorable and admirable and hijack it to decieve the willfully ignorant.
Strawman from conserv-0-pedia does not define liberals.
Epic failure on rebuttal.
No, the KKK is still aroundConservatism is dead.
Also, slaves.Don't forget the liberals created the USA
Not today's Liberals. The Founders had spines and morals and they took responsibility for their actions.
The difference between libertarianism and anarchy is the Bill of Rights and Constitution in general.
Libertarianism is a political ideology that rests on certain philosophical arguments.
If you simply appeal to the Law (Which is all COTUS is), then you are a Statist.
After all, what about when COTUS prevents you from abolishing slavery? Then you must become an apologist for slavery and advocate its preservation. You have no principles you can stand upon. You merely obey the Law the men with guns tell you to.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/150337-is-it-the-law-to-which-men-are-bound.html
'RINO'
You really think Party membership means anything at all?
It is what they (lefties) do; they take something that is honorable and admirable and hijack it to decieve the willfully ignorant.
Strawman from conserv-0-pedia does not define liberals.
Epic failure on rebuttal.
FYI, I was agreeing, not rebutting.
Uh, BS!
Strange how you don't mention their faith in God, unlike most liberals that are immoral mouth-breathers.
Don't forget (especially you Mr. Nick
Well fuck, they didn't need a Constitution, faith in god was sufficient.
.
When the US was founded, the terms liberal and conservative had a far different meaning than today. A conservative embraced the status quo while the liberal favored change. Applying today's definition to people that lived over two hundred years ago doesn't make much sense. Times are different and values are different.
Goldwater, Reagan and their followers really defined conservatism in American. While conservatism is defined by ideology, liberalism is defined by issues.
Uh, BS!
Strange how you don't mention their faith in God, unlike most liberals that are immoral mouth-breathers.
Well fuck, they didn't need a Constitution, faith in god was sufficient.
.
The laws were written for the people that didn't want to follow the Lord.
When the US was founded, the terms liberal and conservative had a far different meaning than today. A conservative embraced the status quo while the liberal favored change. Applying today's definition to people that lived over two hundred years ago doesn't make much sense. Times are different and values are different.
Goldwater, Reagan and their followers really defined conservatism in American. While conservatism is defined by ideology, liberalism is defined by issues.
Wrong.
That's still true. Liberals favor change and conservatives favor status quo.
Liberals want everything changed, from blacks to serve in the military, to abolition of segregation, to women voting, to gays being able to serve and now to have everyone having healthcare...conservatives opposed each and every one and argued that things should stay the same every step of the way.
Don't forget (especially you Mr. Nick
There is a HUGE difference between classical liberal and progressive liberal.
I'm a classical liberal, progressives are authoritarian nuts..
Get a fucking education..
When the US was founded, the terms liberal and conservative had a far different meaning than today. A conservative embraced the status quo while the liberal favored change. Applying today's definition to people that lived over two hundred years ago doesn't make much sense. Times are different and values are different.
Goldwater, Reagan and their followers really defined conservatism in American. While conservatism is defined by ideology, liberalism is defined by issues.
Wrong.
That's still true. Liberals favor change and conservatives favor status quo.
Liberals want everything changed, from blacks to serve in the military, to abolition of segregation, to women voting, to gays being able to serve and now to have everyone having healthcare...conservatives opposed each and every one and argued that things should stay the same every step of the way.
This is profoundly stupid... even for you, but hey here goes it.
You want change? Let's change from this ever-creeping nanny-state? How's that?
When the US was founded, the terms liberal and conservative had a far different meaning than today. A conservative embraced the status quo while the liberal favored change. Applying today's definition to people that lived over two hundred years ago doesn't make much sense. Times are different and values are different.
Goldwater, Reagan and their followers really defined conservatism in American. While conservatism is defined by ideology, liberalism is defined by issues.
Wrong.
That's still true. Liberals favor change and conservatives favor status quo.
Liberals want everything changed, from blacks to serve in the military, to abolition of segregation, to women voting, to gays being able to serve and now to have everyone having healthcare...conservatives opposed each and every one and argued that things should stay the same every step of the way.
