Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[Derideo_Te]

Conservatives invented public education.

Really?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Apparently a rejection of liberalism isn't just an American thing based on yesterday's election in the U.K. The U.K. defines liberalism and conservatism pretty much as we do at this point in history--they are the only European country that does so I believe--and yesterday conservatives won hugely.

. . .The British electorate clearly had cold feet when it came to voting for a left-wing Socialist leader who vowed to reverse the successful economic policies of the Conservative-led government.

Miliband’s big government, heavy spending, high tax agenda failed to capture the hearts of Middle England, and British voters opted instead for the free market approach put forward by the Conservatives. The wide-reaching welfare reforms, headed by Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith, also proved popular with the British electorate. . . .

. . .The idea that Britain is becoming a more liberal country is a myth. From government spending to immigration, the U.K. has become more, not less, conservative in recent years on most key issues. . . .

5 Takeaways From the UK Election Results​

The conservatives in the UK are to the left of the liberals here in the USA.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It was a veiled attempt to stay relevant without having anything of substance to post.

Ironic!

 

[Foxfyre]

IMO, one of the differences between modern liberalism and modern conservatism is that modern conservatism allows differences of opinion and looks to achieve compromise while modern liberalism more often requires uniform thought and opinion, and those who don't agree with the liberals are declared evil or bad or unacceptable.

For example, conservatives don't care whether one person wants guns in the home and another does not. They just want the central government to not interfere with those choices.

Conservatives don't care whether liberals believe the public schools are just fine, They just want the right to ensure their own kids get the best education possible and don't want to be forced to keep throwing more and more money at a system that never seems to get better.

Conservatives don't care if liberals want cradle to grave security from government. They just want choice, options, and liberty to look after their own healthcare, to educate their children as they think best, and freedom to pursue happiness and prosperity as they choose.

The fact is that what liberalism has embraced and pushed for a half century now has not delivered as advertised. It has created an 18 trillion dollar debt, and for every success story that can be pointed to, there are at least two or more unintended negative consequences. The more liberalism tries to produce a better society, the worse things seem to get.

This is what more people are beginning to see and understand and reject. It is not that conservatism is any more well intended or righteous or noble. But conservatism produces better results. And people prefer better results to worse ones. So looking at the trends in the U.K. and here in America, I think Goldberg is probably right..

 

[Derideo_Te]

For example, conservatives don't care whether one person wants guns in the home and another does not. They just want the central government to not interfere with those choices.

Without the central government upholding the 2A there wouldn't be a choice.

The fact is that what liberalism has embraced and pushed for a half century now has not delivered as advertised. It has created an 18 trillion dollar debt,

Facts prove claim to be false.

US Debt by President By Dollar and Percent

Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase to the $312 billion debt level at the end of JFK's last budget, FY 1964.

Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase to the $354 billion debt level at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.

Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase to the $475 billion debt level at the end of Nixon's last budget, FY 1974.

Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase to the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.

George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase to the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

Barack Obama: Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.​

Both liberal and conservatives have added pretty much equally to the debt with the conservatives adding about half a trillion more than the liberals overall in the last half century. (1964-2014)

 

[Foxfyre]

For example, conservatives don't care whether one person wants guns in the home and another does not. They just want the central government to not interfere with those choices.

Without the central government upholding the 2A there wouldn't be a choice.

The fact is that what liberalism has embraced and pushed for a half century now has not delivered as advertised. It has created an 18 trillion dollar debt,

Facts prove claim to be false.

US Debt by President By Dollar and Percent

Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase to the $312 billion debt level at the end of JFK's last budget, FY 1964.

Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase to the $354 billion debt level at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.

Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase to the $475 billion debt level at the end of Nixon's last budget, FY 1974.

Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase to the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.

George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase to the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

Barack Obama: Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.​

Both liberal and conservatives have added pretty much equally to the debt with the conservatives adding about half a trillion more than the liberals overall in the last half century. (1964-2014)

Presidents don't increase or decrease the debt. What government spends or doesn't spend increases or decreases the debt. Conservative policies don't increase the debt. Not spending what you don't have is a conservative concept. Not spending on what the government is not constitutionally authorized to spend is a conservative concept. Enabling the people to keep and spend as much of their own money as possible on the theory they will do more for their own benefit than anything government will do is a conservative concept. So regardless of who was in the White House or congress since liberalism began to take hold in the late sixties and early 70's, the results of that are quite evident.

Six years of the most conservative congress we have had since the 1950's from 1995 to 2001 did slow down the increase in the rise of the national debt and would likely have started reversing it if that group had stayed in Congress. But most term limited themselves out and were mostly replaced by self-serving liberals in 2001 and that has been the case ever since.

 

[Derideo_Te]

For example, conservatives don't care whether one person wants guns in the home and another does not. They just want the central government to not interfere with those choices.

Without the central government upholding the 2A there wouldn't be a choice.

The fact is that what liberalism has embraced and pushed for a half century now has not delivered as advertised. It has created an 18 trillion dollar debt,

Facts prove claim to be false.

US Debt by President By Dollar and Percent

Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase to the $312 billion debt level at the end of JFK's last budget, FY 1964.

Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase to the $354 billion debt level at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.

Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase to the $475 billion debt level at the end of Nixon's last budget, FY 1974.

Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase to the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.

George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase to the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

Barack Obama: Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.​

Both liberal and conservatives have added pretty much equally to the debt with the conservatives adding about half a trillion more than the liberals overall in the last half century. (1964-2014)

Presidents don't increase or decrease the debt. What government spends or doesn't spend increases or decreases the debt. Conservative policies don't increase the debt. Not spending what you don't have is a conservative concept. Not spending on what the government is not constitutionally authorized to spend is a conservative concept. Enabling the people to keep and spend as much of their own money as possible on the theory they will do more for their own benefit than anything government will do is a conservative concept.

Moving the goalposts because the facts just disproved the conservative myth that only liberals were responsible for the national debt?

Reducing taxes is actually a Libertarian concept that was imposed upon conservatives. The facts prove that tax cuts actually harm the economy and reduces incomes and job growth.

It was only after the 2 largest tax increases ever (in 1990 and 1993) that we had the longest and largest economic expansion in the history of the nation with record low unemployment and 20+ million new jobs.

 

[Foxfyre]

For example, conservatives don't care whether one person wants guns in the home and another does not. They just want the central government to not interfere with those choices.

Without the central government upholding the 2A there wouldn't be a choice.

The fact is that what liberalism has embraced and pushed for a half century now has not delivered as advertised. It has created an 18 trillion dollar debt,

Facts prove claim to be false.

US Debt by President By Dollar and Percent

Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase to the $312 billion debt level at the end of JFK's last budget, FY 1964.

Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase to the $354 billion debt level at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.

Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase to the $475 billion debt level at the end of Nixon's last budget, FY 1974.

Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase to the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.

George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase to the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

Barack Obama: Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.​

Both liberal and conservatives have added pretty much equally to the debt with the conservatives adding about half a trillion more than the liberals overall in the last half century. (1964-2014)

Presidents don't increase or decrease the debt. What government spends or doesn't spend increases or decreases the debt. Conservative policies don't increase the debt. Not spending what you don't have is a conservative concept. Not spending on what the government is not constitutionally authorized to spend is a conservative concept. Enabling the people to keep and spend as much of their own money as possible on the theory they will do more for their own benefit than anything government will do is a conservative concept.

Moving the goalposts because the facts just disproved the conservative myth that only liberals were responsible for the national debt?

Reducing taxes is actually a Libertarian concept that was imposed upon conservatives. The facts prove that tax cuts actually harm the economy and reduces incomes and job growth.

It was only after the 2 largest tax increases ever (in 1990 and 1993) that we had the longest and largest economic expansion in the history of the nation with record low unemployment and 20+ million new jobs.

The economy didn't begin to prosper until after substantial tax cuts in a way to encourage economic activity and growth. And that is a conservative concept.

 

[Derideo_Te]

For example, conservatives don't care whether one person wants guns in the home and another does not. They just want the central government to not interfere with those choices.

Without the central government upholding the 2A there wouldn't be a choice.

The fact is that what liberalism has embraced and pushed for a half century now has not delivered as advertised. It has created an 18 trillion dollar debt,

Facts prove claim to be false.

US Debt by President By Dollar and Percent

Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase to the $312 billion debt level at the end of JFK's last budget, FY 1964.

Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase to the $354 billion debt level at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.

Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase to the $475 billion debt level at the end of Nixon's last budget, FY 1974.

Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase to the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.

George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase to the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

Barack Obama: Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.​

Both liberal and conservatives have added pretty much equally to the debt with the conservatives adding about half a trillion more than the liberals overall in the last half century. (1964-2014)

Presidents don't increase or decrease the debt. What government spends or doesn't spend increases or decreases the debt. Conservative policies don't increase the debt. Not spending what you don't have is a conservative concept. Not spending on what the government is not constitutionally authorized to spend is a conservative concept. Enabling the people to keep and spend as much of their own money as possible on the theory they will do more for their own benefit than anything government will do is a conservative concept.

Moving the goalposts because the facts just disproved the conservative myth that only liberals were responsible for the national debt?

Reducing taxes is actually a Libertarian concept that was imposed upon conservatives. The facts prove that tax cuts actually harm the economy and reduces incomes and job growth.

It was only after the 2 largest tax increases ever (in 1990 and 1993) that we had the longest and largest economic expansion in the history of the nation with record low unemployment and 20+ million new jobs.

The economy didn't begin to prosper until after substantial tax cuts in a way to encourage economic activity and growth. And that is a conservative concept.

Assumes facts nowhere remotely in evidence.

 

[Foxfyre]

For example, conservatives don't care whether one person wants guns in the home and another does not. They just want the central government to not interfere with those choices.

Without the central government upholding the 2A there wouldn't be a choice.

The fact is that what liberalism has embraced and pushed for a half century now has not delivered as advertised. It has created an 18 trillion dollar debt,

Facts prove claim to be false.

US Debt by President By Dollar and Percent

Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase to the $312 billion debt level at the end of JFK's last budget, FY 1964.

Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase to the $354 billion debt level at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.

Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase to the $475 billion debt level at the end of Nixon's last budget, FY 1974.

Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase to the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.

George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase to the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

Barack Obama: Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.​

Both liberal and conservatives have added pretty much equally to the debt with the conservatives adding about half a trillion more than the liberals overall in the last half century. (1964-2014)

Presidents don't increase or decrease the debt. What government spends or doesn't spend increases or decreases the debt. Conservative policies don't increase the debt. Not spending what you don't have is a conservative concept. Not spending on what the government is not constitutionally authorized to spend is a conservative concept. Enabling the people to keep and spend as much of their own money as possible on the theory they will do more for their own benefit than anything government will do is a conservative concept.

Moving the goalposts because the facts just disproved the conservative myth that only liberals were responsible for the national debt?

Reducing taxes is actually a Libertarian concept that was imposed upon conservatives. The facts prove that tax cuts actually harm the economy and reduces incomes and job growth.

It was only after the 2 largest tax increases ever (in 1990 and 1993) that we had the longest and largest economic expansion in the history of the nation with record low unemployment and 20+ million new jobs.

The economy didn't begin to prosper until after substantial tax cuts in a way to encourage economic activity and growth. And that is a conservative concept.

Assumes facts nowhere remotely in evidence.

I believe the facts are quite clearly in evidence. And every time you say that phrase, I mark down another victory because I believe I've made a point that can't be refuted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Without the central government upholding the 2A there wouldn't be a choice.

Facts prove claim to be false.

US Debt by President By Dollar and Percent

Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase to the $312 billion debt level at the end of JFK's last budget, FY 1964.

Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase to the $354 billion debt level at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.

Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase to the $475 billion debt level at the end of Nixon's last budget, FY 1974.

Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase to the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.

George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase to the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

Barack Obama: Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.​

Both liberal and conservatives have added pretty much equally to the debt with the conservatives adding about half a trillion more than the liberals overall in the last half century. (1964-2014)

Presidents don't increase or decrease the debt. What government spends or doesn't spend increases or decreases the debt. Conservative policies don't increase the debt. Not spending what you don't have is a conservative concept. Not spending on what the government is not constitutionally authorized to spend is a conservative concept. Enabling the people to keep and spend as much of their own money as possible on the theory they will do more for their own benefit than anything government will do is a conservative concept.

Moving the goalposts because the facts just disproved the conservative myth that only liberals were responsible for the national debt?

Reducing taxes is actually a Libertarian concept that was imposed upon conservatives. The facts prove that tax cuts actually harm the economy and reduces incomes and job growth.

It was only after the 2 largest tax increases ever (in 1990 and 1993) that we had the longest and largest economic expansion in the history of the nation with record low unemployment and 20+ million new jobs.

The economy didn't begin to prosper until after substantial tax cuts in a way to encourage economic activity and growth. And that is a conservative concept.

Assumes facts nowhere remotely in evidence.

I believe the facts are quite clearly in evidence. And every time you say that phrase, I mark down another victory because I believe I've made a point that can't be refuted.

Self delusions because of not being able to provide any "facts [that] are clearly [not] in evidence" and nowhere to be found in realty are self reinforcing delusions.

Fortunately that is not my problem. I am merely the reporter of fact, no matter how inconvenient that may be for the OP.

And "claiming victory" where none exists is self deception. The points are refuted by establishing that they are based on nothing but opinion with zero factual basis. The onus always remains upon the claimant to substantiate their specious postulations when they are called upon to do.

However the OP has rigged the SDF thread(s) so as to exclude that fundamental basis to all structured discussion thereby making a mockery of the entire concept.

If making a mockery of the SDF was the goal of the OP then yes, that hollow pretense of a "victory" has occurred many times over.

 

[Foxfyre]

Presidents don't increase or decrease the debt. What government spends or doesn't spend increases or decreases the debt. Conservative policies don't increase the debt. Not spending what you don't have is a conservative concept. Not spending on what the government is not constitutionally authorized to spend is a conservative concept. Enabling the people to keep and spend as much of their own money as possible on the theory they will do more for their own benefit than anything government will do is a conservative concept.

Moving the goalposts because the facts just disproved the conservative myth that only liberals were responsible for the national debt?

Reducing taxes is actually a Libertarian concept that was imposed upon conservatives. The facts prove that tax cuts actually harm the economy and reduces incomes and job growth.

It was only after the 2 largest tax increases ever (in 1990 and 1993) that we had the longest and largest economic expansion in the history of the nation with record low unemployment and 20+ million new jobs.

The economy didn't begin to prosper until after substantial tax cuts in a way to encourage economic activity and growth. And that is a conservative concept.

Assumes facts nowhere remotely in evidence.

I believe the facts are quite clearly in evidence. And every time you say that phrase, I mark down another victory because I believe I've made a point that can't be refuted.

Self delusions because of not being able to provide any "facts [that] are clearly [not] in evidence" and nowhere to be found in realty are self reinforcing delusions.

Fortunately that is not my problem. I am merely the reporter of fact, no matter how inconvenient that may be for the OP.

And "claiming victory" where none exists is self deception. The points are refuted by establishing that they are based on nothing but opinion with zero factual basis. The onus always remains upon the claimant to substantiate their specious postulations when they are called upon to do.

However the OP has rigged the SDF thread(s) so as to exclude that fundamental basis to all structured discussion thereby making a mockery of the entire concept.

If making a mockery of the SDF was the goal of the OP then yes, that hollow pretense of a "victory" has occurred many times over.

The OP has done nothing of the kind. But you are definitely violating the ad hominem rule for this thread with this post.

 

[Spare_change]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Moving the goalposts because the facts just disproved the conservative myth that only liberals were responsible for the national debt?

Reducing taxes is actually a Libertarian concept that was imposed upon conservatives. The facts prove that tax cuts actually harm the economy and reduces incomes and job growth.

It was only after the 2 largest tax increases ever (in 1990 and 1993) that we had the longest and largest economic expansion in the history of the nation with record low unemployment and 20+ million new jobs.

The economy didn't begin to prosper until after substantial tax cuts in a way to encourage economic activity and growth. And that is a conservative concept.

Assumes facts nowhere remotely in evidence.

I believe the facts are quite clearly in evidence. And every time you say that phrase, I mark down another victory because I believe I've made a point that can't be refuted.

Self delusions because of not being able to provide any "facts [that] are clearly [not] in evidence" and nowhere to be found in realty are self reinforcing delusions.

Fortunately that is not my problem. I am merely the reporter of fact, no matter how inconvenient that may be for the OP.

And "claiming victory" where none exists is self deception. The points are refuted by establishing that they are based on nothing but opinion with zero factual basis. The onus always remains upon the claimant to substantiate their specious postulations when they are called upon to do.

However the OP has rigged the SDF thread(s) so as to exclude that fundamental basis to all structured discussion thereby making a mockery of the entire concept.

If making a mockery of the SDF was the goal of the OP then yes, that hollow pretense of a "victory" has occurred many times over.

The OP has done nothing of the kind. But you are definitely violating the ad hominem rule for this thread with this post.

In which case please prove me wrong by providing credible substantiation for your positions.

That should be really easy if you are actually as right as you claim to be.

We could even enjoy some music while we wait.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

This liberal "dying and failed political methodology" has been going for about 2 and quarter centuries now and shows no signs of failing as yet.

Perhaps you are thinking of something different.

 

[Spare_change]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

This liberal "dying and failed political methodology" has been going for about 2 and quarter centuries now and shows no signs of failing as yet.

Perhaps you are thinking of something different.

You misspoke - for about 2 and a quarter centuries, we have suffered from those who have consistently failed. Liberalism doesn't work - no matter how many times we try it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

Again SC, no matter how accurate it may be, ad hominem is not allowed on this thread. So you cannot assume whatever kind of logic liberals use. You can only comment on what liberals do or point out how the logic they actually post or say or write is wrong if you believe it to be wrong.

 

[candycorn]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

Again SC, no matter how accurate it may be, ad hominem is not allowed on this thread. So you cannot assume whatever kind of logic liberals use. You can only comment on what liberals do or point out how the logic they actually post or say or write is wrong if you believe it to be wrong.

Are you allowed to give (finally) the objective statitisics about the supposed embracement of conservatism?

 

[candycorn]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

This liberal "dying and failed political methodology" has been going for about 2 and quarter centuries now and shows no signs of failing as yet.

Perhaps you are thinking of something different.

You misspoke - for about 2 and a quarter centuries, we have suffered from those who have consistently failed. Liberalism doesn't work - no matter how many times we try it.

Yet somehow we managed to build the greatest civilization the planet has ever seen....it is strange what you call suffering.

But Okay here is a test of the two ideologies...we had tornadoes in North Texas/Oklahoma yesterday and the day before. It's a pretty safe bet that there will be a disaster declared and FEMA will be activated

Are you ready to tell them to fend for themselves or would you rather send in FEMA; a government organization the founders never envisioned to help people get back on their feet? In short, a liberal ideal.

Tell us how you'd handle it and why?

 

[Spare_change]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

This liberal "dying and failed political methodology" has been going for about 2 and quarter centuries now and shows no signs of failing as yet.

Perhaps you are thinking of something different.

You misspoke - for about 2 and a quarter centuries, we have suffered from those who have consistently failed. Liberalism doesn't work - no matter how many times we try it.

Yet somehow we managed to build the greatest civilization the planet has ever seen....it is strange what you call suffering.

But Okay here is a test of the two ideologies...we had tornadoes in North Texas/Oklahoma yesterday and the day before. It's a pretty safe bet that there will be a disaster declared and FEMA will be activated

Are you ready to tell them to fend for themselves or would you rather send in FEMA; a government organization the founders never envisioned to help people get back on their feet? In short, a liberal ideal.

Tell us how you'd handle it and why?

Your question is a trap .... there is no correct answer.