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.
Democrats have opposed Liberals. Big time! I refer you as an example to Strom Thurmond. He was plenty Democrat, up until he threatened the Dixiecrat walk out of the Democrat party in 1948.Conservatives oppose anyone who isn't Conservative.
and Democrats oppose anyone who isnt Liberal.....so gee i guess both parties have the same attitude.....
He was, however, a Conservative.
For other Democrats opposing Liberals, see George Wallace, Lester Maddox and a raft of Conservatives fighting hard to oppress African Americans.
Are you trying to defend the notion that Wallace, Thurmond, Maddox et al were either sterling Liberals or fought hard to ensure civil rights for Black Americans? really? Could you provide their bona fides as champions of civil rights?Democrats have opposed Liberals. Big time! I refer you as an example to Strom Thurmond. He was plenty Democrat, up until he threatened the Dixiecrat walk out of the Democrat party in 1948.and Democrats oppose anyone who isnt Liberal.....so gee i guess both parties have the same attitude.....
He was, however, a Conservative.
For other Democrats opposing Liberals, see George Wallace, Lester Maddox and a raft of Conservatives fighting hard to oppress African Americans.
There are no conservatives worthy of the name who fight at all, much less "hard," to "oppress" African Americans or ANY Americans.
You remain a victim of your own rhetoric.
Truth be told, it is the modern American "liberal" who devalues liberty and thus raises oppression to a place of honor in the political firmament. This is the main reason conservatives oppose you liberals.
Conservatives DID NOT want to free the slaves.
Conservatives were against Medicare.
Conservatives say they wanted to stop terrorism, but let Bin Laden go and invaded the WRONG country.
Conservatives tried to bankrupt the country with a 2.5 trillion dollar tax cut and two unpaid wars costing 3 trillion and a 7 trillion dollar gift to the drug companies.
Don't fucking lie. Sick of conservative lies and the attempt to rewrite history. Just stop.
You are ALL self-proclaimed cons, and my post still stands and applies as is.Please read the post you replied to again, you missed the part about the OP not differentiating at all.
Conservatism is a modern ideology and trying to equate with a party or ideology from the past (especially that far back) is impossible. Its like trying to compare a Model T ford to a Mustang simply because they are both Fords....
The OP equated conservative with republican, I merely pointed out the republicans freed the slaves ( a bit late)..
If you are going to paint with such a wide brush, be prepared to get paint on yourself. In other words, if you make a sweeping claim like the OP title, then be ready when the same sweeping claim is made back at you. The OP grouped all those together and it was all fine and good but when someone points out a problem you suddenly want separate them from one another....
if its all inclusive then its all inclusive it can't be one way until its inconvenient than the other way.
Are you trying to defend the notion that Wallace, Thurmond, Maddox et al were either sterling Liberals or fought hard to ensure civil rights for Black Americans? really? Could you provide their bona fides as champions of civil rights?Democrats have opposed Liberals. Big time! I refer you as an example to Strom Thurmond. He was plenty Democrat, up until he threatened the Dixiecrat walk out of the Democrat party in 1948.
He was, however, a Conservative.
For other Democrats opposing Liberals, see George Wallace, Lester Maddox and a raft of Conservatives fighting hard to oppress African Americans.
There are no conservatives worthy of the name who fight at all, much less "hard," to "oppress" African Americans or ANY Americans.
You remain a victim of your own rhetoric.
Truth be told, it is the modern American "liberal" who devalues liberty and thus raises oppression to a place of honor in the political firmament. This is the main reason conservatives oppose you liberals.
Or, are you saying that they were not Conservatives? That Maddox, Thurmond and Wallace represented the left wing of the Democrat party. That they were champions of Liberal causes like civil rights, voter registration rights, environmental safeguards and withdrawl from the meat grinder that was Vietnam?
You are ALL self-proclaimed cons, and my post still stands and applies as is.Please read the post you replied to again, you missed the part about the OP not differentiating at all.
Conservatism is a modern ideology and trying to equate with a party or ideology from the past (especially that far back) is impossible. Its like trying to compare a Model T ford to a Mustang simply because they are both Fords....
The OP equated conservative with republican, I merely pointed out the republicans freed the slaves ( a bit late)..
If you are going to paint with such a wide brush, be prepared to get paint on yourself. In other words, if you make a sweeping claim like the OP title, then be ready when the same sweeping claim is made back at you. The OP grouped all those together and it was all fine and good but when someone points out a problem you suddenly want separate them from one another....
if its all inclusive then its all inclusive it can't be one way until its inconvenient than the other way.
Thanks.
So we were wrong when we wanted to free the slaves?
We were wrong when we supported Civil rights?
We were wrong when we said that Medicare was going to bankrupt us?
We were wrong about stopping communists in southeast Asia? (tell that to the millions of people who died because the left pulled us out)
We were wrong to want to stop terrorism?
You do realize you need more than say "you are wrong" to convince people that you're right?
It's not over at all. It's just beginning. You've got to be insane to think we are going to roll over and let you kill and enslave all those people.
You are ALL self-proclaimed cons, and my post still stands and applies as is.Please read the post you replied to again, you missed the part about the OP not differentiating at all.
Conservatism is a modern ideology and trying to equate with a party or ideology from the past (especially that far back) is impossible. Its like trying to compare a Model T ford to a Mustang simply because they are both Fords....
The OP equated conservative with republican, I merely pointed out the republicans freed the slaves ( a bit late)..
If you are going to paint with such a wide brush, be prepared to get paint on yourself. In other words, if you make a sweeping claim like the OP title, then be ready when the same sweeping claim is made back at you. The OP grouped all those together and it was all fine and good but when someone points out a problem you suddenly want separate them from one another....
if its all inclusive then its all inclusive it can't be one way until its inconvenient than the other way.
Thanks.
Conservatives DID NOT want to free the slaves.
Conservatives were against Medicare.
Conservatives say they wanted to stop terrorism, but let Bin Laden go and invaded the WRONG country.
Conservatives tried to bankrupt the country with a 2.5 trillion dollar tax cut and two unpaid wars costing 3 trillion and a 7 trillion dollar gift to the drug companies.
Don't fucking lie. Sick of conservative lies and the attempt to rewrite history. Just stop.
Might as well ask them to shut up and die, because they will NOT stop with the lies.
Consider this. When Civil Rights was the hot button issue, which of the two predominant political ideologies fought against reform: Liberals or Conservatives.Please read the post you replied to again, you missed the part about the OP not differentiating at all.
Conservatism is a modern ideology and trying to equate with a party or ideology from the past (especially that far back) is impossible. Its like trying to compare a Model T ford to a Mustang simply because they are both Fords....
The OP equated conservative with republican, I merely pointed out the republicans freed the slaves ( a bit late)..
If you are going to paint with such a wide brush, be prepared to get paint on yourself. In other words, if you make a sweeping claim like the OP title, then be ready when the same sweeping claim is made back at you. The OP grouped all those together and it was all fine and good but when someone points out a problem you suddenly want separate them from one another....
if its all inclusive then its all inclusive it can't be one way until its inconvenient than the other way.
Consider this. When Civil Rights was the hot button issue, which of the two predominant political ideologies fought against reform: Liberals or Conservatives.Please read the post you replied to again, you missed the part about the OP not differentiating at all.
Conservatism is a modern ideology and trying to equate with a party or ideology from the past (especially that far back) is impossible. Its like trying to compare a Model T ford to a Mustang simply because they are both Fords....
The OP equated conservative with republican, I merely pointed out the republicans freed the slaves ( a bit late)..
If you are going to paint with such a wide brush, be prepared to get paint on yourself. In other words, if you make a sweeping claim like the OP title, then be ready when the same sweeping claim is made back at you. The OP grouped all those together and it was all fine and good but when someone points out a problem you suddenly want separate them from one another....
if its all inclusive then its all inclusive it can't be one way until its inconvenient than the other way.
Use the same paradigm for Women's rights, gay rights, environmental regulations, workplace safety regulations, child labor regulations, food and drug safety regulations.
Thus you will see that Conservatism is consistently behind the curve of history. Conservatism provides the stopping block to societal freedom and advancement.
Why? Because Conservatism occupies its focus on property rights, corporate rights and deregulation. Removing cops from the beat, so to speak.
Free market Capitalism is a dead end street. The absence of regulation makes a market place rife with risky speculators and manipulation for the benefit of the very few, and at the expense of the many.
I've been around for a long time now and I can tell you that the same ideology that 'guided' Wallace, Maddox and Thurmond is the exact same ideology that 'guides' the modern American Conservative.
You can't just say it's a new ideology and make it true! Conservatism is not a "new" ideology. Conservatism dates back to the inception of the Republic.Consider this. When Civil Rights was the hot button issue, which of the two predominant political ideologies fought against reform: Liberals or Conservatives.Please read the post you replied to again, you missed the part about the OP not differentiating at all.
Conservatism is a modern ideology and trying to equate with a party or ideology from the past (especially that far back) is impossible. Its like trying to compare a Model T ford to a Mustang simply because they are both Fords....
The OP equated conservative with republican, I merely pointed out the republicans freed the slaves ( a bit late)..
If you are going to paint with such a wide brush, be prepared to get paint on yourself. In other words, if you make a sweeping claim like the OP title, then be ready when the same sweeping claim is made back at you. The OP grouped all those together and it was all fine and good but when someone points out a problem you suddenly want separate them from one another....
if its all inclusive then its all inclusive it can't be one way until its inconvenient than the other way.
Use the same paradigm for Women's rights, gay rights, environmental regulations, workplace safety regulations, child labor regulations, food and drug safety regulations.
Thus you will see that Conservatism is consistently behind the curve of history. Conservatism provides the stopping block to societal freedom and advancement.
Why? Because Conservatism occupies its focus on property rights, corporate rights and deregulation. Removing cops from the beat, so to speak.
Free market Capitalism is a dead end street. The absence of regulation makes a market place rife with risky speculators and manipulation for the benefit of the very few, and at the expense of the many.
I've been around for a long time now and I can tell you that the same ideology that 'guided' Wallace, Maddox and Thurmond is the exact same ideology that 'guides' the modern American Conservative.
WOW, you didn't read it at all??
Conservatism= new ideology
You cannot attribute past thinking and ideologies to the modern conservative its impossible ..
You are ALL self-proclaimed cons, and my post still stands and applies as is.Please read the post you replied to again, you missed the part about the OP not differentiating at all.
Conservatism is a modern ideology and trying to equate with a party or ideology from the past (especially that far back) is impossible. Its like trying to compare a Model T ford to a Mustang simply because they are both Fords....
The OP equated conservative with republican, I merely pointed out the republicans freed the slaves ( a bit late)..
If you are going to paint with such a wide brush, be prepared to get paint on yourself. In other words, if you make a sweeping claim like the OP title, then be ready when the same sweeping claim is made back at you. The OP grouped all those together and it was all fine and good but when someone points out a problem you suddenly want separate them from one another....
if its all inclusive then its all inclusive it can't be one way until its inconvenient than the other way.
Thanks.
can you teach me to tapdance?
You are ALL self-proclaimed cons, and my post still stands and applies as is.
Thanks.
can you teach me to tapdance?
Sure, after you teach me how to buck dance.
Clap yo hands and stomp yo feet now.
Actually
Democrats instigated the Civil War with their Kansas-Nebraska act(Republicans did not exist as a national party at the time!!)
Democrats argued against women rights as well.
Vietnam, in the words of Dukakis, was a "Democrat War"
Segregation, a product of a Democrat as well.
I guess Democrats were on the wrong side of history yet you suggest that "Republicans are always wrong!!"
Just wanted to point this out to you. That is all..
Democrats were the conservative party of the 19th century. Why is it so hard for you people to understand that? Are you simply stupid?
Southern Democrats were the conservative wing of the Democratic party in the 20th century.
This is about CONSERVATISM being on the wrong side of history again and again and again.
The very fact that you don't support slavery or segregation (presumably) is because the progressives/liberals of those times WON and the conservatives of those times LOST.
Each generation of conservatives becomes more liberal than the last, because the liberal victories that inevitably occur in each general become the status quo of the future.
Conservatives fought against women's suffrage; how many conservatives do you hear nowadays that want to take away a woman's right to vote? Not many. That's because their conservative predecessors were, as usual, WRONG.
Currently and recently, for example, conservatives have been fighting to keep gays out of the military. Before long, conservatives will lose that battle, and a generation or so from now mainstream American conservatism will have NO interest in kicking gays out of the military.
First--The Democratic Party is a PLURISTS party that contains Conservatives members.
They were always a Plurists party. There is, and never existed, a liberal party in the United States. Something for a lefty to really chew hard on.(To keep this in perspective, the Republican Party is a Center-Right Party constantly dominated by Conservatives!)
Second--Republicans also fought for women's rights, civil rights, and against slavery. Democrats nor liberal dominate those issues. Remember, there exist "American Libertarians"--right wingers that argue for social liberal ideas.
Third--concerning gays in the military. That battle is basically over, now we are going through the political motions of removing DADT without the politicians losing their jobs. The opposition is so pathetically weak that the media refuse to cover them out of fear of losing creditability!
Are you trying to defend the notion that Wallace, Thurmond, Maddox et al were either sterling Liberals or fought hard to ensure civil rights for Black Americans? really? Could you provide their bona fides as champions of civil rights?There are no conservatives worthy of the name who fight at all, much less "hard," to "oppress" African Americans or ANY Americans.
You remain a victim of your own rhetoric.
Truth be told, it is the modern American "liberal" who devalues liberty and thus raises oppression to a place of honor in the political firmament. This is the main reason conservatives oppose you liberals.
Or, are you saying that they were not Conservatives? That Maddox, Thurmond and Wallace represented the left wing of the Democrat party. That they were champions of Liberal causes like civil rights, voter registration rights, environmental safeguards and withdrawl from the meat grinder that was Vietnam?
Wallace was a racist. In political terms he was in many respects ALSO a conservative, but that is incidental and apart from his political ideology.
The same could be said of Maddox and Thurmond.
You and guys like you love to engage in vastly over-simplified generalizations -- and many of you do that kind of short-cut to actual thought for a reason.
The truth is pretty simple. There is no NECESSARY correlation between political ideology and racism. If there are historical examples of some political conservatives also being racist, you are pretending to see some kind of cause and effect that doesn't exist.
Anybody worthy of the name "conservative" values liberty and equality of opportunity and neither of those things is in the slightest little bit consonant with racism.
By very sad contrast, you modern American "liberals" tend to mostly be stinking STATISTS. You value the authority and power of the STATE to accomplish for "the masses" what individual liberty and responsibility says people should WANT TO accomplish on their own. By granting to the STATE that kind of authority and power, you undermine personal liberty -- thus making oppression the totally expected outcome.
If one looks at just the RESULTS of the crap you people "do," it could almost be argued that you are vile racists. You find blacks in a disadvantaged position in society (due to the undeniable fact of past racial discrimination) and you and your ilk paternalistically "provide" FOR "them" as though you can't grasp the notion that blacks can provide very well for themselves if everyone is treated equally and the government would stop placing (or attempting to place) restrictions on our individual liberties.
Are you trying to defend the notion that Wallace, Thurmond, Maddox et al were either sterling Liberals or fought hard to ensure civil rights for Black Americans? really? Could you provide their bona fides as champions of civil rights?
Or, are you saying that they were not Conservatives? That Maddox, Thurmond and Wallace represented the left wing of the Democrat party. That they were champions of Liberal causes like civil rights, voter registration rights, environmental safeguards and withdrawl from the meat grinder that was Vietnam?
Wallace was a racist. In political terms he was in many respects ALSO a conservative, but that is incidental and apart from his political ideology.
The same could be said of Maddox and Thurmond.
You and guys like you love to engage in vastly over-simplified generalizations -- and many of you do that kind of short-cut to actual thought for a reason.
The truth is pretty simple. There is no NECESSARY correlation between political ideology and racism. If there are historical examples of some political conservatives also being racist, you are pretending to see some kind of cause and effect that doesn't exist.
Anybody worthy of the name "conservative" values liberty and equality of opportunity and neither of those things is in the slightest little bit consonant with racism.
By very sad contrast, you modern American "liberals" tend to mostly be stinking STATISTS. You value the authority and power of the STATE to accomplish for "the masses" what individual liberty and responsibility says people should WANT TO accomplish on their own. By granting to the STATE that kind of authority and power, you undermine personal liberty -- thus making oppression the totally expected outcome.
If one looks at just the RESULTS of the crap you people "do," it could almost be argued that you are vile racists. You find blacks in a disadvantaged position in society (due to the undeniable fact of past racial discrimination) and you and your ilk paternalistically "provide" FOR "them" as though you can't grasp the notion that blacks can provide very well for themselves if everyone is treated equally and the government would stop placing (or attempting to place) restrictions on our individual liberties.
Wasn't Lincoln a 'statist'? Didn't his application of statism actually bring liberty to black America?
Wallace was a racist. In political terms he was in many respects ALSO a conservative, but that is incidental and apart from his political ideology.
The same could be said of Maddox and Thurmond.
You and guys like you love to engage in vastly over-simplified generalizations -- and many of you do that kind of short-cut to actual thought for a reason.
The truth is pretty simple. There is no NECESSARY correlation between political ideology and racism. If there are historical examples of some political conservatives also being racist, you are pretending to see some kind of cause and effect that doesn't exist.
Anybody worthy of the name "conservative" values liberty and equality of opportunity and neither of those things is in the slightest little bit consonant with racism.
By very sad contrast, you modern American "liberals" tend to mostly be stinking STATISTS. You value the authority and power of the STATE to accomplish for "the masses" what individual liberty and responsibility says people should WANT TO accomplish on their own. By granting to the STATE that kind of authority and power, you undermine personal liberty -- thus making oppression the totally expected outcome.
If one looks at just the RESULTS of the crap you people "do," it could almost be argued that you are vile racists. You find blacks in a disadvantaged position in society (due to the undeniable fact of past racial discrimination) and you and your ilk paternalistically "provide" FOR "them" as though you can't grasp the notion that blacks can provide very well for themselves if everyone is treated equally and the government would stop placing (or attempting to place) restrictions on our individual liberties.
Wasn't Lincoln a 'statist'? Didn't his application of statism actually bring liberty to black America?
only by accident
entitlements are a political solution to a political problem. Jim Crow South wasn't just a custom foisted by racists. It was state mandated bigotry.Are you trying to defend the notion that Wallace, Thurmond, Maddox et al were either sterling Liberals or fought hard to ensure civil rights for Black Americans? really? Could you provide their bona fides as champions of civil rights?There are no conservatives worthy of the name who fight at all, much less "hard," to "oppress" African Americans or ANY Americans.
You remain a victim of your own rhetoric.
Truth be told, it is the modern American "liberal" who devalues liberty and thus raises oppression to a place of honor in the political firmament. This is the main reason conservatives oppose you liberals.
Or, are you saying that they were not Conservatives? That Maddox, Thurmond and Wallace represented the left wing of the Democrat party. That they were champions of Liberal causes like civil rights, voter registration rights, environmental safeguards and withdrawl from the meat grinder that was Vietnam?
Wallace was a racist. In political terms he was in many respects ALSO a conservative, but that is incidental and apart from his political ideology.
The same could be said of Maddox and Thurmond.
You and guys like you love to engage in vastly over-simplified generalizations -- and many of you do that kind of short-cut to actual thought for a reason.
The truth is pretty simple. There is no NECESSARY correlation between political ideology and racism. If there are historical examples of some political conservatives also being racist, you are pretending to see some kind of cause and effect that doesn't exist.
Anybody worthy of the name "conservative" values liberty and equality of opportunity and neither of those things is in the slightest little bit consonant with racism.
By very sad contrast, you modern American "liberals" tend to mostly be stinking STATISTS. You value the authority and power of the STATE to accomplish for "the masses" what individual liberty and responsibility says people should WANT TO accomplish on their own. By granting to the STATE that kind of authority and power, you undermine personal liberty -- thus making oppression the totally expected outcome.
If one looks at just the RESULTS of the crap you people "do," it could almost be argued that you are vile racists. You find blacks in a disadvantaged position in society (due to the undeniable fact of past racial discrimination) and you and your ilk paternalistically "provide" FOR "them" as though you can't grasp the notion that blacks can provide very well for themselves if everyone is treated equally and the government would stop placing (or attempting to place) restrictions on our individual liberties.
