Our founding fathers were not conservative

[code1211]

Conservatives swear fealty to God, King and Country..or the Tories.

Liberals don't..the Founders.

You are of course wrong. The Founders swore fealty to our new Republic having, in many cases, already sworn their lives to the cause of creating it.

Additionally, your personal hostility to religion does not mean that the Founders did not swear fealty to God. In many cases, they certainly did.

Thus, by your erroneous daffynition if it were actually a valid definition, the Founders would be Conservatives.

That's just silly.

Liberals can be religious or not. And the sort of religion they follow isn't a problem.

That's not the same with conservatives. You are religious..and in this country..that religion better be Christian..

Or you are not..in which case you must be converted or discarded. And that's the way it's been with conservatives since the beginning.

I am a Conservative and not religious at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liberals endorse the power of a strong centralized government to intrude into their lives and override the will of the local authorities. These sound more like the Loyalists to me.

Conservatives favor the authority of the local governments over that of the strong central government. These sound more like the Founders to me.

Are you saying that John Adams supported the right of the King to levy the Tea Tax?

Nope.

Washington and Hamilton were advocates of a strong central government..Jefferson and Madison were not. Both are liberal views..and that is part and parcel with Liberalism. The acceptance or tolerance of views you may not agree with.

Conservatives hold no such value.

You're confusing your isms'.

Liberalism is not Socialism/Fascism.

And Marxism is not even remotely liberal.

Liberalism means allowing everyone to live their lives in freedom....not under the thumb of an abusive government.

You truly do not understand. Socialism is the nationalization of the private means of production and distribution. Which industry has been nationalized? Do not mistake the bailouts for nationalization; they are not. The First U.S. Bank was partially owned by the government. You really do need to understand your terms, mudwhistle.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope.

Washington and Hamilton were advocates of a strong central government..Jefferson and Madison were not. Both are liberal views..and that is part and parcel with Liberalism. The acceptance or tolerance of views you may not agree with.

Conservatives hold no such value.

You're confusing your isms'.

Liberalism is not Socialism/Fascism.

And Marxism is not even remotely liberal.

Liberalism means allowing everyone to live their lives in freedom....not under the thumb of an abusive government.

Classical Liberalism.... that's not what today's 'liberals' are. They hide behind the label. What they really are is socialists. I have no problem with people believing in socialism... unless they are too cowardly to admit it.

Both parties are socialist, then, by your definition. That is why you are entitled to your own belief, but your definitions are not binding on anyone.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You're confusing spirituality with being religious.

You've the the Tea Party folks that attend services on Wednesday and those that attend only on Easter Sunday. Don't lump us all together.

Was Jesus spiritual or was he religious?

Sorry..I am not cofusing anything.

You seem to be.

But I will help..

con·serv·a·tive   /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Show Spelled
[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA

–adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. ( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. ( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics . (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
–noun
8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. ( initial capital letter ) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11. a preservative.
Use Conservative in a Sentence
See images of Conservative
Search Conservative on the Web

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1350–1400; < LL conserv&#257;t&#299;vus, equiv. to L conserv&#257;t ( us ) ( see conservation) + -&#299;vus -ive; r. ME conservatif < MF < L, as above

Conservative | Define Conservative at Dictionary.com

Cool. So Liberals do not value the Constitution. That's good to know.

Non sequitur on your part.

 

[California Girl]

You're confusing your isms'.

Liberalism is not Socialism/Fascism.

And Marxism is not even remotely liberal.

Liberalism means allowing everyone to live their lives in freedom....not under the thumb of an abusive government.

Classical Liberalism.... that's not what today's 'liberals' are. They hide behind the label. What they really are is socialists. I have no problem with people believing in socialism... unless they are too cowardly to admit it.

Both parties are socialist, then, by your definition. That is why you are entitled to your own belief, but your definitions are not binding on anyone.

And that explains why I am not associated with either party, doesn't it, Jake? Because neither party adheres to the Constitution. On the day that one or the other decides to govern in accordance with the Constitution, I'll vote for that party. Until then, no.

 

[mudwhistle]

Of course not, in the context of their times they were Liberal. But what you are implying is that Conservatives today do not stand for what the founders stood for. Which is of course not true. Today's conservatives stand for not straying to far from what the founders intended.

Also....back then....the left boundary on the political scale hadn't gone as far as it is today.

From the prospective of a Progressive today...everything is to the right.

If that were true, an Obama supporter would not have called my collection of founding father quotes LEFT wing extremist o_0

That's BS.

That's just them trying to re-write history.

Ether that....or they were sniffing paint.

 

[California Girl]

Sorry..I am not cofusing anything.

You seem to be.

But I will help..

Cool. So Liberals do not value the Constitution. That's good to know.

Non sequitur on your part.

Nope. Making a point. Liberalism, by definition, does not respect our Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Classical Liberalism.... that's not what today's 'liberals' are. They hide behind the label. What they really are is socialists. I have no problem with people believing in socialism... unless they are too cowardly to admit it.

Both parties are socialist, then, by your definition. That is why you are entitled to your own belief, but your definitions are not binding on anyone.

And that explains why I am not associated with either party, doesn't it, Jake? Because neither party adheres to the Constitution. On the day that one or the other decides to govern in accordance with the Constitution, I'll vote for that party. Until then, no.

I agree that you are entitled to your own opinion. I also note that you redefine terms to suit yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mudwhistle is whistling in loonyville again.

We have been through this for a year and a half. You have never educated yourself on these issues. You simply are a parrot for the reactionary far right.

 

[mudwhistle]

Nope.

Washington and Hamilton were advocates of a strong central government..Jefferson and Madison were not. Both are liberal views..and that is part and parcel with Liberalism. The acceptance or tolerance of views you may not agree with.

Conservatives hold no such value.

You're confusing your isms'.

Liberalism is not Socialism/Fascism.

And Marxism is not even remotely liberal.

Liberalism means allowing everyone to live their lives in freedom....not under the thumb of an abusive government.

You truly do not understand. Socialism is the nationalization of the private means of production and distribution. Which industry has been nationalized? Do not mistake the bailouts for nationalization; they are not. The First U.S. Bank was partially owned by the government. You really do need to understand your terms, mudwhistle.

I understand them.

Nothing has been actually nationalized. But the government has seized control of two auto companies, the FED, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, put the clamps on oil production, shoved a national Health Care insurance program down our throats, taken over banks and investment firms, put massive controls on the financial industry. Need I say more???

We're tilting strongly toward Socialism. I dare you to say otherwise.

As for your premise and your assumptions...shove it up your ass.

 

[bodecea]

there, I said it. Feel free to prove me wrong with empirical fact. go on

Of course they weren't....they were the Liberals, the Revolutionaries, the Radicals of their time.

 

[code1211]

Liberals endorse the power of a strong centralized government to intrude into their lives and override the will of the local authorities. These sound more like the Loyalists to me.

Conservatives favor the authority of the local governments over that of the strong central government. These sound more like the Founders to me.

Are you saying that John Adams supported the right of the King to levy the Tea Tax?

Nope.

Washington and Hamilton were advocates of a strong central government..Jefferson and Madison were not. Both are liberal views..and that is part and parcel with Liberalism. The acceptance or tolerance of views you may not agree with.

Conservatives hold no such value.

You're confusing your isms'.

Liberalism is not Socialism/Fascism.

And Marxism is not even remotely liberal.

Liberalism means allowing everyone to live their lives in freedom....not under the thumb of an abusive government.

Today's Liberal seems to be an advocate of a strong Federal Government. Today's Conservative to a lesser extent advocates the limiting of that Federal power in favor of States Rights.

The general feeling of Conservatives is that the problem is Washington and the general feeling of the Liberal is that the solution is Washington. The place you find yourself occupying on the continuum between one idea nd the other will define your political affiliation.

Liberalism does not promote allowing all to live their lives in freedom. It promotes dictating standards of conduct whether they concern smoking cigarettes or buying Health Insurance and then dominating the actions of the individual.

Do-gooders who butt in to all around them because they know better are the folks who comprise Liberalism. Their goals are ususally good. Their results are seldom as good. Their methods are generally underhanded, justified by their goals, and result in things like the cigarette taxes on a product that will kill you and yet which they will not outlaw.

Liberalism is a belief system that drives people to redouble their efforts when their purpose has been forgotten or perverted.

 

[bodecea]

Well, let's think it through.

The fundamental values espoused by the Founders and Framers when it comes to government is in line with the thinking of today's conservatives.

The liberals reject the Founders' and Framers' notions of the proper role of government, by and large.

So, if it's true that in their day the Founders were not "conservatives," it's also true that in our day they would be anything but "liberals."

They were not like most of our liberal politicians of today, that is true.

That said, if a modern politician were to say any of those quotes i put up in the founders/revolutionary quote thread, AM radio types would call that person a commie, socialist, anarchist or peacenik.

I say this not to defend modern liberalism, but to correct the error of modern conservatism

I remember (no, I don't have a link) that some college students in the 70s re-wrote the Dec of Ind in modern terminology and set it up as a petition for people to sign....they did not get many signatures and had many people slam their doors in their faces, calling them socialists and communists.

 

[Sallow]

Nope.

Washington and Hamilton were advocates of a strong central government..Jefferson and Madison were not. Both are liberal views..and that is part and parcel with Liberalism. The acceptance or tolerance of views you may not agree with.

Conservatives hold no such value.

You're confusing your isms'.

Liberalism is not Socialism/Fascism.

And Marxism is not even remotely liberal.

Liberalism means allowing everyone to live their lives in freedom....not under the thumb of an abusive government.

You truly do not understand. Socialism is the nationalization of the private means of production and distribution. Which industry has been nationalized? Do not mistake the bailouts for nationalization; they are not. The First U.S. Bank was partially owned by the government. You really do need to understand your terms, mudwhistle.

He has a point..however it is slight.

The Constitution does nationalize two former privately owned industries..the Postal Service and the Military.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You're confusing your isms'.

Liberalism is not Socialism/Fascism.

And Marxism is not even remotely liberal.

Liberalism means allowing everyone to live their lives in freedom....not under the thumb of an abusive government.

You truly do not understand. Socialism is the nationalization of the private means of production and distribution. Which industry has been nationalized? Do not mistake the bailouts for nationalization; they are not. The First U.S. Bank was partially owned by the government. You really do need to understand your terms, mudwhistle.

I understand them.

Nothing has been actually nationalized. But the government has seized control of two auto companies, the FED, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, put the clamps on oil production, shoved a national Health Care insurance program down our throats, taken over banks and investment firms, put massive controls on the financial industry. Need I say more???

We're tilting strongly toward Socialism. I dare you to say otherwise.

As for your premise and your assumptions...shove it up your ass.

You have backed off! Good for you. The banks are paying the monies off and the tax payers are making money on the bail out. The auto companies are steadily retiring their debt to the taxpayers. Health care insurance reform is not socialism but government regulation (go study what that means).

No, we are not strongly tilting to socialism.

My premise and assumptions are quite right, and you are talking out of your ass.

 

[Sallow]

Nope.

Washington and Hamilton were advocates of a strong central government..Jefferson and Madison were not. Both are liberal views..and that is part and parcel with Liberalism. The acceptance or tolerance of views you may not agree with.

Conservatives hold no such value.

You're confusing your isms'.

Liberalism is not Socialism/Fascism.

And Marxism is not even remotely liberal.

Liberalism means allowing everyone to live their lives in freedom....not under the thumb of an abusive government.

Today's Liberal seems to be an advocate of a strong Federal Government. Today's Conservative to a lesser extent advocates the limiting of that Federal power in favor of States Rights.

The general feeling of Conservatives is that the problem is Washington and the general feeling of the Liberal is that the solution is Washington. The place you find yourself occupying on the continuum between one idea nd the other will define your political affiliation.

Liberalism does not promote allowing all to live their lives in freedom. It promotes dictating standards of conduct whether they concern smoking cigarettes or buying Health Insurance and then dominating the actions of the individual.

Do-gooders who butt in to all around them because they know better are the folks who comprise Liberalism. Their goals are ususally good. Their results are seldom as good. Their methods are generally underhanded, justified by their goals, and result in things like the cigarette taxes on a product that will kill you and yet which they will not outlaw.

Liberalism is a belief system that drives people to redouble their efforts when their purpose has been forgotten or perverted.

Thats sort of ridiculous.

The notion of "Butting in" is rather silly. Governments..butt in all the time. Accepting and granting power to a government is part of the social pact. "Living Free" without protocol or restrictions is anarchy.

From the first time humans figured out the only sure way to take down a wooly mammoth until space flight..was to be involved in a collective..governments have and will continue to "butt in".

 

[mudwhistle]

You're confusing your isms'.

Liberalism is not Socialism/Fascism.

And Marxism is not even remotely liberal.

Liberalism means allowing everyone to live their lives in freedom....not under the thumb of an abusive government.

Today's Liberal seems to be an advocate of a strong Federal Government. Today's Conservative to a lesser extent advocates the limiting of that Federal power in favor of States Rights.

The general feeling of Conservatives is that the problem is Washington and the general feeling of the Liberal is that the solution is Washington. The place you find yourself occupying on the continuum between one idea nd the other will define your political affiliation.

Liberalism does not promote allowing all to live their lives in freedom. It promotes dictating standards of conduct whether they concern smoking cigarettes or buying Health Insurance and then dominating the actions of the individual.

Do-gooders who butt in to all around them because they know better are the folks who comprise Liberalism. Their goals are ususally good. Their results are seldom as good. Their methods are generally underhanded, justified by their goals, and result in things like the cigarette taxes on a product that will kill you and yet which they will not outlaw.

Liberalism is a belief system that drives people to redouble their efforts when their purpose has been forgotten or perverted.

Thats sort of ridiculous.

The notion of "Butting in" is rather silly. Governments..butt in all the time. Accepting and granting power to a government is part of the social pact. "Living Free" without protocol or restrictions is anarchy.

From the first time humans figured out the only sure way to take down a wooly mammoth until space flight..was to be involved in a collective..governments have and will continue to "butt in".

Liberals only trust government when they're in charge. Other then that they protest.

Liberals can't run things any better then the powers that be simply with their good intentions.

Liberals automatically think they know better then anyone else even when they have no experience. They're ideas are sound until they're applied and fall apart almost every time because of the unintended consequences.

Liberalism is living on the edge of anarchy. In it's purest state it has no core values or principles to follow so being liberal is the easiest thing there is to be.

 

[Neotrotsky]

You truly do not understand. Socialism is the nationalization of the private means of production and distribution. Which industry has been nationalized? Do not mistake the bailouts for nationalization; they are not. The First U.S. Bank was partially owned by the government. You really do need to understand your terms, mudwhistle.

I understand them.

Nothing has been actually nationalized. But the government has seized control of two auto companies, the FED, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, put the clamps on oil production, shoved a national Health Care insurance program down our throats, taken over banks and investment firms, put massive controls on the financial industry. Need I say more???

We're tilting strongly toward Socialism. I dare you to say otherwise.

As for your premise and your assumptions...shove it up your ass.

You have backed off! Good for you. The banks are paying the monies off and the tax payers are making money on the bail out. The auto companies are steadily retiring their debt to the taxpayers. Health care insurance reform is not socialism but government regulation (go study what that means).

No, we are not strongly tilting to socialism.

My premise and assumptions are quite right, and you are talking out of your ass.

Jake,
you do know that you can achieve socialism through gov't fiat alone?

Indeed, there is a direct correlation between gov't involvement and economics of scale.

Our own history shows that as gov't regulates more and more of an industry, the industries have to become larger with fewer competitors to deal with the gov't.

As such, at that point the industries work harder to get gov't monies and stop as much competition as possible.

All this gov't intervention creates nothing more than Crony Capitalism

The main point being that Statism in any form is bad

This Health Care regulation as you call it

Are you really that naive to believe that it won't hurt the market place for health care?
Do you really believe that it won't push us towards a single payer option ?

Even Barney Frank admitted that it was a "back door" (his words not mine) to the single payer

Remember Papa Obama secret deals with Big Pharma - Why would that be?

Is that how real free markets work ?

How many gov't waivers from PapaObama Care has the gov't "decreed" so far via HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ?- last count was over 200
Sounds more like a modern "feudal state" than a free market state

 

[mudwhistle]

Butting-in is not a social pact unless you're a Socialist.

 

[JBeukema]

No it doesn't. When it comes to tyranny, it doesn't take "radicals" to rise against it. It takes people who believe they are obligated to fight tyranny, and liberals don't have a monopoly on that. In fact, they don't even have a place in that.

conservative: favouring the status quo or a return to the status quo ante


they were called tories or loyalists

Conservative: favoring traditional views or values.

Glib one liners don't actually add value.

definitions are not glip one-liners

they are definitions