Which group of people today would be most like our forefathers?

[deanrd]

Which group of people today would be most like our forefathers?

I know Republicans of today just assume it would be white farmers and white coal miners and white laborers and those are the people that started this country.

But if you actually go through the people involved at the time, you would find them to be what passed as the wealthy, the elite, scientists, and so on.

No farmer today could actually write the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights or the Constitution or any of the documents this country is founded on.

Those had to be written by seasoned and professional lawyers and intellectuals.

Today, what we call “liberals”.

Actually they were called Liberals then. Still are.
That was the whole point.

Modern-day American "liberals" have absolutely nothing in common with classic liberals. Even less than modern-day American "Nazis" have in common with 1930's German Nazis.

We already know the modern day American Nazi’s belong to the Republican Party. Everybody knows that.

 

[Pogo]

Which group of people today would be most like our forefathers?

I know Republicans of today just assume it would be white farmers and white coal miners and white laborers and those are the people that started this country.

But if you actually go through the people involved at the time, you would find them to be what passed as the wealthy, the elite, scientists, and so on.

No farmer today could actually write the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights or the Constitution or any of the documents this country is founded on.

Those had to be written by seasoned and professional lawyers and intellectuals.

Today, what we call “liberals”.

You write the funniest crap.

Yes, the Founders were wealthy, educated, and proponents of liberalism, the classical form of which has no relation to the misnamed version forwarded by the neo-Communists of today.

The Founders would have had you people shot along with the British.

There is no "separate" "classical" "form" of Liberalism. That's an oxymoron made up by morons like Jonah Goldberg who can't face the fact that what they oppose is that golden Liberal document, the Constitution.

Why don't you show us who actually "forwarded" this misdefinition.

I'll give you a head start: begin in the 1940s with Joe McCarthy and his ilk, butthurt Republicans who had been out of the Presidency since 1933, looking for a 'hook', who deliberately started conflating "Liberal" with "left" (which it is not) in hopes of trying to paint their opponents who kept them out of the White House five straight elections as akin to the "Reds", the Emmanuel Goldstein of the time. And give dishonorable mention to H.W. forty years later who, following the edict of his campaign manager Lee Atwater, revived the same bullshit, sneering "Liberal" at his opponent as if it were an insult. And maybe to the likes of Bush and Atwater, it was.

You remember Lee Atwater, right?

"You start out in 1954 by saying, ''******, ******, ******.' By 1968 you can't say '******' — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this', is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than '******, ******'".
​

Yeah, that guy. To paraphrase you start out saying "commie commie commie". By 1948 it's too direct, so you go abstract and -say stuff like "Liberal Liberal Liberal". In spite of the fact that you're trying to sell a term as its own opposite --- because no matter how absurd, if you keep hammering the same mantra over and over and over and over, the rabble will eventually come to believe it, and forget the original meaning. As you just did.

So that's what it's about --- dishonesty. There is no virtue in dishonesty, anywhere. NONE. ZERO.

Go ahead now and redefine the word dishonesty now and make it into a virtue. Oughta be a hoot.

Once you get past that, essplain to the class who "you people" are. Oughta be a second hoot.

I don't believe in rechewing used food. There is no relation between liberalism and the Democrat nonsense that requisitioned the title early in the 20th Century beyond what they use for propaganda purposes.

I've never maintained that there was. Apparently you can't deal with my actual points so you invent your own.
Here's your strawman back. Couldn't use it.

But AGAIN --- show us any examples of what your claim to such usage is. And clean up all this straw off the floor.

Even they know it, which is why they've moved to replace the title with the requisitioned "Progressive".

Once AGAIN, same challenge. *WHO* "replaced" the title? When? Where? Who's "they"? If Santa brings you a history book for Christmas look up the Progressive Era 1890-1920. With any luck Santa will bring you a calendar and a calculator and you can subtract 1920 from 2019.

I just got done saying --- words have meanings, and meanings are non-negotiable.

 

[ozro]

todays liberals would be torys.

See what I mean about trying to turn definitions inside out into their own opposites?

The Torys (conservatives) were the loyalists who wanted to stay a colony under the rule of the king. In other words, the authoritarians, the opposite of the Liberals.

You can sit on the internet and point at a rocking chair and call it a Steinway grand piano all you like --- it's still a rocking chair.

the torys supported more taxes and more government.

'nuff said.

 

[JGalt]

Which group of people today would be most like our forefathers?

I know Republicans of today just assume it would be white farmers and white coal miners and white laborers and those are the people that started this country.

But if you actually go through the people involved at the time, you would find them to be what passed as the wealthy, the elite, scientists, and so on.

No farmer today could actually write the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights or the Constitution or any of the documents this country is founded on.

Those had to be written by seasoned and professional lawyers and intellectuals.

Today, what we call “liberals”.

Actually they were called Liberals then. Still are.
That was the whole point.

Modern-day American "liberals" have absolutely nothing in common with classic liberals. Even less than modern-day American "Nazis" have in common with 1930's German Nazis.

We already know the modern day American Nazi’s belong to the Republican Party. Everybody knows that.

How so? I'm a Republican and I admire the Jews for creating an oasis of civilization in a cesspool of Islamic radicalism. Israel is a wonderful ally of ours, and the Jews are God's chosen people.

If the truth be told, you American "liberals" support people like Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam, the Islamic Brotherhood, CAIR, the Palestinians, Hamas, and Hezbollah, who have much in common with 1930's German Nazis: They too wanted to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth, as your radical buddies do. You sure raised hell when President Trump wanted a travel ban from certain Jew-hating Muslim countries, didn't you?

Hell, that Turd-Burglar Barack Obama actually gave billions of dollars to the Iranians, which ya'll still defend to this very day.

 

[Pogo]

todays liberals would be torys.

See what I mean about trying to turn definitions inside out into their own opposites?

The Torys (conservatives) were the loyalists who wanted to stay a colony under the rule of the king. In other words, the authoritarians, the opposite of the Liberals.

You can sit on the internet and point at a rocking chair and call it a Steinway grand piano all you like --- it's still a rocking chair.

the torys supported more taxes and more government.

'nuff said.

Non sequitur. And dearth of shift key. Learn how to write.

 

[deanrd]

The term "liberal" is an over-used descriptor. I prefer to call them Neo-Marxists, leftists, or secular-progressive communists.

And that's at least four different things, probably five.

Words have meanings and meanings are not negotiable. PICK one.

A commie by any other name is still a commie. Even a "Democratic Socialist."

Communists are what Russia used to be.

When Vladimir Putin was head of the KGB.

That would make Republicans more like communists than the Democrats.

Since Vladimir Putin is Donald Trump‘s boss.

 

[Pogo]

Which group of people today would be most like our forefathers?

I know Republicans of today just assume it would be white farmers and white coal miners and white laborers and those are the people that started this country.

But if you actually go through the people involved at the time, you would find them to be what passed as the wealthy, the elite, scientists, and so on.

No farmer today could actually write the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights or the Constitution or any of the documents this country is founded on.

Those had to be written by seasoned and professional lawyers and intellectuals.

Today, what we call “liberals”.

Actually they were called Liberals then. Still are.
That was the whole point.

Modern-day American "liberals" have absolutely nothing in common with classic liberals. Even less than modern-day American "Nazis" have in common with 1930's German Nazis.

We already know the modern day American Nazi’s belong to the Republican Party. Everybody knows that.

How so? I'm a Republican and I admire the Jews for creating an oasis of civilization in a cesspool of Islamic radicalism. Israel is a wonderful ally of ours, and the Jews are God's chosen people.

If the truth be told, you American "liberals" support people like Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam, the Islamic Brotherhood, CAIR, the Palestinians, Hamas, and Hezbollah, who have much in common with 1930's German Nazis: They too wanted to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth, as your radical buddies do. You sure raised hell when President Trump wanted a travel ban from certain Jew-hating Muslim countries, didn't you?

Hell, that Turd-Burglar Barack Obama actually gave billions of dollars to the Iranians, which ya'll still defend to this very day.

How predictable that you just diffused the distinction between "Jews" and "Israel". Words must just be a pea-soup fog to summa y'all.

 

[ozro]

todays liberals would be torys.

See what I mean about trying to turn definitions inside out into their own opposites?

The Torys (conservatives) were the loyalists who wanted to stay a colony under the rule of the king. In other words, the authoritarians, the opposite of the Liberals.

You can sit on the internet and point at a rocking chair and call it a Steinway grand piano all you like --- it's still a rocking chair.

the torys supported more taxes and more government.

'nuff said.

Non sequitur. And dearth of shift key. Learn how to write.

so you have no legit argument to that, because there is none

 

[Natural Citizen]

Amish, possibly Mennonites

And they get to opt out, too.

 

[Pogo]

todays liberals would be torys.

See what I mean about trying to turn definitions inside out into their own opposites?

The Torys (conservatives) were the loyalists who wanted to stay a colony under the rule of the king. In other words, the authoritarians, the opposite of the Liberals.

You can sit on the internet and point at a rocking chair and call it a Steinway grand piano all you like --- it's still a rocking chair.

the torys supported more taxes and more government.

'nuff said.

Non sequitur. And dearth of shift key. Learn how to write.

so you have no legit argument to that, because there is none

My corrections are already posted. *DEAL* with them.

Again for the slow laners, your Loyalists wanted the king to run the show while the Liberals wanted power invested in the consent of the governed. That's history and there's nothing you can do about it. Even if you find your shift key.

 

[deanrd]

Which group of people today would be most like our forefathers?

I know Republicans of today just assume it would be white farmers and white coal miners and white laborers and those are the people that started this country.

But if you actually go through the people involved at the time, you would find them to be what passed as the wealthy, the elite, scientists, and so on.

No farmer today could actually write the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights or the Constitution or any of the documents this country is founded on.

Those had to be written by seasoned and professional lawyers and intellectuals.

Today, what we call “liberals”.

Actually they were called Liberals then. Still are.
That was the whole point.

Modern-day American "liberals" have absolutely nothing in common with classic liberals. Even less than modern-day American "Nazis" have in common with 1930's German Nazis.

We already know the modern day American Nazi’s belong to the Republican Party. Everybody knows that.

How so? I'm a Republican and I admire the Jews for creating an oasis of civilization in a cesspool of Islamic radicalism. Israel is a wonderful ally of ours, and the Jews are God's chosen people.

If the truth be told, you American "liberals" support people like Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam, the Islamic Brotherhood, CAIR, the Palestinians, Hamas, and Hezbollah, who have much in common with 1930's German Nazis: They too wanted to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth, as your radical buddies do. You sure raised hell when President Trump wanted a travel ban from certain Jew-hating Muslim countries, didn't you?

Hell, that Turd-Burglar Barack Obama actually gave billions of dollars to the Iranians, which ya'll still defend to this very day.

I don’t support Louis Farrakhan. I don’t know anybody that does. Or any of those other groups that you’re talking about.

But I know David Duke says if you don’t vote Republican and you don’t vote for Donald Trump then you’re a traitor and David dukes is the head of the KKK and a member of the American Nazi party.

In fact if you do a Google search of Nazis and white nationalist running for office. You’ll find they all run as Republicans. All of them.

 

[deanrd]

And the Nazis hated people of color. And they hated gays. They would fit right in with today’s Republican Party. You know that. I know that. Everybody we know, knows that.

 

[ozro]

todays liberals would be torys.

See what I mean about trying to turn definitions inside out into their own opposites?

The Torys (conservatives) were the loyalists who wanted to stay a colony under the rule of the king. In other words, the authoritarians, the opposite of the Liberals.

You can sit on the internet and point at a rocking chair and call it a Steinway grand piano all you like --- it's still a rocking chair.

the torys supported more taxes and more government.

'nuff said.

Non sequitur. And dearth of shift key. Learn how to write.

so you have no legit argument to that, because there is none

My corrections are already posted. *DEAL* with them.

i did, you are wrong

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Which group of people today would be most like our forefathers?

I know Republicans of today just assume it would be white farmers and white coal miners and white laborers and those are the people that started this country.

But if you actually go through the people involved at the time, you would find them to be what passed as the wealthy, the elite, scientists, and so on.

No farmer today could actually write the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights or the Constitution or any of the documents this country is founded on.

Those had to be written by seasoned and professional lawyers and intellectuals.

Today, what we call “liberals”.

You write the funniest crap.

Yes, the Founders were wealthy, educated, and proponents of liberalism, the classical form of which has no relation to the misnamed version forwarded by the neo-Communists of today.

The Founders would have had you people shot along with the British.

There is no "separate" "classical" "form" of Liberalism. That's an oxymoron made up by morons like Jonah Goldberg who can't face the fact that what they oppose is that golden Liberal document, the Constitution.

Why don't you show us who actually "forwarded" this misdefinition.

I'll give you a head start: begin in the 1940s with Joe McCarthy and his ilk, butthurt Republicans who had been out of the Presidency since 1933, looking for a 'hook', who deliberately started conflating "Liberal" with "left" (which it is not) in hopes of trying to paint their opponents who kept them out of the White House five straight elections as akin to the "Reds", the Emmanuel Goldstein of the time. And give dishonorable mention to H.W. forty years later who, following the edict of his campaign manager Lee Atwater, revived the same bullshit, sneering "Liberal" at his opponent as if it were an insult. And maybe to the likes of Bush and Atwater, it was.

You remember Lee Atwater, right?

"You start out in 1954 by saying, ''******, ******, ******.' By 1968 you can't say '******' — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this', is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than '******, ******'".
​

Yeah, that guy. To paraphrase you start out saying "commie commie commie". By 1948 it's too direct, so you go abstract and -say stuff like "Liberal Liberal Liberal". In spite of the fact that you're trying to sell a term as its own opposite --- because no matter how absurd, if you keep hammering the same mantra over and over and over and over, the rabble will eventually come to believe it, and forget the original meaning. As you just did.

So that's what it's about --- dishonesty. There is no virtue in dishonesty, anywhere. NONE. ZERO.

Go ahead now and redefine the word dishonesty now and make it into a virtue. Oughta be a hoot.

Once you get past that, essplain to the class who "you people" are. Oughta be a second hoot.

I don't believe in rechewing used food. There is no relation between liberalism and the Democrat nonsense that requisitioned the title early in the 20th Century beyond what they use for propaganda purposes.

I've never maintained that there was. Apparently you can't deal with my actual points so you invent your own.
Here's your strawman back. Couldn't use it.

But AGAIN --- show us any examples of what your claim to such usage is.

Again? Why?

Even they know it, which is why they've moved to replace the title with the requisitioned "Progressive".

Once AGAIN, same challenge. *WHO* "replaced" the title? When? Where? Who's "they"? If Santa brings you a history book for Christmas look up the Progressive Era 1890-1920. With any luck Santa will bring you a calendar and a calculator and you can subtract 1920 from 2019.

I just got done saying --- words have meanings, and meanings are non-negotiable.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. And no one negotiated.

 

[ozro]

And the Nazis hated people of color. And they hated gays. They would fit right in with today’s Republican Party. You know that. I know that. Everybody we know, knows that.

damn fine representation of argumentum ad populum

 

[JGalt]

The term "liberal" is an over-used descriptor. I prefer to call them Neo-Marxists, leftists, or secular-progressive communists.

And that's at least four different things, probably five.

Words have meanings and meanings are not negotiable. PICK one.

A commie by any other name is still a commie. Even a "Democratic Socialist."

Communists are what Russia used to be.

When Vladimir Putin was head of the KGB.

That would make Republicans more like communists than the Democrats.

Since Vladimir Putin is Donald Trump‘s boss.

You're really grasping at straws with that one.

 

[JGalt]

Which group of people today would be most like our forefathers?

I know Republicans of today just assume it would be white farmers and white coal miners and white laborers and those are the people that started this country.

But if you actually go through the people involved at the time, you would find them to be what passed as the wealthy, the elite, scientists, and so on.

No farmer today could actually write the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights or the Constitution or any of the documents this country is founded on.

Those had to be written by seasoned and professional lawyers and intellectuals.

Today, what we call “liberals”.

Actually they were called Liberals then. Still are.
That was the whole point.

Modern-day American "liberals" have absolutely nothing in common with classic liberals. Even less than modern-day American "Nazis" have in common with 1930's German Nazis.

We already know the modern day American Nazi’s belong to the Republican Party. Everybody knows that.

How so? I'm a Republican and I admire the Jews for creating an oasis of civilization in a cesspool of Islamic radicalism. Israel is a wonderful ally of ours, and the Jews are God's chosen people.

If the truth be told, you American "liberals" support people like Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam, the Islamic Brotherhood, CAIR, the Palestinians, Hamas, and Hezbollah, who have much in common with 1930's German Nazis: They too wanted to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth, as your radical buddies do. You sure raised hell when President Trump wanted a travel ban from certain Jew-hating Muslim countries, didn't you?

Hell, that Turd-Burglar Barack Obama actually gave billions of dollars to the Iranians, which ya'll still defend to this very day.

How predictable that you just diffused the distinction between "Jews" and "Israel". Words must just be a pea-soup fog to summa y'all.

There is no difference between "Jews" and "Israel. They are one and the same.

 

[JGalt]

And the Nazis hated people of color. And they hated gays. They would fit right in with today’s Republican Party. You know that. I know that. Everybody we know, knows that.

What makes you think I "hate" gay people or people of color?

I only find them disgusting when they're Democrats.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

And the Nazis hated people of color. And they hated gays. They would fit right in with today’s Republican Party. You know that. I know that. Everybody we know, knows that.

Then it is up to you to take up arms and drive the Republicans out.

 

[Pogo]

Which group of people today would be most like our forefathers?

I know Republicans of today just assume it would be white farmers and white coal miners and white laborers and those are the people that started this country.

But if you actually go through the people involved at the time, you would find them to be what passed as the wealthy, the elite, scientists, and so on.

No farmer today could actually write the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights or the Constitution or any of the documents this country is founded on.

Those had to be written by seasoned and professional lawyers and intellectuals.

Today, what we call “liberals”.

Actually they were called Liberals then. Still are.
That was the whole point.

Modern-day American "liberals" have absolutely nothing in common with classic liberals. Even less than modern-day American "Nazis" have in common with 1930's German Nazis.

We already know the modern day American Nazi’s belong to the Republican Party. Everybody knows that.

How so? I'm a Republican and I admire the Jews for creating an oasis of civilization in a cesspool of Islamic radicalism. Israel is a wonderful ally of ours, and the Jews are God's chosen people.

If the truth be told, you American "liberals" support people like Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam, the Islamic Brotherhood, CAIR, the Palestinians, Hamas, and Hezbollah, who have much in common with 1930's German Nazis: They too wanted to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth, as your radical buddies do. You sure raised hell when President Trump wanted a travel ban from certain Jew-hating Muslim countries, didn't you?

Hell, that Turd-Burglar Barack Obama actually gave billions of dollars to the Iranians, which ya'll still defend to this very day.

I don’t support Louis Farrakhan. I don’t know anybody that does. Or any of those other groups that you’re talking about.

But I know David Duke says if you don’t vote Republican and you don’t vote for Donald Trump then you’re a traitor and David dukes is the head of the KKK and a member of the American Nazi party.

In fact if you do a Google search of Nazis and white nationalist running for office. You’ll find they all run as Republicans. All of them.

Duke isn't the "head of" the KKK. It doesn't have one. Duke invented his own Klan chapter and crowned himself Grand Wankball or whatever but that's playing dress-up. Before that he was a Nazi. After that he was a parish Republican party chair and a state legislator. The actual Klan hasn't had a head since 1944 when it officially dissolved.

Duke also sued the city of New Orleans years ago when it moved the Liberty Place Monument, celebrating the white coup d'êtat of 1874 by one of the other Klan-like groups called the White League, to try to make them put it back in its prominent perch on Canal Street, the most visible high-traffic spot in the city. That was the first monument New Orleans finally took down in the Confederate monument removals of 2017.

Duke was also of course in Charlottesville chastizing Rump for his initial evenhanded commentary, goading him with "remember who voted for you", after which Rump obediently started ranting about "very fine people".

 

[Indeependent]

And the Nazis hated people of color. And they hated gays. They would fit right in with today’s Republican Party. You know that. I know that. Everybody we know, knows that.

Hitler had contempt for non-Germans and non-Austrians.
And you’re an idiot.