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.
I wouldn't think something so obvious would need any defense. It's like being asked to prove the sun comes up in the east.You can honestly look at recent history and say that the Left cares about individual liberties?
What are you smoking?
Instead of questioning me about my "honesty" or what I may or may not be "ingesting" why don't you try something novel...given the nature of most of your posts..
Defending your position with specifics and facts.
Lets go with this being accurate.
This story is just about today and the near past.
Why did Clinton get troops killed in Somalia? we had no business there at all.
Why did JFK send troops to VN? They never attacked us, so we had to draft men in. Then when they returned, liberals, and only liberals, threw dog shit on them.
So lets not pretend that liberals care one bit about the troops.
I know they are. I oppose the GOP's leftward trend. We have one liberal party -- we don't need two.As a big-government statist, you would have fought against the revolutionaries.
I don't see why you're trying to fight this. It's just a fact.
So is it big governement statist that you are against or liberal? Like the Administration of GWB right. I got news for you, both parties are filled with big governement statist.
If the founding fathers were not liberals...what would you call the Torries who were loyal to the King?
Liberalism relates to the desire to look at things as they are and evolve them to a changing environment. Conservatives seek to retain the current structure. Neither position remains static over time.
Conservatives of today are called so because they wish to retain the structure of government as it was when it was first formed, meaning after the revolution and writing of the Constitution. So to claim that conservatives of today would of been loyalists back then is absurd.
Liberalism in the 18th century America isn't anywhere near liberalism/progressivism of today. Liberals of today are seeking to change America from what it was founded as, to a secular socialist nation.
Why can't you? Sure, you'd need more people to do the work, but you've expanded the role of government, not just the workload.Most of the problems we face are due to the big government you idiots insist will solve everything.
You can't have the same size of government to serve 300 million people as you did to serve 2.5 million people. Modern government requires modern solutions. The founding fathers never claimed to have all the answers, that is why they provided a flexible framework in the Constitution
And you've expanded the role of government far beyond what was designed.
ThinkProgress Support For Veterans Shows Sharp Partisan Divide
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund, Republicans in Congress have dramatically failed to support our troops after they come home.When it actually comes down to it, Republicans just run their mouth about supporting our Troops, Democrats actually back up their talk. See if your representative supports our Troops: IAVA Action Fund Congressional Report Card | IAVA Action...Of the 94 elected officials that earned an A or A+ rating from IAVA, 91 were Democrats. Of the 154 officials who received a D or F, 142 were Republicans...
ThinkProgress Support For Veterans Shows Sharp Partisan Divide
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund, Republicans in Congress have dramatically failed to support our troops after they come home.When it actually comes down to it, Republicans just run their mouth about supporting our Troops, Democrats actually back up their talk. See if your representative supports our Troops: IAVA Action Fund Congressional Report Card | IAVA Action...Of the 94 elected officials that earned an A or A+ rating from IAVA, 91 were Democrats. Of the 154 officials who received a D or F, 142 were Republicans...
You call the lip service the left pays the phrase "we support our troops" actual support?
Uh huh. "We support the troops but not the war" I believe is the correct phrase. If you don't support the war you're telling the troops what they are doing is wrong; therefore, you ain't supportin' jack but your right to flap your gums about that which you know nothing.
Of course it does. It's easier than dealing with the fact.And if we left it to liberals to decide when armed conflict is required, we'd still be under the British crown.
And this is relevant to the Iraq war how exactly?
It seems to me like a cheap red herring.
ThinkProgress Support For Veterans Shows Sharp Partisan Divide
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund, Republicans in Congress have dramatically failed to support our troops after they come home.When it actually comes down to it, Republicans just run their mouth about supporting our Troops, Democrats actually back up their talk. See if your representative supports our Troops: IAVA Action Fund Congressional Report Card | IAVA Action...Of the 94 elected officials that earned an A or A+ rating from IAVA, 91 were Democrats. Of the 154 officials who received a D or F, 142 were Republicans...
You call the lip service the left pays the phrase "we support our troops" actual support?
Uh huh. "We support the troops but not the war" I believe is the correct phrase. If you don't support the war you're telling the troops what they are doing is wrong; therefore, you ain't supportin' jack but your right to flap your gums about that which you know nothing.
It's always this schoolyard left/right bullshit. How drawl.
"Droll".
No
"My country right or wrong" is not what our founding fathers fought for.
You can support our troops without supporting the decisions by politicians that put them in harms way. Americans have an obligation to oppose Military conflicts that are unjust, ill advised or are being continued long past their usefulness
then get on the politicians not the troops if something goes wrong in a conflict.....
The troops can't make a decision to pull out....the politicians can
then get on the politicians not the troops if something goes wrong in a conflict.....
The troops can't make a decision to pull out....the politicians can
are we talking about the same thing?....
The troops can't make a decision to pull out....the politicians can
are we talking about the same thing?....
Appears so
As if you'll accept what I say.I wouldn't think something so obvious would need any defense. It's like being asked to prove the sun comes up in the east.Instead of questioning me about my "honesty" or what I may or may not be "ingesting" why don't you try something novel...given the nature of most of your posts..
Defending your position with specifics and facts.
Then the task should not be daunting at all.
And given that you have the opportunity here to enlighten someone so "un-enlightened", this may even be beneficial.
Right?
So procede.
Provide specifics..and facts.
I know they are. I oppose the GOP's leftward trend. We have one liberal party -- we don't need two.So is it big governement statist that you are against or liberal? Like the Administration of GWB right. I got news for you, both parties are filled with big governement statist.
No, we have one major party period. It consist of Republican and Democrats.
Odd, since you and your side are trying your damnedest to turn 21st Century America into the 1958 Soviet Union.Why can't you? Sure, you'd need more people to do the work, but you've expanded the role of government, not just the workload.You can't have the same size of government to serve 300 million people as you did to serve 2.5 million people. Modern government requires modern solutions. The founding fathers never claimed to have all the answers, that is why they provided a flexible framework in the Constitution
And you've expanded the role of government far beyond what was designed.
The Constitution is written broad enough to allow future generations to decide what they want from the three branches of government defined by the founders. They never had an intent to try to tell future generations what was needed from government to meet their needs.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "limited government" but it does say a government that will provide for the general welfare.
The Constitution of today is defined by two hundred years of interpretations through the courts. We do not want 18th century politicians deciding what is best for 21st century America
I know they are. I oppose the GOP's leftward trend. We have one liberal party -- we don't need two.
No, we have one major party period. It consist of Republican and Democrats.
And they've both gone too far left.
But the upcoming elections will show that America is tired of it.
Of course it does. It's easier than dealing with the fact.And this is relevant to the Iraq war how exactly?
It seems to me like a cheap red herring.
The "fact" is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Do you even know what a red herring is?
Public school education, huh?It's always this schoolyard left/right bullshit. How drawl.
"Droll".
Touché. Would you like a cookie now?
It's funny how an Aussie pretends his opinion on American politics matters.No, we have one major party period. It consist of Republican and Democrats.
And they've both gone too far left.
But the upcoming elections will show that America is tired of it.
The upcoming elections will show just how nuts you idiots have become. That's all.
