Why do Conservatives on the USMB keep insisting Confederates are Liberals????

[Sun Devil 92]

Today's liberals are also very different from classical liberalism.

What's your point? The meaning of the term 'liberal' has changed with the times.

Which is why it is important that such meanings be established up front.

You're hung up on the difference. No one really gives a shit. Lets establish that up front.

So what are you arguing about ? Or for ?

Do we have to guess at that ?

That your argument has no point as it has no relevance to the world we live in. As the distinction you're hung up on 1) doesn't matter 2) most folks don't give a shit.

The meanings of words change over time. Faggots used to be sticks. Awful used to mean something that inspired awe. And gay was a word most commonly describing someone who was happy.

Not anymore. Nor does liberal mean what it used to. And?

O.K., I'm lost.

Sorry.

 

[Skylar]

You have to understand what 'conservatism' has become in the last 20-25 years. It is led by Faux News and Fish Dumbaugh. These two perpetuate every day big and little lies.

This is what modern conservatism is, the attempt to tell lies over and over and try to make them not only become truth but dogma.

The modern conservative movement is attempting to make lies a foundation to build a movement on. To build their world view on falsehood. And to recruit their base to accept and promote these lies as fact beyond reproach.

But lies are lies. Doesn't matter how many times you tell it. They only way for this type of ideology based on whisps of foul air to succeed is if the party putting forth the big lie to hold all power and all media.

Unfortunately in America they have only managaed to capture maybe 26% of the population. And it hasn't gone beyond that regardless of the money they spend. And this pisses of the likes of the Koch brothers no end. That they can't fool all of the people all of the time.

What part of Republicans kicked the shit out of the Democrats in the mid terms did you miss?

What part of they pulled off historic wins in the midterms did you miss fool?

You....you do realize that more people voted for democratic candidates for the House than voted for republicans candidates.....by about a million votes. And more people voted for democratic candidates for Senate than voted for republican senate candidates.....by about 5 million.

Right?

You're crowing for gerrymandering. Not public support. Even in mid term elections where democrats traditionally do the worst, they still got more people to vote for their Congressional candidates than republicans did.

Yet you find yourself in the minority in both houses.

Lets have a hip hip for gerrymandering!

Again, even when we're talking about a mid-term year.....democrats still get more votes than republicans.

We've already established that is true.

I still ask....so what ?

So don't mistake contrivances of boundary setting with the American people backing you. On the policy issues, the nation is generally aligned with democrats. And less aligned with republicans. A fact that is only getting more pronounced with time.

 

[OKTexas]

You have to understand what 'conservatism' has become in the last 20-25 years. It is led by Faux News and Fish Dumbaugh. These two perpetuate every day big and little lies.

This is what modern conservatism is, the attempt to tell lies over and over and try to make them not only become truth but dogma.

The modern conservative movement is attempting to make lies a foundation to build a movement on. To build their world view on falsehood. And to recruit their base to accept and promote these lies as fact beyond reproach.

But lies are lies. Doesn't matter how many times you tell it. They only way for this type of ideology based on whisps of foul air to succeed is if the party putting forth the big lie to hold all power and all media.

Unfortunately in America they have only managaed to capture maybe 26% of the population. And it hasn't gone beyond that regardless of the money they spend. And this pisses of the likes of the Koch brothers no end. That they can't fool all of the people all of the time.

What part of Republicans kicked the shit out of the Democrats in the mid terms did you miss?

What part of they pulled off historic wins in the midterms did you miss fool?

You....you do realize that more people voted for democratic candidates for the House than voted for republicans candidates.....by about a million votes. And more people voted for democratic candidates for Senate than voted for republican senate candidates.....by about 5 million.

Right?

You're crowing for gerrymandering. Not public support. Even in mid term elections where democrats traditionally do the worst, they still got more people to vote for their Congressional candidates than republicans did.

Yet you find yourself in the minority in both houses.

Lets have a hip hip for gerrymandering!

Again, even when we're talking about a mid-term year.....democrats still get more votes than republicans.

Yep, you're look'n for love in all the wrong places.

 

[Skylar]

You have to understand what 'conservatism' has become in the last 20-25 years. It is led by Faux News and Fish Dumbaugh. These two perpetuate every day big and little lies.

This is what modern conservatism is, the attempt to tell lies over and over and try to make them not only become truth but dogma.

The modern conservative movement is attempting to make lies a foundation to build a movement on. To build their world view on falsehood. And to recruit their base to accept and promote these lies as fact beyond reproach.

But lies are lies. Doesn't matter how many times you tell it. They only way for this type of ideology based on whisps of foul air to succeed is if the party putting forth the big lie to hold all power and all media.

Unfortunately in America they have only managaed to capture maybe 26% of the population. And it hasn't gone beyond that regardless of the money they spend. And this pisses of the likes of the Koch brothers no end. That they can't fool all of the people all of the time.

What part of Republicans kicked the shit out of the Democrats in the mid terms did you miss?

What part of they pulled off historic wins in the midterms did you miss fool?

You....you do realize that more people voted for democratic candidates for the House than voted for republicans candidates.....by about a million votes. And more people voted for democratic candidates for Senate than voted for republican senate candidates.....by about 5 million.

Right?

You're crowing for gerrymandering. Not public support. Even in mid term elections where democrats traditionally do the worst, they still got more people to vote for their Congressional candidates than republicans did.

Yet you find yourself in the minority in both houses.

Lets have a hip hip for gerrymandering!

Again, even when we're talking about a mid-term year.....democrats still get more votes than republicans.

Yep, you're look'n for love in all the wrong places.

Smiling....notice you don't even disagree with me.

 

[Skylar]

What's your point? The meaning of the term 'liberal' has changed with the times.

Which is why it is important that such meanings be established up front.

You're hung up on the difference. No one really gives a shit. Lets establish that up front.

So what are you arguing about ? Or for ?

Do we have to guess at that ?

That your argument has no point as it has no relevance to the world we live in. As the distinction you're hung up on 1) doesn't matter 2) most folks don't give a shit.

The meanings of words change over time. Faggots used to be sticks. Awful used to mean something that inspired awe. And gay was a word most commonly describing someone who was happy.

Not anymore. Nor does liberal mean what it used to. And?

O.K., I'm lost.

Sorry.

My point is that obsessing on the difference between 'classic liberalism' and the modern meaning of liberal is a complete waste of time. As it doesn't matter.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You have to understand what 'conservatism' has become in the last 20-25 years. It is led by Faux News and Fish Dumbaugh. These two perpetuate every day big and little lies.

This is what modern conservatism is, the attempt to tell lies over and over and try to make them not only become truth but dogma.

The modern conservative movement is attempting to make lies a foundation to build a movement on. To build their world view on falsehood. And to recruit their base to accept and promote these lies as fact beyond reproach.

But lies are lies. Doesn't matter how many times you tell it. They only way for this type of ideology based on whisps of foul air to succeed is if the party putting forth the big lie to hold all power and all media.

Unfortunately in America they have only managaed to capture maybe 26% of the population. And it hasn't gone beyond that regardless of the money they spend. And this pisses of the likes of the Koch brothers no end. That they can't fool all of the people all of the time.

What part of Republicans kicked the shit out of the Democrats in the mid terms did you miss?

What part of they pulled off historic wins in the midterms did you miss fool?

You....you do realize that more people voted for democratic candidates for the House than voted for republicans candidates.....by about a million votes. And more people voted for democratic candidates for Senate than voted for republican senate candidates.....by about 5 million.

Right?

You're crowing for gerrymandering. Not public support. Even in mid term elections where democrats traditionally do the worst, they still got more people to vote for their Congressional candidates than republicans did.

link or it doesn't exist dude

 

[JimBowie1958]

Which is why it is important that such meanings be established up front.

You're hung up on the difference. No one really gives a shit. Lets establish that up front.

So what are you arguing about ? Or for ?

Do we have to guess at that ?

That your argument has no point as it has no relevance to the world we live in. As the distinction you're hung up on 1) doesn't matter 2) most folks don't give a shit.

The meanings of words change over time. Faggots used to be sticks. Awful used to mean something that inspired awe. And gay was a word most commonly describing someone who was happy.

Not anymore. Nor does liberal mean what it used to. And?

O.K., I'm lost.

Sorry.

My point is that obsessing on the difference between 'classic liberalism' and the modern meaning of liberal is a complete waste of time. As it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters in that many people still use the word liberal to mean 'classic liberalism' and not the disguised socialism of today.

But of course the meaning of words is irrelevant to you libtards anyway as we found out last week.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Can someone explain that to me? How can they be members of this board and know absolutely nothing about American history? Especially after all the discussion?

They want to embrace all that is good as conservative.

Notice how they claim that Hitler was a liberal, JFK was a conservative, the Founding Fathers were conservatives, etc.

They're in denial of course.

No, there is no denial, though I have never seen anyone claim Hitler was a liberal, no. Hitler was a SOCIALIST which is very different than classic liberalism.

The thing that makes the topic confusing for simpletons like yourself is that socialists in the USA have hijacked the word 'liberal' and have twisted it to mean 'socialist' especially after this cock-sucking POTUS.

'National Socialism' and actual socialism have very little if anything to do with each other.

Bullshit. Socialism is socialism, fruitcake, even if you don't like it.

 

[Skylar]

You're hung up on the difference. No one really gives a shit. Lets establish that up front.

So what are you arguing about ? Or for ?

Do we have to guess at that ?

That your argument has no point as it has no relevance to the world we live in. As the distinction you're hung up on 1) doesn't matter 2) most folks don't give a shit.

The meanings of words change over time. Faggots used to be sticks. Awful used to mean something that inspired awe. And gay was a word most commonly describing someone who was happy.

Not anymore. Nor does liberal mean what it used to. And?

O.K., I'm lost.

Sorry.

My point is that obsessing on the difference between 'classic liberalism' and the modern meaning of liberal is a complete waste of time. As it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters in that many people still use the word liberal to mean 'classic liberalism' and not the disguised socialism of today.

Very few folks do. Even among conservatives. The meaning of the word today is different. If you use the term 'liberal' to describe classic liberalism, you're an idiot. As the purpose of language is communication. And you're intentionally using a word that you know won't communicate your meaning with almost anyone you're talking to.

The word simply isn't used the way you're using it anymore. Get over it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Today's liberals are also very different from classical liberalism.

What's your point? The meaning of the term 'liberal' has changed with the times.

Which is why it is important that such meanings be established up front.

You're hung up on the difference. No one really gives a shit. Lets establish that up front.

So what are you arguing about ? Or for ?

Do we have to guess at that ?

That your argument has no point as it has no relevance to the world we live in. As the distinction you're hung up on 1) doesn't matter 2) most folks don't give a shit.

The meanings of words change over time. Faggots used to be sticks. Awful used to mean something that inspired awe. And gay was a word most commonly describing someone who was happy.

Not anymore. Nor does liberal mean what it used to. And?

So figure it out; when people talk about the liberalism of the time of the Founding Fathers, they are not talking about socialism, dumbass.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So what are you arguing about ? Or for ?

Do we have to guess at that ?

That your argument has no point as it has no relevance to the world we live in. As the distinction you're hung up on 1) doesn't matter 2) most folks don't give a shit.

The meanings of words change over time. Faggots used to be sticks. Awful used to mean something that inspired awe. And gay was a word most commonly describing someone who was happy.

Not anymore. Nor does liberal mean what it used to. And?

O.K., I'm lost.

Sorry.

My point is that obsessing on the difference between 'classic liberalism' and the modern meaning of liberal is a complete waste of time. As it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters in that many people still use the word liberal to mean 'classic liberalism' and not the disguised socialism of today.

Very few folks do. Even among conservatives. The meaning of the word today is different. If you use the term 'liberal' to describe classic liberalism, you're an idiot. As the purpose of language is communication. And you're intentionally using a word that you know won't communicate your meaning with almost anyone you're talking to.

The word simply isn't used the way you're using it anymore. Get over it.

?you just admitted that some people use it that way, then claim that since no one uses it that way I should get over it?

lol, you are a fool.

 

[Skylar]

Can someone explain that to me? How can they be members of this board and know absolutely nothing about American history? Especially after all the discussion?

They want to embrace all that is good as conservative.

Notice how they claim that Hitler was a liberal, JFK was a conservative, the Founding Fathers were conservatives, etc.

They're in denial of course.

No, there is no denial, though I have never seen anyone claim Hitler was a liberal, no. Hitler was a SOCIALIST which is very different than classic liberalism.

The thing that makes the topic confusing for simpletons like yourself is that socialists in the USA have hijacked the word 'liberal' and have twisted it to mean 'socialist' especially after this cock-sucking POTUS.

'National Socialism' and actual socialism have very little if anything to do with each other.

Bullshit. Socialism is socialism, fruitcake, even if you don't like it.

Socialism comes in more flavors that Baskin Robbins. You want socialism to be simple because its convenient to your argument. Alas, neither history nor reality will comply.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Can someone explain that to me? How can they be members of this board and know absolutely nothing about American history? Especially after all the discussion?

They want to embrace all that is good as conservative.

Notice how they claim that Hitler was a liberal, JFK was a conservative, the Founding Fathers were conservatives, etc.

They're in denial of course.

No, there is no denial, though I have never seen anyone claim Hitler was a liberal, no. Hitler was a SOCIALIST which is very different than classic liberalism.

The thing that makes the topic confusing for simpletons like yourself is that socialists in the USA have hijacked the word 'liberal' and have twisted it to mean 'socialist' especially after this cock-sucking POTUS.

'National Socialism' and actual socialism have very little if anything to do with each other.

Bullshit. Socialism is socialism, fruitcake, even if you don't like it.

Socialism comes in more flavors that Baskin Robbins. You want socialism to be simple because its convenient to your argument. Alas, neither history nor reality will comply.

Again, more bullshit. There are basic tenets of socialism whether it is Fabian socialism, national socialism, Marxist Leninism, or Labor socialism.

Socialism does have a fefw valid points, but they lose any credibility when they get the jack boots on and kick in your front door at 1 am.

 

[Skylar]

That your argument has no point as it has no relevance to the world we live in. As the distinction you're hung up on 1) doesn't matter 2) most folks don't give a shit.

The meanings of words change over time. Faggots used to be sticks. Awful used to mean something that inspired awe. And gay was a word most commonly describing someone who was happy.

Not anymore. Nor does liberal mean what it used to. And?

O.K., I'm lost.

Sorry.

My point is that obsessing on the difference between 'classic liberalism' and the modern meaning of liberal is a complete waste of time. As it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters in that many people still use the word liberal to mean 'classic liberalism' and not the disguised socialism of today.

Very few folks do. Even among conservatives. The meaning of the word today is different. If you use the term 'liberal' to describe classic liberalism, you're an idiot. As the purpose of language is communication. And you're intentionally using a word that you know won't communicate your meaning with almost anyone you're talking to.

The word simply isn't used the way you're using it anymore. Get over it.

?you just admitted that some people use it that way, then claim that since no one uses it that way I should get over it?

lol, you are a fool.

Some people use the word 'faggot' to describe a bundle of sticks. Yet if you're trying to communicate that meaning, using the term 'faggot' isn't going to get it done in almost every instance.

Same with liberal. That a tiny number of folks use its archaic meaning doesn't change the fact that in almost every usage in the real world, its going to communicate a different meaning. Only an idiot would intentionally use a word that they *know* is almost certain to fail in communicating the meaning they intend.

 

[Synthaholic]

Why do Conservatives on the USMB keep insisting Confederates are Liberals????

Because they're desperate.

 

[Skylar]

They want to embrace all that is good as conservative.

Notice how they claim that Hitler was a liberal, JFK was a conservative, the Founding Fathers were conservatives, etc.

They're in denial of course.

No, there is no denial, though I have never seen anyone claim Hitler was a liberal, no. Hitler was a SOCIALIST which is very different than classic liberalism.

The thing that makes the topic confusing for simpletons like yourself is that socialists in the USA have hijacked the word 'liberal' and have twisted it to mean 'socialist' especially after this cock-sucking POTUS.

'National Socialism' and actual socialism have very little if anything to do with each other.

Bullshit. Socialism is socialism, fruitcake, even if you don't like it.

Socialism comes in more flavors that Baskin Robbins. You want socialism to be simple because its convenient to your argument. Alas, neither history nor reality will comply.

Again, more bullshit. There are basic tenets of socialism whether it is Fabian socialism, national socialism, Marxist Leninism, or Labor socialism.

Socialism does have a fefw valid points, but they lose any credibility when they get the jack boots on and kick in your front door at 1 am.

And what are the 'basic tenets of socialism' as you understand them? Lets get specific.

 

[Kosh]

Can someone explain that to me? How can they be members of this board and know absolutely nothing about American history? Especially after all the discussion?

They want to embrace all that is good as conservative.

Notice how they claim that Hitler was a liberal, JFK was a conservative, the Founding Fathers were conservatives, etc.

They're in denial of course.

No, there is no denial, though I have never seen anyone claim Hitler was a liberal, no. Hitler was a SOCIALIST which is very different than classic liberalism.

The thing that makes the topic confusing for simpletons like yourself is that socialists in the USA have hijacked the word 'liberal' and have twisted it to mean 'socialist' especially after this cock-sucking POTUS.

'National Socialism' and actual socialism have very little if anything to do with each other.

Bullshit. Socialism is socialism, fruitcake, even if you don't like it.

Socialism comes in more flavors that Baskin Robbins. You want socialism to be simple because its convenient to your argument. Alas, neither history nor reality will comply.

So do many other things, but only a racist far left drone like you would not be able to see that..

 

[Kosh]

No, there is no denial, though I have never seen anyone claim Hitler was a liberal, no. Hitler was a SOCIALIST which is very different than classic liberalism.

The thing that makes the topic confusing for simpletons like yourself is that socialists in the USA have hijacked the word 'liberal' and have twisted it to mean 'socialist' especially after this cock-sucking POTUS.

'National Socialism' and actual socialism have very little if anything to do with each other.

Bullshit. Socialism is socialism, fruitcake, even if you don't like it.

Socialism comes in more flavors that Baskin Robbins. You want socialism to be simple because its convenient to your argument. Alas, neither history nor reality will comply.

Again, more bullshit. There are basic tenets of socialism whether it is Fabian socialism, national socialism, Marxist Leninism, or Labor socialism.

Socialism does have a fefw valid points, but they lose any credibility when they get the jack boots on and kick in your front door at 1 am.

And what are the 'basic tenets of socialism' as you understand them? Lets get specific.

You do not understand these terms, so we know you are incapable of understanding anything outside your far left programming..

 

[OKTexas]

What part of Republicans kicked the shit out of the Democrats in the mid terms did you miss?

What part of they pulled off historic wins in the midterms did you miss fool?

You....you do realize that more people voted for democratic candidates for the House than voted for republicans candidates.....by about a million votes. And more people voted for democratic candidates for Senate than voted for republican senate candidates.....by about 5 million.

Right?

You're crowing for gerrymandering. Not public support. Even in mid term elections where democrats traditionally do the worst, they still got more people to vote for their Congressional candidates than republicans did.

Yet you find yourself in the minority in both houses.

Lets have a hip hip for gerrymandering!

Again, even when we're talking about a mid-term year.....democrats still get more votes than republicans.

Yep, you're look'n for love in all the wrong places.

Smiling....notice you don't even disagree with me.

It's very simple, even you should be able to understand, in a representative form a government it matters most where the majority of votes are cast for a particular party, not how many overall votes were cast. 37 States are run by republicans vs 13 for the dems so we should have larger majorities in congress than we have, too many safe commiecrat districts and populous commiecrat States. Just count yourself lucky you have more than 26 senators.

 

[Kosh]

Why do Conservatives on the USMB keep insisting Confederates are Liberals????

Because they're desperate.

Says the far left drone to the other far left drone that supports political slavery..