Of course, you got that "fact" after squatting on your toilet bowl, correct?
You've already illustrated your astounding ignorance about liberals and Democrat politicians one today. Do you
really want to do it again junior?
Ironic post for a dickhead who runs a thread called "how stupid is Liberalism anyway", gets constantly called out to defend his premise, and runs away to hide rather than do it because he can't.
Remember when you tried to tell me that the difference between Liberalism and conservatism was how big the government is? Like anything over a size 8? That was
classic.
Depends on if you are talking modern liberal or classical liberal (aka conservative)
but yes the size of government is the main function, as well as valuing the constitution
and traditional values
There is only one. That "classical Liberal" song and dance is disingenuous Orwellian bullshit promulgated by dishonest demagogues out to claim credit for shit they have nothing to do with.
But no, it isn't. Got nothing to do with it. That's why it was so funny when Buttsoiler tried to float that turd. He thinks it works like a shoe size.
"Traditional values" are not a part of government. We are a nation of laws, not "traditions". Those are cultural devices. And as far as the Constitution, as I keep telling Buttsoiler -- Liberals
wrote it.
This is why Buttsoiler can't answer my challenges -- he knows by now I'll school his ass. Meanwhile he still can't explain what a meth deal has to do with political parties.
It's not bullshit, if you knew political history you'd know why.
Conservatives used to be the backers on monarchy and liberals were democracy.
That changed in the 20th century when progressives (commies, socialists, facists) made progressivism a bad word and used liberal. They tainted that word and are back to progressive.
Conservatives started to mean less backing of monarchy and more of capitalism.
It's why the Republican party had a conservative faction, moderate faction and liberal faction in 1860. Lincoln was a moderate and with the conservatives they banned slavery......watch the movie Lincoln.
"watch the movie Lincoln". Poster please. I already know my political history, which is exactly why I keep challenging Buttsoiler on what he obviously is oblivous to, and I sure as hell didn't get it from the movie Lincoln, although I did see it.
Conservatism used to want to stay with the monarchy, true. But that didn't change in where your fantasies lead. First of all back in the 19th century when there first were the two current parties, the conservatives were the Democrats, who were for "states rights" and decentralized Federal power. The new Republican Party was the home of Liberalism, with its focus on Abolition, the logical conclusion of "all men are created equal", a phrase that sums up the essence of Liberalism.
At the same time, unrelated to that because it
is unrelated, the Republicans were also the party of doing big things with federal goverment, a philosophy they inherited from the Whigs, the other major strain that made up their initial population (Lincoln had been one). Capitalism, for its part, was
enabled by Liberalism. And you are correct that the RP had radical and less radical factions at that time, but they were also the Liberals, the only real distinction being the question of how hard to go at it.
By the end of that century the parties had largely undergone a magnetic reversal of the poles as the RP gravitated to the interests of the wealthy and corporations (personified in McKinley), and the DP absorbed the turn-of-the-century Populist movement.(in William Jennings Bryan). This was a significant turning point.
(Buttsoiler's quietly reading all this going "holy shit, I didn't know any of this stuff...")
The Progressive movement carried both parties, and for a time threatened to reposition the Republican Party back to the left (in Teddy Roosevelt) but the turning point came in 1912 when TR's successor Taft, having taken the more conservative/wealthy-centered course, was challenged by T Roosevelt, who wanted to bring it back where he had it, and actually TR won most of the primaries rather easily --- but was then snubbed at the Republican convention as the party Establishment steered it firmly to the right. Roosevelt then ran as a third party he called the Progressive Party and came in second, pushing the RP nominee Taft to third and handing Wilson the presidency. Progressivism continued to smolder for a while down to Robert LaFollette, but has no political meaning today except as hack filler verbage.
The whole conflation of "Liberal" with "leftists" or with "Democrats" dates from the Red Scare daze, when the RP, impotent at the time, was desperate for any kind of hook and started to associate "Communists" with "leftists" and therefore "Democrats" and therefore "Liberals", which progression is every bit as silly as it sounds, but it was after all a simpler time and demagogues like Joe McCarthy got away with it -- briefly. But there's no reason to carry on a definition that demonstrably has no basis in historical fact. Then in times closer to our own we had hacks like Jonah Goldberg inventing the Orwellian "Liberal fascism" (jumbo shrimp anyone?) and he even sold a few books on it.
