I am a liberal....

[uscitizen]

Goldcatt, I don't have an opinion of you. I'm just trying to wade through your tripe and figure out what the hell point you're making.

Wade away! If I didn't stand by it I wouldn't post it.

Of course if you really wanted to understand, you could always ask for clarification rather than insult.

I don't bother with niceties when I'm insulted myself.

You are very good at insulting yourself

Neg me again please.

 

[jillian]

I would disagree that "no" problems can be solved by conservatism. There are some conservative positions I back, even though I'm liberal overall. But the whole propaganda campaign over words would be laughable if so many people didn't swallow it hook, line and sinker.

i didn't say there is no place for conservatives. and, in fact, i do think the middle should balance the extremes. but, by definition being conservative means wanting to keep things the same. liberal means wanting to move things forward. reactionary, which is what most of the pretend conservatives on the board really are, is an effort to return to former times...and an hysteria about change.

If our founding fathers had been conservative we would still belong to England.
They were in fact progressive liberals.
By the true definition, not the popular definitions spewed by todays pundits.

not to be a pedant, but i'd actually go further and say the founding fathers were radicals since they believed in armed resolution of their conflict.

but you're correct... if they'd been conservative, they'd have been Tories.

 

[Blagger]

i didn't say there is no place for conservatives. and, in fact, i do think the middle should balance the extremes. but, by definition being conservative means wanting to keep things the same. liberal means wanting to move things forward. reactionary, which is what most of the pretend conservatives on the board really are, is an effort to return to former times...and an hysteria about change.

If our founding fathers had been conservative we would still belong to England.
They were in fact progressive liberals.
By the true definition, not the popular definitions spewed by todays pundits.

not to be a pedant, but i'd actually go further and say the founding fathers were radicals since they believed in armed resolution of their conflict.

but you're correct... if they'd been conservative, they'd have been Tories.

No, trust me, they were simply traitors. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[goldcatt]

I would disagree that "no" problems can be solved by conservatism. There are some conservative positions I back, even though I'm liberal overall. But the whole propaganda campaign over words would be laughable if so many people didn't swallow it hook, line and sinker.

i didn't say there is no place for conservatives. and, in fact, i do think the middle should balance the extremes. but, by definition being conservative means wanting to keep things the same. liberal means wanting to move things forward. reactionary, which is what most of the pretend conservatives on the board really are, is an effort to return to former times...and an hysteria about change.

The extremes provide the vision and the middle turns it into something actually realistic, implements it and keeps it running. It's the way the world works best.

The reactionaries around here seem to want a whole lot of change right now. Problem is, too many of them want to go back to a time that never actually existed or else was already proven unworkable. That's the mark of the extreme, right there - failure to process reality. Liberals do want to move forward, but not all liberals want to move forward in the same direction or at the same pace. Conservatives, if you listen to them, actually have about as much variation among them as liberals do.

We really need to start acknowledging more than two terms, IMO. "Liberal" and "Conservative" just aren't descriptive enough. But without a dichotomy it's harder to keep the propaganda running....and demonizing more than one "Other" group is too much effort.

Not sure if that's actually responsive, but hey. It's Friday.

 

[Sheldon]

we own our home outright, i am now a stay at home, homemaker for the hubby and me, I am Religious/Christian, I have zero debt, owe no one for anything, own car outright as well....responsible, law abiding, self sufficient adult!

I am ALL that conservatives say liberals are not! YET, I am and will forever be, liberal.

just sayin'

That sounds pretty American. But liberals are fake Americans. So I guess this means you're a fake fake American?

 

[goldcatt]

we own our home outright, i am now a stay at home, homemaker for the hubby and me, I am Religious/Christian, I have zero debt, owe no one for anything, own car outright as well....responsible, law abiding, self sufficient adult!

I am ALL that conservatives say liberals are not! YET, I am and will forever be, liberal.

just sayin'

That sounds pretty American. But liberals are fake Americans. So I guess this means you're a fake fake American?

I'm absolutely fauxraged at this statement.

 

[uscitizen]

If our founding fathers had been conservative we would still belong to England.
They were in fact progressive liberals.
By the true definition, not the popular definitions spewed by todays pundits.

not to be a pedant, but i'd actually go further and say the founding fathers were radicals since they believed in armed resolution of their conflict.

but you're correct... if they'd been conservative, they'd have been Tories.

No, trust me, they were simply traitors. Nothing more, nothing less.

LOL, unlike most Americans I can understand your point of view.

 

[AllieBaba]

not to be a pedant, but i'd actually go further and say the founding fathers were radicals since they believed in armed resolution of their conflict.

but you're correct... if they'd been conservative, they'd have been Tories.

No, trust me, they were simply traitors. Nothing more, nothing less.

LOL, unlike most Americans I can understand your point of view.

That's because you're an anti-American P.O.S.

 

[jillian]

If our founding fathers had been conservative we would still belong to England.
They were in fact progressive liberals.
By the true definition, not the popular definitions spewed by todays pundits.

not to be a pedant, but i'd actually go further and say the founding fathers were radicals since they believed in armed resolution of their conflict.

but you're correct... if they'd been conservative, they'd have been Tories.

No, trust me, they were simply traitors. Nothing more, nothing less.

the difference between a traitor and a founding father....

whether they win or lose.

no question they'd have been hung as traitors had they lost.

 

[jillian]

No, trust me, they were simply traitors. Nothing more, nothing less.

LOL, unlike most Americans I can understand your point of view.

That's because you're an anti-American P.O.S.

no no no, allie. think about it in context. they took arms against the king. had they lost, they'd have been hung as traitors. don't let the end result distort your view of it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Of course they were technically traitors. But justifiable. When people are oppressed by a tyrant, they are obligated to rise up and defend themselves.

 

[goldcatt]

Ahhh.....To the victor goes the spoils. And the right to decide what's taught as history.

 

[Ravi]

Actually "Classical Liberal" is a made up Conservative term used to try to squeeze into a club, they never belong too.

Liberals are Liberals. Conservatives have been denigrating the term for quite some time now. They don't get to own it by making things up.

Bullshit. 'Classical Liberals' is how REAL liberals differentiate themselves from the ******* idiots on the far left.

REAL liberals? REAL Americans.

You people make me gag.

 

[jillian]

Of course they were technically traitors. But justifiable. When people are oppressed by a tyrant, they are obligated to rise up and defend themselves.

you know that's bogus, right?

and, if you think about it, the first thing they did when they set up their *own* government was to make treason the only crime defined in the constitution.

and whether it was 'justifiable' depends on which side of history you sit.

had they lost, you'd have only learned how misguided they were.

 

[AllieBaba]

Ahhh.....To the victor goes the spoils. And the right to decide what's taught as history.

That is so lame.

In free countries, typically you can get your hands on enough information to get an accurate depiction of past events.

In tyrannies, not so much.

The left makes the assumption that all governments are tyrannical. It's the way they justify their own brand of proposed tyranny.

 

[goldcatt]

Ahhh.....To the victor goes the spoils. And the right to decide what's taught as history.

That is so lame.

In free countries, typically you can get your hands on enough information to get an accurate depiction of past events.

In tyrannies, not so much.

The left makes the assumption that all governments are tyrannical. It's the way they justify their own brand of proposed tyranny.

Here you go again, telling people you disagree with what they believe.

Sounds like a bad sitcom: Allie Knows Best.

 

[Samson]

Ahhh.....To the victor goes the spoils. And the right to decide what's taught as history.

That is so lame.

In free countries, typically you can get your hands on enough information to get an accurate depiction of past events.

In tyrannies, not so much.

The left makes the assumption that all governments are tyrannical. It's the way they justify their own brand of proposed tyranny.

huh?

 

[AllieBaba]

Allie does know best.

 

[goldcatt]

Allie does know best.

Do you mind if I ask to borrow your crystal ball once in a while? Mine appears to be on the fritz.

 

[AllieBaba]

Thank you.