What Is Wrong With Liberals??

[Nosmo King]

Liberals will always try to solve problems. Of course, some of the solutions beget their own problems, but that is to be expected. No solution is 100% foolproof.

Conservatives will always deny there are social problems. That's because solving social problems by way of government action is anathema to Conservatives. Poverty, hunger, lack of education or opportunity are all situations the much beloved and often excused private sector is supposed to handle.

Conservatives see only political problems. And often those problems are of Conservative heritage to begin with. Conservatives claim to love, make that LOVE the constitution, right up to the point someone tries to avail themselves of constitutional rights and protections. Listening to Conservatives, one might think that they would harken back to what they see as a "Golden Age" of American constitutional adherence. To wit: no paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic and only White, property owning males eligible to vote.

And then they ask "What's wrong with Liberals?"

Amazin', ain't it?

"Conservatives will always deny there are social problems."

So...you never studied history?


For primers, check out the reason the Republican Party was formed to counter the slavery party, the Democrats.

The Republican party was definitely not a Conservative party in the middle of the 19th century. Don't try hiding behind the skirts of political party when political ideology is discussed. Have you ever studied history or political science?

 

[BlindBoo]

Liberals will always try to solve problems. Of course, some of the solutions beget their own problems, but that is to be expected. No solution is 100% foolproof.

Conservatives will always deny there are social problems. That's because solving social problems by way of government action is anathema to Conservatives. Poverty, hunger, lack of education or opportunity are all situations the much beloved and often excused private sector is supposed to handle.

Conservatives see only political problems. And often those problems are of Conservative heritage to begin with. Conservatives claim to love, make that LOVE the constitution, right up to the point someone tries to avail themselves of constitutional rights and protections. Listening to Conservatives, one might think that they would harken back to what they see as a "Golden Age" of American constitutional adherence. To wit: no paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic and only White, property owning males eligible to vote.

And then they ask "What's wrong with Liberals?"

Amazin', ain't it?

"Conservatives will always deny there are social problems."

So...you never studied history?


For primers, check out the reason the Republican Party was formed to counter the slavery party, the Democrats.

The Democrats represented the Conservatives, unless of course you consider the Slave Holders the liberals of the day.

 

[Nosmo King]

Liberals will always try to solve problems. Of course, some of the solutions beget their own problems, but that is to be expected. No solution is 100% foolproof.

Conservatives will always deny there are social problems. That's because solving social problems by way of government action is anathema to Conservatives. Poverty, hunger, lack of education or opportunity are all situations the much beloved and often excused private sector is supposed to handle.

Conservatives see only political problems. And often those problems are of Conservative heritage to begin with. Conservatives claim to love, make that LOVE the constitution, right up to the point someone tries to avail themselves of constitutional rights and protections. Listening to Conservatives, one might think that they would harken back to what they see as a "Golden Age" of American constitutional adherence. To wit: no paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic and only White, property owning males eligible to vote.

And then they ask "What's wrong with Liberals?"

Amazin', ain't it?

One thing common to each generation is that Conservaives will be against change. They were against the founding of our country, against the abolition of slavery, against equal rights, against environmental protections

One thing is common with conservatives....they are on the wrong side of history

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

The Liberals of yesterday are the Conservatives of today. Liberal/Socialists did not end slavery, defeat Jim Crow, or give women the right to vote. Liberal/Socialists sail under false colors and attempt to take credit for everything they consider good, but had little to do with securing.

This is what psychologists refer to as "projecting". In other words, turn your vices into virtues and blame someone else with the faults you have cultivated.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals will always try to solve problems. Of course, some of the solutions beget their own problems, but that is to be expected. No solution is 100% foolproof.

Conservatives will always deny there are social problems. That's because solving social problems by way of government action is anathema to Conservatives. Poverty, hunger, lack of education or opportunity are all situations the much beloved and often excused private sector is supposed to handle.

Conservatives see only political problems. And often those problems are of Conservative heritage to begin with. Conservatives claim to love, make that LOVE the constitution, right up to the point someone tries to avail themselves of constitutional rights and protections. Listening to Conservatives, one might think that they would harken back to what they see as a "Golden Age" of American constitutional adherence. To wit: no paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic and only White, property owning males eligible to vote.

And then they ask "What's wrong with Liberals?"

Amazin', ain't it?

One thing common to each generation is that Conservaives will be against change. They were against the founding of our country, against the abolition of slavery, against equal rights, against environmental protections

One thing is common with conservatives....they are on the wrong side of history

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

Liberals will always try to solve problems. Of course, some of the solutions beget their own problems, but that is to be expected. No solution is 100% foolproof.

Conservatives will always deny there are social problems. That's because solving social problems by way of government action is anathema to Conservatives. Poverty, hunger, lack of education or opportunity are all situations the much beloved and often excused private sector is supposed to handle.

Conservatives see only political problems. And often those problems are of Conservative heritage to begin with. Conservatives claim to love, make that LOVE the constitution, right up to the point someone tries to avail themselves of constitutional rights and protections. Listening to Conservatives, one might think that they would harken back to what they see as a "Golden Age" of American constitutional adherence. To wit: no paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic and only White, property owning males eligible to vote.

And then they ask "What's wrong with Liberals?"

Amazin', ain't it?

One thing common to each generation is that Conservaives will be against change. They were against the founding of our country, against the abolition of slavery, against equal rights, against environmental protections

One thing is common with conservatives....they are on the wrong side of history

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

"Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself?"

Liberals will always try to solve problems. Of course, some of the solutions beget their own problems, but that is to be expected. No solution is 100% foolproof.

Conservatives will always deny there are social problems. That's because solving social problems by way of government action is anathema to Conservatives. Poverty, hunger, lack of education or opportunity are all situations the much beloved and often excused private sector is supposed to handle.

Conservatives see only political problems. And often those problems are of Conservative heritage to begin with. Conservatives claim to love, make that LOVE the constitution, right up to the point someone tries to avail themselves of constitutional rights and protections. Listening to Conservatives, one might think that they would harken back to what they see as a "Golden Age" of American constitutional adherence. To wit: no paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic and only White, property owning males eligible to vote.

And then they ask "What's wrong with Liberals?"

Amazin', ain't it?

One thing common to each generation is that Conservaives will be against change. They were against the founding of our country, against the abolition of slavery, against equal rights, against environmental protections

One thing is common with conservatives....they are on the wrong side of history

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

"could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself?"

No problem!


1.One reason that Richard Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as VP, was that he had passed some of the nation’s first bans on racial discrimination in public housing- before federal laws. He had beaten Democrat segregationist George Mahoney for governor of Maryland in 1966.
Agnew enacted some of the first laws in the nation against race discrimination in public housing. “Agnew signed the state's first open-housing laws and succeeded in getting the repeal of an anti-miscegenationlaw.” Spiro Agnew - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


2. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.

3 . Eisenhower may have felt as his fellow Republican and soldier Senator Charles Potter did when he stood on crutches in the well of the Senate—he lost both legs in World War II —and denounced the Democrats for refusing to pass a civil rights bill. “Ifought beside Negroes in the war,” Potter said. “I saw them die for us. Forthe Senate of the United States to repay these valiant men . . . by a watered down version of this legislation would make a mockery of the democratic concept we hold so dear.”
Web Extra Read an Exclusive Excerpt of Ann Coulter 8217 s New Book - ABC News

In his second term, Eisenhower pushed through two major civil rights laws and created the Civil Rights Commission—over the stubborn objections of Democrats. Senator Lyndon Johnson warned his fellow segregationist Democrats, “Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again.” Liberal hero, Senator Sam Ervin told his fellow segregationists, “I’m on your side, not theirs,” adding ruefully, “we’ve got to give the goddamned ******* something.”
Ibid.

4. 1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …”
Lester Maddox Dies at 87 Segregationist Ex-Governor Leaves Complicated Legacy HighBeam Business Arrive Prepared


BTW....Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.
Calloway appealed to the Supreme Court….but the court upheld the legislature’s decision.

Continuing on the theme that you suggested, Jim Crow...on that very Supreme Court was former KKK member Justice Hugo Black.

Democrat Hugo Black was Democrat FDR’s first appointee, in 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage Conversations in Philosophy They all look alike to a person not a Jap The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU



Remember you wrote "Have you ever studied history or political science?"

Looks like the laughs on you, huh?

 

[Nosmo King]

Liberals will always try to solve problems. Of course, some of the solutions beget their own problems, but that is to be expected. No solution is 100% foolproof.

Conservatives will always deny there are social problems. That's because solving social problems by way of government action is anathema to Conservatives. Poverty, hunger, lack of education or opportunity are all situations the much beloved and often excused private sector is supposed to handle.

Conservatives see only political problems. And often those problems are of Conservative heritage to begin with. Conservatives claim to love, make that LOVE the constitution, right up to the point someone tries to avail themselves of constitutional rights and protections. Listening to Conservatives, one might think that they would harken back to what they see as a "Golden Age" of American constitutional adherence. To wit: no paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic and only White, property owning males eligible to vote.

And then they ask "What's wrong with Liberals?"

Amazin', ain't it?

One thing common to each generation is that Conservaives will be against change. They were against the founding of our country, against the abolition of slavery, against equal rights, against environmental protections

One thing is common with conservatives....they are on the wrong side of history

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

Liberals will always try to solve problems. Of course, some of the solutions beget their own problems, but that is to be expected. No solution is 100% foolproof.

Conservatives will always deny there are social problems. That's because solving social problems by way of government action is anathema to Conservatives. Poverty, hunger, lack of education or opportunity are all situations the much beloved and often excused private sector is supposed to handle.

Conservatives see only political problems. And often those problems are of Conservative heritage to begin with. Conservatives claim to love, make that LOVE the constitution, right up to the point someone tries to avail themselves of constitutional rights and protections. Listening to Conservatives, one might think that they would harken back to what they see as a "Golden Age" of American constitutional adherence. To wit: no paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic and only White, property owning males eligible to vote.

And then they ask "What's wrong with Liberals?"

Amazin', ain't it?

One thing common to each generation is that Conservaives will be against change. They were against the founding of our country, against the abolition of slavery, against equal rights, against environmental protections

One thing is common with conservatives....they are on the wrong side of history

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

"Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself?"

Liberals will always try to solve problems. Of course, some of the solutions beget their own problems, but that is to be expected. No solution is 100% foolproof.

Conservatives will always deny there are social problems. That's because solving social problems by way of government action is anathema to Conservatives. Poverty, hunger, lack of education or opportunity are all situations the much beloved and often excused private sector is supposed to handle.

Conservatives see only political problems. And often those problems are of Conservative heritage to begin with. Conservatives claim to love, make that LOVE the constitution, right up to the point someone tries to avail themselves of constitutional rights and protections. Listening to Conservatives, one might think that they would harken back to what they see as a "Golden Age" of American constitutional adherence. To wit: no paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic and only White, property owning males eligible to vote.

And then they ask "What's wrong with Liberals?"

Amazin', ain't it?

One thing common to each generation is that Conservaives will be against change. They were against the founding of our country, against the abolition of slavery, against equal rights, against environmental protections

One thing is common with conservatives....they are on the wrong side of history

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

"could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself?"

No problem!


1.One reason that Richard Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as VP, was that he had passed some of the nation’s first bans on racial discrimination in public housing- before federal laws. He had beaten Democrat segregationist George Mahoney for governor of Maryland in 1966.
Agnew enacted some of the first laws in the nation against race discrimination in public housing. “Agnew signed the state's first open-housing laws and succeeded in getting the repeal of an anti-miscegenationlaw.” Spiro Agnew - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


2. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.

3 . Eisenhower may have felt as his fellow Republican and soldier Senator Charles Potter did when he stood on crutches in the well of the Senate—he lost both legs in World War II —and denounced the Democrats for refusing to pass a civil rights bill. “Ifought beside Negroes in the war,” Potter said. “I saw them die for us. Forthe Senate of the United States to repay these valiant men . . . by a watered down version of this legislation would make a mockery of the democratic concept we hold so dear.”
Web Extra Read an Exclusive Excerpt of Ann Coulter 8217 s New Book - ABC News

In his second term, Eisenhower pushed through two major civil rights laws and created the Civil Rights Commission—over the stubborn objections of Democrats. Senator Lyndon Johnson warned his fellow segregationist Democrats, “Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again.” Liberal hero, Senator Sam Ervin told his fellow segregationists, “I’m on your side, not theirs,” adding ruefully, “we’ve got to give the goddamned ******* something.”
Ibid.

4. 1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …”
Lester Maddox Dies at 87 Segregationist Ex-Governor Leaves Complicated Legacy HighBeam Business Arrive Prepared


BTW....Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.
Calloway appealed to the Supreme Court….but the court upheld the legislature’s decision.

Continuing on the theme that you suggested, Jim Crow...on that very Supreme Court was former KKK member Justice Hugo Black.

Democrat Hugo Black was Democrat FDR’s first appointee, in 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage Conversations in Philosophy They all look alike to a person not a Jap The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU



Remember you wrote "Have you ever studied history or political science?"

Looks like the laughs on you, huh?

Sorry, but yet again, and not surprisingly, you confuse party affiliation with political ideology. Republican does not always equal Conservative in American history just as Democrat does not always equal Liberal. The advances in Civil Rights came from Liberal, both Republican and Democrat. The opposition came from Conservatives. Unless you want us all to believe that characters like Lest Maddox were, in reality, tree hugging, Birkenstock wearing Kumbya singing Liberals.

One would think you might heed my advice about confusing party with ideology. But what we have seen from you is the stubborn, feckless reasoning of a bitter partisan.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals will always try to solve problems. Of course, some of the solutions beget their own problems, but that is to be expected. No solution is 100% foolproof.

Conservatives will always deny there are social problems. That's because solving social problems by way of government action is anathema to Conservatives. Poverty, hunger, lack of education or opportunity are all situations the much beloved and often excused private sector is supposed to handle.

Conservatives see only political problems. And often those problems are of Conservative heritage to begin with. Conservatives claim to love, make that LOVE the constitution, right up to the point someone tries to avail themselves of constitutional rights and protections. Listening to Conservatives, one might think that they would harken back to what they see as a "Golden Age" of American constitutional adherence. To wit: no paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic and only White, property owning males eligible to vote.

And then they ask "What's wrong with Liberals?"

Amazin', ain't it?

One thing common to each generation is that Conservaives will be against change. They were against the founding of our country, against the abolition of slavery, against equal rights, against environmental protections

One thing is common with conservatives....they are on the wrong side of history

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

Liberals will always try to solve problems. Of course, some of the solutions beget their own problems, but that is to be expected. No solution is 100% foolproof.

Conservatives will always deny there are social problems. That's because solving social problems by way of government action is anathema to Conservatives. Poverty, hunger, lack of education or opportunity are all situations the much beloved and often excused private sector is supposed to handle.

Conservatives see only political problems. And often those problems are of Conservative heritage to begin with. Conservatives claim to love, make that LOVE the constitution, right up to the point someone tries to avail themselves of constitutional rights and protections. Listening to Conservatives, one might think that they would harken back to what they see as a "Golden Age" of American constitutional adherence. To wit: no paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic and only White, property owning males eligible to vote.

And then they ask "What's wrong with Liberals?"

Amazin', ain't it?

One thing common to each generation is that Conservaives will be against change. They were against the founding of our country, against the abolition of slavery, against equal rights, against environmental protections

One thing is common with conservatives....they are on the wrong side of history

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

"Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself?"

Liberals will always try to solve problems. Of course, some of the solutions beget their own problems, but that is to be expected. No solution is 100% foolproof.

Conservatives will always deny there are social problems. That's because solving social problems by way of government action is anathema to Conservatives. Poverty, hunger, lack of education or opportunity are all situations the much beloved and often excused private sector is supposed to handle.

Conservatives see only political problems. And often those problems are of Conservative heritage to begin with. Conservatives claim to love, make that LOVE the constitution, right up to the point someone tries to avail themselves of constitutional rights and protections. Listening to Conservatives, one might think that they would harken back to what they see as a "Golden Age" of American constitutional adherence. To wit: no paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic and only White, property owning males eligible to vote.

And then they ask "What's wrong with Liberals?"

Amazin', ain't it?

One thing common to each generation is that Conservaives will be against change. They were against the founding of our country, against the abolition of slavery, against equal rights, against environmental protections

One thing is common with conservatives....they are on the wrong side of history

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

"could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself?"

No problem!


1.One reason that Richard Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as VP, was that he had passed some of the nation’s first bans on racial discrimination in public housing- before federal laws. He had beaten Democrat segregationist George Mahoney for governor of Maryland in 1966.
Agnew enacted some of the first laws in the nation against race discrimination in public housing. “Agnew signed the state's first open-housing laws and succeeded in getting the repeal of an anti-miscegenationlaw.” Spiro Agnew - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


2. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.

3 . Eisenhower may have felt as his fellow Republican and soldier Senator Charles Potter did when he stood on crutches in the well of the Senate—he lost both legs in World War II —and denounced the Democrats for refusing to pass a civil rights bill. “Ifought beside Negroes in the war,” Potter said. “I saw them die for us. Forthe Senate of the United States to repay these valiant men . . . by a watered down version of this legislation would make a mockery of the democratic concept we hold so dear.”
Web Extra Read an Exclusive Excerpt of Ann Coulter 8217 s New Book - ABC News

In his second term, Eisenhower pushed through two major civil rights laws and created the Civil Rights Commission—over the stubborn objections of Democrats. Senator Lyndon Johnson warned his fellow segregationist Democrats, “Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again.” Liberal hero, Senator Sam Ervin told his fellow segregationists, “I’m on your side, not theirs,” adding ruefully, “we’ve got to give the goddamned ******* something.”
Ibid.

4. 1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …”
Lester Maddox Dies at 87 Segregationist Ex-Governor Leaves Complicated Legacy HighBeam Business Arrive Prepared


BTW....Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.
Calloway appealed to the Supreme Court….but the court upheld the legislature’s decision.

Continuing on the theme that you suggested, Jim Crow...on that very Supreme Court was former KKK member Justice Hugo Black.

Democrat Hugo Black was Democrat FDR’s first appointee, in 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage Conversations in Philosophy They all look alike to a person not a Jap The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU



Remember you wrote "Have you ever studied history or political science?"

Looks like the laughs on you, huh?

Sorry, but yet again, and not surprisingly, you confuse party affiliation with political ideology. Republican does not always equal Conservative in American history just as Democrat does not always equal Liberal. The advances in Civil Rights came from Liberal, both Republican and Democrat. The opposition came from Conservatives. Unless you want us all to believe that characters like Lest Maddox were, in reality, tree hugging, Birkenstock wearing Kumbya singing Liberals.

One would think you might heed my advice about confusing party with ideology. But what we have seen from you is the stubborn, feckless reasoning of a bitter partisan.

Squirm all you like....you've been put in your place.




"The opposition came from Conservatives."

This is a laugh.


Every major Democrat was a segregationist.....up to and certainly including Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.

 

[Nosmo King]

One thing common to each generation is that Conservaives will be against change. They were against the founding of our country, against the abolition of slavery, against equal rights, against environmental protections

One thing is common with conservatives....they are on the wrong side of history

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

One thing common to each generation is that Conservaives will be against change. They were against the founding of our country, against the abolition of slavery, against equal rights, against environmental protections

One thing is common with conservatives....they are on the wrong side of history

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

"Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself?"

One thing common to each generation is that Conservaives will be against change. They were against the founding of our country, against the abolition of slavery, against equal rights, against environmental protections

One thing is common with conservatives....they are on the wrong side of history

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

"could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself?"

No problem!


1.One reason that Richard Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as VP, was that he had passed some of the nation’s first bans on racial discrimination in public housing- before federal laws. He had beaten Democrat segregationist George Mahoney for governor of Maryland in 1966.
Agnew enacted some of the first laws in the nation against race discrimination in public housing. “Agnew signed the state's first open-housing laws and succeeded in getting the repeal of an anti-miscegenationlaw.” Spiro Agnew - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


2. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.

3 . Eisenhower may have felt as his fellow Republican and soldier Senator Charles Potter did when he stood on crutches in the well of the Senate—he lost both legs in World War II —and denounced the Democrats for refusing to pass a civil rights bill. “Ifought beside Negroes in the war,” Potter said. “I saw them die for us. Forthe Senate of the United States to repay these valiant men . . . by a watered down version of this legislation would make a mockery of the democratic concept we hold so dear.”
Web Extra Read an Exclusive Excerpt of Ann Coulter 8217 s New Book - ABC News

In his second term, Eisenhower pushed through two major civil rights laws and created the Civil Rights Commission—over the stubborn objections of Democrats. Senator Lyndon Johnson warned his fellow segregationist Democrats, “Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again.” Liberal hero, Senator Sam Ervin told his fellow segregationists, “I’m on your side, not theirs,” adding ruefully, “we’ve got to give the goddamned ******* something.”
Ibid.

4. 1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …”
Lester Maddox Dies at 87 Segregationist Ex-Governor Leaves Complicated Legacy HighBeam Business Arrive Prepared


BTW....Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.
Calloway appealed to the Supreme Court….but the court upheld the legislature’s decision.

Continuing on the theme that you suggested, Jim Crow...on that very Supreme Court was former KKK member Justice Hugo Black.

Democrat Hugo Black was Democrat FDR’s first appointee, in 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage Conversations in Philosophy They all look alike to a person not a Jap The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU



Remember you wrote "Have you ever studied history or political science?"

Looks like the laughs on you, huh?

Sorry, but yet again, and not surprisingly, you confuse party affiliation with political ideology. Republican does not always equal Conservative in American history just as Democrat does not always equal Liberal. The advances in Civil Rights came from Liberal, both Republican and Democrat. The opposition came from Conservatives. Unless you want us all to believe that characters like Lest Maddox were, in reality, tree hugging, Birkenstock wearing Kumbya singing Liberals.

One would think you might heed my advice about confusing party with ideology. But what we have seen from you is the stubborn, feckless reasoning of a bitter partisan.

Squirm all you like....you've been put in your place.




"The opposition came from Conservatives."

This is a laugh.


Every major Democrat was a segregationist.....up to and certainly including Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.

My God but getting information through that vast wasteland of a brain pan you have is exhausting! Political ideology does not couple up well with party identity. 'Twas ever thus in American history. Only a ham handed revisionist and bitter partisan could cling to the slender reed of your poorly crafted arguments.

Now, gloat all you want about 'putting me in my place'. Those with actual reading comprehension skills will instantly recognize that you are a poor student of history and one lousy debater.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

"Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself?"

"...Conservaives will be against change."
False.


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself? Where were the Conservatives on women's suffrage, on child labor, on collective bargaining rights, on environmental issues, on pay equality or Gay Rights?

If we accept the clumsy assertion that Conservatives are not opposed to change, what changes have Conservatives championed?

"could you cite specific instances where Conservatives were in the vanguard of social change? Where were the Conservatives on Jim Crow, or slavery itself?"

No problem!


1.One reason that Richard Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as VP, was that he had passed some of the nation’s first bans on racial discrimination in public housing- before federal laws. He had beaten Democrat segregationist George Mahoney for governor of Maryland in 1966.
Agnew enacted some of the first laws in the nation against race discrimination in public housing. “Agnew signed the state's first open-housing laws and succeeded in getting the repeal of an anti-miscegenationlaw.” Spiro Agnew - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


2. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.

3 . Eisenhower may have felt as his fellow Republican and soldier Senator Charles Potter did when he stood on crutches in the well of the Senate—he lost both legs in World War II —and denounced the Democrats for refusing to pass a civil rights bill. “Ifought beside Negroes in the war,” Potter said. “I saw them die for us. Forthe Senate of the United States to repay these valiant men . . . by a watered down version of this legislation would make a mockery of the democratic concept we hold so dear.”
Web Extra Read an Exclusive Excerpt of Ann Coulter 8217 s New Book - ABC News

In his second term, Eisenhower pushed through two major civil rights laws and created the Civil Rights Commission—over the stubborn objections of Democrats. Senator Lyndon Johnson warned his fellow segregationist Democrats, “Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again.” Liberal hero, Senator Sam Ervin told his fellow segregationists, “I’m on your side, not theirs,” adding ruefully, “we’ve got to give the goddamned ******* something.”
Ibid.

4. 1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …”
Lester Maddox Dies at 87 Segregationist Ex-Governor Leaves Complicated Legacy HighBeam Business Arrive Prepared


BTW....Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.
Calloway appealed to the Supreme Court….but the court upheld the legislature’s decision.

Continuing on the theme that you suggested, Jim Crow...on that very Supreme Court was former KKK member Justice Hugo Black.

Democrat Hugo Black was Democrat FDR’s first appointee, in 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage Conversations in Philosophy They all look alike to a person not a Jap The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU



Remember you wrote "Have you ever studied history or political science?"

Looks like the laughs on you, huh?

Sorry, but yet again, and not surprisingly, you confuse party affiliation with political ideology. Republican does not always equal Conservative in American history just as Democrat does not always equal Liberal. The advances in Civil Rights came from Liberal, both Republican and Democrat. The opposition came from Conservatives. Unless you want us all to believe that characters like Lest Maddox were, in reality, tree hugging, Birkenstock wearing Kumbya singing Liberals.

One would think you might heed my advice about confusing party with ideology. But what we have seen from you is the stubborn, feckless reasoning of a bitter partisan.

Squirm all you like....you've been put in your place.




"The opposition came from Conservatives."

This is a laugh.


Every major Democrat was a segregationist.....up to and certainly including Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.

My God but getting information through that vast wasteland of a brain pan you have is exhausting! Political ideology does not couple up well with party identity. 'Twas ever thus in American history. Only a ham handed revisionist and bitter partisan could cling to the slender reed of your poorly crafted arguments.

Now, gloat all you want about 'putting me in my place'. Those with actual reading comprehension skills will instantly recognize that you are a poor student of history and one lousy debater.

You have mistaken the source of your difficulty.....it is the efforts you have to put into ignoring the facts that I have presented....that's what's tiring you out.

"Political ideology does not couple up well with party identity.
Rather than your "is not, is not" post....
...let's play a game of matching:

Democrat, Republican with Liberal,and conservative.
Quite a coincidence that, as the real segreationist history of the Democrats is revealed, you apologists have suddenly come up with the bogus idea that those Dems were conservatives.....
...no, they weren't. They were the same Liberals we see today.



Begin to see the light?


Not every Democrat was a segregationist....but every segregationist was a Democrat.
You Democrat apologists....or obfuscationists.....love to use words like 'southerner' in place of Democrat.....

But the Northern Democrats were right there, too. Language is important, so in any discussion of who the segregationists were, liberals switch the word “Democrats” to “southerners.” Remember, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was supported by all the Republicans in the Senate, but only 29 of 47 Democrats…and a number of the ‘segregationist’ Democrats were northern Dems (Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Wyoming). Not southerners: Democrats.



"Those with actual reading comprehension skills will instantly recognize that you are a poor student of history and one lousy debater."
Me poor??? but I just whipped you....

Lousy debater??
I don't debate...I simply explain why I'm right.....with the facts.

I notice you didn't attempt to deny that the most popular Democrat, Bill Clinton, is certainly one of those segregationists.
Smartest move you made all day.

 

[g5000]

The OP is so chock full of logical fallacies, one does not know where to start.

But in other news... I saw a tard who believes she is a right winger start a topic with an opening post that was so full of logical fallacies, I had to ask, "What is wrong with ALL right wingers that makes them so retarded and hateful and bigoted?"

Still other news...I saw a video of a guy teaching a nine year old girl how to shoot a gun. The little girl accidentally blew his brains out. I should have started a topic, "What is wrong with all gun owners that makes them so retarded?"

You can see the same old tired recipe in every PoliticalChic topic.


"I saw this one guy who did this one thing, and decided to start this topic where I create a big a quantity of straw men fallacies as I can."

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ah the old everybody lies defense, FAIL!

So "all Liberals lie" is a great argument, but "all people lie" is a rubbish argument?

Reminds of me South Park with the difference between farting for the boys and whatever the hell they called the girl vag farting thing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP is so chock full of logical fallacies, one does not know where to start.

But in other news... I saw a tard who believes she is a right winger start a topic with an opening post that was so full of logical fallacies, I had to ask, "What is wrong with ALL right wingers that makes them so retarded and hateful and bigoted?"

Still other news...I saw a video of a guy teaching a nine year old girl how to shoot a gun. The little girl accidentally blew his brains out. I should have started a topic, "What is wrong with all gun owners that makes them so retarded?"

You can see the same old tired recipe in every PoliticalChic topic.


"I saw this one guy who did this one thing, and decided to start this topic where I create a big a quantity of straw men fallacies as I can."

"I saw this one guy who did this blah blah blah...."

So......every single thing I posted was correct....but you deny the conclusion?

All I'm saying is one of us is right and the other one is you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Rights are still rights...they are not subject to a vote of the majority

Change is a funny thing....you have to use any means available

Unless of course the rights are for gay people, in which case the right will have a referendum to make sure gay people don't get the rights.

 

[Borillar]

Speaking for the founders? Did they really go around spitting on people? Sounds like a conservative thing.

No,we piss on liberal ideology.

Yeah, like the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are products of Enlightenment Era Classical Liberalism...which is not at all related to present day Progressive Liberalism.

A liberal is a liberal.....is a liberal

The issues and challenges of each era may change.....but liberals remain the same
Unfortunately, so do conservatives

wrong again, Norton. today's liberalism is yesterday's tyranny. Today's liberalism is yesterday's monarchies. today's conservatism if the philosophy of the founders of this great nation--------------freedom and personal responsibility, and an unintrusive federal government.

Yeah, I'm sure the founders would just love what "freedom loving", "unintrusive government" conservatives have brought about. The "Patriot" act, warrantless searches, DHS, TSA, torture, extraordinary rendition, suspension of habeus corpus, wars of choice, etc.

 

[BluesLegend]

Ah the old everybody lies defense, FAIL!

So "all Liberals lie" is a great argument, but "all people lie" is a rubbish argument?

Reminds of me South Park with the difference between farting for the boys and whatever the hell they called the girl vag farting thing.

Liberals repeatedly tell whopper lies even after those lies have been pointed out to them, and not some obscure liberals the very leaders in the Democratic party. They lie intentionally, they lie with purpose. To try to excuse that behavior with the "all politicians lie" excuse is pretty lame. I point out a liberal lie and instead of discussing the lie liberals deflect with this everybody lies crap. Hence I have virtually no reason to speak with a liberal let alone negotiate with one or try to reach a compromise. They can all pound sand as far as I'm concerned. When they stop excusing the lies and start holding their own accountable call me, I won't hold my breath though.

 

[RKMBrown]

Rights are still rights...they are not subject to a vote of the majority

Change is a funny thing....you have to use any means available

Unless of course the rights are for gay people, in which case the right will have a referendum to make sure gay people don't get the rights.

lefties do the same thing...

Funny how authoritarians from both sides are good with referendums to control the lives of the other side.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Rights are still rights...they are not subject to a vote of the majority

Change is a funny thing....you have to use any means available

Unless of course the rights are for gay people, in which case the right will have a referendum to make sure gay people don't get the rights.

There are lots of referenda, and when the people speak, Liberal judges simply throw the results out.

How far behind can re-education camps and gulags be?

 

[Seawytch]

Rights are still rights...they are not subject to a vote of the majority

Change is a funny thing....you have to use any means available

Unless of course the rights are for gay people, in which case the right will have a referendum to make sure gay people don't get the rights.

There are lots of referenda, and when the people speak, Liberal judges simply throw the results out.

How far behind can re-education camps and gulags be?

Really? Because judges are properly ruling anti gay laws based on nothing but animus as unconstitutional, you think reeducation camps are next? I don't suppose you realize that many of those "liberal judges" were appointed by Republicans, right?

Republicans Are Driving the Momentum for Gay Marriage - Atlantic Mobile

 

[frigidweirdo]

Liberals repeatedly tell whopper lies even after those lies have been pointed out to them, and not some obscure liberals the very leaders in the Democratic party. They lie intentionally, they lie with purpose. To try to excuse that behavior with the "all politicians lie" excuse is pretty lame. I point out a liberal lie and instead of discussing the lie liberals deflect with this everybody lies crap. Hence I have virtually no reason to speak with a liberal let alone negotiate with one or try to reach a compromise. They can all pound sand as far as I'm concerned. When they stop excusing the lies and start holding their own accountable call me, I won't hold my breath though.

Spain 2004. Aznar was Prime Minister, a PP man, Conservative to you and me, Bush arse licker too. Al Qaeda supporters bombed Atocha train station killing hundreds of people. Everyone knew it was al Qaeda. With an election 3 days away, the PP said it was ETA. Even after it was proven conclusively that it was al Qaeda they still said they thought it was ETA, when they clearly knew it wasn't.
Bush, conservative to you an me, said Iraq was about WMDs, we all know it was about oil. You still find plenty of people on here who claim it was for "moral reasons" and that it was because of WMDs or something. Yet we know for a fact that the US govt's foreign policy since the time of Colin Powell's involvement in foreign/military affairs has been one of US interests and nothing else. It was clearly about oil.
Not only that they claimed they had nothing to do with Chavez's socialist govt being subject to a coup d'etat, even when clear evidence of people involved in the coup receiving money from the US govt came to light they still claim it wasn't them. Another OPEC country.

Nothing really changes. These are whopper lies, they have been repeated even when shown to be complete rubbish. These were lies on purpose, intentional. The first to win an election, they lost, because it only took a few days for the truth to come out and the people hammered the right. The 2nd has come out too,.

So......

Personally I don't like either democrats or republicans, but everyone ignores calls for Proportional Representation, or claims they don't even know what it is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

lefties do the same thing...

Funny how authoritarians from both sides are good with referendums to control the lives of the other side.

Oh, I believe both sides are about as bad as each other. I'm no fan of either party and would love Proportional Representation for there to be democracy in the US instead of the nonsense that happens now.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are lots of referenda, and when the people speak, Liberal judges simply throw the results out.

How far behind can re-education camps and gulags be?

Referenda are not always constitutional. Let's have one banning black people from marrying, see how long that one lasts before some leftist judge throws it out huh?