You want to know the real reason people don't want to be liberals?

[RKMBrown]

Jesus was a liberal

Jesus was a conservative, aka classical liberal. Modern liberals have bastardized the term liberal.

If Jesus was a conservative, he was a classical conservative, NOT what passes for conservatism today. The Tea Party and their sympathizers are the ones that have bastardized political discourse.

The Tea Party does not have a leader. The Tea Party is / was just a loose nit group of Americans who had a desire to meet and discuss the significance of particular political events. Saying said discussions are a bastardization of political discourse is ludicrous. The democrat strawmanization (yes I just invented a word), or stigmatization of the Tea Party movement through drafting endless series of straw-man arguments, is moronic at best.

Apparently bastardizing political discourse is a trait that you have inherited.

 

[Papageorgio]

Founding fathers were rebels, libturds never rebel, they just seek more and more goverment regulation of our personal lives.

Liberals ALWAYS rebel

It is what makes them liberal

Rebel, like the TeaParty?

The Civil Rights movement rebeled

The Tea Party wears funny hats and waves flags with snakes on it

The Civil Rights movement that many conservatives and Republicans participated in?

I forgot, you are a rebel, like OWS. taking dumps on cars, wanting government to intervene in your behalf, and raping women in camps but not wanting the same government to intervene in that.

 

[Stephanie]

You couldn't pay me to be a liberal. it's a mental disorder and I prefer to stay sane

one example: they ditched Hillary for some community agitator nobody and now they are all giddy to have her run 8years older where she has to be going into her 80s

I call that insane but...

 

[RKMBrown]

Why can't conservatives be content and proud of their conservatism? Recently they have started a campaign to change political labels and parties, making Jefferson into a conservative and Truman into a Republican? Is the new campaign an attempt to confuse people or they are ashamed of being conservative?
The labels of conservative and liberal have been defined many times and college book stores all carry little booklets defining the terms. In the meantime the label-theft program seems to be a new and serious strategy for conservatives.
Perhaps conservatives would be content with being called liberal-conservatives and liberals, liberal-liberals?

I know.....they try to claim both JFK and Martin Luther King as conservatives now

JFK was a non-liberal democrat. MLK was a conservative republican. Both JFK and MLK wanted something better for the people of this country. They both pressed the people to rise up and do great things. Both JFK and MLK were great men, even if JFK was a bit of a miscreant when it comes to treating women as sex toys.

Today's democrat leaders... yeah not so much, they want the people to sit back, relax, and vote for collecting free shit taken by force from dumb asses that work for a living.

 

[rightwinger]

Founding fathers were rebels, libturds never rebel, they just seek more and more goverment regulation of our personal lives.

Liberals ALWAYS rebel

It is what makes them liberal

Rebel, like the TeaParty?

The Civil Rights movement rebeled

The Tea Party wears funny hats and waves flags with snakes on it

The Civil Rights movement that many conservatives and Republicans participated in?

I forgot, you are a rebel, like OWS. taking dumps on cars, wanting government to intervene in your behalf, and raping women in camps but not wanting the same government to intervene in that.

What does that have to do with the Tea Party?

 

[rightwinger]

Why can't conservatives be content and proud of their conservatism? Recently they have started a campaign to change political labels and parties, making Jefferson into a conservative and Truman into a Republican? Is the new campaign an attempt to confuse people or they are ashamed of being conservative?
The labels of conservative and liberal have been defined many times and college book stores all carry little booklets defining the terms. In the meantime the label-theft program seems to be a new and serious strategy for conservatives.
Perhaps conservatives would be content with being called liberal-conservatives and liberals, liberal-liberals?

I know.....they try to claim both JFK and Martin Luther King as conservatives now

JFK was a non-liberal democrat. MLK was a conservative republican. Both JFK and MLK wanted something better for the people of this country. They both pressed the people to rise up and do great things. Both JFK and MLK were great men, even if JFK was a bit of a miscreant when it comes to treating women as sex toys.

Today's democrat leaders... yeah not so much, they want the people to sit back, relax, and vote for collecting free shit taken by force from dumb asses that work for a living.

JFK was a non-liberal democrat?

JFK’s Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
“…if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
September 14, 1960

 

[RKMBrown]

Jesus was a liberal

Jesus was a conservative, aka classical liberal. Modern liberals have bastardized the term liberal.

Modern liberals left the classical liberals behind because the classic liberal agenda became obsolete.

Which also explains why classical liberalism is now essentially conservatism.

This explains the authoritarian view to a tee. In the authoritarian opinion ideals like liberty, property, and justice, which used to limit the power of government, have become obsolete ideals. In the authoritarian view we need to evolve to a society of people governed by tyranny of the majority.

Given that authoritarians have taken over both parties... we have a country divided trying to decide which group gets to screw over the other group.

They became obsolete ideas during the industrial revolution when it became clear that capitalism left to its own devices, its own 'liberty' if you wish,

was a force far more evil than a democratic government used to rein it in.

Nonsense. The evil that is corporate greed was widely known back at the forming of the country. Thus the long drawn out treatise on the federal government having the power to break monopolies. With the industrial revolution, however, came unions and the combination of unions and corporate greed then used their money and power to buy both parties. From time to time we elect politicians who are willing to do their job of breaking up monopolies. However, at this time both parties are more apt to say all monopolies are too big to fail. It's moronic, it's killing this country. The only thing new, is the lack of backbone by both parties to do their job.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Most of which was formed by their study of the liberal paradigm, and the following quote best summarizes their view as well as that of the vast majority of contemporary liberals and progressives, diametrically opposed to the ethos of contemporary libertarians and callous conservatives or want of a better and longer definition:

"Where did the treatment of the self-interested pursuit of wealth as a virtue come from? Influential books that idealize self-interest and have had a significant influence on political activism since the 1980s include Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness”, “Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal”, and “Atlas Shrugged”, George Gilder’s “Wealth and Poverty”, and Michael Novak’s “The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism”. What is philosophically significant about the treatment of the pursuit of self-interest as a virtue is that it turns Thrasymachus’ position on its head. While Plato was resistant to Thrasymachus’ claim that the few either do or should call all the shots, many American activists believe passionately that this is morally good. Let all good citizens be clear: the treatment of self-interest as a virtue is a radical departure from the Western as well as American tradition, and no mainstream political philosopher suggests that seeking one’s self-interest is a moral virtue. There is a significant difference between praising hard work and effort, on the one hand, and praising the self-interested pursuit of profit, on the other. Anyone who does not understand the difference has no business being involved in public policy debates."

Emphasis added.

Link to full article:

The Breakdown of the Classical Liberal Paradigm in the Age of Globalization Practical Philosophy

As an undergrad my major was political philosophy, your suggestion that I read only the aforementioned documents and not their antecedents is telling. Start with the Magna Carta, and work your way up through five centuries of political thought and maybe then you will have some business being involved in public policy discussions.

Start here:

Featured Document The Magna Carta

.....not to mention Gordon Gekko.

I don't think RKMBrown is at all interested in learning anything about political philosophy, however, especially inasmuch as the limits of his ability to understand is such that he responds to anybody who HAS studied political philosophy to any degree by calling them a "moron".

The Heritage foundation is especially influential in creating this notion that greed is good, though, especially as it provided so much of the framework for helping to transfer these notions into policy and popularize them among the general public during the Reagan administration. Cripple the Unions, eliminate the fairness doctrine, control the message on the airwaves and voila' -- the creation of a new brand of culture warrior working against their own economic self-interest.

On the left side of the spectrum, the biggest change I have seen since the sixties is the rise in multiculturalism to replace liberalism as the guiding principle. Will Kymlika and other multiculturalists have been effective in providing a philosophical basis on the left that has effectively replaced the notion that rights should be universal and applied to everybody equally with a brand of cultural relativism that ascribes them to a group, instead.

Your post allowed me to update my understanding and learn a new concept: Interculturalism. Which, "refers to support for cross-cultural dialogue and challenging self-segregation tendencies within cultures". Self segregation lit the light bulb for me, thanks for a new source to spur on thinking.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why can't conservatives be content and proud of their conservatism? Recently they have started a campaign to change political labels and parties, making Jefferson into a conservative and Truman into a Republican? Is the new campaign an attempt to confuse people or they are ashamed of being conservative?
The labels of conservative and liberal have been defined many times and college book stores all carry little booklets defining the terms. In the meantime the label-theft program seems to be a new and serious strategy for conservatives.
Perhaps conservatives would be content with being called liberal-conservatives and liberals, liberal-liberals?

I know.....they try to claim both JFK and Martin Luther King as conservatives now

JFK was a non-liberal democrat. MLK was a conservative republican. Both JFK and MLK wanted something better for the people of this country. They both pressed the people to rise up and do great things. Both JFK and MLK were great men, even if JFK was a bit of a miscreant when it comes to treating women as sex toys.

Today's democrat leaders... yeah not so much, they want the people to sit back, relax, and vote for collecting free shit taken by force from dumb asses that work for a living.

JFK was a non-liberal democrat?

JFK’s Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
“…if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
September 14, 1960

It all comes down to how you define liberal... I meant non-liberal from my definition of liberal. JFK's definition of liberal would not be accepted by today's modern liberal, would it?

 

[rightwinger]

Why can't conservatives be content and proud of their conservatism? Recently they have started a campaign to change political labels and parties, making Jefferson into a conservative and Truman into a Republican? Is the new campaign an attempt to confuse people or they are ashamed of being conservative?
The labels of conservative and liberal have been defined many times and college book stores all carry little booklets defining the terms. In the meantime the label-theft program seems to be a new and serious strategy for conservatives.
Perhaps conservatives would be content with being called liberal-conservatives and liberals, liberal-liberals?

I know.....they try to claim both JFK and Martin Luther King as conservatives now

JFK was a non-liberal democrat. MLK was a conservative republican. Both JFK and MLK wanted something better for the people of this country. They both pressed the people to rise up and do great things. Both JFK and MLK were great men, even if JFK was a bit of a miscreant when it comes to treating women as sex toys.

Today's democrat leaders... yeah not so much, they want the people to sit back, relax, and vote for collecting free shit taken by force from dumb asses that work for a living.

JFK was a non-liberal democrat?

JFK’s Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
“…if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
September 14, 1960

It all comes down to how you define liberal... I meant non-liberal from my definition of liberal. JFK's definition of liberal would not be accepted by today's modern liberal, would it?

I think JFKs definition of a liberal is spot on
As relevant today as it was 50 years ago

Now, lets hear what Truman had to say about Republicans 60 years ago

Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.”

Quote by Harry S. Truman Republicans approve of the American farmer but...

Some things never change

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why can't conservatives be content and proud of their conservatism? Recently they have started a campaign to change political labels and parties, making Jefferson into a conservative and Truman into a Republican? Is the new campaign an attempt to confuse people or they are ashamed of being conservative?
The labels of conservative and liberal have been defined many times and college book stores all carry little booklets defining the terms. In the meantime the label-theft program seems to be a new and serious strategy for conservatives.
Perhaps conservatives would be content with being called liberal-conservatives and liberals, liberal-liberals?

They have so few accomplishments and have been on the wrong side of history so often that they just let time past then claim they were against it in the first place.

Like Segregation, Civil Rights, Homeland Security, Womens rights etc etc.

Remember the Patriot Act? You would think that it appeared out of nowhere because cons now all deny they EVER supported it...Small Govt cons yanno

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why can't conservatives be content and proud of their conservatism? Recently they have started a campaign to change political labels and parties, making Jefferson into a conservative and Truman into a Republican? Is the new campaign an attempt to confuse people or they are ashamed of being conservative?
The labels of conservative and liberal have been defined many times and college book stores all carry little booklets defining the terms. In the meantime the label-theft program seems to be a new and serious strategy for conservatives.
Perhaps conservatives would be content with being called liberal-conservatives and liberals, liberal-liberals?

I know.....they try to claim both JFK and Martin Luther King as conservatives now

JFK was a non-liberal democrat. MLK was a conservative republican. Both JFK and MLK wanted something better for the people of this country. They both pressed the people to rise up and do great things. Both JFK and MLK were great men, even if JFK was a bit of a miscreant when it comes to treating women as sex toys.

Today's democrat leaders... yeah not so much, they want the people to sit back, relax, and vote for collecting free shit taken by force from dumb asses that work for a living.

JFK was a non-liberal democrat?

JFK’s Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
“…if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
September 14, 1960

It all comes down to how you define liberal... I meant non-liberal from my definition of liberal. JFK's definition of liberal would not be accepted by today's modern liberal, would it?

Modern Liberal? Classic Liberal? Define Liberal? Liberal a-la mode.....

Stop it already

 

[Wry Catcher]

Jesus was a liberal

Jesus was a conservative, aka classical liberal. Modern liberals have bastardized the term liberal.

Modern liberals left the classical liberals behind because the classic liberal agenda became obsolete.

Which also explains why classical liberalism is now essentially conservatism.

This explains the authoritarian view to a tee. In the authoritarian opinion ideals like liberty, property, and justice, which used to limit the power of government, have become obsolete ideals. In the authoritarian view we need to evolve to a society of people governed by tyranny of the majority.

Given that authoritarians have taken over both parties... we have a country divided trying to decide which group gets to screw over the other group.

They became obsolete ideas during the industrial revolution when it became clear that capitalism left to its own devices, its own 'liberty' if you wish,

was a force far more evil than a democratic government used to rein it in.

Nonsense. The evil that is corporate greed was widely known back at the forming of the country. Thus the long drawn out treatise on the federal government having the power to break monopolies. With the industrial revolution, however, came unions and the combination of unions and corporate greed then used their money and power to buy both parties. From time to time we elect politicians who are willing to do their job of breaking up monopolies. However, at this time both parties are more apt to say all monopolies are too big to fail. It's moronic, it's killing this country. The only thing new, is the lack of backbone by both parties to do their job.

I suggest you do some homework. But first, please tell us all the names of the corporations "widely known at the framing of our country".

 

[RKMBrown]

Most of the founding fathers were classical liberals who held the exact same politics that the libertarian party holds today. Classical conservatives were democrats of the day, and they remained loyal to the crown. Even today these democrats remain loyal to the government crown, aka. the imperial democrat emperor, aka. their god the POTUS Obama.

Label arguments are so prosaic, liberal, classical liberal, commie, conservative, etc. - most are nothing but efforts to protect the personal ideology of the writer, used as a pejorative, or a writer parroting some banal editorial on the radio, tv or in print. None are defined and even if they were the beliefs and actions of the past do not comport directly with their meaning in the 21st Century.

They are defined and the the beliefs and actions of the past most certainly do comport directly with their meaning today.

Cool, define them, and give examples.

Declaration of independence..., Constitution, many writings of the formers. Pick up a book vs reading authoritarian propaganda.

Most of which was formed by their study of the liberal paradigm, and the following quote best summarizes their view as well as that of the vast majority of contemporary liberals and progressives, diametrically opposed to the ethos of contemporary libertarians and callous conservatives, for want of a better and longer definition:

"Where did the treatment of the self-interested pursuit of wealth as a virtue come from? Influential books that idealize self-interest and have had a significant influence on political activism since the 1980s include Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness”, “Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal”, and “Atlas Shrugged”, George Gilder’s “Wealth and Poverty”, and Michael Novak’s “The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism”. What is philosophically significant about the treatment of the pursuit of self-interest as a virtue is that it turns Thrasymachus’ position on its head. While Plato was resistant to Thrasymachus’ claim that the few either do or should call all the shots, many American activists believe passionately that this is morally good. Let all good citizens be clear: the treatment of self-interest as a virtue is a radical departure from the Western as well as American tradition, and no mainstream political philosopher suggests that seeking one’s self-interest is a moral virtue. There is a significant difference between praising hard work and effort, on the one hand, and praising the self-interested pursuit of profit, on the other. Anyone who does not understand the difference has no business being involved in public policy debates."

Emphasis added.

Link to full article:

The Breakdown of the Classical Liberal Paradigm in the Age of Globalization Practical Philosophy

As an undergrad my major was political philosophy, your suggestion that I read only the aforementioned documents and not their antecedents is telling. Start with the Magna Carta, and work your way up through five centuries of political thought and maybe then you will have some business being involved in public policy discussions.

Start here:

Featured Document The Magna Carta

You are making an incorrect assumption that I am not well educated in the field of political science. The adjectives used to describe your political views gravitate from your use of terms, not from a lack of education on my part.

 

[konradv]

The Tea Party does not have a leader. The Tea Party is / was just a loose nit group of Americans who had a desire to meet and discuss the significance of particular political events. Saying said discussions are a bastardization of political discourse is ludicrous.

There's more to it than discussions. They elect politicians, try to amend the Constitution and attempt to shut down the government to force their will on the rest of us. The bastardization comes in when they dispense with the time-honored system of compromise, telling us it's our way or the highway. In that way they have more in common with fascist parties than those based on democratic principles.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why can't conservatives be content and proud of their conservatism? Recently they have started a campaign to change political labels and parties, making Jefferson into a conservative and Truman into a Republican? Is the new campaign an attempt to confuse people or they are ashamed of being conservative?
The labels of conservative and liberal have been defined many times and college book stores all carry little booklets defining the terms. In the meantime the label-theft program seems to be a new and serious strategy for conservatives.
Perhaps conservatives would be content with being called liberal-conservatives and liberals, liberal-liberals?

I know.....they try to claim both JFK and Martin Luther King as conservatives now

JFK was a non-liberal democrat. MLK was a conservative republican. Both JFK and MLK wanted something better for the people of this country. They both pressed the people to rise up and do great things. Both JFK and MLK were great men, even if JFK was a bit of a miscreant when it comes to treating women as sex toys.

Today's democrat leaders... yeah not so much, they want the people to sit back, relax, and vote for collecting free shit taken by force from dumb asses that work for a living.

JFK was a non-liberal democrat?

JFK’s Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
“…if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
September 14, 1960

It all comes down to how you define liberal... I meant non-liberal from my definition of liberal. JFK's definition of liberal would not be accepted by today's modern liberal, would it?

JFK was despised by his conservative contemporaries,

for his liberalism.

 

[RKMBrown]

Jesus was a conservative, aka classical liberal. Modern liberals have bastardized the term liberal.

Modern liberals left the classical liberals behind because the classic liberal agenda became obsolete.

Which also explains why classical liberalism is now essentially conservatism.

This explains the authoritarian view to a tee. In the authoritarian opinion ideals like liberty, property, and justice, which used to limit the power of government, have become obsolete ideals. In the authoritarian view we need to evolve to a society of people governed by tyranny of the majority.

Given that authoritarians have taken over both parties... we have a country divided trying to decide which group gets to screw over the other group.

They became obsolete ideas during the industrial revolution when it became clear that capitalism left to its own devices, its own 'liberty' if you wish,

was a force far more evil than a democratic government used to rein it in.

Nonsense. The evil that is corporate greed was widely known back at the forming of the country. Thus the long drawn out treatise on the federal government having the power to break monopolies. With the industrial revolution, however, came unions and the combination of unions and corporate greed then used their money and power to buy both parties. From time to time we elect politicians who are willing to do their job of breaking up monopolies. However, at this time both parties are more apt to say all monopolies are too big to fail. It's moronic, it's killing this country. The only thing new, is the lack of backbone by both parties to do their job.

I suggest you do some homework. But first, please tell us all the names of the corporations "widely known at the framing of our country".

ROFL... why should I do the research to give you a list of known companies at the time of the framing of our country? ROFL I'll give you one: The Dutch East India Trading Company.

Here are some links for ya, since you appear to believe we started this country with federal powers to regulate monopolies for the hell of it.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
Corporation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why can't conservatives be content and proud of their conservatism? Recently they have started a campaign to change political labels and parties, making Jefferson into a conservative and Truman into a Republican? Is the new campaign an attempt to confuse people or they are ashamed of being conservative?
The labels of conservative and liberal have been defined many times and college book stores all carry little booklets defining the terms. In the meantime the label-theft program seems to be a new and serious strategy for conservatives.
Perhaps conservatives would be content with being called liberal-conservatives and liberals, liberal-liberals?

I know.....they try to claim both JFK and Martin Luther King as conservatives now

JFK was a non-liberal democrat. MLK was a conservative republican. Both JFK and MLK wanted something better for the people of this country. They both pressed the people to rise up and do great things. Both JFK and MLK were great men, even if JFK was a bit of a miscreant when it comes to treating women as sex toys.

Today's democrat leaders... yeah not so much, they want the people to sit back, relax, and vote for collecting free shit taken by force from dumb asses that work for a living.

JFK was a non-liberal democrat?

JFK’s Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
“…if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
September 14, 1960

It all comes down to how you define liberal... I meant non-liberal from my definition of liberal. JFK's definition of liberal would not be accepted by today's modern liberal, would it?

The above comports well with the modern liberal and progressive!

The efforts by the right/conservatives to repeal the PPACA, eliminate the FDA, the Depts of Education, HUD and the EPA, outlaw same-sex marriage, suppress voting rights, and the most recent effort to put the lives of immigrants into an anxiety driven state of flux have no nexus to the words of President Kennedy.

Now it's your turn, go ahead and spin the talking points you've been indoctrinated to spew, place the blame for everything the crazy new right overtly and covertly supports on a liberal/progressive agenda.

No one but the fools who repeat this absurdity and pander this far right ideological propaganda believe it - but it's your tour de force, in fact it's all you have.

BTW, The DUTCH East India Trading Company wasn't an American corporation, as the name clearly states.

 

[RKMBrown]

The Tea Party does not have a leader. The Tea Party is / was just a loose nit group of Americans who had a desire to meet and discuss the significance of particular political events. Saying said discussions are a bastardization of political discourse is ludicrous.

There's more to it than discussions. They elect politicians, try to amend the Constitution and attempt to shut down the government to force their will on the rest of us. The bastardization comes in when they dispense with the time-honored system of compromise, telling us it's our way or the highway. In that way they have more in common with fascist parties than those based on democratic principles.

Nonsense. There are NAZIS in the democrat party too. That does not mean the democrat party is the NAZI party.

 

[squeeze berry]

Jesus was a liberal

more like an undocumented democrat