Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
George Washington was the wealthiest President we've ever had.
The Revolutionary leaders were almost exclusively wealthy, educated men.
Most were landowners. Most were married. Most were successful.
They were Conservatives.
Now the French? The French Revolution?
They were scum -- Like you.
The French Revolution is where you get your ideas from. But you're not bright enough to know that and you're too lazy to study it and figure it out.
The French Revolution was the libturd Revolution. The American Revolution was the Conservative Revolution.
Republicans follow the lead of Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton.
The scum of the Earth -- You. Follow the lead of Robespierre.
Just a fact.
The Loyalists, also called the Tories, were the Conservatives in America at the time of the revolution.
Was Stalin a Conservative?
How about Hitler? A Conservative?
Is Castro a Conservative or a liberal scumbag like you?
How about Kim Jong Un? How about Mao?
What is a Conservative?
You're a lying scumbag that only sees things the way he wants to see them.
All you understand is if you agree with it, it's good and if you don't, it's bad.
You're a self-deluding piece of shit.
In 18th Century terms, George Washington might have been a liberal. In today's terms, he was certainly a Conservative.
So you agree with everything every general has said?"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
General Douglas MacArthur
yer kidding, right?
Trying to talk to libturds like they have a brain?
PC, I love ya girl. But you're wasting your time.
1) If they had a brain, they wouldn't be libturds.
2) That's it.
You also might want to consider that what the average scumbag libturd follows today are the ramblings of the greatest faux intellectual to ever exist on earth -- Karl Marx, who spoke to the European situation ONLY.
During his mistake of a lifetime, one of his greatest complaints was land-redistribution.
WHAT THE FUCK would that have to do with America of the time?
We had more land than we knew what to do with. We were LITERALLY giving it away.
Plus, we had no 'Royals'. We had no 'Landed Gentry'. We had no.....
See #1 above.
The only things wrong with America are the things that dimocrap scum have done to her.
Period.
Edgetho is the best representative of the true heart, mind, and soul of conservatism on this board.
You do a great service to liberalism with your daily reminders, to all who visit this forum, what the alternative is.
Rock on, Poser.
If you were capable of reason, you would understand that everything I post in here is accurate.
But you're not.
The only things you'll listen to are things you already believe.
You're too afraid to think outside your own comfort zone.
And I know why.
You're afraid that you'll discover that your entire life has been a fraud. You see, loser. libturdism isn't just a political belief, it's a way of life.
You can't figure out why your life is such a pile of shit, why you're such a loser, why you can't succeed, why you can't keep a girlfriend or a wife, why your children barely acknowledge your existence, why you're stuck in the same position at work year after year, why nobody respects you....?
It's because you refuse to grow, to learn.
I bet you dress about the same way you did in High School, right? Got the same hair cut, drive the same kind of car, etc, etc?
You're afraid of change. You're afraid to learn, to experiment, to grab life by the throat and actually live.
You are pathetic. I know you.... I know who and what you are. There are millions like you out there and I've met way too many of them.
People think they're such individuals and that's truly a joke. There are only a few types of personalities in this world, and a few variations on each of one of them.
I know you, loser. And unless you wake up.... SOON.
You'll be a miserable fuck until the day you die.
I mock you. Everybody mocks you.
America's founders were not Conservative. They weren't exactly "liberal" because they owned slaves. That's more Neo-Liberal than socially liberal. As far as ideology, though, if they were "Conservative" they would have held back the Revolution and stayed as England's muppets. Conservatives don't know how to advance or "progress". That's why they're Conservative and not Progressive.Conservatives founded the US?!?! LOL...Now I've heard everything.
Ignore the very definition of conservative! Instead listen to the chopped up musings of someone with sentence or paragraph dyslexia. If she talks enough it will become true. Stupid Websters with their "definitions" smh
George Washington was the wealthiest President we've ever had.
The Revolutionary leaders were almost exclusively wealthy, educated men.
Most were landowners. Most were married. Most were successful.
They were Conservatives.
Now the French? The French Revolution?
They were scum -- Like you.
The French Revolution is where you get your ideas from. But you're not bright enough to know that and you're too lazy to study it and figure it out.
The French Revolution was the libturd Revolution. The American Revolution was the Conservative Revolution.
Republicans follow the lead of Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton.
The scum of the Earth -- You. Follow the lead of Robespierre.
Just a fact.
You brought it up to make some kind of point. Kennedy was considered a liberal then but wouldn't get the time of day from the modern Democrat party since it's been hijacked by extreme progessives, as evidenced here. Liberal in the 1700's hardly is synonomous with what we have today. Context matters.I'm telling you what MacArthur said. What kind of reason are you using to now say I agree with what every general has said? MacArthur was a conservative, perhaps too conservative even for the Republicans to nominate for president, but he believed as do most historians that the constitution was, in its day, a liberal document.
So you agree with everything every general has said?"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
General Douglas MacArthur
I'm telling you what MacArthur said. What kind of reason are you using to now say I agree with what every general has said? MacArthur was a conservative, perhaps too conservative even for the Republicans to nominate for president, but he believed as do most historians that the constitution was, in its day, a liberal document.
Liberalism is a relative term. There may be a static definition, but that definition never really applies in the real world since liberalism today has little to no resemblance to the dictionary definition. Afterall liberalism literally demands SMALL governance.
What we have is "American Liberalism".
IMO - American Liberalism means:
1) Large, nanny government that takes from the haves, and gives to the have nots Unfortunately usually without any strings attached. Read: HIGH TAXATION. HIGH SOCIAL COST.
2) Large, ever present government that heavily regulates and controls commerce.
So in essence, a large overbearing government. The exact opposite of liberalism.
And where's the better model? That is, a country that doesn't help its poor people at all, and as a consequence has a better socio-economic condition than we do?
DOA, right from the start.The Founding Fathers were Liberals?
I don't think so.
The Founding Fathers were Liberals?
I don't think so.
I'm quite ready to believe that the Founding Fathers were Radicals.
Some of them Liberal Radicals.
Some of them Conservative Radicals.
Some of them Egalitarian and even Abolitionist in nature.
Some of them Wealthy and well-Propertied and some even Slaveholders to boot.
All of them being forced to morph into the first Americans by the events of the times.
They found a Middle Ground, in fostering Egalitarianism - amongst White Folk, anyway.
It fell to another generation to pay the ultimate price for that Founding Compromise between Liberal and Conservative positions of the Founding Times.
Welcome to my filter.
It is my wont to construct a series of quotes that lead to an overwhelming and undeniable conclusion.....but my pal, Mr. H, insists on the bottom line first....so here it is:
Liberalism is the very opposite of the intent of 'citizenship.'
1. 'Citizenship' is the goal and aspiration of Western political systems, and can be recognized by its result: both "human rights" and "natural rights," which are the pre-condition of their consent to be governed.
a. Those values are memorialized in the United States Constitution, the abrogation of which is the justification for revolution.
While conservatives believe it is the citizen's right to replace an unjust government, Liberals believe that the government is the government, for better or for worse.
2. There is a responsibility that flows from citizenship, duties to others, basically to strangers, including a defense of their common territory and the maintenance of the law that applies within said jurisdiction.
Roger Scruton, "The West and the Rest."
a. Note the central idea: territory. There is no common territory without borders, and without national sovereignty.
3. The tenets of Liberalism are counter to this theme. Liberalism endorses open borders, and a 'citizen of the world' view....a construct that never has and never will exist.
a. Since the dawn of politics, some men have envisioned some global authority that would bring peace and harmony .Utopia. During the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant argued in favor of a united power and law-governed decisions of a united will to create perpetual peace.
Cosmopolitan citizenship and postmodernity
4. Global governance, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasnt been debated, called for, fought for and as recently as the 20th century, enforced on large swaths of the planet .called communism.
a. Imaginary, not only unproven: data is available documenting the deleterious effects. Called communism, socialism, Liberalism, whatever, it responsible for over 100 million slaughtered human beings.
How to explain its endorsement by the Western elites? Simple: it is a religious belief, largely based on a tragic misunderstanding of human nature, and the Lefts inability to confront, or even recognize, evil.
5. To recognize those wedded to this view, simply note who supports the communist inception, the United Nations.
a. "A young American diplomat was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done.
He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later).
At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one. At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.
All of this seemed well and good until three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy...."
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know
It is not communism, one-world government, or the loss of national sovereignty that promises peace and security.
"They are migrating in search of citizenship - which is the principal gift of national
jurisdictions, and the origin of peace, law and stability and prosperity that still prevail
in the West."
Roger Scruton, "A Political Philosophy," p. 5
Beware of a President intent on giving away America's sovereignty.
Methinks PC could be a successful novelist in the genre of Robert Ludlum or Robert Condon, if she had only learned to compose sentences into paragraphs and paragraphs into chapters. Sadly she has sunk to the lowest level, that of a character assassin of the dead, cherry picking only those sources which she believes are probative of conspiracies long past.
Wrong. Conservatives believe in smaller government, less central control, freedom in the marketplace and an armed population to overthrow tyranny. You are 180 degrees out of phase with reality.The Loyalists, also called the Tories, were the Conservatives in America at the time of the revolution.
Liberalism is a relative term. There may be a static definition, but that definition never really applies in the real world since liberalism today has little to no resemblance to the dictionary definition. Afterall liberalism literally demands SMALL governance.
What we have is "American Liberalism".
IMO - American Liberalism means:
1) Large, nanny government that takes from the haves, and gives to the have nots Unfortunately usually without any strings attached. Read: HIGH TAXATION. HIGH SOCIAL COST.
2) Large, ever present government that heavily regulates and controls commerce.
So in essence, a large overbearing government. The exact opposite of liberalism.
And where's the better model? That is, a country that doesn't help its poor people at all, and as a consequence has a better socio-economic condition than we do?
"...That is, a country that doesn't help its poor people at all,...."
It requires a certain kind of fool to suggest that Liberal policies have helped the poor.
What was the percentage in poverty when LBJ began the "war on poverty"?
What is the percentage in poverty today?
You brought it up to make some kind of point. Kennedy was considered a liberal then but wouldn't get the time of day from the modern Democrat party since it's been hijacked by extreme progessives, as evidenced here. Liberal in the 1700's hardly is synonomous with what we have today. Context matters.I'm telling you what MacArthur said. What kind of reason are you using to now say I agree with what every general has said? MacArthur was a conservative, perhaps too conservative even for the Republicans to nominate for president, but he believed as do most historians that the constitution was, in its day, a liberal document.
Liberalism is a relative term. There may be a static definition, but that definition never really applies in the real world since liberalism today has little to no resemblance to the dictionary definition. Afterall liberalism literally demands SMALL governance.
What we have is "American Liberalism".
IMO - American Liberalism means:
1) Large, nanny government that takes from the haves, and gives to the have nots Unfortunately usually without any strings attached. Read: HIGH TAXATION. HIGH SOCIAL COST.
2) Large, ever present government that heavily regulates and controls commerce.
So in essence, a large overbearing government. The exact opposite of liberalism.
And where's the better model? That is, a country that doesn't help its poor people at all, and as a consequence has a better socio-economic condition than we do?
"...That is, a country that doesn't help its poor people at all,...."
It requires a certain kind of fool to suggest that Liberal policies have helped the poor.
What was the percentage in poverty when LBJ began the "war on poverty"?
What is the percentage in poverty today?
And where's the better model? That is, a country that doesn't help its poor people at all, and as a consequence has a better socio-economic condition than we do?
"...That is, a country that doesn't help its poor people at all,...."
It requires a certain kind of fool to suggest that Liberal policies have helped the poor.
What was the percentage in poverty when LBJ began the "war on poverty"?
What is the percentage in poverty today?
I said name the country. What country has ever made itself better by doing nothing for the Poor?
And where's the better model? That is, a country that doesn't help its poor people at all, and as a consequence has a better socio-economic condition than we do?
"...That is, a country that doesn't help its poor people at all,...."
It requires a certain kind of fool to suggest that Liberal policies have helped the poor.
What was the percentage in poverty when LBJ began the "war on poverty"?
What is the percentage in poverty today?
I said name the country. What country has ever made itself better by doing nothing for the Poor?
