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.
Everytime they try to do something. They just don't agree with your debased definition of forward. Conservatives want change NOW because government is too big and oppressive. Exactly what the founders rebelled against. Your theory about conservativism is based on ideological ignorance.It is truly amazing how much stupidity you manage to cram into your post. IF Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and others were conservatives do you really think they would have pushed for change. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW CONSERVATIVES PUSH TO MOVE THIS COUNTRY FORWARD?
When was the last time you saw the conservatives push for change? Have they pushed for change for Blacks? How about Hispanics? How about for those without medical insurance? How about for gays? What about equal pay for women or women's rights? What about those who need jobs? Nada! Nothing! Zero! Zip!
Blah blah blah. If we don't goosestep towards socialism we aren't for progress. What an idiot.The conservatives of yesterday and today live by the same creed: There shall be NO change. That is the basic tenet of conservatism. Don't believe me? List all the new laws and bills that the House has put forward advocating change that will move this country forward. Have they provided a jobs bill? A different or better health care bill? An immigration bill? A bill to extend SNAP benefits? An extension of the bill to aid the unemployed? Other than to vote to repeal ACA over and over and over and to give themselves 2/3 of the year on vacation, exactly when have they tried to move this country forward. THEY HAVEN'T!
The only reason there is a USA is because the liberals of yesterday, Washington, Jefferson, et al, wanted change! They wanted to control their own lives and they did not want England to stand in their way. That is not the action of a conservative, THAT IS THE ACTION OF A LIBERAL.
Liberals don't have much use for independent governments so it's a swing and a miss.Conservatives supported the King of England at that time. They considered everyone who wanted independence to be traitors. They were opposed to the people having the right to set up their own independent government. Conservatives would have hanged all of the liberals like Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, et al.
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.
"Methinks..."
Truly, a misapplied sentiment in your case.
If you had the ability to think, would you have forwarded an OP none of which you've responded to in any way.
On the other hand...I do so love posts with me as the central reference.
Don't stop now.
Wait....did you say 'a character assassin'???
If you are suggesting that you are a man of character you are suggesting a fact not in evidence.
And....tomorrow being the birthday of Edmond Rostand, let me apply one of Cyrano's remarks, as it is appropriate:
You are hardly a man of letters, as the only such letters are the ones that make up your name: A-S-S
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.
To you, liberal is always good. Never bad.
It's why you self-identify as a liberal.
I got a newsflash for you, toadie boy.
You have no clue what you're talking about. None of you libturds do.
You're incredibly stupid people being lead around by the noses by people whose only goal is to empower themselves and to thereby enrich themselves.
When Conservatives and other Patriotic Americans want to enrich ourselves, we contribute something worthwhile that people want.
You? All you people know how to do is steal money. It's all you do. It's all you got.
It's why you're always bitching about your betters and those who make more money than you.... You want to steal it.
You're a thief. Your words hide the character of the thief.
To you, liberal is always good. Never bad.
It's why you self-identify as a liberal.
I got a newsflash for you, toadie boy.
You have no clue what you're talking about. None of you libturds do.
You're incredibly stupid people being lead around by the noses by people whose only goal is to empower themselves and to thereby enrich themselves.
When Conservatives and other Patriotic Americans want to enrich ourselves, we contribute something worthwhile that people want.
You? All you people know how to do is steal money. It's all you do. It's all you got.
It's why you're always bitching about your betters and those who make more money than you.... You want to steal it.
You're a thief. Your words hide the character of the thief.
^^^an excellent example of more is less. There are no posts by Edgetho in which his/her opinions are in any manner supported by evidence, they are nearly all self evidently ridiculous and what better place to post such calumny then in a thread posted by PC.
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.
"Methinks..."
Truly, a misapplied sentiment in your case.
If you had the ability to think, would you have forwarded an OP none of which you've responded to in any way.
On the other hand...I do so love posts with me as the central reference.
Don't stop now.
Wait....did you say 'a character assassin'???
If you are suggesting that you are a man of character you are suggesting a fact not in evidence.
And....tomorrow being the birthday of Edmond Rostand, let me apply one of Cyrano's remarks, as it is appropriate:
You are hardly a man of letters, as the only such letters are the ones that make up your name: A-S-S
Let's see, she begins with an ad hominem, fills the middle with more personal attacks and ends with an ad hominem.
A fine example of more is less.
Conservatives supported the King? Don't you mean the Tories did? Or the Loyalists?You are the citizen of a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals. You are free to leave if you like? That's part of the Liberty idea they believed in.
Need boxes?
And you're just stupid.
Liberals did in fact NOT found this country. Big fat difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.
Conservatives supported the King of England at that time. They considered everyone who wanted independence to be traitors. They were opposed to the people having the right to set up their own independent government. Conservatives would have hanged all of the liberals like Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, et al.
Jefferson especially was at odds with Adams. Adams was probably the closest that would come to a modern liberal, a lawyer that signed the Alien and Sedition Act into law while a Federalist president, largely to hurt Republicans.And Jefferson was not of the same mind as Washington or Hamilton. Federalists and Republicans were the reason for the intense faction and angst of the 1790s.
I'm absolutely amazed at the ignorance of leftists. It boggles the mind.
As presidents from the founding era went, Adams was the farthest to the left.Jefferson especially was at odds with Adams. Adams was probably the closest that would come to a modern liberal, a lawyer that signed the Alien and Sedition Act into law while a Federalist president, largely to hurt Republicans.And Jefferson was not of the same mind as Washington or Hamilton. Federalists and Republicans were the reason for the intense faction and angst of the 1790s.
I'm absolutely amazed at the ignorance of leftists. It boggles the mind.
Conservatives supported the King? Don't you mean the Tories did? Or the Loyalists?And you're just stupid.
Liberals did in fact NOT found this country. Big fat difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.
Conservatives supported the King of England at that time. They considered everyone who wanted independence to be traitors. They were opposed to the people having the right to set up their own independent government. Conservatives would have hanged all of the liberals like Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, et al.
And Jefferson was not of the same mind as Washington or Hamilton. Federalists and Republicans were the reason for the intense faction and angst of the 1790s.
I'm absolutely amazed at the ignorance of leftists. It boggles the mind.
They were radicals but nothing like the occupiers. One was for freedom from tyranny, the other calls insufficient funding tyranny.Washington, Hamilton, Adams and Jefferson were radicals, each would have been hung by the British for their support of the Revolution. Later, after the Constitution and beginning with the split between Adams and Jefferson did we see the real "intense faction and angst" which coalesced during Washington's Administration.
Our use of "Conservative" and "Liberal" today have no bearing on the politics of the late 18th Century. In fact the radicals of that era may have more in common with OWS or the radical environmentalists of our time, both of whom it seems reject both major political parties of today.
They were radicals but nothing like the occupiers. One was for freedom from tyranny, the other calls insufficient funding tyranny.Washington, Hamilton, Adams and Jefferson were radicals, each would have been hung by the British for their support of the Revolution. Later, after the Constitution and beginning with the split between Adams and Jefferson did we see the real "intense faction and angst" which coalesced during Washington's Administration.
Our use of "Conservative" and "Liberal" today have no bearing on the politics of the late 18th Century. In fact the radicals of that era may have more in common with OWS or the radical environmentalists of our time, both of whom it seems reject both major political parties of today.
When was that distinction made, other than in your deluded noggin? They were all deadbeats looking to nurse off of someone else's pocketbook. They weren't treated unfairly by anybody and living in feces coated urban campgrounds and harassing people wasn't going to change anything. I was crying out for water canons, like the Europeans do. It would have sanitized the area a bit as well.The OWS movement was of two kinds, the majority wanted fair treatment from the Banks and Insurance Industry and to bring their crimes to the nations attention, and the small minority were vandals and bored street people looking for god knows what. Comporting them as one and the same is dishonest or abject ignorance.
Liberals don't have much use for independent governments so it's a swing and a miss.Conservatives supported the King of England at that time. They considered everyone who wanted independence to be traitors. They were opposed to the people having the right to set up their own independent government. Conservatives would have hanged all of the liberals like Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, et al.
Conservatives supported the King? Don't you mean the Tories did? Or the Loyalists?And you're just stupid.
Liberals did in fact NOT found this country. Big fat difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.
Conservatives supported the King of England at that time. They considered everyone who wanted independence to be traitors. They were opposed to the people having the right to set up their own independent government. Conservatives would have hanged all of the liberals like Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, et al.
And Jefferson was not of the same mind as Washington or Hamilton. Federalists and Republicans were the reason for the intense faction and angst of the 1790s.
I'm absolutely amazed at the ignorance of leftists. It boggles the mind.
It went over your head. Don't blame me.Liberals don't have much use for independent governments so it's a swing and a miss.Conservatives supported the King of England at that time. They considered everyone who wanted independence to be traitors. They were opposed to the people having the right to set up their own independent government. Conservatives would have hanged all of the liberals like Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, et al.
Ironic!
You utterly failed to refute my point so the only "swing and a miss" is yours!
Ironic since you think so.Ironic given that you don't know that tories/loyalists are just other names for conservatives.
Ironic since you think so.Ironic given that you don't know that tories/loyalists are just other names for conservatives.
Ironic since you think so.Ironic given that you don't know that tories/loyalists are just other names for conservatives.
America was once part of that kingdom.
