Progressives unable to get out of their own way

[koshergrl]

It seems Republicans rarely bring up Lincoln as a Republican, if true, I wonder why that is?

Because the controlling faction of the GOP today comes the John Birch Society who was shunned by the old GOP as being way too ultra right wing. They are the ones that coined the phrase "Rino" for the old guard who still exists today in the GOP. It's not the "Rino's" that are Republican in name only, but the ones that seized control from the John Birch Society. Take a good look at the mess it's made.

Good grief.... really?

Don't bother to look anything up. Just go ahead and take the word of dumbasses.

 

[koshergrl]

It seems Republicans rarely bring up Lincoln as a Republican, if true, I wonder why that is?

We bring him up all the time, you nutcase.

Why?

I thought you were pretending we didn't bring him up?
Deflecting? Or just lying?

I just don't see many references to Lincoln in conservative posts. A poster disagreed and said they bring him up all the time, and if so, I wondered what was the purpose?

What is the purpose of asserting that they don't? Obviously you don't know, why would you lie about that?

 

[regent]

It seems Republicans rarely bring up Lincoln as a Republican, if true, I wonder why that is?

We bring him up all the time, you nutcase.

Why?

I thought you were pretending we didn't bring him up?
Deflecting? Or just lying?

I just don't see many references to Lincoln in conservative posts. A poster disagreed and said they bring him up all the time, and if so, I wondered what was the purpose?

What is the purpose of asserting that they don't? Obviously you don't know, why would you lie about that?

It seems liberals bring up FDR on a regular basis and conservatives, Lincoln, rarely. So, I wonder what is the attitude of conservatives toward Lincoln?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Let's take a look at Webster's definition of both terms.

Progressive: happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.

conservative: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Yes....lets do that. Lets take a look at the definition of both terms. You will see that they contradict each other. One is all about proceeding, one is all about holding. Again, just like saying "free market communist".

Now, let's combine both.

Oh sure! Why not? While you're at it, why don't you combine wet and dry.

Being cautious to change doesn't mean that you won't do change. The Consitution was written to promote new ideas. It's a fluid document.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We bring him up all the time, you nutcase.

Why?

I thought you were pretending we didn't bring him up?
Deflecting? Or just lying?

I just don't see many references to Lincoln in conservative posts. A poster disagreed and said they bring him up all the time, and if so, I wondered what was the purpose?

What is the purpose of asserting that they don't? Obviously you don't know, why would you lie about that?

It seems liberals bring up FDR on a regular basis and conservatives, Lincoln, rarely. So, I wonder what is the attitude of conservatives toward Lincoln?

Bringing up Lincoln would defeat them from using Progressive like it was a poison. The GOP change drastically after Nixon.

 

[koshergrl]

Let's take a look at Webster's definition of both terms.

Progressive: happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.

conservative: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Yes....lets do that. Lets take a look at the definition of both terms. You will see that they contradict each other. One is all about proceeding, one is all about holding. Again, just like saying "free market communist".

Now, let's combine both.

Oh sure! Why not? While you're at it, why don't you combine wet and dry.

Being cautious to change doesn't mean that you won't do change. The Consitution was written to promote new ideas. It's a fluid document.

No, it's not a "fluid document" you fucking moron. That's what all the anti-Constitutional, anti-American douchebags say.

We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. That means the CONSTITUTION IS THE LAW.

The law is not "fluid". And until we are no longer a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, the CONSTITUTION remains the law of the land.

It can be changed, though for the most part the changes have been illegally pushed through by corrupt and out of control progressive judges, who recognize that once they get stuff in there, it's extremely difficult to pull it out, because THEY KNOW the CONSTITUTION is not meant to be a fluid document, and as such, what is in there is pretty much set in stone, until the commies manage to overthrow our current government.

Which you almost did! But because you're such imbecilic criminals (all criminals are stupid, no matter how smart they think they are...and thus they are always fated to fail) you FAILED.

The Constitution was not written to "promote new ideas". That is also a fucking progressive lie, you lying piece of shit. The Constitution was written as the absolute framework upon which we built our nation, and the IDEAS espoused by the same were not *new* at all, but were based upon the basic tenets of the NEW TESTAMENT...which is that all men are created equal, and freedom is an innate and God-given RIGHT that our Government was charged to protect. Via the CONSTITUTION.

 

[koshergrl]

I think the teachers who teach our kids this bullshit should be shot. I'm not kidding. It should be a fucking crime to teach students garbage about the foundation of our nation.

 

[koshergrl]

We bring him up all the time, you nutcase.

Why?

I thought you were pretending we didn't bring him up?
Deflecting? Or just lying?

I just don't see many references to Lincoln in conservative posts. A poster disagreed and said they bring him up all the time, and if so, I wondered what was the purpose?

What is the purpose of asserting that they don't? Obviously you don't know, why would you lie about that?

It seems liberals bring up FDR on a regular basis and conservatives, Lincoln, rarely. So, I wonder what is the attitude of conservatives toward Lincoln?

Lincoln wasn't a conservative. Lincoln was a Republican.

Generally, you will see Lincoln referenced by conservatives when some poorly educated Dem rube calls right wingers "racists" and we are obliged to school them, again and forever, on history. In doing so, we remind them that Lincoln was Republican, that the abolitionists were all Christian and primarily Republican, that Republicans seated the first black judge, that Republicans placed the first black secretary of state (who was also female)....

It gets brought up in that context.

Why?

 

[P@triot]

The Consitution was written to promote new ideas. It's a fluid document.

It's not a "fluid" document at all. It is the supreme law of the land and the law cannot be "fluid". A law that change on the whim of someone in power is a law that a citizen cannot obey.

The U.S. Constitution is set in stone until such time as it is properly and legally amend. Then that new version becomes set in stone.

 

[P@triot]

Let's take a look at Webster's definition of both terms.

Progressive: happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.

conservative: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Yes....lets do that. Lets take a look at the definition of both terms. You will see that they contradict each other. One is all about proceeding, one is all about holding. Again, just like saying "free market communist".

Being cautious to change doesn't mean that you won't do change.

But holding does mean one is not proceeding

 

[regent]

The Consitution was written to promote new ideas. It's a fluid document.

It's not a "fluid" document at all. It is the supreme law of the land and the law cannot be "fluid". A law that change on the whim of someone in power is a law that a citizen cannot obey.

The U.S. Constitution is set in stone until such time as it is properly and legally amend. Then that new version becomes set in stone.

The law changes through custom, usage and judicial interpretation. In fact most law schools teach little of the Constitution only what the courts have decided is the law.

 

[P@triot]

Bringing up Lincoln would defeat them from using Progressive like it was a poison. The GOP change drastically after Nixon.

Ah...now we see why you are making stuff up. Progressivism is a poison. You can't convince people otherwise by attempting to proclaim it is "right-wing".

 

[P@triot]

The law changes through custom, usage and judicial interpretation. In fact most law schools teach little of the Constitution only what the courts have decided is the law.

No it doesn't. That's like proclaiming the speed limit changes based on how many people speed.

 

[P@triot]

The law changes through custom, usage and judicial interpretation. In fact most law schools teach little of the Constitution only what the courts have decided is the law.

 

[koshergrl]

The Consitution was written to promote new ideas. It's a fluid document.

It's not a "fluid" document at all. It is the supreme law of the land and the law cannot be "fluid". A law that change on the whim of someone in power is a law that a citizen cannot obey.

The U.S. Constitution is set in stone until such time as it is properly and legally amend. Then that new version becomes set in stone.

The law changes through custom, usage and judicial interpretation. In fact most law schools teach little of the Constitution only what the courts have decided is the law.

That is why we need to withdraw all federal funding from our schools, eliminate the department of education, and fire communist teachers.

 

[koshergrl]

And it is actually against the law for judges to "change" law.

That is why we need to replace all our progressive judges with law abiding judges.

 

[regent]

The Consitution was written to promote new ideas. It's a fluid document.

It's not a "fluid" document at all. It is the supreme law of the land and the law cannot be "fluid". A law that change on the whim of someone in power is a law that a citizen cannot obey.

The U.S. Constitution is set in stone until such time as it is properly and legally amend. Then that new version becomes set in stone.

The law changes through custom, usage and judicial interpretation. In fact most law schools teach little of the Constitution only what the courts have decided is the law.

That is why we need to withdraw all federal funding from our schools, eliminate the department of education, and fire communist teachers.

Should Marshall have said this? "The Constitution is intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crisis in human affairs. The key word is adapted.

 

[koshergrl]

The Consitution was written to promote new ideas. It's a fluid document.

It's not a "fluid" document at all. It is the supreme law of the land and the law cannot be "fluid". A law that change on the whim of someone in power is a law that a citizen cannot obey.

The U.S. Constitution is set in stone until such time as it is properly and legally amend. Then that new version becomes set in stone.

The law changes through custom, usage and judicial interpretation. In fact most law schools teach little of the Constitution only what the courts have decided is the law.

That is why we need to withdraw all federal funding from our schools, eliminate the department of education, and fire communist teachers.

Should Marshall have said this? "The Constitution is intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crisis in human affairs. The key word is adapted.

Nope, it's not.

Or..let's do it this way...find in the constitution where it states this.

You can't, because it doesn't state that. Because that was not and is not the purpose of the Constitution, nor was it the intent of the founders, who were nothing if not verbose. If that was the INTENT then you'd be able to find that written into the Constitution.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Progressives unable to get out of their own way

how can they not get in their own way

when they have their heads so far up their asses

--LOL

 

[regent]

The Consitution was written to promote new ideas. It's a fluid document.

It's not a "fluid" document at all. It is the supreme law of the land and the law cannot be "fluid". A law that change on the whim of someone in power is a law that a citizen cannot obey.

The U.S. Constitution is set in stone until such time as it is properly and legally amend. Then that new version becomes set in stone.

The law changes through custom, usage and judicial interpretation. In fact most law schools teach little of the Constitution only what the courts have decided is the law.

That is why we need to withdraw all federal funding from our schools, eliminate the department of education, and fire communist teachers.

Should Marshall have said this? "The Constitution is intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crisis in human affairs. The key word is adapted.

Nope, it's not.

Or..let's do it this way...find in the constitution where it states this.

You can't, because it doesn't state that. Because that was not and is not the purpose of the Constitution, nor was it the intent of the founders, who were nothing if not verbose. If that was the INTENT then you'd be able to find that written into the Constitution.

The framers could not have possibly put into the Constitution every situation that might occur in the future, and that is why it had to adapted and still is. Where for example does the Constitution authorize the Bank of the United States?