Reactionaries

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When will liberals learn that there is a difference between 'activity' and 'progress'?

When will conservatives learn to not be afraid of change and the future?

 

[Dutch]

re·ac·tion·ar·y (r-ksh-nr)
adj.
Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.
n. pl. re·ac·tion·ar·ies
An opponent of progress or liberalism; an extreme conservative.

Seems like liberals are using this term correctly. I do not get your point.

reactionary - definition of reactionary by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Only a true idiot would regard the promotion of marxist ideas as "progressive".

There is no "progress" to speak of in North Korea, Cuba, or Laos. The only reason China and Vietnam are becoming prosperous is because they've moved away from it. If libtardism was "progress" the soviets would have liberated us from the clutches of Reagan, not the other way around.

Liberals keep trying to make leftist dogma work. It never has, it never will. Unless you consider gulags, forced famines, and widespread misery "progress".

I don't, so call me a reactionary. It's nothing compared to what I call you bed wetters.

you just shoved Dutch's head into a wooden shoe

You are right he got me. My brain hurts because of the realization that there are people like you and him that might actually produce offspring.

 

[Obamanation]

When will liberals learn that there is a difference between 'activity' and 'progress'?

When will conservatives learn to not be afraid of change and the future?

When liberals learn what "morals" are!

 

[AmazonTania]

re·ac·tion·ar·y (r-ksh-nr)
adj.
Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.
n. pl. re·ac·tion·ar·ies
An opponent of progress or liberalism; an extreme conservative.

Seems like liberals are using this term correctly. I do not get your point.

reactionary - definition of reactionary by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

An opponent of progress or liberalism? I don't see how progressives and liberals can be lumped together. Liberals and Progressives are not the same.

Liberals are someone who will defend your right to free speech. Progressives will defend someone else's right to shut you up, because they find you offensive.

Liberals see the value of the free exchange of ideas. A progressive sees these things as a threat to unity and cohesion.

Liberals do what they believe is right. Progressives do what they believe is correct. There is no right or wrong.

Liberals tend live and let live, as long as people are free. Progressives tend to censor, regulate, tax, control and interfere because Progressives always know what is best for everyone. It's the gift they have. We'll have more equality and fairness, and when we've had all the equity and fairness we could stand, we'll have more equality and fairness whether we like it or not.

Liberals are open to other points of view. To a progressive, there is no other point of view. If you aren't progressive, you somehow must be a far-right republican, and if you take a dim view of Obama's policies you must be a racist.

 

[Pete7469]

re·ac·tion·ar·y (r-ksh-nr)
adj.
Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.
n. pl. re·ac·tion·ar·ies
An opponent of progress or liberalism; an extreme conservative.

Seems like liberals are using this term correctly. I do not get your point.

reactionary - definition of reactionary by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Only a true idiot would regard the promotion of marxist ideas as "progressive".

There is no "progress" to speak of in North Korea, Cuba, or Laos. The only reason China and Vietnam are becoming prosperous is because they've moved away from it. If libtardism was "progress" the soviets would have liberated us from the clutches of Reagan, not the other way around.

Liberals keep trying to make leftist dogma work. It never has, it never will. Unless you consider gulags, forced famines, and widespread misery "progress".

I don't, so call me a reactionary. It's nothing compared to what I call you bed wetters.

you just shoved Dutch's head into a wooden shoe

Thanks, but you had to extract it out of his ass.

 

[Pete7469]

Only a true idiot would regard the promotion of marxist ideas as "progressive".

There is no "progress" to speak of in North Korea, Cuba, or Laos. The only reason China and Vietnam are becoming prosperous is because they've moved away from it. If libtardism was "progress" the soviets would have liberated us from the clutches of Reagan, not the other way around.

Liberals keep trying to make leftist dogma work. It never has, it never will. Unless you consider gulags, forced famines, and widespread misery "progress".

I don't, so call me a reactionary. It's nothing compared to what I call you bed wetters.

you just shoved Dutch's head into a wooden shoe

You are right he got me. My brain hurts because of the realization that there are people like you and him that might actually produce offspring.

It actually makes me optimistic for the future that bed wetters like you will abort your offspring.

 

[Pete7469]

When will liberals learn that there is a difference between 'activity' and 'progress'?

When will conservatives learn to not be afraid of change and the future?

When will you bed wetters learn the simple truth of....

If it ain't broke, don't fucking "fix" it!


Furthermore, like I said on the first page your "change" and "future" has already been tried. It led to hell on earth.

If you want to experience such "change", they're looking for labor in North Korea. Surely your fat ass can survive without food longer than the poor bastards they have in the fields now.

That way you don't have to change anything here. Just change your address asshole, and leave our fucking way of life alone.

 

[NoNukes]

not what I said: I said: "A society with no morals and no ethics is a doomed society."

I would prefer my morals and ethics, but society as a whole decides what standards it lives by. But a society with none will not survive--an "anything goes" society will fail.

Good attempt at a deflection.

addressing the topic at hand is not deflecting

Then address it and quit bullshitting. The topic is that you believe that society should be how you want it to be. If it is different, it must be because more people have different beliefs than similar beliefs than you. Deal with it and quit judging people on your moral standards.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Liberals use this term to describe anyone that they don't like. Do any of you libtards know the meaning of the word?

Reactionary vision of lost America just this side of the wild west...

What rational America fought, bled, and died to end...

 

[M14 Shooter]

There's nothing more reaxtionary than a liberal screaming for more gun control after a school shooting.

 

[editec]

sorry, I left off the cite: What It Means To Be A Reactionary


my point is that the word does not have to have a negative connotation to it. Being opposed to radical liberalism is a positive attribute.

you cite to a source identifying Joe McCarthy as a man of courage. LOL You could not possibly have so destroyed your own thread. This is like the bud light commericial saluting real men of genius.

it always amazes me how you liberals resort to insults rather than address the topic at hand.

The term reactionary is always used by liberals in a negative context, I was just trying to point out that it is not automatically a negative word. "reacting" negatively to radical liberalism is not a negative, it is a positive.

But I guess the whole concept is too complex for you on the left.

What a steaming pile of road apples.



You're an embarrassment to the conservative cause.

 

[Redfish]

you cite to a source identifying Joe McCarthy as a man of courage. LOL You could not possibly have so destroyed your own thread. This is like the bud light commericial saluting real men of genius.

it always amazes me how you liberals resort to insults rather than address the topic at hand.

The term reactionary is always used by liberals in a negative context, I was just trying to point out that it is not automatically a negative word. "reacting" negatively to radical liberalism is not a negative, it is a positive.

But I guess the whole concept is too complex for you on the left.

What a steaming pile of road apples.



You're an embarrassment to the conservative cause.

translation = your argument makes sense, mine does not so I wll resort to name calling like the mentally challenged wimp that I am.

 

[Redfish]

Good attempt at a deflection.

addressing the topic at hand is not deflecting

Then address it and quit bullshitting. The topic is that you believe that society should be how you want it to be. If it is different, it must be because more people have different beliefs than similar beliefs than you. Deal with it and quit judging people on your moral standards.

I believe that any society should be what the majority of the citizens want it to be. The citizens of many past societies have voted for liberalism and those societies no longer exist---If we refuse to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Liberalism, progressivism, marxism, socialism, communism, maoism, leninism, or whatever ism you choose, have never worked, they always fail.

But yet, many like you want to push the USA down the same road to failure. Its really quite pathetic.

 

[Darkwind]

sorry, I left off the cite: What It Means To Be A Reactionary


my point is that the word does not have to have a negative connotation to it. Being opposed to radical liberalism is a positive attribute.

you cite to a source identifying Joe McCarthy as a man of courage. LOL You could not possibly have so destroyed your own thread. This is like the bud light commericial saluting real men of genius.

it always amazes me how you liberals resort to insults rather than address the topic at hand.

The term reactionary is always used by liberals in a negative context, I was just trying to point out that it is not automatically a negative word. "reacting" negatively to radical liberalism is not a negative, it is a positive.

But I guess the whole concept is too complex for you on the left.

It isn't negative at all.

I'll proudly count Myself among the Founding Fathers of this nation, because they too, were reactionaries.

Puts Me in good company.

 

[editec]

When you truly don't know a fucking thing about the subject?

Debate about what words mean.

 

[NoNukes]

addressing the topic at hand is not deflecting

Then address it and quit bullshitting. The topic is that you believe that society should be how you want it to be. If it is different, it must be because more people have different beliefs than similar beliefs than you. Deal with it and quit judging people on your moral standards.

I believe that any society should be what the majority of the citizens want it to be. The citizens of many past societies have voted for liberalism and those societies no longer exist---If we refuse to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Liberalism, progressivism, marxism, socialism, communism, maoism, leninism, or whatever ism you choose, have never worked, they always fail.

But yet, many like you want to push the USA down the same road to failure. Its really quite pathetic.

You really just do not get it. Society is how the majority wants it to be. The majority want Obama to be President. Deal with it and quit crying like a spoiled child.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

When will liberals learn that there is a difference between 'activity' and 'progress'?

When will conservatives learn to not be afraid of change and the future?

When will leftists, being the sissies and control freaks that they are, admit that liberty scares them to death?

Note once again what a two-bit-punk, statist bootlick Jones is, more marginalization and demonization speak. The actual content of the change he has in mind is depravity and tyranny, as if his tripe weren't centuries old, the stuff that has buried many a nation and its people over and over and over again in history. You change is nothing new, you imbecile. Shut up.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

I love when conservatives try to give lessons on language or any intellectual matter because they come across like insane morons.

 

[Cowman]

Liberals use this term to describe anyone that they don't like. Do any of you libtards know the meaning of the word?

Reactionaries are the definition of conservatives. The term was especially widespread back during the liberal revolutions(which changed history for the better, by the way). The reactionaries sought to return back to the previous way of life, which was monarchy and oligarchy.

Reactionaries are anti-progressive... which I guess suits you people just fine since you say you hate progressives. The thing is, you're on the wrong side of history.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

sorry, I left off the cite: What It Means To Be A Reactionary


my point is that the word does not have to have a negative connotation to it. Being opposed to radical liberalism is a positive attribute.

you cite to a source identifying Joe McCarthy as a man of courage. LOL You could not possibly have so destroyed your own thread. This is like the bud light commericial saluting real men of genius.

it always amazes me how you liberals resort to insults rather than address the topic at hand.

The term reactionary is always used by liberals in a negative context, I was just trying to point out that it is not automatically a negative word. "reacting" negatively to radical liberalism is not a negative, it is a positive.

But I guess the whole concept is too complex for you on the left.

And correctly so.

History has proven that reactionaries invariably fail in their effort to stop change and compel a given society to return to an idealized past. The connotation is appropriately negative because reactionary policies often involve repressive measures against a minority seeking change and equality in a repressive conservative society, such as the right’s desire to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

Reactionaryism is negative because it involves giving into fear and ignorance, where often a conservative social group perceives change as a threat to its power, privilege, and authority to influence society to its advantage.

Reactionaryism is a religious context is just as detrimental to society. A religious majority will often incorrectly perceive social change as a threat to its ‘morals’ and ‘values,’ resulting in the inane notion that a loss of such subjective ‘morals’ and ‘values’ will somehow harm society, where in fact conservatives, for the most part, fear the loss of a powerful social and political institution under their control.

Reactionaryism is inherently dangerous, as it poses a threat to a society’s need to evolve and progress.