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.
Liberals at the federal level are not for the common person.
There aren't many liberals at the federal level. Let's see if you can name any of them.
I think they religiously believe in trickle down. That if you keep throwing money at the wealthy.....eventually something will trickle down
Even though most are not allowed in the country club, they are satisfied that they are at least allowed to park cars
I think there are a number of reasons why those who aren't on the top of the heap would vote for the interests of those who are. Perhaps they've been convinced they have a realistic chance to get there, and want to maximize the pay-off. Perhaps they have self-esteem problems and are subordinating their own interests to those of their "betters." Perhaps -- and I think this is really common -- they get diverted into being angry at some made-up target, like a foreign enemy, or a minority group at home, or "the gub'mint."
All that's just theory, of course, but it's an interesting question, to be sure.
I think they religiously believe in trickle down. That if you keep throwing money at the wealthy.....eventually something will trickle down
Conservatives do love their kings don't they?
Kings, aristocrats, slave-owners, capitalists, and those at the top of the heap generally. Yes. That's what conservatism is all about in a nutshell.
Liberals at the federal level are not for the common person.
There aren't many liberals at the federal level. Let's see if you can name any of them.
That's my point......
If I say Harry Ried...you say he's not a liberal.....but he looks and smells like one.
Another conservative who accomplished a bit:
"As President, he built the Republican Party into a strong national organization. Further, he rallied most of the northern Democrats to the Union cause. On January 1, 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation that declared forever free those slaves within the Confederacy.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Lincoln never let the world forget that the Civil War involved an even larger issue. This he stated most movingly in dedicating the military cemetery at Gettysburg: "that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Lincoln won re-election in 1864, as Union military triumphs heralded an end to the war. In his planning for peace, the President was flexible and generous, encouraging Southerners to lay down their arms and join speedily in reunion. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The spirit that guided him was clearly that of his Second Inaugural Address, now inscribed on one wall of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D. C.: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds.... " [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Abraham Lincoln Biography from Boycottliberalism.com[/FONT]
And this is what makes you such a hypocrite (or drug smoker).
You don't get to parse the qualifications of a "true liberal" all the while calling most anything you don't like conservative.
Conservatives don't care about their kings (like Obama). They care who is mayor (or should).
Please stop making me laugh.
Lincoln was a Republican but far from a conservative
He was a conservative. He declared war on the South because he believed secession was ILLEGAL, and to protect the status quo of the Union.
That's about as conservative as you can get.
Lincoln was a Republican but far from a conservative
Oh?
Did Lincoln push for socialized medicine and government control of industry?
Oh wait, you're just lying again....
Kerry on.
He was a conservative. He declared war on the South because he believed secession was ILLEGAL, and to protect the status quo of the Union.
That's about as conservative as you can get.
You're going to tell me that you're willing to trade what we have now with what they had then?
Well, first I'm going to compliment you on the use of the phrase "...tell me..." rather than the phrase of choice of the fearful little Lefties...the "...tell us..." crowd.
Then, I'm going to point out that you are making a huge bone-head mistake in trying to make your point.
In order for your question to have any meaning you would have to claim that it is impossible to have the current state of technological advancement AND believe in the following:
1. The US Constitution being the law of the land...specifically Article I, section 8.
2. Limited government
3. Checks and balances
4. Federalism
"Upon entering office, the president must solemnly promise that, to the best of his ability, he will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is required by the Constitution, which also says that senators and representatives, and all executive and judicial officers shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.
Far too many of these leaders have taken that oathand then done the opposite! The current president has, to the best of his ability, smeared, ignored and undermined that founding document!
...the seeds of this anti-law thinking were sown a century ago by Woodrow Wilson, who viewed the Constitutions doctrines of limited government as obsolete. Wilson argued that progress and evolution had brought human beings to a place and time where we didnt have to worry about limited government,..."
The Obama Administration vs. the American Constitution - theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
So, is that the trade you have in mind?
I never believed it was.
Ummmm.....Lincoln did control industry,
fought for a strong FEDERAL Government and against States Rights
You're going to tell me that you're willing to trade what we have now with what they had then?
Well, first I'm going to compliment you on the use of the phrase "...tell me..." rather than the phrase of choice of the fearful little Lefties...the "...tell us..." crowd.
Then, I'm going to point out that you are making a huge bone-head mistake in trying to make your point.
In order for your question to have any meaning you would have to claim that it is impossible to have the current state of technological advancement AND believe in the following:
1. The US Constitution being the law of the land...specifically Article I, section 8.
2. Limited government
3. Checks and balances
4. Federalism
"Upon entering office, the president must solemnly promise that, to the best of his ability, he will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is required by the Constitution, which also says that senators and representatives, and all executive and judicial officers shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.
Far too many of these leaders have taken that oathand then done the opposite! The current president has, to the best of his ability, smeared, ignored and undermined that founding document!
...the seeds of this anti-law thinking were sown a century ago by Woodrow Wilson, who viewed the Constitutions doctrines of limited government as obsolete. Wilson argued that progress and evolution had brought human beings to a place and time where we didnt have to worry about limited government,..."
The Obama Administration vs. the American Constitution - theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
So, is that the trade you have in mind?
I never believed it was.
Yes we do need a good Federalists program and law like the Alien Sedetion act of 1798, get real or get to the loom my darling
No, he declared war on the Confederacy after the Confederate troops opened fire on Ft Sumpter.
No, he declared war on the Confederacy after the Confederate troops opened fire on Ft Sumpter.
That federal troops occupied Ft. Sumpter was a declaration of war.
