Why Conservative Is Simply Better....

[Bfgrn]

In less than five minutes, Greg Gutfeld explains why Conservative is simply better for the individual, and for society, than Liberal

And, by investing the five minutes in this vid...you get course credit in Prager University.....




Why the Right is Right - Prager University

Prager University...a.k.a. sound bite college for the ADHD crowd...Pure simple minded propaganda meant for the parrots...

In reply to the video's false premise...

There would be no America to protect without liberalism. It was the most liberal men of their day who took the HUGE risk to create this nation.

Your video unwittingly PROVES that point...

So when a conservative asks why you are a liberal, tell them "so you conservatives have a free nation to live in"


"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

1. Remember when I said this, in post #663...
"Probably the second greatest lie that Liberals tell, second only to the one about the Founders being Liberals."

Well....you just proved it with this:
"There would be no America to protect without liberalism. It was the most liberal men of their day who took the HUGE risk to create this nation."



2. The fact is that communist John Dewey had the Socialist Party steal the name 'Liberal" because of how much the public hated the Socialists/Progressives...

a. Democrats (Progressives) were thoroughly rejected by the voters in the election of 1920:
“The United States presidential election of 1920 was dominated by the aftermath of World War I and the hostile reaction to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president. Harding's victory remains the largest popular-vote percentage margin (60.3% to 34.1%) in Presidential elections after the so-called "Era of Good Feelings" ended with the victory of James Monroe in the election of 1820. ” United States presidential election, 1920 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


b. “In the 1920 election, he and his running-mate, Calvin Coolidge, defeated Democrat and fellow Ohioan James M. Cox, in what was then the largest presidential popular vote landslide in American history since the popular vote tally began to be recorded in 1824: 60.36% to 34.19%.”Warren G. Harding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



3. Let's really rub your face in it:
This is what the Founders, conservatives, classical liberals believed: a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Which of you socialists, progressives, Democrats, Nazis, communists, fascists, etc. subscribe to same?

None.

Obfuscation alert...

Direct question...were our founding fathers risk takers?

If so...our founding fathers were not conservatives...

From YOUR OP video...

There have been a bunch of academic studies on how those on the Left and Right approach problems. They pretty much all come to the same conclusion. The Right tends to be risk averse, more concerned about external threats like tyranny and terror. Conservatives -- get this -- tend to be conservative. They are less likely to play with fire, in just about every sense: financially, artistically, sexually. They are cautious about changing traditions (sometimes to a fault)

Your OP PROVES our founding fathers were liberals...

Consider the American Revolution. Conservatives were against it! Yes, they were the "Party of No" back then, too. Remember that the definition of a conservative is one who wishes to "conserve," promote, preserve and/or restore traditional "values," hierarchies and institutions. True to form, in 1776 they wanted no part of breaking away from English tradition and their much-beloved British monarchy. They liked being the king's subjects. These conservatives were called "Tories", the name still used for the Conservative Party in England. Another name for them back then was "the King's Men." The British King's Men in America... ah, so telling of their true traitorous nature. So conservatives started off on the wrong side of American history, and that's where they've been ever since.

After the war, many disgusted conservatives fled America, heading back to Britain, or to Canada or the Caribbean.


Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conservatism is simply better because you don't need facts, you don't need the truth, you don't need anything like that.

All you need are words which are easy for people to understand.

Instead of giving difficult reasons for invading Iraq, you make simple reasons, so simple people can understand. That is why conservatism is better.

"Conservatism is simply better because you don't need facts, you don't need the truth,..."

Really?


As you didn't include any of my posts that were not factual, accurate, truthful....

.....you must be a Liberal liar.

Or is that redundant.

Your post have been shown to be distorted and manipulated into lies all through this thread. Your source of a make believe university, Prager , is a non accredited gimmick created by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager. If you used this source in an academic setting you would receive a failing grade and be scolded by your professors.

Did you miss this?

First...Henry Morgenthau destroying any belief that Roosevelt's policies did anything.....anything...but extend the depression:

1. Now, listen, I've listened to this Harry - now this thing has been tried for seven successive years, and we ' ve still got twelve million unemployed. I want to point out - you're all Just as much interested in Mr. Roosevelt as I am - before you launch this thing, I think you're opening yourselves to an attack that we' ve had seven years of deficits, seven years of increasing the thing, and we're just where we were seven years ago."
Morgenthau, 1939
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resources/images/morg/md0241.pdf
page 64




2. "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."
Morgenthau, Henry, Jr. (May 9, 1939).Henry Morgenthau Diary, Microfilm Roll #50(PDF, 1.9 MB).
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.



And now Arthur Schlesinger, jr, noted Liberal historian.....with the same message:

3. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .



Oh....and btw....this Liberal organ:


4. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
http://www.aei.org/article/26390


Really destroyed you, huh?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Conservatism is simply better because you don't need facts, you don't need the truth, you don't need anything like that.

All you need are words which are easy for people to understand.

Instead of giving difficult reasons for invading Iraq, you make simple reasons, so simple people can understand. That is why conservatism is better.

"Conservatism is simply better because you don't need facts, you don't need the truth,..."

Really?


As you didn't include any of my posts that were not factual, accurate, truthful....

.....you must be a Liberal liar.

Or is that redundant.

Your post have been shown to be distorted and manipulated into lies all through this thread. Your source of a make believe university, Prager , is a non accredited gimmick created by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager. If you used this source in an academic setting you would receive a failing grade and be scolded by your professors.

Did you miss this?

First...Henry Morgenthau destroying any belief that Roosevelt's policies did anything.....anything...but extend the depression:

1. Now, listen, I've listened to this Harry - now this thing has been tried for seven successive years, and we ' ve still got twelve million unemployed. I want to point out - you're all Just as much interested in Mr. Roosevelt as I am - before you launch this thing, I think you're opening yourselves to an attack that we' ve had seven years of deficits, seven years of increasing the thing, and we're just where we were seven years ago."
Morgenthau, 1939
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resources/images/morg/md0241.pdf
page 64




2. "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."
Morgenthau, Henry, Jr. (May 9, 1939).Henry Morgenthau Diary, Microfilm Roll #50(PDF, 1.9 MB).
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.



And now Arthur Schlesinger, jr, noted Liberal historian.....with the same message:

3. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .



Oh....and btw....this Liberal organ:


4. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
article - AEI


Really destroyed you, huh?

Like I said, I didn't read your posts, and I'm not going to read this either. It doesn't look interesting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conservatism is simply better because you don't need facts, you don't need the truth, you don't need anything like that.

All you need are words which are easy for people to understand.

Instead of giving difficult reasons for invading Iraq, you make simple reasons, so simple people can understand. That is why conservatism is better.

"Conservatism is simply better because you don't need facts, you don't need the truth,..."

Really?


As you didn't include any of my posts that were not factual, accurate, truthful....

.....you must be a Liberal liar.

Or is that redundant.

Getting attention deficit disorder or something? I didn't include your posts because I didn't read your posts. Happy now?

Why would I be happy?

My role here is education....

....I'm certainly not happy when folks like you prove ineducable.


But....truth be told, you read 'em,,,,,but have no answer to 'em.

 

[Bfgrn]

Your post have been shown to be distorted and manipulated into lies all through this thread. Your source of a make believe university, Prager , is a non accredited gimmick created by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager. If you used this source in an academic setting you would receive a failing grade and be scolded by your professors.

From the OP site...

* Prager University is not an accredited academic institution
and does not offer certifications or diplomas.
But it is a place where you are free to learn.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In less than five minutes, Greg Gutfeld explains why Conservative is simply better for the individual, and for society, than Liberal

And, by investing the five minutes in this vid...you get course credit in Prager University.....




Why the Right is Right - Prager University

Prager University...a.k.a. sound bite college for the ADHD crowd...Pure simple minded propaganda meant for the parrots...

In reply to the video's false premise...

There would be no America to protect without liberalism. It was the most liberal men of their day who took the HUGE risk to create this nation.

Your video unwittingly PROVES that point...

So when a conservative asks why you are a liberal, tell them "so you conservatives have a free nation to live in"


"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

1. Remember when I said this, in post #663...
"Probably the second greatest lie that Liberals tell, second only to the one about the Founders being Liberals."

Well....you just proved it with this:
"There would be no America to protect without liberalism. It was the most liberal men of their day who took the HUGE risk to create this nation."



2. The fact is that communist John Dewey had the Socialist Party steal the name 'Liberal" because of how much the public hated the Socialists/Progressives...

a. Democrats (Progressives) were thoroughly rejected by the voters in the election of 1920:
“The United States presidential election of 1920 was dominated by the aftermath of World War I and the hostile reaction to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president. Harding's victory remains the largest popular-vote percentage margin (60.3% to 34.1%) in Presidential elections after the so-called "Era of Good Feelings" ended with the victory of James Monroe in the election of 1820. ” United States presidential election, 1920 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


b. “In the 1920 election, he and his running-mate, Calvin Coolidge, defeated Democrat and fellow Ohioan James M. Cox, in what was then the largest presidential popular vote landslide in American history since the popular vote tally began to be recorded in 1824: 60.36% to 34.19%.”Warren G. Harding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



3. Let's really rub your face in it:
This is what the Founders, conservatives, classical liberals believed: a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Which of you socialists, progressives, Democrats, Nazis, communists, fascists, etc. subscribe to same?

None.

Obfuscation alert...

Direct question...were our founding fathers risk takers?

If so...our founding fathers were not conservatives...

From YOUR OP video...

There have been a bunch of academic studies on how those on the Left and Right approach problems. They pretty much all come to the same conclusion. The Right tends to be risk averse, more concerned about external threats like tyranny and terror. Conservatives -- get this -- tend to be conservative. They are less likely to play with fire, in just about every sense: financially, artistically, sexually. They are cautious about changing traditions (sometimes to a fault)

Your OP PROVES our founding fathers were liberals...

Consider the American Revolution. Conservatives were against it! Yes, they were the "Party of No" back then, too. Remember that the definition of a conservative is one who wishes to "conserve," promote, preserve and/or restore traditional "values," hierarchies and institutions. True to form, in 1776 they wanted no part of breaking away from English tradition and their much-beloved British monarchy. They liked being the king's subjects. These conservatives were called "Tories", the name still used for the Conservative Party in England. Another name for them back then was "the King's Men." The British King's Men in America... ah, so telling of their true traitorous nature. So conservatives started off on the wrong side of American history, and that's where they've been ever since.

After the war, many disgusted conservatives fled America, heading back to Britain, or to Canada or the Caribbean.


Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Trying to run and hide???

In the words of Chazz Palminteri, "Now youse can't leave." I lower the portcullis...

This is what the Founders, conservatives, classical liberals believed: a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Which of you socialists, progressives, Democrats, Nazis, communists, fascists, etc. subscribe to same?

How about you try to answer?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conservatism is simply better because you don't need facts, you don't need the truth, you don't need anything like that.

All you need are words which are easy for people to understand.

Instead of giving difficult reasons for invading Iraq, you make simple reasons, so simple people can understand. That is why conservatism is better.

"Conservatism is simply better because you don't need facts, you don't need the truth,..."

Really?


As you didn't include any of my posts that were not factual, accurate, truthful....

.....you must be a Liberal liar.

Or is that redundant.

Your post have been shown to be distorted and manipulated into lies all through this thread. Your source of a make believe university, Prager , is a non accredited gimmick created by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager. If you used this source in an academic setting you would receive a failing grade and be scolded by your professors.

Did you miss this?

First...Henry Morgenthau destroying any belief that Roosevelt's policies did anything.....anything...but extend the depression:

1. Now, listen, I've listened to this Harry - now this thing has been tried for seven successive years, and we ' ve still got twelve million unemployed. I want to point out - you're all Just as much interested in Mr. Roosevelt as I am - before you launch this thing, I think you're opening yourselves to an attack that we' ve had seven years of deficits, seven years of increasing the thing, and we're just where we were seven years ago."
Morgenthau, 1939
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resources/images/morg/md0241.pdf
page 64




2. "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."
Morgenthau, Henry, Jr. (May 9, 1939).Henry Morgenthau Diary, Microfilm Roll #50(PDF, 1.9 MB).
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.



And now Arthur Schlesinger, jr, noted Liberal historian.....with the same message:

3. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .



Oh....and btw....this Liberal organ:


4. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
article - AEI


Really destroyed you, huh?

Like I said, I didn't read your posts, and I'm not going to read this either. It doesn't look interesting.

So....you're the one in the middle?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

PC is unable to understand the difference between fact and opinion.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In less than five minutes, Greg Gutfeld explains why Conservative is simply better for the individual, and for society, than Liberal

And, by investing the five minutes in this vid...you get course credit in Prager University.....




Why the Right is Right - Prager University

Prager University...a.k.a. sound bite college for the ADHD crowd...Pure simple minded propaganda meant for the parrots...

In reply to the video's false premise...

There would be no America to protect without liberalism. It was the most liberal men of their day who took the HUGE risk to create this nation.

Your video unwittingly PROVES that point...

So when a conservative asks why you are a liberal, tell them "so you conservatives have a free nation to live in"


"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

1. Remember when I said this, in post #663...
"Probably the second greatest lie that Liberals tell, second only to the one about the Founders being Liberals."

Well....you just proved it with this:
"There would be no America to protect without liberalism. It was the most liberal men of their day who took the HUGE risk to create this nation."



2. The fact is that communist John Dewey had the Socialist Party steal the name 'Liberal" because of how much the public hated the Socialists/Progressives...

a. Democrats (Progressives) were thoroughly rejected by the voters in the election of 1920:
“The United States presidential election of 1920 was dominated by the aftermath of World War I and the hostile reaction to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president. Harding's victory remains the largest popular-vote percentage margin (60.3% to 34.1%) in Presidential elections after the so-called "Era of Good Feelings" ended with the victory of James Monroe in the election of 1820. ” United States presidential election, 1920 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


b. “In the 1920 election, he and his running-mate, Calvin Coolidge, defeated Democrat and fellow Ohioan James M. Cox, in what was then the largest presidential popular vote landslide in American history since the popular vote tally began to be recorded in 1824: 60.36% to 34.19%.”Warren G. Harding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



3. Let's really rub your face in it:
This is what the Founders, conservatives, classical liberals believed: a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Which of you socialists, progressives, Democrats, Nazis, communists, fascists, etc. subscribe to same?

None.

Obfuscation alert...

Direct question...were our founding fathers risk takers?

If so...our founding fathers were not conservatives...

From YOUR OP video...

There have been a bunch of academic studies on how those on the Left and Right approach problems. They pretty much all come to the same conclusion. The Right tends to be risk averse, more concerned about external threats like tyranny and terror. Conservatives -- get this -- tend to be conservative. They are less likely to play with fire, in just about every sense: financially, artistically, sexually. They are cautious about changing traditions (sometimes to a fault)

Your OP PROVES our founding fathers were liberals...

Consider the American Revolution. Conservatives were against it! Yes, they were the "Party of No" back then, too. Remember that the definition of a conservative is one who wishes to "conserve," promote, preserve and/or restore traditional "values," hierarchies and institutions. True to form, in 1776 they wanted no part of breaking away from English tradition and their much-beloved British monarchy. They liked being the king's subjects. These conservatives were called "Tories", the name still used for the Conservative Party in England. Another name for them back then was "the King's Men." The British King's Men in America... ah, so telling of their true traitorous nature. So conservatives started off on the wrong side of American history, and that's where they've been ever since.

After the war, many disgusted conservatives fled America, heading back to Britain, or to Canada or the Caribbean.


Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Trying to run and hide???

In the words of Chazz Palminteri, "Now youse can't leave." I lower the portcullis...

This is what the Founders, conservatives, classical liberals believed: a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Which of you socialists, progressives, Democrats, Nazis, communists, fascists, etc. subscribe to same?

How about you try to answer?

The Founders were Liberals, not Conservatives.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Conservatism is simply better because you don't need facts, you don't need the truth, you don't need anything like that.

All you need are words which are easy for people to understand.

Instead of giving difficult reasons for invading Iraq, you make simple reasons, so simple people can understand. That is why conservatism is better.

"Conservatism is simply better because you don't need facts, you don't need the truth,..."

Really?


As you didn't include any of my posts that were not factual, accurate, truthful....

.....you must be a Liberal liar.

Or is that redundant.

Getting attention deficit disorder or something? I didn't include your posts because I didn't read your posts. Happy now?

Why would I be happy?

My role here is education....

....I'm certainly not happy when folks like you prove ineducable.


But....truth be told, you read 'em,,,,,but have no answer to 'em.

Wow, I'm so.... so.... zzzzzzzzzzzz

Your role is education huh? What are you going to teach me? How to unimpress people?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Conservatism is simply better because you don't need facts, you don't need the truth, you don't need anything like that.

All you need are words which are easy for people to understand.

Instead of giving difficult reasons for invading Iraq, you make simple reasons, so simple people can understand. That is why conservatism is better.

"Conservatism is simply better because you don't need facts, you don't need the truth,..."

Really?


As you didn't include any of my posts that were not factual, accurate, truthful....

.....you must be a Liberal liar.

Or is that redundant.

Your post have been shown to be distorted and manipulated into lies all through this thread. Your source of a make believe university, Prager , is a non accredited gimmick created by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager. If you used this source in an academic setting you would receive a failing grade and be scolded by your professors.

Did you miss this?

First...Henry Morgenthau destroying any belief that Roosevelt's policies did anything.....anything...but extend the depression:

1. Now, listen, I've listened to this Harry - now this thing has been tried for seven successive years, and we ' ve still got twelve million unemployed. I want to point out - you're all Just as much interested in Mr. Roosevelt as I am - before you launch this thing, I think you're opening yourselves to an attack that we' ve had seven years of deficits, seven years of increasing the thing, and we're just where we were seven years ago."
Morgenthau, 1939
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resources/images/morg/md0241.pdf
page 64




2. "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."
Morgenthau, Henry, Jr. (May 9, 1939).Henry Morgenthau Diary, Microfilm Roll #50(PDF, 1.9 MB).
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.



And now Arthur Schlesinger, jr, noted Liberal historian.....with the same message:

3. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .



Oh....and btw....this Liberal organ:


4. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
article - AEI


Really destroyed you, huh?

Like I said, I didn't read your posts, and I'm not going to read this either. It doesn't look interesting.

So....you're the one in the middle?

You choose. I don't care.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is unable to understand the difference between fact and opinion.

Yet I put you in your place daily...

Funny?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In less than five minutes, Greg Gutfeld explains why Conservative is simply better for the individual, and for society, than Liberal

And, by investing the five minutes in this vid...you get course credit in Prager University.....




Why the Right is Right - Prager University

Prager University...a.k.a. sound bite college for the ADHD crowd...Pure simple minded propaganda meant for the parrots...

In reply to the video's false premise...

There would be no America to protect without liberalism. It was the most liberal men of their day who took the HUGE risk to create this nation.

Your video unwittingly PROVES that point...

So when a conservative asks why you are a liberal, tell them "so you conservatives have a free nation to live in"


"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

1. Remember when I said this, in post #663...
"Probably the second greatest lie that Liberals tell, second only to the one about the Founders being Liberals."

Well....you just proved it with this:
"There would be no America to protect without liberalism. It was the most liberal men of their day who took the HUGE risk to create this nation."



2. The fact is that communist John Dewey had the Socialist Party steal the name 'Liberal" because of how much the public hated the Socialists/Progressives...

a. Democrats (Progressives) were thoroughly rejected by the voters in the election of 1920:
“The United States presidential election of 1920 was dominated by the aftermath of World War I and the hostile reaction to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president. Harding's victory remains the largest popular-vote percentage margin (60.3% to 34.1%) in Presidential elections after the so-called "Era of Good Feelings" ended with the victory of James Monroe in the election of 1820. ” United States presidential election, 1920 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


b. “In the 1920 election, he and his running-mate, Calvin Coolidge, defeated Democrat and fellow Ohioan James M. Cox, in what was then the largest presidential popular vote landslide in American history since the popular vote tally began to be recorded in 1824: 60.36% to 34.19%.”Warren G. Harding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



3. Let's really rub your face in it:
This is what the Founders, conservatives, classical liberals believed: a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Which of you socialists, progressives, Democrats, Nazis, communists, fascists, etc. subscribe to same?

None.

Obfuscation alert...

Direct question...were our founding fathers risk takers?

If so...our founding fathers were not conservatives...

From YOUR OP video...

There have been a bunch of academic studies on how those on the Left and Right approach problems. They pretty much all come to the same conclusion. The Right tends to be risk averse, more concerned about external threats like tyranny and terror. Conservatives -- get this -- tend to be conservative. They are less likely to play with fire, in just about every sense: financially, artistically, sexually. They are cautious about changing traditions (sometimes to a fault)

Your OP PROVES our founding fathers were liberals...

Consider the American Revolution. Conservatives were against it! Yes, they were the "Party of No" back then, too. Remember that the definition of a conservative is one who wishes to "conserve," promote, preserve and/or restore traditional "values," hierarchies and institutions. True to form, in 1776 they wanted no part of breaking away from English tradition and their much-beloved British monarchy. They liked being the king's subjects. These conservatives were called "Tories", the name still used for the Conservative Party in England. Another name for them back then was "the King's Men." The British King's Men in America... ah, so telling of their true traitorous nature. So conservatives started off on the wrong side of American history, and that's where they've been ever since.

After the war, many disgusted conservatives fled America, heading back to Britain, or to Canada or the Caribbean.


Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Trying to run and hide???

In the words of Chazz Palminteri, "Now youse can't leave." I lower the portcullis...

This is what the Founders, conservatives, classical liberals believed: a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Which of you socialists, progressives, Democrats, Nazis, communists, fascists, etc. subscribe to same?

How about you try to answer?

The Founders were Liberals, not Conservatives.

You didn't HAVE to prove that you're a liar.

I prove it regularly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Conservatism is simply better because you don't need facts, you don't need the truth,..."

Really?


As you didn't include any of my posts that were not factual, accurate, truthful....

.....you must be a Liberal liar.

Or is that redundant.

Your post have been shown to be distorted and manipulated into lies all through this thread. Your source of a make believe university, Prager , is a non accredited gimmick created by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager. If you used this source in an academic setting you would receive a failing grade and be scolded by your professors.

Did you miss this?

First...Henry Morgenthau destroying any belief that Roosevelt's policies did anything.....anything...but extend the depression:

1. Now, listen, I've listened to this Harry - now this thing has been tried for seven successive years, and we ' ve still got twelve million unemployed. I want to point out - you're all Just as much interested in Mr. Roosevelt as I am - before you launch this thing, I think you're opening yourselves to an attack that we' ve had seven years of deficits, seven years of increasing the thing, and we're just where we were seven years ago."
Morgenthau, 1939
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resources/images/morg/md0241.pdf
page 64




2. "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."
Morgenthau, Henry, Jr. (May 9, 1939).Henry Morgenthau Diary, Microfilm Roll #50(PDF, 1.9 MB).
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.



And now Arthur Schlesinger, jr, noted Liberal historian.....with the same message:

3. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .



Oh....and btw....this Liberal organ:


4. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
article - AEI


Really destroyed you, huh?

Like I said, I didn't read your posts, and I'm not going to read this either. It doesn't look interesting.

So....you're the one in the middle?

You choose. I don't care.

I thought you didn't check out my posts?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Founders were Liberals, not Conservatives.

Indeed they were, by the classic definition, which bears no relation to our modern-day "liberal" as politically redefined in the 20th Century.

To claim otherwise is no different than claiming Elvis was your father.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Founders were Liberals, not Conservatives.

Indeed they were, by the classic definition, which bears no relation to our modern-day "liberal" as politically redefined in the 20th Century.

To claim otherwise is no different than claiming Elvis was your father.

Liberal then, liberal now, only we are much smarter. This nation wasn't founded for your kind. You are an American in name only.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

PC is unable to understand the difference between fact and opinion.

Yet I put you in your place daily...

Funny?

You've never put anyone in their place, especially me. You have nothing, beyond the opinions and words of others, as usual. Even the simplest of questions you cannot answer for yourself because that requires more than cutting and pasting, the sum total of your mental capacity...

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Founders were Liberals, not Conservatives.

Indeed they were, by the classic definition, which bears no relation to our modern-day "liberal" as politically redefined in the 20th Century.

To claim otherwise is no different than claiming Elvis was your father.

Liberal then, liberal now, only we are much smarter. This nation wasn't founded for your kind. You are an American in name only.

I'm afraid not, you fantastical-minded fella. No matter how much you scream and squirm, you people do not control the present, therefore you cannot control the past.

Do you really think that hiding all the Confederate stuff will erase the Democrats' history of slavery?

Au contraire mon ami, the process draws more attention to it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Founders were Liberals, not Conservatives.

Indeed they were, by the classic definition, which bears no relation to our modern-day "liberal" as politically redefined in the 20th Century.

To claim otherwise is no different than claiming Elvis was your father.

Liberal then, liberal now, only we are much smarter. This nation wasn't founded for your kind. You are an American in name only.

I'm afraid not, you fantastical-minded fella. No matter how much you scream and squirm, you people do not control the present, therefore you cannot control the past.

Do you really think that hiding all the Confederate stuff will erase the Democrats' history of slavery?

Au contraire mon ami, the process draws more attention to it.

Democrats are Democrats, and the Southern ones were scum who are now GOPers. That has not a bloody thing to do with Liberals and Liberalism.

 

[Bfgrn]

ineducable

In less than five minutes, Greg Gutfeld explains why Conservative is simply better for the individual, and for society, than Liberal

And, by investing the five minutes in this vid...you get course credit in Prager University.....




Why the Right is Right - Prager University

Prager University...a.k.a. sound bite college for the ADHD crowd...Pure simple minded propaganda meant for the parrots...

In reply to the video's false premise...

There would be no America to protect without liberalism. It was the most liberal men of their day who took the HUGE risk to create this nation.

Your video unwittingly PROVES that point...

So when a conservative asks why you are a liberal, tell them "so you conservatives have a free nation to live in"


"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

1. Remember when I said this, in post #663...
"Probably the second greatest lie that Liberals tell, second only to the one about the Founders being Liberals."

Well....you just proved it with this:
"There would be no America to protect without liberalism. It was the most liberal men of their day who took the HUGE risk to create this nation."



2. The fact is that communist John Dewey had the Socialist Party steal the name 'Liberal" because of how much the public hated the Socialists/Progressives...

a. Democrats (Progressives) were thoroughly rejected by the voters in the election of 1920:
“The United States presidential election of 1920 was dominated by the aftermath of World War I and the hostile reaction to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president. Harding's victory remains the largest popular-vote percentage margin (60.3% to 34.1%) in Presidential elections after the so-called "Era of Good Feelings" ended with the victory of James Monroe in the election of 1820. ” United States presidential election, 1920 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


b. “In the 1920 election, he and his running-mate, Calvin Coolidge, defeated Democrat and fellow Ohioan James M. Cox, in what was then the largest presidential popular vote landslide in American history since the popular vote tally began to be recorded in 1824: 60.36% to 34.19%.”Warren G. Harding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



3. Let's really rub your face in it:
This is what the Founders, conservatives, classical liberals believed: a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Which of you socialists, progressives, Democrats, Nazis, communists, fascists, etc. subscribe to same?

None.

Obfuscation alert...

Direct question...were our founding fathers risk takers?

If so...our founding fathers were not conservatives...

From YOUR OP video...

There have been a bunch of academic studies on how those on the Left and Right approach problems. They pretty much all come to the same conclusion. The Right tends to be risk averse, more concerned about external threats like tyranny and terror. Conservatives -- get this -- tend to be conservative. They are less likely to play with fire, in just about every sense: financially, artistically, sexually. They are cautious about changing traditions (sometimes to a fault)

Your OP PROVES our founding fathers were liberals...

Consider the American Revolution. Conservatives were against it! Yes, they were the "Party of No" back then, too. Remember that the definition of a conservative is one who wishes to "conserve," promote, preserve and/or restore traditional "values," hierarchies and institutions. True to form, in 1776 they wanted no part of breaking away from English tradition and their much-beloved British monarchy. They liked being the king's subjects. These conservatives were called "Tories", the name still used for the Conservative Party in England. Another name for them back then was "the King's Men." The British King's Men in America... ah, so telling of their true traitorous nature. So conservatives started off on the wrong side of American history, and that's where they've been ever since.

After the war, many disgusted conservatives fled America, heading back to Britain, or to Canada or the Caribbean.


Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Trying to run and hide???

In the words of Chazz Palminteri, "Now youse can't leave." I lower the portcullis...

This is what the Founders, conservatives, classical liberals believed: a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Which of you socialists, progressives, Democrats, Nazis, communists, fascists, etc. subscribe to same?

How about you try to answer?

MORE obfuscation PC?

One more time...

Direct question...were our founding fathers risk takers?

If so...our founding fathers were not conservatives...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer to your false premise...

Conservatives are NOT classical liberals...

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Liberals assume a natural equality of humans...so do socialists, progressives and Democrats...

Conservatives assume a natural hierarchy...so do Nazis, communists, fascists...