Why Conservative Is Simply Better....

[PaintMyHouse]

PC's "liberals".

Motivations of Loyalism
This article is part of a series on
Conservatism in
the United States

Yale historian Leonard Woods Larabee has identified eight characteristics of the Loyalists that made them essentially conservative and loyal to the king and Britain:[7]

• They were older, better established, and resisted radical change.
• They felt that rebellion against the Crown—the legitimate government—was morally wrong.
• They were alienated when the Patriots resorted to violence, such as burning houses and tarring and feathering.
• They wanted to take a middle-of-the road position and were angry when forced by the Patriots to declare their opposition.
• They had a long-standing sentimental attachment to Britain (often with business and family links).
• They were procrastinators who realized that independence was bound to come some day, but wanted to postpone the moment.
• They were cautious and afraid that chaos and mob rule would result.
• Some were pessimists who lacked the confidence in the future displayed by the Patriots. Others recalled the dreadful experiences of many Jacobite rebels after the failure of the last Jacobite rebellion as recently as 1745 who often lost their lands when the Hanoverian government won.[8][9][10]

Other motivations of the Loyalists were:

• They felt a need for order and believed that Parliament was the legitimate authority.[11]
• In New York, powerful families had assembled colony-wide coalitions of supporters, Men long associated with the DeLancey faction went along when its leadership decided to support the crown.[12]
• They felt themselves to be weak or threatened within American society and in need of an outside defender such as the British Crown and Parliament.[13]
• They had been promised freedom from slavery by the British.[14][15][16]
• They felt that being a part of the British Empire was crucial in terms of commerce and their business operations.[17][18][19]
  Loyalist (American Revolution) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  

 

[PoliticalChic]

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...

You don't really want me to prove how I destroyed you earlier, do you?

Remember this part of the conversation?

"I set the hook: "Shall we wager?" Post #319

You: "Anything you got..." Post #320

And I reeled you in, post #324.....and beat you like a rented mule.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Sorry....I have to reveal your lie again:

"1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.

1. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
2. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.
3. In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
4. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments.
   o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.
   

1. http://orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/liberal_confusion.htm

 

[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.

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.

That is a vain fantasy. Revel in it.

 

[Camp]

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

Here is how PC distorts. This quote comes from a meeting of Mogenthau and economist at the end of the 1938-39 mini recession instigated by Mortenthau's success in talking FDR into restraining spending on works projects and bringing down the deficit. Background can be examined at the link noted with a page 64, but in fact shows the entire report.
Immediately preceding the quote Mogenthau is told he is off topic. Morgenthau goes on however to make the quote used by PC. What follows the quote are a series of statements to Morgenthau telling him he is making a wrong and inaccurate assessment and explaining how and why his is incorrect and at one point, told that his dramatizing facts are not being helpful. When Morgenthau tries to defend himself he is silenced while one after another of the attendees of the meeting refute his comments, just like posters have refuted them here.
All of this can be confirmed with a quick read of page 64. Only if you are very curious as to how long the detailing of refuting of Morganthau by his peers is it necessary to go on for several pages.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal.

It's a small club, but it always has been. I don't mind, and it's not unexpected. Most, like you, can't deal with reality or follow a logical position end to end. That is what makes you like most humans, and just as worthy of my hatred.

 

[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.

That is a vain fantasy. Revel in it.

No, it's American History. Learn it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

That is a vain fantasy. Revel in it.

No, it's American History. Learn it.

No, it's your made-up history, which is why I chuckle at such dime-store fictions.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

That is a vain fantasy. Revel in it.

No, it's American History. Learn it.

No, it's your made-up history, which is why I chuckle at such dime-store fictions.

The Founders owned slaves, the South fought to keep them, and Dems then were the same racist losers who now vote GOP. Nothing you try to spin will change that.

 

[Dad2three]

From Post 434: GDP was never brought up.

a. The League of Nations collected data from many nations throughout the 1930s on industrial production, unemployment, national debt, and taxes.
How did Roosevelt's United States compare with other countries?

In all four of these key indexesthe United States did very poorly, almost worse than any other nation in the study.

Most European nations handled the Great Depression better than the United States.

World Economic Survey: Eighth Year, 1938/1939 (Geneva: League of Nations, 1939) p.128, quoted in"New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America," by Burton W. Folsom Jr

"" by Burton W. Folsom Jr"

The right wing resident "historian", lol

Weird how FDR was elected 4 times AND the GOP didn't the keys to the House back for 50+ years?? lol

"....FDR was elected 4 times...."

1. On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.

2. The Nazis love Roosevelt....almost as much as you do.....

1. 
   
   
   • May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
   • And on January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’
   • And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”
   • The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”

Schivelbusch...."Three New Deals"
​

Again?
"...“…the fictional appearance of democracy.”



Don't you just hate how I murder you Liberals with facts and actual knowledge???

LMAOROG

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

The Democrats were always segregationists.

Always.

1. 1966- Republican Spiro Agnew ran against Democrat segregationists George Mahoney for governor of Maryland. Agnew enacted some of the first laws in the nation against race discrimination in public housing. “Agnew signed the state's first open-housing laws and succeeded in getting the repeal of an anti-miscegenation law.” Spiro Agnew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[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.

The Democrats were always segregationists.

Always.

1. 1966- Republican Spiro Agnew ran against Democrat segregationists George Mahoney for governor of Maryland. Agnew enacted some of the first laws in the nation against race discrimination in public housing. “Agnew signed the state's first open-housing laws and succeeded in getting the repeal of an anti-miscegenation law.” Spiro Agnew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tell us, were the slave-owning Founders of this nation racist? In your own words please, should such a thing be possible...

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The Democrats were always segregationists.

Always.

1. 1966- Republican Spiro Agnew ran against Democrat segregationists George Mahoney for governor of Maryland. Agnew enacted some of the first laws in the nation against race discrimination in public housing. “Agnew signed the state's first open-housing laws and succeeded in getting the repeal of an anti-miscegenation law.” Spiro Agnew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You were going to name the modern day Democratic segregationists. What happened? Couldn't you find any?

 

[Dad2three]

Which conservatives stated what you claim?

Certainly not the Founders.

You missed Mitt with his 47%? Bu$h just repeated it.

But besides that, just provide one of those conservatives "moral" truths that never change

Sure.

All men are created equal.

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Watch how I put you America-haters in your place:


"The Founders were well aware that the institution of slavery blatantly violated the principles of the Declaration. But without a strong union that included the Southern states, which would have never ratified a constitution that abolished slavery, the new nation would not have existed.

Of the several compromises made over slavery in the original Constitution, perhaps the most egregious one from our vantage point is the three-fifths clause.

Contrary to common opinion, however, the three-fifths clause did not mean that the Founders thought that blacks were three-fifths of a human being. First of all, the text refers to “other persons”—the term persons meaning human beings. In fact, in 1790 there were approximately sixty-thousand free blacks, who possessed all the same rights as whites.

Secondly, the three-fifths clauses was a compromise between the North and South in which three-fifths of slaves were counted for purposes of taxation and representation. Southerners in fact wanted to count slaves as full persons, thus magnifying their political power. Northerners did not want slaves to be counted at all specifically because they thought it was wrong to further encourage the importation of more slaves.

their overall project was to set anti-slavery principles in place so that they could be enforced at some point in the future.




The anti-slavery character of the Declaration and Constitution was grasped by the great civil rights leaders of the past two centuries, Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Douglass, a former slave,called the Constitution “a glorious liberty document.”

In his famous “I Have a Dream” speech,Dr. Kinglikened the “magnificent words” of the Declaration and Constitution to a “promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”

King continued: “This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the ‘unalienable Rights’ of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’”
No, America Was Not Founded On Racist Principles



Gads!
Don't you wish you had the education that I have?

No?
Education is optional for Liberals?

"Commentary By



"Michael Sabo is a research assistant for the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation."



LMAOROG



The Founding fathers were flawed people who even owned slaves themselves.


" In fact, the history of the situation shows that the colonial governments beginning in the 1680s established those racist principles and that the Continental Congress struggled long and hard over whether to overturn them in 1776. The Constitutional Convention also struggled long and hard over whether to overturn them. In both cases the issue of overturning them was a deal-breaker because of at least four states with South Carolina driving the argument (the rice planters had the most to lose in a end to slavery). Those were South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and North Carolina. Likely Maryland also was of the sentiment not to end slavery. The interest of union and the interest of not rocking the boat prevailed."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

The Democrats were always segregationists.

Always.

1. 1966- Republican Spiro Agnew ran against Democrat segregationists George Mahoney for governor of Maryland. Agnew enacted some of the first laws in the nation against race discrimination in public housing. “Agnew signed the state's first open-housing laws and succeeded in getting the repeal of an anti-miscegenation law.” Spiro Agnew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You were going to name the modern day Democratic segregationists. What happened? Couldn't you find any?

She said Bill Clinton, which isn't true even in the slightest of course.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

That is a vain fantasy. Revel in it.

No, it's American History. Learn it.

No, it's your made-up history, which is why I chuckle at such dime-store fictions.

The Founders owned slaves, the South fought to keep them, and Dems then were the same racist losers who now vote GOP. Nothing you try to spin will change that.

I love re-educating you America-haters...

1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.
   1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
   2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
   3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart

 

[PoliticalChic]

From Post 434: GDP was never brought up.

a. The League of Nations collected data from many nations throughout the 1930s on industrial production, unemployment, national debt, and taxes.
How did Roosevelt's United States compare with other countries?

In all four of these key indexesthe United States did very poorly, almost worse than any other nation in the study.

Most European nations handled the Great Depression better than the United States.

World Economic Survey: Eighth Year, 1938/1939 (Geneva: League of Nations, 1939) p.128, quoted in"New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America," by Burton W. Folsom Jr

"" by Burton W. Folsom Jr"

The right wing resident "historian", lol

Weird how FDR was elected 4 times AND the GOP didn't the keys to the House back for 50+ years?? lol

"....FDR was elected 4 times...."

1. On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.

2. The Nazis love Roosevelt....almost as much as you do.....

1. 
   
   
   • May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
   • And on January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’
   • And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”
   • The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”

Schivelbusch...."Three New Deals"
​

Again?
"...“…the fictional appearance of democracy.”



Don't you just hate how I murder you Liberals with facts and actual knowledge???

LMAOROG

Since your post says nothing about the one to which you linked it.....it must mean you are unable to deny the facts that I provided.

Excellent.

 

[Dad2three]

They evidently did not listen to their conservative masters in a monarchy and legislature of their home country...

Somehow, the erroneous assumption that anything leftists like from history is automatically "liberal" - and thus, associated with them - never fails to send me into gales of laughter.

I DO wish you wouldn't post it so often, though. I read this at work, and it's not good for me to sit at my desk, giggling.

I damn sure wasn't a conservative move to ...rise in opposition or armed resistance to an established government or ruler.

Based on what? Your kindergarten definition of "conservative" and "liberal"? Spare me.

Let's just clarify what we're talking about, and put an end to this smeary, slip-sliding mess that leftists always try to make out of definitions in order to obstruct debate, shall we?

The conservative-liberal spectrum in American politics is not a matter of political parties, nor is it a matter of specific stands on specific issues, which can be affected by circumstances outside of political ideology. "Conservative" and "liberal" are defined by overall philosophy and worldview. Thomas Sowell refers to them as "visions". The issues change; the positions on them change, depending on the details and extenuating circumstances (I know the simplistic, all-or-nothing attitude of the left has a real problem with this part); but the vision that informs the decisions and positions remains essentially the same.

Now, as to parties, the Republican Party is by no means made up entirely of people with a homogenous conservative vision. Neither is the Democrat Party made up entirely of people with a homogenous liberal vision. But they each contain those visions respectively, and despite what today's left would like to believe, the idea that the two parties have somehow completely switched places on the political spectrum is simply ludicrous and has no evidence to support it. The left may not like what that reveals about the efficacy of their vision, but that's they're problem.

Left and right COMPLETELY switch? Several times over the last hundred years GOPers AND Dems HAVE switched sides, the VAST majority, UNLESS you "think" there is some liberal/PROGRESSIVE majority in the SOUTHERN CONservative CONfederate states of AmeriKKKA who fought PROGRESSIVE Abe?

"...GOPers AND Dems HAVE switched sides..."

Probably the second greatest lie that Liberals tell, second only to the one about the Founders being Liberals.

Proof is that the most popular of the Liberal elites is an inveterate racist who needed to pull Obama's chestnuts out of the fire in the last convention.

'A few years ago he would've been carrying our bags': New report reveals the insensitive racial remark Bill Clinton made about Barack Obama in 2008'
'A few years ago he would've been carrying our bags': New report reveals the insensitive racial remark Bill Clinton made about Barack Obama in 2008
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Oh yeah I forgot, Clinton supposedly uttering that "proves" the Dems/GOP haven't switched sides the last 100+ years twice *shaking head*

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

That is a vain fantasy. Revel in it.

No, it's American History. Learn it.

No, it's your made-up history, which is why I chuckle at such dime-store fictions.

The Founders owned slaves, the South fought to keep them, and Dems then were the same racist losers who now vote GOP. Nothing you try to spin will change that.

I love re-educating you America-haters...

1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.
   1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
   2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
   3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart

Tell us, when Jefferson was fucking his slave Sally, was that racism? Was that rape, since she was property and therefore unable to consent to their sex?

 

[Dad2three]

Sure.

All men are created equal.

All white, christian males are created equal you mean

Black people counted only for 3/5 and could be held as slaves and women didn't count at all

As I said, if that's such a "moral truth" why aren't true conservatives campaigning to bring back those good old days?

I need to stop saying 'How dumb can you be?'....it appears you take it as a challenge.

1. The dominant American culture of the time was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh

2. 'Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
Coulter

3. Researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988

“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review




4. Clearly, they both understood the Bible, and, unlike you, had a facility with the English language.

The understood that 'All men are created equal' meant....
...ready?..

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

That is why our founding documents were designed to end slavery.

DESIGNED TO END SLAVERY? Oh right EXCEPT to those Southern states where we HAD to include the 2nd amendment for SLAVE PATROLS FOR THE SOUTHERN CONservative States OF AmeriKKKa


END SLAVERY? Hint NOT be the CONservatives!



...In other words, late 18th and early 19th century figures who never expressed a belief in Jesus Christ, who rarely if ever attended church, and who rarely if ever had anything positive to say about the Bible, are magically transformed into evangelical Christians, based on one or two select quotes that mention God or a deity in a somewhat positive light. George Washington (right) and Thomas Jefferson (below) are two such examples.

In short, many conservative Christians and politicians are re-writing history (it is an ongoing process on their part) in order to “prove” their claim that most (if not all) of America’s “Founding Fathers” were evangelical Christians.


Wall of Separation Between Church and State » Founding Fathers

Did you notice the reference to Jesus Christ in the United States Constitution?

NO


The concept of "God" is much, much broader than the specific belief in Jesus Christ.



The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ.

Is America A Christian Nation? | Americans United