Why do people hate Liberals?

[Immanuel]

As long as you overlook the fact that the rate of poverty is up over that time period, sure, that helps people working at the welfare office i guess...

poverty is up because the last 30 years has been the conservative era

you go with that sparky. The rest of us will overlook the exponential increase in laws, regulations overall growth of government at federal and states' level....'cuz that's a result of a 'conservative era'...

I suppose detroit has been run by conservatives for the last 30 years too...

You're so blinded by bias it's impossible to have rational discourse. Good luck with that.

qft

 

[Bfgrn]

And I rest my case that at least one liberal on this thread is incapable of discussing an issue but focuses entirely on blame, criticisms, and accusations of people who have made policy in the past.

Wouldn't it be just wonderful if the Ronald Reagans, the George W. Bushes, Tom DeLays and all the other Republicans who were in power for almost a decade could just evaporate? 30 years of conservatism running our government has left America in a shambles.

But it CAN'T be that conservatism is at fault, can it Foxfyre? It HAS to be liberals who are at fault...SOMEHOW, even though liberals were last seen boarding Bobby Kennedy's funeral train and have been out of power since the late 1960's...

And you Foxfyre, you continue to perpetrate falsehood after falsehood. Conservatives are NOT classical liberals. A charity only society FAILED.

The very best things done for PEOPLE in our country came from Democrats and liberals.

WHY do you folks keep ignoring David Stockman? He does not work for Mediamatters.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Liberals want civil liberties but do not want to allow people economic liberty or control over their property. They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.

The old style or modern social conservatives wanted more economic liberty but put restraints on civil liberties. They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.

Modern day Libertarians (big L), in their passion for anarchy, would not allow people to form the sort of society they wish to have. They try to utililize the federal government toward that end.

Modern day conservatives, aka libertarians (small L) aka classical liberals want the federal government to provide just enough laws and regulation to carry out its specified constitutional functions and prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states, and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.

The label of Republicans, Democats, Independents, or Libertarians does not determine their ideology. What they see as the role of the federal government does.

When David Stockman discusses that in this context, he would probably have something constructive to add to the concept. But sins of past and present politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of their political labels, is not constructive in judging an ideology.

Whatever sort of societies we wish to have...as long as women don't choose to have an abortion?

I can go along with the "prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states" part, where I vehemently disagree is that we are even close to that place. Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'? Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?

 

[Foxfyre]

Wouldn't it be just wonderful if the Ronald Reagans, the George W. Bushes, Tom DeLays and all the other Republicans who were in power for almost a decade could just evaporate? 30 years of conservatism running our government has left America in a shambles.

But it CAN'T be that conservatism is at fault, can it Foxfyre? It HAS to be liberals who are at fault...SOMEHOW, even though liberals were last seen boarding Bobby Kennedy's funeral train and have been out of power since the late 1960's...

And you Foxfyre, you continue to perpetrate falsehood after falsehood. Conservatives are NOT classical liberals. A charity only society FAILED.

The very best things done for PEOPLE in our country came from Democrats and liberals.

WHY do you folks keep ignoring David Stockman? He does not work for Mediamatters.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Liberals want civil liberties but do not want to allow people economic liberty or control over their property. They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.

The old style or modern social conservatives wanted more economic liberty but put restraints on civil liberties. They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.

Modern day Libertarians (big L), in their passion for anarchy, would not allow people to form the sort of society they wish to have. They try to utililize the federal government toward that end.

Modern day conservatives, aka libertarians (small L) aka classical liberals want the federal government to provide just enough laws and regulation to carry out its specified constitutional functions and prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states, and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.

The label of Republicans, Democats, Independents, or Libertarians does not determine their ideology. What they see as the role of the federal government does.

When David Stockman discusses that in this context, he would probably have something constructive to add to the concept. But sins of past and present politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of their political labels, is not constructive in judging an ideology.

Whatever sort of societies we wish to have...as long as women don't choose to have an abortion?

I can go along with the "prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states" part, where I vehemently disagree is that we are even close to that place. Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'? Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?

Still in true typical liberal fashion you have to accuse somebody, blame somebody, protest something. Do you have any capability to discuss a concept without doing that? Can you write a medium size paragraph describing what you think the liberal ideology is without pointing a finger at anybody by name or implication or insinuation?

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals want civil liberties but do not want to allow people economic liberty or control over their property. They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.

The old style or modern social conservatives wanted more economic liberty but put restraints on civil liberties. They try to utilize the federal government toward that end.

Modern day Libertarians (big L), in their passion for anarchy, would not allow people to form the sort of society they wish to have. They try to utililize the federal government toward that end.

Modern day conservatives, aka libertarians (small L) aka classical liberals want the federal government to provide just enough laws and regulation to carry out its specified constitutional functions and prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states, and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.

The label of Republicans, Democats, Independents, or Libertarians does not determine their ideology. What they see as the role of the federal government does.

When David Stockman discusses that in this context, he would probably have something constructive to add to the concept. But sins of past and present politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of their political labels, is not constructive in judging an ideology.

Whatever sort of societies we wish to have...as long as women don't choose to have an abortion?

I can go along with the "prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states" part, where I vehemently disagree is that we are even close to that place. Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'? Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?

Still in true typical liberal fashion you have to accuse somebody, blame somebody, protest something. Do you have any capability to discuss a concept without doing that? Can you write a medium size paragraph describing what you think the liberal ideology is without pointing a finger at anybody by name or implication or insinuation?

I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.

Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?

Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.

You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL

 

[Foxfyre]

Whatever sort of societies we wish to have...as long as women don't choose to have an abortion?

I can go along with the "prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other as states" part, where I vehemently disagree is that we are even close to that place. Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'? Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?

Still in true typical liberal fashion you have to accuse somebody, blame somebody, protest something. Do you have any capability to discuss a concept without doing that? Can you write a medium size paragraph describing what you think the liberal ideology is without pointing a finger at anybody by name or implication or insinuation?

I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.

Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?

Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.

You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL

Am I? I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is. My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that. Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.

As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able. I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable. A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person. As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit however we choose to do that while respecting each other's unalienable rights. The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

Your turn.

 

[thanatos144]

Still in true typical liberal fashion you have to accuse somebody, blame somebody, protest something. Do you have any capability to discuss a concept without doing that? Can you write a medium size paragraph describing what you think the liberal ideology is without pointing a finger at anybody by name or implication or insinuation?

I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.

Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?

Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.

You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL

Am I? I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is. My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that. Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.

As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able. I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable. A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person. As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit. The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

Your turn.

you just described about 90 percent of the Libertarians online

 

[Smilebong]

Still in true typical liberal fashion you have to accuse somebody, blame somebody, protest something. Do you have any capability to discuss a concept without doing that? Can you write a medium size paragraph describing what you think the liberal ideology is without pointing a finger at anybody by name or implication or insinuation?

I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.

Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?

Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.

You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL

Am I? I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is. My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that. Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.

As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able. I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable. A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person. As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit however we choose to do that while respecting each other's unalienable rights. The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

Your turn.

I don't mean you mess up your mojo by interrupting, but this is a post for the ages. You are very well spoken.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.

Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?

Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.

You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL

Am I? I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is. My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that. Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.

As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able. I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable. A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person. As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit. The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

Your turn.

you just described about 90 percent of the Libertarians online

I think I probably described many of those who are libertarian with a little "L". But I have found many Libertarians (capital "L") to be opposed to much of mutually agreed social contract. And many are as pushy as liberals or social conservatives in wanting the federal government to create the kind of society they wish to have.

In my view, there is no freedom if a majority of the people are forbidden to mutually agree on the kind of neighborhood or city or state they wish to have if anybody is opposed to that. I use the example of that pesky creche on the courthouse lawn for instance. Freedom allows it to be there if the community wants it there. Or not to be there if the community doesn't want it there. But social contract simply can't happen if one or two people can dictate to the rest how it is going to be.

 

[Dragonlady]

In my view, there is no freedom if a majority of the people are forbidden to mutually agree on the kind of neighborhood or city or state they wish to have if anybody is opposed to that. I use the example of that pesky creche on the courthouse lawn for instance. Freedom allows it to be there if the community wants it there. Or not to be there if the community doesn't want it there. But social contract simply can't happen if one or two people can dictate to the rest how it is going to be.

I consider the creche on the courthouse lawn an inappropriate symbol in a country where there is a clear separation between church and state. A creche is an appropriate symbol outside a church but not a courthouse.

I am tired of my fellow Christians demanding their THEIR symbols be forced onto securlar real estate. Not appropriate at all.

 

[lynn63]

Until people stop assigning labels based on their ideology political views based on a few responses, we will always be divided and will never unite together to fight for our rights and put in motion ideas that would make society a better place for all of us.

The government wants people divided and that is why we have two political parties working side by side in government. One will act like they care about the citizens and make all kinds of promises to get elected knowing they don't have fulfill those promises because the other party will not allow it.

Its a typical good cop, bad cop mentality and its very effective in preventing the citizens from uniting and eliminating government altogether. The government loves this kind of thread post since it protects them from anyone trying to see the government as one entity and hold them accountable for their actions.

 

[thanatos144]

Until people stop assigning labels based on their ideology political views based on a few responses, we will always be divided and will never unite together to fight for our rights and put in motion ideas that would make society a better place for all of us.

The government wants people divided and that is why we have two political parties working side by side in government. One will act like they care about the citizens and make all kinds of promises to get elected knowing they don't have fulfill those promises because the other party will not allow it.

Its a typical good cop, bad cop mentality and its very effective in preventing the citizens from uniting and eliminating government altogether. The government loves this kind of thread post since it protects them from anyone trying to see the government as one entity and hold them accountable for their actions.

Say we all unite then like your hippie utopia dream now what are we uniting for? you have to understand we have completely opposing ideas for how the country should be ran

 

[thanatos144]

we can't I'll just join hands and sing camp songs to make all the problems in this country go away

 

[Foxfyre]

In my view, there is no freedom if a majority of the people are forbidden to mutually agree on the kind of neighborhood or city or state they wish to have if anybody is opposed to that. I use the example of that pesky creche on the courthouse lawn for instance. Freedom allows it to be there if the community wants it there. Or not to be there if the community doesn't want it there. But social contract simply can't happen if one or two people can dictate to the rest how it is going to be.

I consider the creche on the courthouse lawn an inappropriate symbol in a country where there is a clear separation between church and state. A creche is an appropriate symbol outside a church but not a courthouse.

I am tired of my fellow Christians demanding their THEIR symbols be forced onto securlar real estate. Not appropriate at all.

But if the majority of the community are Christian or just simply people who get a kick out of Christmas, why should they be denied the enjoyment of that creche if they choose to have one? How does that violate your rights or require you to contribute or participate in any way? How can there be freedom of religion--a right to the free exercise of our religion--unless it can be included in the social contract if the people want it included?

 

[Foxfyre]

Until people stop assigning labels based on their ideology political views based on a few responses, we will always be divided and will never unite together to fight for our rights and put in motion ideas that would make society a better place for all of us.

The government wants people divided and that is why we have two political parties working side by side in government. One will act like they care about the citizens and make all kinds of promises to get elected knowing they don't have fulfill those promises because the other party will not allow it.

Its a typical good cop, bad cop mentality and its very effective in preventing the citizens from uniting and eliminating government altogether. The government loves this kind of thread post since it protects them from anyone trying to see the government as one entity and hold them accountable for their actions.

In my opinion, if most Americans could just agree on what freedom is and that it is far better than anything in second place, it wouldn't matter what we believe or how many political parties there are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In my view, there is no freedom if a majority of the people are forbidden to mutually agree on the kind of neighborhood or city or state they wish to have if anybody is opposed to that. I use the example of that pesky creche on the courthouse lawn for instance. Freedom allows it to be there if the community wants it there. Or not to be there if the community doesn't want it there. But social contract simply can't happen if one or two people can dictate to the rest how it is going to be.

I consider the creche on the courthouse lawn an inappropriate symbol in a country where there is a clear separation between church and state. A creche is an appropriate symbol outside a church but not a courthouse.

I am tired of my fellow Christians demanding their THEIR symbols be forced onto securlar real estate. Not appropriate at all.

^ liberals are so weak minded they believe that a display ESTABLISHES a religion

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Foxfyre]

In my view, there is no freedom if a majority of the people are forbidden to mutually agree on the kind of neighborhood or city or state they wish to have if anybody is opposed to that. I use the example of that pesky creche on the courthouse lawn for instance. Freedom allows it to be there if the community wants it there. Or not to be there if the community doesn't want it there. But social contract simply can't happen if one or two people can dictate to the rest how it is going to be.

I consider the creche on the courthouse lawn an inappropriate symbol in a country where there is a clear separation between church and state. A creche is an appropriate symbol outside a church but not a courthouse.

I am tired of my fellow Christians demanding their THEIR symbols be forced onto securlar real estate. Not appropriate at all.

^ liberals are so weak minded they believe that a display ESTABLISHES a religion

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Well I really don't want to get into a religion and separation of church and state and all that. The creche is simply an illustration. The issue is not weak or strong minds or what anybody thinks something does or does not do.

The issue is whether we are free to live our lives as we choose to live them--as we chose to live our life individually or in cooperation with others. Once we give the federal government the power to tell everybody how they must live their lives or how they cannot live their lives, there is no freedom.

 

[Bfgrn]

Still in true typical liberal fashion you have to accuse somebody, blame somebody, protest something. Do you have any capability to discuss a concept without doing that? Can you write a medium size paragraph describing what you think the liberal ideology is without pointing a finger at anybody by name or implication or insinuation?

I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.

Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?

Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.

You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL

Am I? I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is. My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that. Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.

As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able. I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable. A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person. As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit however we choose to do that while respecting each other's unalienable rights. The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

Your turn.

Empty rhetoric. I don't subscribe to your constant self-centered and pretentious commentary.

Two questions:

1) Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?

2) Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.

Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?

Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.

You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL

Am I? I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is. My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that. Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.

As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able. I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable. A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person. As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit however we choose to do that while respecting each other's unalienable rights. The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

Your turn.

Empty rhetoric. I don't subscribe to your constant self-centered and pretentious commentary.

Two questions:

1) Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?

2) Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?

^ Liberals are absolutely the most hysterical and pathological species on the planet

 

[Bfgrn]

Am I? I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is. My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that. Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.

As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able. I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable. A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person. As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit however we choose to do that while respecting each other's unalienable rights. The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

Your turn.

Empty rhetoric. I don't subscribe to your constant self-centered and pretentious commentary.

Two questions:

1) Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?

2) Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?

^ Liberals are absolutely the most hysterical and pathological species on the planet

There you go Frank. The usual conservative response when confronted with the truth...denial and accusations of exaggeration.

Have you ever heard of a bleeding heart Republican?
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics

 

[Foxfyre]

I have stated my beliefs plenty of times. And I have read plenty of your posts. I asked you very pertinent questions about what conservatives believe is acceptable.

Are you unable or unwilling to answer them Foxfyre? Would it expose conservatism for what it really is, social Darwinism, or reinforce my signature line?

Liberalism is ALL about putting people first, before corporate profits, before ideology and before dogma.

You are doing what you accuse me of...LOL

Am I? I am accusing you of being unable to write a medium size paragraph articulating what modern American liberalism is. My theory is that it is indeed a very rare liberal who can do that. Most modern American liberals seem to base their entire belief system on accusing, blaming, and criticizing others while they presume a superior morality and niceness.

As a modern American conservative aka classical liberal aka classical libertarian, I simply want control of my own choices and ability to direct my own destiny as much as I am able. I believe God gave us rights that a just government recognizes and protects as unalienable. A right is defined as that which requires no contribution or participation by another person. As a true modern conservative sees it, I do not have the right to infringe on somebody else's rights nor should anybody have ability to infringe with impunity on mine. And with that in mind, it is our unalienable right to choose to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit however we choose to do that while respecting each other's unalienable rights. The role of the federal government is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

Your turn.

Empty rhetoric. I don't subscribe to your constant self-centered and pretentious commentary.

Two questions:

1) Conservatives are aligned with and support the propaganda of the biggest polluters on the planet. Thousands of citizens DIE from their pollution every year. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?

2) Ideas like ending Medicare would do catastrophic economic damage to senior citizens. It would lower the quality of their final years and prematurely end the lives of many. Is THAT acceptable to 'conservatives'?

I rest my case. As a dedicated liberal, again and again you demonstrate that you are incapable of discussing a concept and are limited to blaming, accusing, and characterizing other people. You are incapable of thinking about anything objectively. And because you cannot articulate even a definition of liberalism and won't accept my definition of modern American conservatism you therefore cannot conceive of a concept that somebody can be both a modern day conservative aka classical liberal AND be passionate about clean air, clean water, clean soil etc. You cannot conceive of something as radical as ending Medicare at the federal level AND not hurting seniors.

Again protesting the title of the thread but appreciating the subject matter, we don't hate liberals. But we do hate liberalism that cannot see the unintended negative consequences of what they promote and who would enslave all the people in order to a commit to an ideology in which some must be enslaved to serve others.