Why Liberalism Must Be Expunged.

[Unkotare]

Open your ears, Snowflake, and stop creating classes.

Without Republicans, civil rights and women's suffrage would not have been realities so soon. And did you know that our right-wing framing instrument provides for technological progress? You probably didn't.

As for most of your other nonsense, like I said, you regressives just love to create classes and divide us.

I never said "Republicans". I said Conservatives.

Yeah, right, because all the Republicans who voted for civil rights legislation were liberals and all the Democrats who voted against it were "conservative." Tell us, oh great gas bag, was William Fulbright a "conservative?" How about Algore's daddy?

Was Abraham Lincoln Conservative? He fought a war to preserve federal government. He fought a war that repudiated state's rights.

Was Theodore Roosevelt Conservative? He enacted legislation to break up the power of monopolistic trusts, give organized labor the right to collective bargaining and established federal control over environmentally sensitive areas. Was George Wallace Liberal? He claimed 'segregation today, segregation tomorrow segregation forever!'. Was Strom Thurmond Liberal? He enacted legislation enforcing Jim Crow laws.

Lincoln and Roosevelt were Republicans. Wallace and Thurmond were Democrats. Party identity and political ideology are not, and never have been, in the same molds we see them in today.

Neither Lincoln nor Roosevelt were conservatives. They were a couple of big government liberals, and two of the worst presidents we've ever had.

But they were Republicans! You would not conced a difference between party identity and political ideology UNTIL THIS EXAMPLE!

You are hiding, and not very well, behind specious logic and political illiteracy.

By the way, the vast majority of Americans, historians, political scientists all agree that both Lincoln and Roosevelt rank in the highest echelons of American Presidents.

Lincoln was our greatest president.

 

[bripat9643]

I never said "Republicans". I said Conservatives.

Yeah, right, because all the Republicans who voted for civil rights legislation were liberals and all the Democrats who voted against it were "conservative." Tell us, oh great gas bag, was William Fulbright a "conservative?" How about Algore's daddy?

Was Abraham Lincoln Conservative? He fought a war to preserve federal government. He fought a war that repudiated state's rights.

Was Theodore Roosevelt Conservative? He enacted legislation to break up the power of monopolistic trusts, give organized labor the right to collective bargaining and established federal control over environmentally sensitive areas. Was George Wallace Liberal? He claimed 'segregation today, segregation tomorrow segregation forever!'. Was Strom Thurmond Liberal? He enacted legislation enforcing Jim Crow laws.

Lincoln and Roosevelt were Republicans. Wallace and Thurmond were Democrats. Party identity and political ideology are not, and never have been, in the same molds we see them in today.

Neither Lincoln nor Roosevelt were conservatives. They were a couple of big government liberals, and two of the worst presidents we've ever had.

But they were Republicans! You would not conced a difference between party identity and political ideology UNTIL THIS EXAMPLE!

You are hiding, and not very well, behind specious logic and political illiteracy.

By the way, the vast majority of Americans, historians, political scientists all agree that both Lincoln and Roosevelt rank in the highest echelons of American Presidents.

Lincoln was our greatest president.

He was our "greatest president" in the same sense the Stalin was the Soviet Union's greatest dictator.

 

[Unkotare]

Yeah, right, because all the Republicans who voted for civil rights legislation were liberals and all the Democrats who voted against it were "conservative." Tell us, oh great gas bag, was William Fulbright a "conservative?" How about Algore's daddy?

Was Abraham Lincoln Conservative? He fought a war to preserve federal government. He fought a war that repudiated state's rights.

Was Theodore Roosevelt Conservative? He enacted legislation to break up the power of monopolistic trusts, give organized labor the right to collective bargaining and established federal control over environmentally sensitive areas. Was George Wallace Liberal? He claimed 'segregation today, segregation tomorrow segregation forever!'. Was Strom Thurmond Liberal? He enacted legislation enforcing Jim Crow laws.

Lincoln and Roosevelt were Republicans. Wallace and Thurmond were Democrats. Party identity and political ideology are not, and never have been, in the same molds we see them in today.

Neither Lincoln nor Roosevelt were conservatives. They were a couple of big government liberals, and two of the worst presidents we've ever had.

But they were Republicans! You would not conced a difference between party identity and political ideology UNTIL THIS EXAMPLE!

You are hiding, and not very well, behind specious logic and political illiteracy.

By the way, the vast majority of Americans, historians, political scientists all agree that both Lincoln and Roosevelt rank in the highest echelons of American Presidents.

Lincoln was our greatest president.

He was our "greatest president" in the same sense the Stalin was the Soviet Union's greatest dictator.

Nope

 

[regent]

As a Republican and a conservative, I really only care about myself and my own personal safety. Its pathetic, I know. But I'm scared of the world around me. That's why I bought a Sig P226.

You have come close to defining a couple of the basic differences between liberal and conservative.

Now, now....come out from under your rock....er, desk....and try to answer the earlier query:

What possible beef could you have with these doctrines of conservatism: individualism, limited constitutional government, and the free market.....all anathema to Liberalism.



We wouldn't want a stalwart Roosevelt-groupie to be considered a coward, would we?

When has America had a free market, whatever a free market might be?
The limited Constitutional government sounds great with baby-Trump going into the
White House.
As for the coward thing I didn't have heel-spurs and POW's are heroes to me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As a Republican and a conservative, I really only care about myself and my own personal safety. Its pathetic, I know. But I'm scared of the world around me. That's why I bought a Sig P226.

You have come close to defining a couple of the basic differences between liberal and conservative.

Now, now....come out from under your rock....er, desk....and try to answer the earlier query:

What possible beef could you have with these doctrines of conservatism: individualism, limited constitutional government, and the free market.....all anathema to Liberalism.



We wouldn't want a stalwart Roosevelt-groupie to be considered a coward, would we?

When has America had a free market, whatever a free market might be?
The limited Constitutional government sounds great with baby-Trump going into the
White House.
As for the coward thing I didn't have heel-spurs and POW's are heroes to me.

So we can stipulate that you have no understanding of the difference between Liberals and conservatives....and can't find a reason to be opposed to these cornerstones of conservatism?

What possible beef could you have with these doctrines of conservatism: individualism, limited constitutional government, and the free market.....all anathema to Liberalism.

It may be time to change the air in your head.

So, can I put you down as favoring Bolshevism?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Here is a rule which is the hermeneutical key to understanding how the Left differs, in a most deleterious way, from the right:

The Left does not value prosperity....it values equality.



1. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

The Left’s concept of materialism broadens into the overarching desire to see every individual materially equal. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it, and has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.

Leftists believe that an end to social and economic inequality and one will have Utopia! Dennis Prager, ”Still The Best Hope”



2. Claims of 'racism' are linked to demands for increased minimum wage laws by this view of the world.
No matter that it has been tried, and not only failed, failed miserably, but resulted in well over 100 million human beings slaughtered.




3. And, more bad news for the Left from the LA Times:
"Leaving for Las Vegas: California's minimum wage law leaves businesses no choice

California’s minimum wage jumped to $10.50 an hour at the start of the new year. As the founder of a small fashion design house and clothing manufacturer in San Fernando, I’m not a disinterested observer in this change.

After two years in business, my company now has more than 150 clients from all over the world and 18 employees. It’s what’s known as a cut-and-sew house, part of the garment industry that generates about $17 billion in annual economic activity in Los Angeles County, including $6.9 billion in payroll, according to a 2016 industry report by the California Fashion Assn. This is the epicenter of apparel design and manufacturing in the United States; domestically manufactured clothing is more expensive, but retail and wholesale customers who care about quality and working conditions have historically been willing to pay for it.

Unfortunately, the industry is on a downward trend. Los Angeles County used to have more than 5,000 apparel factories; today, my company is one of roughly 2,000 — and many (e.g. American Apparel) are looking for a way out. One Los Angeles Times headline, quoting a California State University economist, warned that “the exodus has begun."


If not for the $15 minimum wage, I’d have zero interest in leaving California."
Leaving for Las Vegas: California's minimum wage law leaves businesses no choice



Did I mention that the Left does not value prosperity....it values equality.

Think about that.

Love your post!
You're perfectly on point with everything...but you may have been to articulate for the Liberal mind. I find it effective to speak metaphorically and story tell in order to reach the simple, twisted minded you know who's. Here goes;
In a kindergarten classroom far far away a little boy named Billy does an amazing job in class; he follows direction well, he stays focused and tries his hardest, he's well behaved, he's friendly and respectful toward other kids in class, he shows a genuine interest in always doing and becoming better...Billy is awesome and an asset to the classroom! The teacher praises and rewards little Billy for his hard work and effort.
Then there's little Gustavo...he doesn't listen or follow direction, he doesn't try or set forth any effort, he's disrespectful, mischievous and mean to other kids...little Gustavo is a liability to the classroom and he never gets praised or rewarded. He rants, whines and cries and can't for the life of himself understand why he isn't privy to the same rewards as little Billy. You see, Gustavo wants nothing more than to be grouped in with and treated like Billy but he just can't motivate himself to set forth the same efforts that Billy does....so he'll just stand there whining and crying, begging to be treated like little Billy forever or until someone stupid enough comes along willing to establish new precedent.
THE END

I love it!

Think any of the other side will see the truth therein????

Haha...oh hell no.
Their desperate peanut brains and ass-backward logic absolutely will not allow it.

Perhaps that illustrates one of the problems with education: all children are expected to come to school with the same IQ, the same motivation, the same background, and if the kid doesn't measure up it is because he or she doesn't use those talents, that all children are born with.

Well, that me be true and defiant, lazy, unmotivated Gustavo is hoping to God that some group of suckers come along and makes excuses for him so every time he goofs up he can hide behind the excuses rather than get motivated and act right.
Is anyone seeing the story come together at all?

 

[regent]

As a Republican and a conservative, I really only care about myself and my own personal safety. Its pathetic, I know. But I'm scared of the world around me. That's why I bought a Sig P226.

You have come close to defining a couple of the basic differences between liberal and conservative.

Now, now....come out from under your rock....er, desk....and try to answer the earlier query:

What possible beef could you have with these doctrines of conservatism: individualism, limited constitutional government, and the free market.....all anathema to Liberalism.



We wouldn't want a stalwart Roosevelt-groupie to be considered a coward, would we?

When has America had a free market, whatever a free market might be?
The limited Constitutional government sounds great with baby-Trump going into the
White House.
As for the coward thing I didn't have heel-spurs and POW's are heroes to me.

So we can stipulate that you have no understanding of the difference between Liberals and conservatives....and can't find a reason to be opposed to these cornerstones of conservatism?

What possible beef could you have with these doctrines of conservatism: individualism, limited constitutional government, and the free market.....all anathema to Liberalism.

It may be time to change the air in your head.

So, can I put you down as favoring Bolshevism?

OK, three questions were too many, so let's start easier with the free Market. When did the USA have free markets?

 

[PoliticalChic]

As a Republican and a conservative, I really only care about myself and my own personal safety. Its pathetic, I know. But I'm scared of the world around me. That's why I bought a Sig P226.

You have come close to defining a couple of the basic differences between liberal and conservative.

Now, now....come out from under your rock....er, desk....and try to answer the earlier query:

What possible beef could you have with these doctrines of conservatism: individualism, limited constitutional government, and the free market.....all anathema to Liberalism.



We wouldn't want a stalwart Roosevelt-groupie to be considered a coward, would we?

When has America had a free market, whatever a free market might be?
The limited Constitutional government sounds great with baby-Trump going into the
White House.
As for the coward thing I didn't have heel-spurs and POW's are heroes to me.

So we can stipulate that you have no understanding of the difference between Liberals and conservatives....and can't find a reason to be opposed to these cornerstones of conservatism?

What possible beef could you have with these doctrines of conservatism: individualism, limited constitutional government, and the free market.....all anathema to Liberalism.

It may be time to change the air in your head.

So, can I put you down as favoring Bolshevism?

OK, three questions were too many, so let's start easier with the free Market. When did the USA have free markets?

What possible beef could you have with these doctrines of conservatism: individualism, limited constitutional government, and the free market.....all anathema to Liberalism.

Too tough for you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some folks actually believe in a black and white world. A world without distinctions, nuance and multiplicity of thought. The OP is such a person. She actually believes that Liberalism equals Marxism. It's tough to understand why, but there it is.

The OP also claims to be proAmerican. All the while calling for a purge of any political ideology she finds has strayed fro the orthodoxy of her peculiar beliefs. Mind boggling, ain't it?

Should such myopic people be taken seriously? Only as case studies for those with either ego issues or the inability to learn and adapt to her social surroundings. Pity her, but take her with a fifty pound bag of rock salt.

"'I'M FOUR MONTHS PREGNANT'
British man, 20, will be the first to give BIRTH"
British dad-to-be says he 'wanted a baby' so he got 'sperm donor from Facebook'


See the nuance there?

Transgender movement: forcing everyone to participate in some people's delusions.




Starting to see why so many see Liberalism as a mental disease???

 

[Nosmo King]

Some folks actually believe in a black and white world. A world without distinctions, nuance and multiplicity of thought. The OP is such a person. She actually believes that Liberalism equals Marxism. It's tough to understand why, but there it is.

The OP also claims to be proAmerican. All the while calling for a purge of any political ideology she finds has strayed fro the orthodoxy of her peculiar beliefs. Mind boggling, ain't it?

Should such myopic people be taken seriously? Only as case studies for those with either ego issues or the inability to learn and adapt to her social surroundings. Pity her, but take her with a fifty pound bag of rock salt.

"'I'M FOUR MONTHS PREGNANT'
British man, 20, will be the first to give BIRTH"
British dad-to-be says he 'wanted a baby' so he got 'sperm donor from Facebook'


See the nuance there?

Transgender movement: forcing everyone to participate in some people's delusions.




Starting to see why so many see Liberalism as a mental disease???

What ar you blathering about here? My point, which you conveniently miss every time, is you cannot accept nuance, multiplicity of thought and, seemingly ignore the distinction between political ideology and political party identity.

Now you're bringing some cultural issue. And an issue that bears no connection to either party identity or ideology. It's a social issue.

Now, unless you can figure out that Conservatism and Liberalism have not always indicated a direct link to either Republicans and Democrats, we have nothing left to discuss.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some folks actually believe in a black and white world. A world without distinctions, nuance and multiplicity of thought. The OP is such a person. She actually believes that Liberalism equals Marxism. It's tough to understand why, but there it is.

The OP also claims to be proAmerican. All the while calling for a purge of any political ideology she finds has strayed fro the orthodoxy of her peculiar beliefs. Mind boggling, ain't it?

Should such myopic people be taken seriously? Only as case studies for those with either ego issues or the inability to learn and adapt to her social surroundings. Pity her, but take her with a fifty pound bag of rock salt.

"'I'M FOUR MONTHS PREGNANT'
British man, 20, will be the first to give BIRTH"
British dad-to-be says he 'wanted a baby' so he got 'sperm donor from Facebook'


See the nuance there?

Transgender movement: forcing everyone to participate in some people's delusions.




Starting to see why so many see Liberalism as a mental disease???

What ar you blathering about here? My point, which you conveniently miss every time, is you cannot accept nuance, multiplicity of thought and, seemingly ignore the distinction between political ideology and political party identity.

Now you're bringing some cultural issue. And an issue that bears no connection to either party identity or ideology. It's a social issue.

Now, unless you can figure out that Conservatism and Liberalism have not always indicated a direct link to either Republicans and Democrats, we have nothing left to discuss.

"....Conservatism and Liberalism have not always indicated a direct link to either Republicans and Democrats, we have nothing left to discuss."

Let's test and see.

Which would conservatives vote for....Democrats or Republicans?
Which would Liberals vote for....Democrats or Republicans?



You can run but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

 

[regent]

Some folks actually believe in a black and white world. A world without distinctions, nuance and multiplicity of thought. The OP is such a person. She actually believes that Liberalism equals Marxism. It's tough to understand why, but there it is.

The OP also claims to be proAmerican. All the while calling for a purge of any political ideology she finds has strayed fro the orthodoxy of her peculiar beliefs. Mind boggling, ain't it?

Should such myopic people be taken seriously? Only as case studies for those with either ego issues or the inability to learn and adapt to her social surroundings. Pity her, but take her with a fifty pound bag of rock salt.

"'I'M FOUR MONTHS PREGNANT'
British man, 20, will be the first to give BIRTH"
British dad-to-be says he 'wanted a baby' so he got 'sperm donor from Facebook'


See the nuance there?

Transgender movement: forcing everyone to participate in some people's delusions.




Starting to see why so many see Liberalism as a mental disease???

What ar you blathering about here? My point, which you conveniently miss every time, is you cannot accept nuance, multiplicity of thought and, seemingly ignore the distinction between political ideology and political party identity.

Now you're bringing some cultural issue. And an issue that bears no connection to either party identity or ideology. It's a social issue.

Now, unless you can figure out that Conservatism and Liberalism have not always indicated a direct link to either Republicans and Democrats, we have nothing left to discuss.

"....Conservatism and Liberalism have not always indicated a direct link to either Republicans and Democrats, we have nothing left to discuss."

Let's test and see.

Which would conservatives vote for....Democrats or Republicans?
Which would Liberals vote for....Democrats or Republicans?



You can run but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

Joe Louis said that?
In any case, to answer your question, one would need to know the year and the section of the country.

 

[Nosmo King]

Some folks actually believe in a black and white world. A world without distinctions, nuance and multiplicity of thought. The OP is such a person. She actually believes that Liberalism equals Marxism. It's tough to understand why, but there it is.

The OP also claims to be proAmerican. All the while calling for a purge of any political ideology she finds has strayed fro the orthodoxy of her peculiar beliefs. Mind boggling, ain't it?

Should such myopic people be taken seriously? Only as case studies for those with either ego issues or the inability to learn and adapt to her social surroundings. Pity her, but take her with a fifty pound bag of rock salt.

"'I'M FOUR MONTHS PREGNANT'
British man, 20, will be the first to give BIRTH"
British dad-to-be says he 'wanted a baby' so he got 'sperm donor from Facebook'


See the nuance there?

Transgender movement: forcing everyone to participate in some people's delusions.




Starting to see why so many see Liberalism as a mental disease???

What ar you blathering about here? My point, which you conveniently miss every time, is you cannot accept nuance, multiplicity of thought and, seemingly ignore the distinction between political ideology and political party identity.

Now you're bringing some cultural issue. And an issue that bears no connection to either party identity or ideology. It's a social issue.

Now, unless you can figure out that Conservatism and Liberalism have not always indicated a direct link to either Republicans and Democrats, we have nothing left to discuss.

"....Conservatism and Liberalism have not always indicated a direct link to either Republicans and Democrats, we have nothing left to discuss."

Let's test and see.

Which would conservatives vote for....Democrats or Republicans?
Which would Liberals vote for....Democrats or Republicans?



You can run but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

Idiot.


You are tripping over the ham handed assumption that what is true today always has been true.

Test this: the ideology of Theodore Roosevelt would indicate he was a Conservative. He enacted legislation to break up the monopolistic trusts, protect environmentally sensitive areas and gave rights to trade unions. But he was also Republican! George Corlis Wallace advocated state's rights and claimed "segregation today, segregation tomorrow segregation forever!" Is that a Liberal position? Yet he was a Democrat!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some folks actually believe in a black and white world. A world without distinctions, nuance and multiplicity of thought. The OP is such a person. She actually believes that Liberalism equals Marxism. It's tough to understand why, but there it is.

The OP also claims to be proAmerican. All the while calling for a purge of any political ideology she finds has strayed fro the orthodoxy of her peculiar beliefs. Mind boggling, ain't it?

Should such myopic people be taken seriously? Only as case studies for those with either ego issues or the inability to learn and adapt to her social surroundings. Pity her, but take her with a fifty pound bag of rock salt.

"'I'M FOUR MONTHS PREGNANT'
British man, 20, will be the first to give BIRTH"
British dad-to-be says he 'wanted a baby' so he got 'sperm donor from Facebook'


See the nuance there?

Transgender movement: forcing everyone to participate in some people's delusions.




Starting to see why so many see Liberalism as a mental disease???

What ar you blathering about here? My point, which you conveniently miss every time, is you cannot accept nuance, multiplicity of thought and, seemingly ignore the distinction between political ideology and political party identity.

Now you're bringing some cultural issue. And an issue that bears no connection to either party identity or ideology. It's a social issue.

Now, unless you can figure out that Conservatism and Liberalism have not always indicated a direct link to either Republicans and Democrats, we have nothing left to discuss.

"....Conservatism and Liberalism have not always indicated a direct link to either Republicans and Democrats, we have nothing left to discuss."

Let's test and see.

Which would conservatives vote for....Democrats or Republicans?
Which would Liberals vote for....Democrats or Republicans?



You can run but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

Joe Louis said that?
In any case, to answer your question, one would need to know the year and the section of the country.

1. "After the WW II, in June, 1946, Louis fought a rematch with the challenger Conn. Remembering how close Louis had come to losing his Championship to Conn in 1941, boxing writers asked Louis how he would contend with the fast and cunning Conn. The Champion is said to have replied: "He can run, but he can't hide." Joe Louis was correct. "
Why do we say You can run but you can't hide?


2. "In any case, to answer your question, one would need to know the year and the section of the country."
Nonsense.

Liberals are in a panic over the history of their slavery and segregation positions.
The reason is that without the black vote, Democrats would never win a national election.
And Liberal and Democrat are synonymous.

The reason for the attempt at obfuscation...as you are attempting now....is that the Democrats....at any time and any place...have always been racists.
Proof is the racial record of the most popular of Democrats...Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.

I dare you to challenge me on that.


Or....on FDR's attitude toward any minority that wasn't white.




Waiting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some folks actually believe in a black and white world. A world without distinctions, nuance and multiplicity of thought. The OP is such a person. She actually believes that Liberalism equals Marxism. It's tough to understand why, but there it is.

The OP also claims to be proAmerican. All the while calling for a purge of any political ideology she finds has strayed fro the orthodoxy of her peculiar beliefs. Mind boggling, ain't it?

Should such myopic people be taken seriously? Only as case studies for those with either ego issues or the inability to learn and adapt to her social surroundings. Pity her, but take her with a fifty pound bag of rock salt.

"'I'M FOUR MONTHS PREGNANT'
British man, 20, will be the first to give BIRTH"
British dad-to-be says he 'wanted a baby' so he got 'sperm donor from Facebook'


See the nuance there?

Transgender movement: forcing everyone to participate in some people's delusions.




Starting to see why so many see Liberalism as a mental disease???

What ar you blathering about here? My point, which you conveniently miss every time, is you cannot accept nuance, multiplicity of thought and, seemingly ignore the distinction between political ideology and political party identity.

Now you're bringing some cultural issue. And an issue that bears no connection to either party identity or ideology. It's a social issue.

Now, unless you can figure out that Conservatism and Liberalism have not always indicated a direct link to either Republicans and Democrats, we have nothing left to discuss.

"....Conservatism and Liberalism have not always indicated a direct link to either Republicans and Democrats, we have nothing left to discuss."

Let's test and see.

Which would conservatives vote for....Democrats or Republicans?
Which would Liberals vote for....Democrats or Republicans?



You can run but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

Idiot.


You are tripping over the ham handed assumption that what is true today always has been true.

Test this: the ideology of Theodore Roosevelt would indicate he was a Conservative. He enacted legislation to break up the monopolistic trusts, protect environmentally sensitive areas and gave rights to trade unions. But he was also Republican! George Corlis Wallace advocated state's rights and claimed "segregation today, segregation tomorrow segregation forever!" Is that a Liberal position? Yet he was a Democrat!

Liberals are in a panic over the history of their slavery and segregation positions.
The reason is that without the black vote, Democrats would never win a national election.
And Liberal and Democrat are synonymous.

The reason for the attempt at obfuscation...as you are attempting now....is that the Democrats....at any time and any place...have always been racists.
Proof is the racial record of the most popular of Democrats...Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.

I dare you to challenge me on that.


Or....on FDR's attitude toward any minority that wasn't white.




Teddy Roosevelt was no conservative.

His attitude toward the Constitution is definitive.

Teddy Roosevelt gave a speech, “Who is a Progressive,” in 1912. This, from the speech: “…stand for the forward movement, the men who stand for the uplift and betterment of mankind,… We of to-day who stand for the Progressive movement here in the United States are not wedded to any particular kind of machinery, save solely as means to the end desired.” http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1199

a. Does this sound like one who values the Constitution, which enumerates the way things are to be done, rather than what is to be done? And Teddy explains that Progressives care not about the means, as long as his ‘ends’ are accomplished.

b. And along those lines, his “New Nationalism” speech explained that individual rights take a backseat to the common good. And in the same speech, the famous Progressive avowed that folks would be allowed to earn a living as long as the collective agreed: “We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.”
Some 'conservative'????


c. And his view of the Constitution? ‘Well known is TR's outburst, when told the Constitution did not permit the confiscation of private property: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!" Less well known is that at one point TR summoned General John M. Schofield, instructing him: "I bid you pay no heed to any other authority, no heed to a writ from a judge, or anything else except my commands."’ 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. By Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (p. 139) see http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=317


Sooo.....step off, you dunce.

 

[P@triot]

Idiot. You are tripping over the ham handed assumption that what is true today always has been true.

Test this: the ideology of Theodore Roosevelt would indicate he was a Conservative. He enacted legislation to break up the monopolistic trusts, protect environmentally sensitive areas and gave rights to trade unions. But he was also Republican! George Corlis Wallace advocated state's rights and claimed "segregation today, segregation tomorrow segregation forever!" Is that a Liberal position? Yet he was a Democrat!

You are a much bigger idiot. Just because someone runs as a Republican doesn't make them a true, devout conservative. Just because someone runs as a Democrat doesn't make them a true, devout liberal. Also - each side will make deals with the devil to get what they want.

That doesn't change the reality that conservatives vote Republican/Tea Party/Libertarian and progressives vote Dumbocrat/Green Party/Communist Party U.S.A.

 

[P@triot]

George Corlis Wallace advocated state's rights and claimed "segregation today, segregation tomorrow segregation forever!" Is that a Liberal position? Yet he was a Democrat!

Yes. Yes it is. Dumbocrats vehemently opposed the Emancipation Proclamation. Dumbocrats vehemently opposed the Civil Rights movement. Dumbocrats created the Klu Klux Klan.

Stop trying to rewrite history buttercup. The history of your party and your ideology is shameful. Own it.

 

[P@triot]

I dare you to challenge me on that.

They will try - because they aren't bright enough to know that they aren't bright enough to do it.

 

[P@triot]

The OP also claims to be proAmerican. All the while calling for a purge of any political ideology she finds has strayed fro the orthodoxy of her peculiar beliefs. Mind boggling, ain't it?

It has nothing to do with "beliefs" but with the reality that progressivism is actively trying to destroy the United States.

Your side proudly declares a hated for the U.S. Your side proudly ignores the law and advocates to further shred the U.S. Constitution. Your side proudly declares in a belief to take what does not belong to you.

Everything you desire can be achieved through foundations. And yet all of you refuse to achieve those desires that way. Why? Because it's not about achieving your agenda with you people - it's about punishing those that won't buy into your communism and collapsing the United States. And that is why the cancer known as progressivism must be eliminated.

 

[Nosmo King]

Are you two both suffering from the same malady?

My position is, and always has been, Conservatism has not always meant Republican and Liberalism has not always meant Democrat.

Let me put it yet another way. Conservatives have not always been Republican. Liberals have not always been Democrats.

Conservative Democrats have been in the party since Lincoln, as Lincoln was a Republican.

Liberals were in the Republican Party since Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and through the LBJ Administration.

History shows us, had you ever studied it, that ideology and party identity are in flux.