Andrew Harrison
- Thread starter PerchedOnRings
- Start date
Sure. Let me give you a hypothetical. If a poster, for instance, complained that liberals reflexively blamed everything on w and then said that two events that happened in his administration were the fault of the administrations before and after his tenure, that would be irony.
I see. then you use an allanis morrisette definition of irony. Maybe you can complain about the abundance of specious arguments on fgf next.
Ricky Rooster, you lose all credibility when you throw around the word "liberal" as if that somehow discredits my position. If you knew anything about American history, you might realize that the word has its roots of the Republican party of the founding fathers of this country, including Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, who based the Constitution on the liberal principles of the French Revolution, vs. the more conservative, small government principles of the Federalist Party of Hamilton and Adams. So, if you used the word in some frail attempt to insult me you may as well called me "American Patriot", a compliment I greatly appreciate. You might want to take an American History course before you come on here attempting to promote Ted Cruze or any other emotionally unstable Tea party wacko.
Wrong....
Liberal then does not equal liberal now. Jefferson was an antifederalist which actually wanted a smaller central government. The federalists wanted a stronger central government so you got that a bit backwards there.
Liberal then = less government and more individual freedom.
Liberal now = more government and more government intrusion on individual freedoms.
Moreover George Washington warned against political parties but he tended to be more in the federalist camp.
Liberal then does not equal liberal now. Jefferson was an antifederalist which actually wanted a smaller central government. The federalists wanted a stronger central government so you got that a bit backwards there.
Liberal then = less government and more individual freedom.
Liberal now = more government and more government intrusion on individual freedoms.
Moreover George Washington warned against political parties but he tended to be more in the federalist camp.
No, the Federalist wanted a stronger central government only with regards to national defense, since Great Britain still represented a direct threat to the nation. In all other regards, the Federalist Party promoted a limited central government and increased states rights. And like it or not, our constitution was regarded by all most of Europe, especially Great Britain, as exceptionally liberal. The term has only recently been modified by conservatives in an attempt to discredit anyone who sees governments primary role being to facilitate reasonable opportunities for all Americans.
I don't use the word either because I remember when it was always a bad word. I'd say it was in the late 80s that it began being used as something other than a derogatory word. It's all about context. However, even in the right context when the term rolls off the tongue of a white man memories of a time when the word was evil come back. For that reason I refrain from using it.
Only partially wrong this time...
Google not your friend anymore?
Conservative has always meant the same thing but liberal has changed from what our founders stood for on either side. Its meaning is what modern liberals has made it to be... Not what us crazy tea party folks defined it as.
This post was edited on 4/6 9:29 PM by IBleedUSC
Google not your friend anymore?
Aka spread the wealth... yep seeme like it's self defining for liberals to give hard earned money to the leaches in our society that contribute NOTHING. All the while growing the government to supplant states rights and individual liberty.
Conservative has always meant the same thing but liberal has changed from what our founders stood for on either side. Its meaning is what modern liberals has made it to be... Not what us crazy tea party folks defined it as.
This post was edited on 4/6 9:29 PM by IBleedUSC
Only a child of entitlement (i.e elitist) would see reasonable opportunities as "spread the wealth". Sounds like you afraid of a little competition. And no the term liberal remains unchanged since the founding of the country, despite your futile attempts at revisionist history. The Republican party, however, has changed from the bold visionaries of the nation's birth to the timid, inward looking mice of today.
^
Mice vs Morons (libs)
Back to the original discusion though, if whites shouldn't use the "N" word because it's such a derogatory term why should blacks be able to say it?
This post was edited on 4/6 10:20 PM by sclawman77
Mice vs Morons (libs)
Back to the original discusion though, if whites shouldn't use the "N" word because it's such a derogatory term why should blacks be able to say it?
This post was edited on 4/6 10:20 PM by sclawman77
Did you eat paint chips as a kid?
I am the top salesman in my field. I crush my competition and that goes for white black yellow red and I'll even throw in purple.
I'm a middle aged white male in the upper middle class and worked my way to get there. I even made it to the point my wife could quit work-it's what she wanted so don't bring feminism into this either. But how does any of that make me a child of entitlement?
And how is it revisionist history when it's quoting verbatim what both the federalists and anti federalist said in their writings.
Do you not realize there would be no bill of rights without thomas Jefferson and the anti federalists-the ones you are attempting to portray as modern day liberals? They wouldn't allow the Constitution to be ratified without the bill of rights. Or without limits to the federal government.
I mean you really are ill equipped for this argument.
Do you even know what federalist/federal means?
And following to what anti-federalist means from that?
Seriously go read the Constitution or books about the convention or the federalist and anti federalist papers.
Its not what you think it means obviously.
Moreover you really should be embarrassed for not knowing this about how our country was founded and how close it came to not being founded in its current form.
The republican party was founded in 1854 behind Abraham Lincoln as it's first president in 1860 btw.
Please don't continue the ignorance and Google search.
I am the top salesman in my field. I crush my competition and that goes for white black yellow red and I'll even throw in purple.
I'm a middle aged white male in the upper middle class and worked my way to get there. I even made it to the point my wife could quit work-it's what she wanted so don't bring feminism into this either. But how does any of that make me a child of entitlement?
And how is it revisionist history when it's quoting verbatim what both the federalists and anti federalist said in their writings.
Do you not realize there would be no bill of rights without thomas Jefferson and the anti federalists-the ones you are attempting to portray as modern day liberals? They wouldn't allow the Constitution to be ratified without the bill of rights. Or without limits to the federal government.
I mean you really are ill equipped for this argument.
Do you even know what federalist/federal means?
And following to what anti-federalist means from that?
Seriously go read the Constitution or books about the convention or the federalist and anti federalist papers.
Its not what you think it means obviously.
Moreover you really should be embarrassed for not knowing this about how our country was founded and how close it came to not being founded in its current form.
The republican party was founded in 1854 behind Abraham Lincoln as it's first president in 1860 btw.
Please don't continue the ignorance and Google search.
Gotta' love it when your body of research is a 2 minute Google search that turns up 1 chart of undisclosed origin full o contradictions and misinformation. And you wonder why no one respects your opinion. If you're really interested in learning something about the subject, put down the comic books, go to the library, check out one of any number of books related to the subject. And you suggest that I'm the one ill equipped for the argument.
Here's a starter for remedial education. John Adams by David McCullough.
FYI the anti-Federalists you refer to with the Bill of Rights ultimately became the Republican Party of Jefferson and Madison, therefore you unwittingly support my original point that the Republican Party has its roots in liberal principles. You're embarrassing yourself further with each post you submit.
And, oh yeah, if you present yourself as a child of entitlement, as you did in an earlier post, don't get your panties all wadded up if someone suggests that you are one. I've worked full time for 32 years in an outdoor profession that included wild land firefighting, forestry operations, wildlife management and contract work for DoD. Don't present yourself as the only American of any race who ever worked himself up from is bootstraps.
This post was edited on 4/7 7:16 AM by searooster
Here's a starter for remedial education. John Adams by David McCullough.
FYI the anti-Federalists you refer to with the Bill of Rights ultimately became the Republican Party of Jefferson and Madison, therefore you unwittingly support my original point that the Republican Party has its roots in liberal principles. You're embarrassing yourself further with each post you submit.
And, oh yeah, if you present yourself as a child of entitlement, as you did in an earlier post, don't get your panties all wadded up if someone suggests that you are one. I've worked full time for 32 years in an outdoor profession that included wild land firefighting, forestry operations, wildlife management and contract work for DoD. Don't present yourself as the only American of any race who ever worked himself up from is bootstraps.
This post was edited on 4/7 7:16 AM by searooster
Misinformation? Hah. Try factual. You can read that anywhere on any early American writing on the founding of our country. I tried to make it easy for you with the most information combined in one place in chart format. Guess I overestimated your abilities.
The anti federalist party.. It actually fractured into 4 partys. Since you claim to know so much would it surprise you to learn it actually fractured into both the democrat party and the national republican party- which later became the Whig-then later the republican party. So again you are almost right but still mostly wrong.
I love it when people proclaim to someone to not get their panties in a wad then proceed to get their panties in a wad and tell us their life history.
I don't care who you are or what you do/done. Now quit acting stupid and learn the history of your country.
This post was edited on 4/7 11:39 AM by IBleedUSC
Ahh...excuse me Gomer, but you're the one who started the personal life history series, telling us all about how you pulled yourself up from the gutter selling widgets better than the rest of the world. I'll regard your mindless name calling and incoherent comments as a concession of defeat on the subject and move on to more challenging grounds.
Searooster, I'm glad he's a great salesman because he isn't much of a historian. He doesn't even know the name of the oldest political party in the country.
I repeat, you don't know the name of the oldest party in the country.
It's the Democratic Party.
It's the Democratic Party.
And the democratic party = Democrat.
Democrat and republican both originated from the anti federalist movement.
Read back a few posts you'll see where I have said that already.
This post was edited on 4/7 2:40 PM by IBleedUSC
This post was edited on 4/7 2:40 PM by IBleedUSC
Democrat and republican both originated from the anti federalist movement.
Read back a few posts you'll see where I have said that already.
This post was edited on 4/7 2:40 PM by IBleedUSC
This post was edited on 4/7 2:40 PM by IBleedUSC
Conservative tactic 101 - Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and you begin to believe. Enjoy your Fox News Fabricated & Biased News Network. The Conservative Media bias is out of control!
The label "democrat party" is pejorative epithet that's been used for several decades. It's silly.
And thanks for the early republic tutorial. Good stuff.
And thanks for the early republic tutorial. Good stuff.
Back to the real issue.
Looks like Harrison should be banned from the NBA, just like racist team owner Donald Sterling. Yes?
Looks like Harrison should be banned from the NBA, just like racist team owner Donald Sterling. Yes?
You named ONE network. Every other major network is clearly liberal. Google it. ABC, CBS, NBC are all liberal. The NY Times is liberal, the Washington Post is liberal, The LA Times is liberal, the Associated Press is liberal. A large majority of the press is liberal. Please get a clue.
This post was edited on 4/7 8:16 PM by sclawman77
yes, that's it, ibleed, you're John gault. Hell, you're so good at your job that you have plenty of time to share your lousy grammar, silly history lessons, inane arguments and insipid commentary with all the moochers on fgf.
thanks, buddy.
thanks, buddy.
Is it odd to anybody else that one frat gets completely KICKED OFF CAMPUS for their little N word chant, a USC student gets the boot for using it, this guy gets anally rampaged by the media for using it... But a kid DIES under suspicious circumstances at a local frat and they just get "suspended"?!? I men... Seriously... When did using the N word become more of a crime/ tragedy than DEATH!?
I just don't understand this world any more.
I just don't understand this world any more.
Similar threads
