Oh Forestal!

[hvp05]

Evander Holyfield (sp?)

Have I woken up in the 1990s again?

 

[forestal]

Andy, pass the Bong to Vrai after you're done with it.

 

[2ndAmendment]

That's something Republicans have trouble with, Being Anti-Bush does not equate to being Anti-American.

George Bush has done more damage to American than Al Qaeda could ever hope for.

Did you know that the founders of this country were Liberals? In fact it was the Conservative Tories who stuck with King George.

They were classic liberals. Today's conservatives are classic liberals standing for liberties of the individual. Democrats, modern "liberals", "progressives", are for a liberal interpretation of the Constitution to allow government to grow to any size, assume any power, control anything, without regard to the limitations placed by the Constitution.

There is a vast divide between the classic liberals of the Revolution and the so called liberals of today. You use the word, but don't understand it.

 

[SamSpade]

Did you know that the founders of this country were Liberals? In fact it was the Conservative Tories who stuck with King George.

Riiiiiight. And Jesus was a liberal. So's Santa Claus.

Don't even try to compare the politics. Modern liberalism doesn't even resemble liberalism of fifty years ago. Liberalism at the heart lies in the promotion of individual liberties over that of the community; modern liberals do just the opposite, believing that individual liberties are at stake as long as poverty, ignorance and misery fester, hence the need for a "nanny state".

But just so we're on the same page -

The founders were largely church-going, wealthy businessman and land owners. Those who signed the Declaration put their necks on the line - they did not take to the streets in "protests" - and most of them lost their lives or livelihood. They were war veterans - they fought in wars - hell, the Adamses were accused of STARTING the war. They were against a federal government, believing it to be replacing one tyranny with another. They BRISTLED at the idea of excessive taxation - a level of taxation modern liberals would laugh at.

I don't see any profile there that resembles "liberal" except that they wanted "liberty".

The Tories openly collaborated with England. They didn't FIGHT with them, mind you, but they ratted out their nieghbors. When they lost, huge numbers of them - in the hundreds of thousands - moved north to settle in Canada. Canada is what you get when you DON'T fight England for independence. Yep, that's one Conservative Tory nation for you.

Ok, history lesson over. Don't "project". What you see from history is that the ideas don't align with modern politics. Most of what passes for political ideology in Washington is political parlor games. There's no actual principles there.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Andy, pass the Bong to Vrai after you're done with it.

Hand it over

 

[vraiblonde]

Hand it over

Get off the weed - there's a thread that requires your urgent attention.

 

[Lugnut]

Did you know that the founders of this country were Liberals? In fact it was the Conservative Tories who stuck with King George.

There you go again!

I noticed you haven't corrected your signature either.

 

[forestal]

pfaaaa, classic liberals would never use their army as an occupying force, not to mention launching a war against a country that wasn't a threat to our national security.

somebody take the bong away from 2nd, he's been hitting it too much.

They were classic liberals. Today's conservatives are classic liberals standing for liberties of the individual. Democrats, modern "liberals", "progressives", are for a liberal interpretation of the Constitution to allow government to grow to any size, assume any power, control anything, without regard to the limitations placed by the Constitution.

There is a vast divide between the classic liberals of the Revolution and the so called liberals of today. You use the word, but don't understand it.

 

[forestal]

Spying on their neighbors? Sounds like a project a certain Bush Attorney General wanted to run....wow, you're supporting my case even more than you realize.

The Tories openly collaborated with England. They didn't FIGHT with them, mind you, but they ratted out their nieghbors. When they lost, huge numbers of them - in the hundreds of thousands - moved north to settle in Canada. Canada is what you get when you DON'T fight England for independence. Yep, that's one Conservative Tory nation for you.

 

[SamSpade]

pfaaaa, classic liberals would never use their army as an occupying force, not to mention launching a war against a country that wasn't a threat to our national security.

somebody take the bong away from 2nd, he's been hitting it too much.

:cough: War of 1812 :cough:

Just give up. You don't know what you're talking about and you're making folks who share your views look dumb.

 

[Toxick]

pfaaaa, classic liberals would never use their army as an occupying force, not to mention launching a war against a country that wasn't a threat to our national security.

You might try cracking a history book every once in a while before you spout your ignorant drivel.


And by "cracking a book" - I mean opening it and reading it... not hiding your crack in it.

somebody take the bong away from 2nd, he's been hitting it too much.

Mkay.

 

[PsyOps]

Did you know that the founders of this country were Liberals? In fact it was the Conservative Tories who stuck with King George.

Not sure where you come off calling our founding fathers liberal or conservative. They were DEFINITELY Constitutionalists. Somethings today's liberals definitely aren't.

 

[PsyOps]

pfaaaa, classic liberals would never use their army as an occupying force, not to mention launching a war against a country that wasn't a threat to our national security.

Oh really? Would you consider Truman a classic liberal? Nevertheless, a democrat that ruled over the occupation of Germany and Japan following WWII. Guess who he used for this occuparion? You got it! The US military. Then he went on to launch a war in Korea who was (by the liberal definition of "Threat to US National Security") no threat to the US.

 

[2ndAmendment]

pfaaaa, classic liberals would never use their army as an occupying force, not to mention launching a war against a country that wasn't a threat to our national security.

somebody take the bong away from 2nd, he's been hitting it too much.

That is libel. My livelihood is at stake. I think you better make a retraction.