I showed you the numbers, Democrat.
When? What numbers?
I walked you through the US Constitution, Democrat.
Nope, you told me what YOU think is in there though.
All you can do is retreat to that imaginary world that liberals have to create in order for their ideas to make sense.
Yep, that imaginary world where we thought it wasn't right to segregate blacks, so we got that changed. Where we thought women should be able to vote, so we got that changed. But you are right, changing things that we don't think are right is just a fad.
You have to be retarded. Eisenhower had as much to do with desegregation as Truman. Also, what kind of idiot claims that women's suffrage was opposed by Republicans/Conservatives? Did you forget that Lincoln wsa a Republican, moron? Jesus are you a dolt. And yes, you live in an imaginary world.
You're also right that only liberals resort to name calling when proven foolish. Republican/Democrat isn't relevant here. I am talking PROGRESSIVE vs CONSERVATIVE. Yes, CONSERVATIVE people fought Women's suffrage and Civil rights tooth and nail. The parties have changed and morphed. There used to be whig and tory and federalist parties. Lincoln was a Republican? Sure. By name only. He was a PROGRESSIVE though. Your flat Earth/keep things the same mentality would have kept slaves still working and women unable to vote. PROGRESSIVE vs CONSERVATIVE not Democrat/Republican. Parties Change, people typically do not.
The problem I see here with both you, Sigmapi1501, and Joeyramone is that we are assigning labels to entire political ideologies. You cannot describe any one person's views on society, governments, and economics in total with one word.
You could say that because I opposed Lincolns methods of "freeing the slaves" that I am a conservative, but in fact I believe that war and aggression to solve ones problems is one of the oldest (and therefore conservative) forms diplomacy. In fact I don't think Lincoln had much to do with freeing the slaves as he did with trying to "preserve the union" by disregarding state's ability to secede. If we didn't end the confederation, perhaps they would have kept slaves longer than they did. But I believe that the end of slavery didn't come about from the decisions of a few people in power but a general consensus in that it is wrong to enslave other people. You could say that because I believe the civil rights act of 1964 should have never been passed that I am some racist over-the-top conservative, but in fact the reason I believe so is because the benefit of the elimination of legalized prejudice in the government does not out-weight the elimination of a business owners freedom to decide who may or may not do business with them on their own private property. I simply think the civil rights act of 1964 went too far. I could argue that the declaration of ownership the government places on ones business in regards to whom they do business with is a show of force as old as humanity itself (and therefore very conservative).
The point I am making is that it words like Progressive or conservative, democrat or republican, left-wing liberal nutjob right-wing conservative nutjob have meanings that are too opinionated and diverse that they have no real meaning at all. Instead of talking about labels, one should focus on actual issues. How should society be run? Who should run it? Is our federalized system of government not strong enough, or should we falter to a more oligarchical system of power by one ruling section of government? Should the free market dictate goods and services, or should those be left to a small number of people (whether elected or not.)? And everything in between these ideologies.
Our federalized system of power is the best way to ensure that no single section of the government has complete power over all its people. That a free-market system with little government interference and a fair-playing field for all involved is they best way to ensure that no single group has any ruling power over another (I believe economic power is only as powerful as one is willing to consent themselves to it being, and that government interference gives business the power to use the governments laws, military, and police to give them an advantage). A republic (a system of laws beyond the power of any single human being) with a touch of democracy (the ability for those to elect whom should represent them in specific matters) is the best representative of the peoples best interest, as opposed to an oligarchy (small number of people ruling over everyone else) or a true democracy (the mob ruling over everyone not in the mob.)
So far I have had difficult in ascertaining what either of you truly believe in regards to these matters because of all this name-calling that does not belong in this forum.
Community Forum
Topic: Who do you think should win the Republican nomination? (Read 26561 times)
March 05, 2016, 10:59:38 am
