• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Egypt's Mubarak resigns as leader

Catz Part Deux said:
Proper spelling, good grammar, and historical perspective do.

There were plenty of nay-sayers during our revolution. Most of them sided with the British. They were, as it turns out, on the wrong side of history.
Click to expand...


Before you can put things into historical perspective, you must first present accurate historical facts, not just made up **** motivated by political hackery.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Some of the conservatives on this thread, if they'd been in Boston, Massachusetts in 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was read and distributed widely...
"This can't possibly work. There will be anarchy and chaos! People will die! THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY, VERY BAD. I can't believe you people are celebrating in the streets."

Those same conservatives, 1779...
"This war has been dragging on forever, and we are getting nowhere. Houses are being burned, people are being killed, and we're running out of money. We should have stayed loyal to King George. Stupid protesters and their stupid tea parties caused this entire mess. Oh, and George Washington is a complete incompetent who doesn't know what the hell he's doing."

Those same conservatives in 1787...
"Well, this will never work. It's practically a military coup. You realize that George Washington isn't a politician, he's a GENERAL IN THE ARMY. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A FORMAL CONSTITUTION YET. Rights will be trampled on! Laws will be violated! The army will be running things!"

I'm sure glad that Apdst, Erod, Zimmer and the Prof weren't running things in the U.S. in 1776. Or, 1779. Or 1787.

We'd all still have british accents and be paying out the ass for tea.
Click to expand...

Though conservatives would have been more supportive of Washington because they may not have been one of the radical Jeffersonians. Truth be told, we could play these historical games all we want, but it would not matter a great deal. In every historical era, certain characteristics turn out to be the correct ones while others are not. To find the complete ideology that works in all cases is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Before you can put things into historical perspective, you must first present accurate historical facts, not just made up **** motivated by political hackery.
Click to expand...

Those are historical facts, and all of those things were said back in the day, when we were going through our own struggles. It alarms me that you don't know your own history.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Those are historical facts, and all of those things were said back in the day, when we were going through our own struggles. It alarms me that you don't know your own history.
Click to expand...

Let's see some source documentation proving that it's historical fact.
 
Fiddytree said:
Though conservatives would have been more supportive of Washington because they may not have been one of the radical Jeffersonians.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming that those folks were conservatives. I'm saying that some of our current posters, who self label as conservatives, would have lacked the stones to make it through this nation's struggle for liberty, and would have gone crawling and crying back to King George, if they hadn't been loyalists to start with.

After all...revolution is sooooo messy and scary.

Ooo, hold me, fiddy. I'm so scared of the evil revolutionaries.
 
Revolution is messy and scary. I do not take it lightly. I flatly admit my own feeling is to be risk averse. I have few problems with that characteristic.
 
apdst said:
Let's see some source documentation proving that it's historical fact.
Click to expand...

It's historical fact that in 1776, many Americans were scared to fight against England because they were scared about the outcomes.
It's a historical fact that in 1779, WE WERE LOSING.
It's a historical fact that in 1787, we did not have a workable constitution *(yet) and the first person elected to lead this country was a military general.

You should have paid attention in American history, bro. You've forgotten how messy things were for us.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Revolution is messy and scary. I do not take it lightly. I flatly admit my own feeling is to be risk averse. I have few problems with that characteristic.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, while it is messy and scary, little positive change can be made without it (in a totalitarian dictatorship).

It's that whole omelettes/broken eggs scenario.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I'm not claiming that those folks were conservatives. I'm saying that some of our current posters, who self label as conservatives, would have lacked the stones to make it through this nation's struggle for liberty, and would have gone crawling and crying back to King George, if they hadn't been loyalists to start with.

After all...revolution is sooooo messy and scary.

Ooo, hold me, fiddy. I'm so scared of the evil revolutionaries.
Click to expand...

Yes you did. You claimed that what you posted is historical fact. Now, let's see some docs to support your, "facts".
 
Catz Part Deux said:
It's historical fact that in 1776, many Americans were scared to fight against England because they were scared about the outcomes.
It's a historical fact that in 1779, WE WERE LOSING.
It's a historical fact that in 1787, we did not have a workable constitution *(yet) and the first person elected to lead this country was a military general.

You should have paid attention in American history, bro. You've forgotten how messy things were for us.
Click to expand...

Show us some docs that proves they were the same version of modern conservatives. Or, admit that it's just partisan hackery.
 
apdst said:
Yes you did. You claimed that what you posted is historical fact. Now, let's see some docs to support your, "facts".
Click to expand...

Read my post again. You've failed to understand. I was quoting YOU, if you'd been around in 1776, negative Nelly.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Some of the conservatives on this thread, if they'd been in Boston, Massachusetts in 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was read and distributed widely...
"This can't possibly work. There will be anarchy and chaos! People will die! THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY, VERY BAD. I can't believe you people are celebrating in the streets."

Those same conservatives, 1779...
"This war has been dragging on forever, and we are getting nowhere. Houses are being burned, people are being killed, and we're running out of money. We should have stayed loyal to King George. Stupid protesters and their stupid tea parties caused this entire mess. Oh, and George Washington is a complete incompetent who doesn't know what the hell he's doing."

Those same conservatives in 1787...
"Well, this will never work. It's practically a military coup. You realize that George Washington isn't a politician, he's a GENERAL IN THE ARMY. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A FORMAL CONSTITUTION YET. Rights will be trampled on! Laws will be violated! The army will be running things!"

I'm sure glad that Apdst, Erod, Zimmer and the Prof weren't running things in the U.S. in 1776. Or, 1779. Or 1787.

We'd all still have british accents and be paying out the ass for tea.
Click to expand...

I don't know why I can't thank your post, Catz, but this was ****ing AWESOME! Hilarious! The only thing is, as much as the conservatives want to support the status quo, they would have been Loyalists, the bastards.

Historians have estimated that approximately 40–45% of the colonists actively supported the rebellion while 15–20% of the population of the thirteen colonies remained loyal to the British Crown. The remaining 35–45% attempted to remain neutral.

At least 25,000 Loyalists fought on the side of the British. Thousands served in the Royal Navy. On land, Loyalist forces fought alongside the British in most battles in North America. Many Loyalists fought in partisan units, especially in the Southern theater.
Click to expand...
 
Catz Part Deux said:
On the other hand, while it is messy and scary, little positive change can be made without it (in a totalitarian dictatorship).

It's that whole omelettes/broken eggs scenario.
Click to expand...

Correct. In a similar comparison, I found Alan Colmes repeating the same statements as Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary when the first sign of lootings were occurring in post-invasion Iraq, except this time it was bashing some conservatives for being cautious this time around with Egypt. Colmes likely had no idea just how similar his statements were, and there was a great deal of jubilation, but it bears repeating. Rhetoric switches hands quite frequently in politics.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Read my post again. You've failed to understand. I was quoting YOU, if you'd been around in 1776, negative Nelly.
Click to expand...

Oh! You never quoted me. I've never saod anything remotely close to what you were saying with your bull**** history. Either way, you're lieing. So, which lie are you telling?
 
Try reading it again.
Catz Part Deux said:
Some of the conservatives on this thread, if they'd been in Boston, Massachusetts in 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was read and distributed widely...

I'm sure glad that Apdst, Erod, Zimmer and the Prof weren't running things in the U.S. in 1776. Or, 1779. Or 1787.

We'd all still have british accents and be paying out the ass for tea.
Click to expand...
 
reefedjib said:
I don't know why I can't thank your post, Catz, but this was ****ing AWESOME! Hilarious! The only thing is, as much as the conservatives want to support the status quo, they would have been Loyalists, the bastards.
Click to expand...

Wrong, again.
 
reefedjib said:
I don't know why I can't thank your post, Catz, but this was ****ing AWESOME! Hilarious! The only thing is, as much as the conservatives want to support the status quo, they would have been Loyalists, the bastards.
Click to expand...

Thank you for having reading skills above the average 1st grader's.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Try reading it again.
Click to expand...

You said it was historical fact. Show us the docs. Or, just admit that you lied.

You can also post a link to my post where I said anything remotely close to that.

Much abliged!
 
Fiddytree said:
Correct. In a similar comparison, I found Alan Colmes repeating the same statements as Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary when the first sign of lootings were occurring in post-invasion Iraq, except this time it was bashing some conservatives for being cautious this time around with Egypt. Colmes likely had no idea just how similar his statements were, and there was a great deal of jubilation, but it bears repeating. Rhetoric switches hands quite frequently in politics.
Click to expand...

True dat. If this were occurring in 2006, the hardline conservatives would be jumping up and down and celebrating it as a victory for neo-conservativism. ;)

Of course, as an ACTUAL neo-conservative, I am. ^.^
 
apdst said:
You said it was historical fact. Show us the docs. Or, just admit that you lied.

You can also post a link to my post where I said anything remotely close to that.

Much abliged!
Click to expand...

I can't help you.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
True dat. If this were occurring in 2006, the hardline conservatives would be jumping up and down and celebrating it as a victory for neo-conservativism. ;)

Of course, as an ACTUAL neo-conservative, I am. ^.^
Click to expand...

This conservative wouldn't be jumping on the happy wagon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom