• 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!

Why are conservatives always quoting the founding fathers?

Ya know, I have no reason to be short with you but I frankly don't care what Americans call liberal, classical or otherwise. I'm probably wrong looked through an American lens- fine, call me whatever label makes you comfortable. I think I've made my politics plain in this thread and now I'm done quibbling.

LOL. We have enough people here who do not understand individual liberty and freedom. After we have dealt with them we can get back to you.

It is time for me to move onto something a bit more productive.
 
Maybe. Maybe not. Whether I am full or not tomorrow I will be "empty". And you will still be wrong.

Still no contribution to the discussion. Still nothing that would lead me to believe conservatism, an ideology bent on forcing tradition and social standards onto the populace, is compatible with classical liberalism.

As I said: classical liberalism is libertarianism. This is widely understood and accepted by all except those who have an agenda to push by taking credit for the achievements and progress of early libertarianism.
 
Do you see just how right I am about you? You diminish others so you can feel better about yourself. You are a tyrant.

You are a totalitarian statist.

You're right. I shouldn't be picking on the kids on the short bus.

Mea culpa.
 
Still no contribution to the discussion. Still nothing that would lead me to believe conservatism, an ideology bent on forcing tradition and social standards onto the populace, is compatible with classical liberalism.

As I said: classical liberalism is libertarianism. This is widely understood and accepted by all except those who have an agenda to push by taking credit for the achievements and progress of early libertarianism.
Those who are doing the forcing are liberals/Progressives/Marxists/socialists/statists. They are people not much different from you.

I don't know how out of shape you are but beliefs held by one very fat person is not a widely held belief.
 
Given that I now believe you must be around age five I am impressed. You are still wrong. Now I realize that you always will be.

You believe a five year old posted that?

How come that doesn't surprise me?
 
You believe a five year old posted that?

How come that doesn't surprise me?
I said I was impressed. But yes, that individual lacks even a modicum of wisdom. Therefore she must be about five years old. By age six or seven one begins to realize that all of history is interpreted.
 
History is simply an overview of events that happened in the past. There is no interpretation involved. You can interpret the intent of the people that lived through those events, but the events themselves are not up for interpretation. The classical liberal ideas of the Enlightenment were identical to what libertarianism represents now. Modern conservatism is not liberal in any sense of the word, classical or otherwise. There is nothing about modern conservatism that resignates with the classical liberal philosophy. Nothing. Zip. Zero. There is no getting around that.

Actually, you probably couldn't be more wrong.

In the late 1800s, there was a split in the classical liberalism movement. The US moved to a social liberalism. Whereas classical liberalism advocated for small government, the current neo-liberalism of the US believes in increased government involvement.

"Core beliefs of classical liberals included new ideas—which departed from both the older conservative idea of society as a family and from later sociological concept of society as complex set of social networks—that individuals were "egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic"[11] and that society was no more than the sum of its individual members.[12]"

Drawing on selected ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that all individuals are able to equally freely pursue their own economic self-interest, without government direction, serving the common good.[15] They were critical of welfare state[16] as interfering in a free market. They criticized labour's group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights,[17] while they accepted big corporations' rights being pursued at the expense of inequality of bargaining power noted by Adam Smith:[18]

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly, you can see that this is the antithesis of current 'liberalism'. Conversely ....

Social liberalism is the belief that the right to freedom from coercion should include a societal foundation. Social liberalism seeks to balance individual liberty and social justice. Like classical liberalism, it endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care and education.[1][2][3] Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[4] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II.[5]

The welfare state grew gradually and unevenly from the late nineteenth century, but became fully developed following the Second World War, along with the mixed market economy. Also called "embedded liberalism", social liberal policies gained broad support across the political spectrum, because they reduced the disruptive and polarizing tendencies in society, without challenging the capitalist economic system. Business accepted social liberalism in the face of widespread dissatisfaction with the boom and bust cycle of the earlier economic system as it seemed to them to be a lesser evil than more left-wing modes of government. Social liberalism was characterized by cooperation between big business, government and labor unions. Government was able to assume a strong role because its power had been strengthened by the wartime economy. However, the extent to which this occurred varied considerably among Western democracies

Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The main problem we have today is that social liberalism has evolved into attempting to overtake the capitalist economic system, as well as restrict individual rights. Simply, it is an idea run amok.
 
Being conservative today defies the definition of being a conservative in the past. I mean, Goldwater would roll over in his grave if he had to read the crap that passes for "conservatism," on this website.

I don't see why that can't apply to liberals too. I'm not sure one can just change the dictionary definition of a word on a whim, but if liberal can change to elite statist and conservative can turn into simple-minded, arrogant asshole and fly can turn into attractive and dope can mean good, who can deny perceived word definitions can absolutely evolve and change with time?

I think labels today are very confusing. I was a great admirer of Goldwater and William Buckley. None of that changes the fact that Classical Liberalism was akin to the ideas of John Locke and Adam Smith of which Goldwater and Buckley may have agreed. But most certainly no modern liberal would share those ideas.
 
Those who are doing the forcing are liberals/Progressives/Marxists/socialists/statists.

Same with the conservatives/theocrats/Republicans/Tea Parters. Just in different ways.

They are people not much different from you.

Oh please. :roll:

I don't know how out of shape you are but beliefs held by one very fat person is not a widely held belief.

1. What the hell does weight have to do with this, you vitriolic scum?

2. It's common ****ing knowledge that classical liberalism is libertarianism. Claiming that the liberal ideas of freedom, liberty, and personal autonomy were conservative beliefs is laughable. It also shows you know next to nothing about politics aside from the bull**** you're spoon-fed from FOX News and The Blaze.
 
Actually, you probably couldn't be more wrong.

In the late 1800s, there was a split in the classical liberalism movement. The US moved to a social liberalism. Whereas classical liberalism advocated for small government, the current neo-liberalism of the US believes in increased government involvement.

"Core beliefs of classical liberals included new ideas—which departed from both the older conservative idea of society as a family and from later sociological concept of society as complex set of social networks—that individuals were "egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic"[11] and that society was no more than the sum of its individual members.[12]"

Drawing on selected ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that all individuals are able to equally freely pursue their own economic self-interest, without government direction, serving the common good.[15] They were critical of welfare state[16] as interfering in a free market. They criticized labour's group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights,[17] while they accepted big corporations' rights being pursued at the expense of inequality of bargaining power noted by Adam Smith:[18]

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly, you can see that this is the antithesis of current 'liberalism'. Conversely ....

Social liberalism is the belief that the right to freedom from coercion should include a societal foundation. Social liberalism seeks to balance individual liberty and social justice. Like classical liberalism, it endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care and education.[1][2][3] Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[4] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II.[5]

The welfare state grew gradually and unevenly from the late nineteenth century, but became fully developed following the Second World War, along with the mixed market economy. Also called "embedded liberalism", social liberal policies gained broad support across the political spectrum, because they reduced the disruptive and polarizing tendencies in society, without challenging the capitalist economic system. Business accepted social liberalism in the face of widespread dissatisfaction with the boom and bust cycle of the earlier economic system as it seemed to them to be a lesser evil than more left-wing modes of government. Social liberalism was characterized by cooperation between big business, government and labor unions. Government was able to assume a strong role because its power had been strengthened by the wartime economy. However, the extent to which this occurred varied considerably among Western democracies

Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The main problem we have today is that social liberalism has evolved into attempting to overtake the capitalist economic system, as well as restrict individual rights. Simply, it is an idea run amok.

I'm not arguing that the "word" liberalism hasn't changed. It has, but you are wrong about which philosophy it resides in now. When you pulled that wikipedia article did you bother ****ing reading it? Those are ideas are clearly libertarian, they are not conservative.
 
I'm not arguing that the "word" liberalism hasn't changed. It has, but you are wrong about which philosophy it resides in now. When you pulled that wikipedia article did you bother ****ing reading it? Those are ideas are clearly libertarian, they are not conservative.

Read it again and get back to us .... it clearly delineates a change in direction from classical liberalism, counter to your previous claim.

It's okay to be wrong .... most liberals are REALLY good at it ... but don't try to hide behind lies.
 
Read it again and get back to us .... it clearly delineates a change in direction from classical liberalism, counter to your previous claim.

Once again I'm not arguing that liberalism has changed. I'm only arguing that modern conservatism is not, in any sense, a resurrection of classical liberal ideas. Modern conservatism is so ****ing far from classical liberalism it's not even funny.

Classical liberalism resides in the libertarian philosophy now. Quit trying to hijack the influence of classical liberal ideas and use it to push your partisan agenda. Conservatism =/= liberty. Classical liberalism =/= modern conservatism.
 
Once again I'm not arguing that liberalism has changed. I'm only arguing that modern conservatism is not, in any sense, a resurrection of classical liberal ideas. Modern conservatism is so ****ing far from classical liberalism it's not even funny.

Classical liberalism resides in the libertarian philosophy now. Quit trying to hijack the influence of classical liberal ideas and use it to push your partisan agenda. Conservatism =/= liberty. Classical liberalism =/= modern conservatism.

Never mind ... don't bother to read it again. Clearly, you are unable to defend your position with an intelligent response.

Have a nice day.
 
Never mind ... don't bother to read it again. Clearly, you are unable to defend your position with an intelligent response.

The irony in that statement is delicious. You, who has not contributed anything to this conversation aside from "you're wrong cause I said so", is accusing me of being unable to defend my position with an intelligent response? LOL.

Hey GBFAN, your cognitive dissonance is showing.
 
1. What the hell does weight have to do with this, you vitriolic scum?
I assume your "widely-held" comment had to refer to your girth.

2. It's common ****ing knowledge that classical liberalism is libertarianism. Claiming that the liberal ideas of freedom, liberty, and personal autonomy were conservative beliefs is laughable. It also shows you know next to nothing about politics aside from the bull**** you're spoon-fed from FOX News and The Blaze.
Of course I am amused.

My beliefs come from reading the same authors who informed the framers. I have read much of what the framers wrote as well as the debates surrounding acceptance of the Constitution. Of course I did graduate high school. Unlike some I continued to read.

I did not say that the classical liberal ideas of individual liberty and freedom were conservative ideas. I said they are today. Yesterday's conservatives, those who clung to governmental power, are today's totalitarian liberals. And, those who fight for limited government, individual liberty and freedom are today's Conservatives and patriots.
 
Same with the conservatives/theocrats/Republicans/Tea Parters. Just in different ways.
Most Republicans are not conservatives. They are socialists, liberals and statists. We must defeat them first. Then you.
 
Most Republicans are not conservatives. They are socialists, liberals and statists. We must defeat them first. Then you.

I disagree though many have bought into lots of statist nonsense. but the Democrat party is far worse. we need to get more judges who actually understand the 10th amendment for example. which means being able to block another Kagan from being appointed
 
I disagree though many have bought into lots of statist nonsense. but the Democrat party is far worse. we need to get more judges who actually understand the 10th amendment for example. which means being able to block another Kagan from being appointed
One party has become a great evil. And the other, the Democrat party has become a very great evil.

There are three options. Go along with the new slavery until the collapse, armed rebellion, or an Article V convention of states to propose amendments. At this moment I prefer to convince my state legislature that it must petition the Congress for a Convention of States.
 
Statist I'll give you, but socialist? Liberal? Really? Do you even know what those words mean?
Of course. But not everyone does. Few have read very much of socialism, nor of Marxism. One one side of history we have all of the totalitarian belief systems; socialism, Progressivism, Marxism, fascism, liberalism, statism.

On the other side we have individual liberty and freedom.

All of the totalitarian "isms" are tactics. They can be mixed and matched as necessary to fool the people or subjugate them. Establishment Republicans and Statist Democrats are both on the same side. The wrong side. Both are bad. One is worse.
 
Back
Top Bottom