No effective rallying-cry has ever been found for Democrats. I think liberal-minded people are just lazy, by and large. Sad to say, but history proves it over and over.
You might want to take another look at history, then.
I have. Provide me examples of liberal revolutions that have established successful governments or political systems... instead of just tossing out the generic advice with no examples to back yourself up.
The United fucking States?
Which was founded by people so conservative that the Brits kicked them out?
Say again? What the fuck are you talking about?
No. Try again. The Founding Fathers were flaming, radical, extremist liberals.
You must be trying out a new comedy routine or something.
The founding fathers were so conservative that by todays standards they would be considered outside the polical norm, even for the far-right wing side of the government. The Liberals of the period were desperate to try and alter the formation of the constitution. The Liberals wanted a constitution that could be easily and rapidly amended and would be sensitive to mass pressure. They wanted unchecked popular sovereignty, universal voting rights, and a single parliamentary body. They wanted liberty to be based on a long list of a priori abstractions. How much of that did they get?
No effective rallying-cry has ever been found for Democrats. I think liberal-minded people are just lazy, by and large. Sad to say, but history proves it over and over.
You clearly know nothing about history.
Another generic "I'm smarter than you but won't provide examples because I probably don't have any" response. Back it up. Show me examples in history of liberal-minded revolutions that have established successful political systems or governments.
If you can not think of a single progressive success in the last century you are lying when you say you have investigated the question.
The Palin campaign also started another vicious whisper campaign, spreading the word that Stein and his wife -- who had chosen to keep her own last name when they were married -- were not legally wed. Again, Palin knew the truth, Stein said, but chose to muddy the waters. "We actually had to produce our marriage certificate," recalled Stein, whose wife died of breast cancer in 2005 without ever reconciling with Palin.
"I had a hand in creating Sarah, but in the end she blew me out of the water," Stein said, sounding more wearily ironic than bitter. "Sarah's on a mission, she's an opportunist."
Others suspect that Palin had self-serving reasons for taking on Ruedrich and resigning her seat on the commission. The state energy panel had ignited a public firestorm in Palin's home base, Mat-Su Valley, by secretly leasing sub-surface drilling rights on thousands of residential lots to a Colorado-based gas producer. Outraged farmers and homeowners, who woke up one morning to find drilling equipment being hauled onto their land, were in open revolt against the commission. While Palin initially supported the leasing plan, she was shrewd enough to realize it was political suicide to alienate conservative property owners in her own district. According to some accounts, she was also growing tired of commuting to state offices in Anchorage and poring over dry, tedious technical manuals for her job. All in all, it seemed like the right move to jump ship -- and going out a hero was an added plus.
In the end, Ruedrich admitted wrongdoing and settled the ethics case by paying $12,000 in civil fines. But Palin did not drive the well-connected Republican operative into exile. In fact, he remains the party's state chairman and he could be seen on the floor of the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., hugging the newly crowned vice-presidential candidate and cheering her feisty speech against greedy old boys like, well, him.
They really didn't think that part through, did they? How hard would it be to make him keep his distance fromher at the convention?
The founding fathers were so conservative that by todays standards they would be considered outside the polical norm, even for the far-right wing side of the government.
lol wut
I don't see Jefferson or Franklin fitting that mold at all. Hamilton or Washington, maybe.
necroSYS on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I'm not being cynical... ok, I AM being cynical, but the electoral history of the US for the majority of the last 25 years has made me cynical. The fact that the U.S. is more conservative today than it was 30-40 years ago... and that people aren't out marching and protesting like they did 30-40 years ago... it makes me cynical. The consumer culture and celebrity obsession down south has turned most Americans into a flock of bleating sheep, constantly distracted by shiny objects or loud noises.
The reason people aren't going out and "protesting" is because they have confused the fact that they're doin it rong with the notion that it is somehow not effective any more.
Here's a hint: marching through the streets in city-sanctioned areas with cops stopping traffic for you does nothing. Sitting at a whites-only restaurant and refusing to move until you are arrested is civil disobedience. One is useless, the other shows people that the law is unjust. You want to stop a war, you gotta start blocking entrances to military bases.
Seriously. Remember the days of lobbing bricks and getting shot by National Guardsmen? Those were fucking protests.
Of course, those kids had the draft hanging over their heads to motivate them a little more personally. Or, in the case of the civil rights movement, they had the fact that they were being denied basic civil liberties in very tangible and cruel ways.
Nowadays? "Oh no, they might send those soldiers that volunteered anyway over to fight some war I don't care about anymore." Or "oh no, I might pay an extra two hundred dollars in taxes next year." The worst it gets (realistically) is "oh no, they might listen in on one of my phone calls." Which is bad, but easily ignored..unlike, say, even the run-down "colored" water fountains (one of the more "trivial" civil rights abuses against minorities).
Nobody gives a fuck enough to protest in any meaningful way, because nobody has any reason to.
As far as civil liberties go, I'd say homosexuals have a reason to, but there's some movement on that front, plus it's a different thread.
Nearly every liberal revolutionary before 1800 would be considered conservative by today's standards because a lot of the shit they fought for is now the norm.
The founding fathers were so conservative that by todays standards they would be considered outside the polical norm, even for the far-right wing side of the government.
lol wut
I don't see Jefferson or Franklin fitting that mold at all. Hamilton or Washington, maybe.
The most Deistic of the Founders was probably Jefferson but even he, at points in his life, envisioned a rollicking afterlife and God's intervention. Certainly he indicated that in his public pronouncements, such as when, in his first inaugural address when he acknowledged the "adopting an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter.” In his second message, he credited the "smiles of Providence" for economic prosperity, peace abroad and even good relations with the Indians. When Napoleon was defeated he wrote a friend that, "it proves that we have a god in heaven. That he is just, and not careless of what passes in the world."
Franklin – At the Constitutional Convention, he suggested the delegates pray together because "I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?"
The founding fathers were so conservative that by todays standards they would be considered outside the polical norm, even for the far-right wing side of the government.
lol wut
I don't see Jefferson or Franklin fitting that mold at all. Hamilton or Washington, maybe.
The most Deistic of the Founders was probably Jefferson but even he, at points in his life, envisioned a rollicking afterlife and God's intervention. Certainly he indicated that in his public pronouncements, such as when, in his first inaugural address when he acknowledged the "adopting an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter.†In his second message, he credited the "smiles of Providence" for economic prosperity, peace abroad and even good relations with the Indians. When Napoleon was defeated he wrote a friend that, "it proves that we have a god in heaven. That he is just, and not careless of what passes in the world."
Franklin – At the Constitutional Convention, he suggested the delegates pray together because "I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?"
Since when are we equating Christian with Conservative?
No effective rallying-cry has ever been found for Democrats. I think liberal-minded people are just lazy, by and large. Sad to say, but history proves it over and over.
You might want to take another look at history, then.
I have. Provide me examples of liberal revolutions that have established successful governments or political systems... instead of just tossing out the generic advice with no examples to back yourself up.
The United fucking States?
Which was founded by people so conservative that the Brits kicked them out?
Say again? What the fuck are you talking about?
No. Try again. The Founding Fathers were flaming, radical, extremist liberals.
You must be trying out a new comedy routine or something.
The founding fathers were so conservative that by todays standards they would be considered outside the polical norm, even for the far-right wing side of the government. The Liberals of the period were desperate to try and alter the formation of the constitution. The Liberals wanted a constitution that could be easily and rapidly amended and would be sensitive to mass pressure. They wanted unchecked popular sovereignty, universal voting rights, and a single parliamentary body. They wanted liberty to be based on a long list of a priori abstractions. How much of that did they get?
Are you...are you applying modern standards to 230 years ago? Because that's insane.
Anyway some other liberal success stories in this country: Lincoln and FDR.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
The founding fathers were so conservative that by todays standards they would be considered outside the polical norm, even for the far-right wing side of the government.
lol wut
I don't see Jefferson or Franklin fitting that mold at all. Hamilton or Washington, maybe.
The most Deistic of the Founders was probably Jefferson but even he, at points in his life, envisioned a rollicking afterlife and God's intervention. Certainly he indicated that in his public pronouncements, such as when, in his first inaugural address when he acknowledged the "adopting an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter.†In his second message, he credited the "smiles of Providence" for economic prosperity, peace abroad and even good relations with the Indians. When Napoleon was defeated he wrote a friend that, "it proves that we have a god in heaven. That he is just, and not careless of what passes in the world."
Franklin – At the Constitutional Convention, he suggested the delegates pray together because "I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?"
Since when are we equating Christian with Conservative?
Since Reagan, but the effects are so massive that they project back in time.
The founding fathers were so conservative that by todays standards they would be considered outside the polical norm, even for the far-right wing side of the government.
lol wut
I don't see Jefferson or Franklin fitting that mold at all. Hamilton or Washington, maybe.
The most Deistic of the Founders was probably Jefferson but even he, at points in his life, envisioned a rollicking afterlife and God's intervention. Certainly he indicated that in his public pronouncements, such as when, in his first inaugural address when he acknowledged the "adopting an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter.†In his second message, he credited the "smiles of Providence" for economic prosperity, peace abroad and even good relations with the Indians. When Napoleon was defeated he wrote a friend that, "it proves that we have a god in heaven. That he is just, and not careless of what passes in the world."
Franklin – At the Constitutional Convention, he suggested the delegates pray together because "I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?"
Whatever his pantheist/deistic beliefs, Jefferson was not a Christian. If most Christians in America were familiar with what he's written and said about Christianity, they would conclude that Tommy J is currently burning in hell.
I'm a raving atheist and I sometimes invoke the same kind of pantheistic imagery Jefferson uses. Replace "providence" with "trajectory of the Universe" and it's a wash.
The founding fathers were so conservative that by todays standards they would be considered outside the polical norm, even for the far-right wing side of the government.
lol wut
I don't see Jefferson or Franklin fitting that mold at all. Hamilton or Washington, maybe.
The most Deistic of the Founders was probably Jefferson but even he, at points in his life, envisioned a rollicking afterlife and God's intervention. Certainly he indicated that in his public pronouncements, such as when, in his first inaugural address when he acknowledged the "adopting an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter.†In his second message, he credited the "smiles of Providence" for economic prosperity, peace abroad and even good relations with the Indians. When Napoleon was defeated he wrote a friend that, "it proves that we have a god in heaven. That he is just, and not careless of what passes in the world."
Franklin – At the Constitutional Convention, he suggested the delegates pray together because "I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?"
Since when are we equating Christian with Conservative?
Given that in the time period I referenced it was common to hear, in Christian teachings, that the savages had no right to vote and were unwelcome in God's kingdom (slavery, racism, bigotry), God did not smile upon the 'savages' (non-whites), homosexuality was a sin punishable by the wrath of God..." those aren't Conservative ideals?
The last ten pages have been a stupid debate about protesting liberal gay religions or some shit, and I am now locking this thread and we are starting over and you people are going to do it right.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
PRESIDENTIAL. ELECTIONS.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
You must be trying out a new comedy routine or something.
The founding fathers were so conservative that by todays standards they would be considered outside the polical norm, even for the far-right wing side of the government. The Liberals of the period were desperate to try and alter the formation of the constitution. The Liberals wanted a constitution that could be easily and rapidly amended and would be sensitive to mass pressure. They wanted unchecked popular sovereignty, universal voting rights, and a single parliamentary body. They wanted liberty to be based on a long list of a priori abstractions. How much of that did they get?
I count one.
Chopped peoples heads off... conservatively
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Gibson, Hannity. I'm'a guess you didn't count Hannity. I wouldn't either.
There was Hannity's blowjob.
lol wut
I don't see Jefferson or Franklin fitting that mold at all. Hamilton or Washington, maybe.
As far as civil liberties go, I'd say homosexuals have a reason to, but there's some movement on that front, plus it's a different thread.
An infomercial is not a major interview.
The most Deistic of the Founders was probably Jefferson but even he, at points in his life, envisioned a rollicking afterlife and God's intervention. Certainly he indicated that in his public pronouncements, such as when, in his first inaugural address when he acknowledged the "adopting an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter.” In his second message, he credited the "smiles of Providence" for economic prosperity, peace abroad and even good relations with the Indians. When Napoleon was defeated he wrote a friend that, "it proves that we have a god in heaven. That he is just, and not careless of what passes in the world."
Franklin – At the Constitutional Convention, he suggested the delegates pray together because "I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?"
Since when are we equating Christian with Conservative?
Are you...are you applying modern standards to 230 years ago? Because that's insane.
Anyway some other liberal success stories in this country: Lincoln and FDR.
Since Reagan, but the effects are so massive that they project back in time.
Conversations involving the nature of the Founding Fathers tend to be.
Unless they deal with Ben Franklin his..."foreign affairs." Ohoho, I'll have to remember that one.
I'm a raving atheist and I sometimes invoke the same kind of pantheistic imagery Jefferson uses. Replace "providence" with "trajectory of the Universe" and it's a wash.
Given that in the time period I referenced it was common to hear, in Christian teachings, that the savages had no right to vote and were unwelcome in God's kingdom (slavery, racism, bigotry), God did not smile upon the 'savages' (non-whites), homosexuality was a sin punishable by the wrath of God..." those aren't Conservative ideals?
The last ten pages have been a stupid debate about protesting liberal gay religions or some shit, and I am now locking this thread and we are starting over and you people are going to do it right.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
PRESIDENTIAL. ELECTIONS.