View Full Version : You hear from liberals that discourse was more civil in the past. Really?
variablebinary
07-30-11, 04:12
Liberals love to say how mean and rude modern conservatism is compared to the more civil time of bipartisanship.
Really? Thankfully there is youtube which proves otherwise.
What is civil is about this exactly? Someone is called a NAZI, and someone is called a queer. Civil? No, but it shows how little things have changed in the debate between left and right in nearly 45 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8&feature=related
What I do notice is people sound a lot dumber today. Mastery of the English language is a lot art form.
ThirdWatcher
07-30-11, 09:52
Not in my lifetime. After my hitch in the Army, I entered college (in 1976) and the liberals I met were intolerant and profane.
My father moved to another state after I enlisted and in order to go to college there I had to pay out-of-state tuition for the first year. This same state gives in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
GermanSynergy
07-30-11, 13:25
Liberals claim to be for peace, love, civility, but in reality they are very petty, hate filled people. Don't believe me? Just disagree with one. You'll be called a "racist", "tea bagger", "nazi", or other profane label.
Wanna get a lib in a snit? Mention "Sarah Palin", "Bush", or "Balanced Budget Amendment". They'll come out of the woodwork with their myopic hatred, and they cannot articulate the reasons that they hate _____.
Logic, debate and civil discourse are things of the past, replaced with ambush journalism, sound bites and gotcha politics.
Moose-Knuckle
07-30-11, 15:52
Liberalism is a mental disorder, what the hell do they know anyhow?
There was a day in this country when statesmen would meet at dawn with pistols to settle their differences. ;)
Alot of Liberal ideology is a knee jerk reaction to ___, that defies facts, reason or logic.
If we ban guns except for the police and military, then only the police and military will have them :rolleyes:
Someone said ______, and it hurt my feelings or included facts. We'll call that hate speech and ban it :rolleyes:
Someone said President Obama is the welfare president. Because he is half black, that's racist. When in reality the number of people on welfare has gone up because he knows nothing about real world economics. They also forget in reality, there are more white people on welfare than any other race.
etc. etc. etc.
it's been the same shit for all of human history. :p
montanadave
07-31-11, 07:34
it's been the same shit for all of human history. :p
True dat!
Some folks would be well served to read a little history.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/sunday-review/us-has-lovehate-relationship-with-debt.html?pagewanted=1&ref=opinion
ForTehNguyen
07-31-11, 08:59
back in the 1800s Congressmen getting into physical altercations on the floor was a common thing.
QuietShootr
07-31-11, 10:33
No, it's not. What they mean is, that we're starting to give them some small tastes of their own medicine, and as usual they don't like it when they're confronted by the shit they have been doing for a hundred years.
I know it's been said over and over again: but listen to what I say. Go to Amazon and get a copy of Rules for Radicals. Follow it religiously when dealing with liberals.
While you're ordering, get TOTAL RESISTANCE - Swiss Army Guide to Guerrilla Warfare and Underground Operations. That'll be enough to get you started for Act II.
When I was in college I looked at microfiche copies of the Philadelphia Inquirer and the NY Times during the Civil War years. The press was much kinder to GW Bush than A Lincoln.
The 1800 presidential campaign was shockingly brutal, even by today's standards.
When you study history you quickly realize that very little in society is "new". Everything goes in cycles. Which makes the Progressive agenda even more ridiculous. Their "new" ideas have all been tried before and failed because they run contrary to natural human behavior.
I also hate how they are called "Liberals" as they are against personally liberty in everything but homosexuality and abortion. I think most accurate term I have have heard for them is "Statists". Limited government conservatives should really be called "Liberals" as they stand more for personal liberty.
The Founding Fathers were actually literal political "liberals". Today most would be classified as Libertarians. The political "right" in this country has shifted so far "left" that 1787 "left" is 2011 "right".
In 1787 the political "right" (Republicans/Anti-Federalists) was analogous to modern Libertarians and the "left" (Federalists) to modern Republicans.
montanadave
07-31-11, 11:23
The Founding Fathers were actually literal political "liberals".
To ascribe to the "Founding Fathers" a single political perspective is to grossly oversimplify the historical reality.
To ascribe to the "Founding Fathers" a single political perspective is to grossly oversimplify the historical reality.
Its an analogy to modern times and I wouldn't call it "grossly" over simplified...especially for a post on a gun forum:rolleyes:
I should have said many of the FF's would be described today as Libertarians.
No, it's not. What they mean is, that we're starting to give them some small tastes of their own medicine, and as usual they don't like it when they're confronted by the shit they have been doing for a hundred years.
I know it's been said over and over again: but listen to what I say. Go to Amazon and get a copy of Rules for Radicals. Follow it religiously when dealing with liberals.
While you're ordering, get TOTAL RESISTANCE - Swiss Army Guide to Guerrilla Warfare and Underground Operations. That'll be enough to get you started for Act II.
I gave a powerpoint in my ed certification class on indoctrination and cited the support of RFR on the NEA's website. The Beckster mentioned it on his radio show, but I decided to "see it to believe it". I was scoffed when I mentioned his name, then played the video clip of our dear leader citing the "get in their face" mantra and the class sat in silence. Mind you, most of my fellow classmates are older than myself, but dumber than a box o rocks.
We had a violent "cultural revolution" in the 60s thanks to liberals. It just wasn't as violent as the one in China or Russia. But that doesn't mean they didn't give it their best effort.
Heavy Metal
07-31-11, 12:22
Much more civil in the past!
http://sheiroq.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/interesting-pop-art-unbelievable-3011213-575-751.jpg?w=560
Its an analogy to modern times and I wouldn't call it "grossly" over simplified...especially for a post on a gun forum:rolleyes:
I should have said many of the FF's would be described today as Libertarians.
Libertarian does not directly equate to "liberal." More importantly, "liberal" has a modern connotation almost unrelated to it's correct usage as most "liberals" today are quasi socialists.
A "liberal" should mean allowing others freedom to make their own choices, sadly most "liberals" prefer to force their views upon others with state enforcement.
ForTehNguyen
07-31-11, 13:04
Its an analogy to modern times and I wouldn't call it "grossly" over simplified...especially for a post on a gun forum:rolleyes:
I should have said many of the FF's would be described today as Libertarians.
libertarians today are what classical Republicans used to be
QuietShootr
07-31-11, 13:27
I believe this says it best.
Vasquez: Look, man. I only need to know one thing: where...they...are.
GermanSynergy
07-31-11, 13:32
I relish the day when the Republicans have a super majority again, and they ram through everything on the Republican wish list. Simply to give the libs a taste of their own medicine. :cool:
Belmont31R
07-31-11, 13:57
I relish the day when the Republicans have a super majority again, and they ram through everything on the Republican wish list. Simply to give the libs a taste of their own medicine. :cool:
Its not about R's vs. D's. The last time they had anything close to that they gave us DHS and Medicare Part D which costs 750 billion a decade.
I don't really trust them anymore than than I do the democrats. At least the democrats are honest about their intentions. Republicans will run as conservatives, and then when push comes to shove they all line up like pigs at the trough getting their goodies to vote certain ways.
The only way to fix this is a huge political shift by the populace and amendments blocking many of what goes on today. Much stricter controls on spending, elections, districting, and much more. The founders laid the foundation for us but left a lot of holes open. Hence "...if you can keep it." I think we've already lost it, and are just in a sort of transitional phase. The time to fight was in the 70's, 80's, and 90's after the liberals became "popular" in the 60's. I don't think either part is capable of anything but our further slide into government rule of everything, and many R's have either voted for it or otherwise facilitated it. That whole compassionate conservative mantra is just a veil of a socialist. I mean its not that hard to understand the differences between ideologies. They wanted to sit on the fence and dabble their toes into both pools but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and they did a lot of paving.
QuietShootr
07-31-11, 13:59
Its not about R's vs. D's. The last time they had anything close to that they gave us DHS and Medicare Part D which costs 750 billion a decade.
I don't really trust them anymore than than I do the democrats. At least the democrats are honest about their intentions. Republicans will run as conservatives, and then when push comes to shove they all line up like pigs at the trough getting their goodies to vote certain ways.
The only way to fix this is a huge political shift by the populace and amendments blocking many of what goes on today. Much stricter controls on spending, elections, districting, and much more. The founders laid the foundation for us but left a lot of holes open. Hence "...if you can keep it." I think we've already lost it, and are just in a sort of transitional phase. The time to fight was in the 70's, 80's, and 90's after the liberals became "popular" in the 60's. I don't think either part is capable of anything but our further slide into government rule of everything, and many R's have either voted for it or otherwise facilitated it. That whole compassionate conservative mantra is just a veil of a socialist. I mean its not that hard to understand the differences between ideologies. They wanted to sit on the fence and dabble their toes into both pools but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and they did a lot of paving.
http://dclips.fundraw.com/400dir/Martellare.gif
crusader377
07-31-11, 21:30
IMO civility is greatly overrated in politics. I would much rather have politicians with strong conviction and a strong desire to do what is best for America rather than civil politicians that enrich themselves and enact policies that are detrimental to our nation's long term success.
Liberals claim to be for peace, love, civility, but in reality they are very petty, hate filled people. Don't believe me? Just disagree with one. You'll be called a "racist", "tea bagger", "nazi", or other profane label.
Wanna get a lib in a snit? Mention "Sarah Palin", "Bush", or "Balanced Budget Amendment". They'll come out of the woodwork with their myopic hatred, and they cannot articulate the reasons that they hate _____.
Logic, debate and civil discourse are things of the past, replaced with ambush journalism, sound bites and gotcha politics.
Got to agree. My mother is a liberal and I'm pretty much talked to with disdain as though I am not 'enlightened enough' and she is VERY thankful to my brother for showing her the way.
But, mind you my brother is a strong gay activist (nothing wrong with that) because he believes in his activism for the myriad of issues he goes for. If you don't agree with him he pretty much scorns you, ridicules you and thinks you are 'wrong' because he went to college and was educated to know better.
Libertarian does not directly equate to "liberal." More importantly, "liberal" has a modern connotation almost unrelated to it's correct usage as most "liberals" today are quasi socialists.
A "liberal" should mean allowing others freedom to make their own choices, sadly most "liberals" prefer to force their views upon others with state enforcement.
That was the point I was making if you re-read my post.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clasical_liberalism
18th century political cartoon of Congress. Looks much more civil back then:rolleyes:.
http://sedition.com/img/pd/us-history/205.png
Here is Senator Preston Brooks beating fellow Senator Charles Sumner with his cane on the Senate floor in 1856.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Southern_Chivalry.jpg
Like most things modern Liberals say, it is devoid of any fact and completely ignorant of history.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.