Trump unites NFL - against him.
- Thread starter Unclebaldrick
- Start date
KillerIndica
Well-Known Member
Trump's only value is as a corpse.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
contemporary American conservativism simply means conserving the principles of the revolution.
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
Except it doesn’t, because radicalism and respect for individual liberty are both liberal concepts. Libertarianism is what the idea behind the revolution and the values thereof were.
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
Classical Libertarianism of the 1770s was decidedly progressive and coincided with the Enlightenment Period of John Locke, Voltaire, etc.
To think that violently overthrowing a monarchy is a conservative prerogative is absolute stupidity. It’s clearly progressive, and thus left, not right.
To think that violently overthrowing a monarchy is a conservative prerogative is absolute stupidity. It’s clearly progressive, and thus left, not right.
PCXV
Well-Known Member
I wish that were true, and it is what they would have you believe. But I would say maybe 1% of Republican politicians fit that mould. Trump isn't one of them.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
more revisionist history from the nazi trailer trash who thinks that hitler was a liberal and white southern conservatives still vote for democrats.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
is voting for a racist pussy grabber who only cheated his way into office illegitimately with the help of foreign dictators.
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
and?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
lol
classical libertarian isn't a thing, that's why most libertarians are classical liberals.......
you are conflating classical French conservatism, where the left right concept was established, with modern American conservatives. it's not going to fly, sorry.
the right back then believed in conserving the monarchy and the state religion, neither of which ever existed here.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
it's about half imho but I agree with your basic premise here, especially the last sentance.
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
Most of us knew that (most here seem pretty plugged in to current events). Next time, just skip it if you have nothing to add. It's pointless. Now, you know a little more too.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Laughable rewrite of history here. Nested within a laughable misreading of my post. Your form of libertarian philosophy was intentionally misnamed to distort the word from its original meaning of libertarian socialism.
Your form of conservative libertarian philosophy isn't even a thing until it was coined by free market propagandists in the 1960's. It is a philosophy that is unhinged from reality. Deliberately so. Your Mises Institute even says so on its website.
I know you are too busy to learn anything that is true, but I'll just post this anyway.
https://archive.org/details/NoamChomskyOnTheOriginalMeaningOflibertarian
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
.
When I say classic libertarianism, I am differentiating between actual libertarianism and the Tea Partiers.
Also, if you’d read our history books, or if you had graduated high school, you’d know that the entirety of our values as Americans and what our forefathers were drawing from was, specifically, the French philosophers of the Enlightenment Period. So not only does it fly, but you are wrong. In fact, basic statements of liberty we tend to think of as American actually came from the French Enlightenment Period. “Lfe, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” for instance.
Also, our founding fathers were progressive, not conservative. They were rebelling against the monarchy of their fatherland to make their own country, with their own laws and values. That clearly isn’t conservative at all, that’s progression, and thus progressive.
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
By the way, Anarchy is a branch of Libertarianism. To tear down a government is Anarchy. Our forefathers threw off the chains of British Monarchy by means of Anarchy. Therefore, our forefathers were Libertarians.
PCXV
Well-Known Member
I don't think I agree with your assessment of libertarianism. Classical liberalism wasn't coined libertarianism in the 1700s as far as I know. If they would have tore down the government and enacted anarchy, that would be anarchy. But the founding fathers immediately replaced it with another form of government, a classically liberal republic. It was a coup, but not in the aims of anarchy.
Maybe you could point to some sources about the founding of libertarianism in the 1700s.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
it's about what works and what doesn't. noam, noam all you want. the average American holds no capital and 20% government debt. we were the envy of the world when a bunch of hicks whooped the world's superpowers ass, paid no taxes and respected the individual.
look where progressive got us.
we are just printing money, just like all those other countries you admire, except they're not burdened with policing the world. is so simple even you can understand it.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
it was lame try and get on topic like that, won't happen anymore my bad.
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
So, you had no little editorial to go with it? No little opinion or thought? Just a simple statement of fact, was it? Why? I guess it was a lame try on my part to get you to clarify your (cough) point.
Similar threads
