I'd vote for Amash. He understands the office of the president -- to faithfully execute the laws (not make up his own shit).
But just the other day you HondoBros said he was far right. Now you’d vote for a classical liberal?
Making I’m making progress here.
I'd vote for any sane person for president over Trump, but Amash is classical conservative (a real, not faux one like the Trumpublicans)
"Classical Conservative" is an oxymoron. Amash is a "classical liberal".
Technically, both conservatives and liberals are 'classic liberals' in the sense they both derive from the thinking of John Locke.
Then it turns into a split like the Catholics and the Protestants. Both Christians, but divergent in their practice.
there is a huge difference. You know it. For starters liberals do all kinds of social engineering. Libertarians are laissez faire (forget spelling)
First, your reading comprehension sucks.
Second, once again you're proving your ignorance of history which the esteemed @YellowSnow respects.
Because you want to act like a petulant child and stamp your feet on revisionism doesn't change the fact that what you consider 'liberalism' isn't.
Spend some time boning up on Locke, the Scottish Enlightenment, the letters of Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine and Alex Toquerville before you open your yap about shit you literally know zip about.
I don't have to. Only a complete idiot would conflate a modern day liberal and a modern day libertarian. They are on opposite poles dumbfuck. We aren't living in the motherfucking Scottish Enlightenment or any other enlightenment. Join the fucking 21st century dumbass
When you apply "classical" it means we're talking about pre- 20th century. There's nothing in Amish's platform that would align with Tories in 18th and 19th century UK.
I'd vote for Amash. He understands the office of the president -- to faithfully execute the laws (not make up his own shit).
But just the other day you HondoBros said he was far right. Now you’d vote for a classical liberal?
Making I’m making progress here.
I'd vote for any sane person for president over Trump, but Amash is classical conservative (a real, not faux one like the Trumpublicans)
"Classical Conservative" is an oxymoron. Amash is a "classical liberal".
Technically, both conservatives and liberals are 'classic liberals' in the sense they both derive from the thinking of John Locke.
Then it turns into a split like the Catholics and the Protestants. Both Christians, but divergent in their practice.
there is a huge difference. You know it. For starters liberals do all kinds of social engineering. Libertarians are laissez faire (forget spelling)
First, your reading comprehension sucks.
Second, once again you're proving your ignorance of history which the esteemed @YellowSnow respects.
Because you want to act like a petulant child and stamp your feet on revisionism doesn't change the fact that what you consider 'liberalism' isn't.
Spend some time boning up on Locke, the Scottish Enlightenment, the letters of Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine and Alex Toquerville before you open your yap about shit you literally know zip about.
I don't have to. Only a complete idiot would conflate a modern day liberal and a modern day libertarian. They are on opposite poles dumbfuck. We aren't living in the motherfucking Scottish Enlightenment or any other enlightenment. Join the fucking 21st century dumbass
Reading comprehension still sucks. Go back and read again the reply to Yellow.
I'd vote for Amash. He understands the office of the president -- to faithfully execute the laws (not make up his own shit).
But just the other day you HondoBros said he was far right. Now you’d vote for a classical liberal?
Making I’m making progress here.
I'd vote for any sane person for president over Trump, but Amash is classical conservative (a real, not faux one like the Trumpublicans)
"Classical Conservative" is an oxymoron. Amash is a "classical liberal".
Technically, both conservatives and liberals are 'classic liberals' in the sense they both derive from the thinking of John Locke.
Then it turns into a split like the Catholics and the Protestants. Both Christians, but divergent in their practice.
Not really. Modern day conservatives have deviate quite a bit for classical liberals. Particularly when it comes to religion.
Conservatives today are even miles apart from those is the 60s and 70s. But to be fair, a democrat “progressive” in 1960 wouldn’t get elected mayor running as a democratic today’s.
I'll help you a bit because you're not being a dick like AOG. The split happened in the 1700's and early 1800's (hence the reference to Burke and Paine)
all right all right! I'll concede I don't know the origins. OK, so the apostle does not know everything. But some of these definitions are moot hairsplitting at this juncture in history because the reality is that libertarianism is liberty without government help and liberalism is liberty WITH the help of government. That means libertarianism is firmly on the right side. Amash is on the right, but a sane kind of right, not alt right. "Constitutional libertarian" is the correct term.
I'd vote for Amash. He understands the office of the president -- to faithfully execute the laws (not make up his own shit).
But just the other day you HondoBros said he was far right. Now you’d vote for a classical liberal?
Making I’m making progress here.
I'd vote for any sane person for president over Trump, but Amash is classical conservative (a real, not faux one like the Trumpublicans)
"Classical Conservative" is an oxymoron. Amash is a "classical liberal".
Technically, both conservatives and liberals are 'classic liberals' in the sense they both derive from the thinking of John Locke.
Then it turns into a split like the Catholics and the Protestants. Both Christians, but divergent in their practice.
Not really. Modern day conservatives have deviate quite a bit for classical liberals. Particularly when it comes to religion.
Conservatives today are even miles apart from those is the 60s and 70s. But to be fair, a democrat “progressive” in 1960 wouldn’t get elected mayor running as a democratic today’s.
I'll help you a bit because you're not being a dick like AOG. The split happened in the 1700's and early 1800's (hence the reference to Burke and Paine)
I'd vote for Amash. He understands the office of the president -- to faithfully execute the laws (not make up his own shit).
But just the other day you HondoBros said he was far right. Now you’d vote for a classical liberal?
Making I’m making progress here.
I'd vote for any sane person for president over Trump, but Amash is classical conservative (a real, not faux one like the Trumpublicans)
"Classical Conservative" is an oxymoron. Amash is a "classical liberal".
Technically, both conservatives and liberals are 'classic liberals' in the sense they both derive from the thinking of John Locke.
Then it turns into a split like the Catholics and the Protestants. Both Christians, but divergent in their practice.
Not really. Modern day conservatives have deviate quite a bit for classical liberals. Particularly when it comes to religion.
Conservatives today are even miles apart from those is the 60s and 70s. But to be fair, a democrat “progressive” in 1960 wouldn’t get elected mayor running as a democratic today’s.
I'll help you a bit because you're not being a dick like AOG. The split happened in the 1700's and early 1800's (hence the reference to Burke and Paine)
Ok. 41% instead of high 30’s. Doesn’t change the narrative.
The dumbest narrative in the history of the website?
No it doesn't. You have that going for you
Trump colluded with Russia and Mueller proved it but no one read the report so the Democrats are forced to make up a Ukraine scandal that ensnared their front runner because this time it will work
Evidence so damming it is held in secret and fed by leaks to gullible morons like Scott
But the public is buying in this time. No report to read or evidence to hear in a public hearing
That's the ticket
Slow down turbo. A lot of strawman fucking here.
You realize they are releasing transcripts of the testimony and there will be public hearings. If the democrats just “made this up” are all the witnesses testifying with facts negative for Trump in on the conspiracy and lying while under oath?
Leaking what they want isn't a transcript.
The Democrats have made everything up. Everyone knows it
Dumbest narrative ever
No it’s not but releasing transcripts is releasing transcripts.
Here are the released transcripts. Are they all lying?
Speaking of liars, where are Tulsi's words, asshole.? #GDSParrot
He'll never answer. Like most leftists he is pure Kunt.
You tonguing turd burglar's asshole Blob? I have answered him multiple times. He has chosen to spend the last two weeks biting my ankles because he can't deal with the answers given.
I'd vote for Amash. He understands the office of the president -- to faithfully execute the laws (not make up his own shit).
But just the other day you HondoBros said he was far right. Now you’d vote for a classical liberal?
Making I’m making progress here.
I'd vote for any sane person for president over Trump, but Amash is classical conservative (a real, not faux one like the Trumpublicans)
"Classical Conservative" is an oxymoron. Amash is a "classical liberal".
Technically, both conservatives and liberals are 'classic liberals' in the sense they both derive from the thinking of John Locke.
Then it turns into a split like the Catholics and the Protestants. Both Christians, but divergent in their practice.
Not really. Modern day conservatives have deviate quite a bit for classical liberals. Particularly when it comes to religion.
Conservatives today are even miles apart from those is the 60s and 70s. But to be fair, a democrat “progressive” in 1960 wouldn’t get elected mayor running as a democratic today’s.
I'll help you a bit because you're not being a dick like AOG. The split happened in the 1700's and early 1800's (hence the reference to Burke and Paine)
all right all right! I'll concede I don't know the origins. OK, so the apostle does not know everything. But some of these definitions are moot hairsplitting at this juncture in history because the reality is that libertarianism is liberty without government help and liberalism is liberty WITH the help of government. That means libertarianism is firmly on the right side. Amash is on the right, but a sane kind of right, not alt right. "Constitutional libertarian" is the correct term.
Are you using the term "liberalism" interchangably with "progressivism"? Because those are two radically different concepts.
Liberalism preserves individual rights and free enterprise. Progressivism mandates behaviors and dictates social norms.
Sadly, as @MikeDamone points out, liberalism starting going tits up in the 1960's. Progressivism played the long con and co-opted the term though the actions are diametrically opposed to the concept.
all right all right! I'll concede I don't know the origins. OK, so the apostle does not know everything. But some of these definitions are moot hairsplitting at this juncture in history because the reality is that libertarianism is liberty without government help and liberalism is liberty WITH the help of government. That means libertarianism is firmly on the right side. Amash is on the right, but a sane kind of right, not alt right. "Constitutional libertarian" is the correct term.
Are you using the term "liberalism" interchangably with "progressivism"? Because those are two radically different concepts.
Liberalism preserves individual rights and free enterprise. Progressivism mandates behaviors and dictates social norms.
Sadly, as @MikeDamone points out, liberalism starting going tits up in the 1960's. Progressivism played the long con and co-opted the term though the actions are diametrically opposed to the concept.
Comments
You still know zip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Don't fall for the 're-branding' attempts by the radical progressives. They're no more 'classic liberals' than Lenin and Marx.
I’m well versed on the subject.
Liberalism preserves individual rights and free enterprise. Progressivism mandates behaviors and dictates social norms.
Sadly, as @MikeDamone points out, liberalism starting going tits up in the 1960's. Progressivism played the long con and co-opted the term though the actions are diametrically opposed to the concept.