HOW LIBERALS BECAME ILLIBERAL

paine was no kind of "conservative" and i'd like to see the quotes that make libhater think he was.

 

Why do you define yourself by those you hate?

Socialism is becoming more American because it is becoming more popular. This is because increasingly wealth and income are going to the best paid ten to twenty percent of the population, while incomes for most Americans are stagnating or declining.

 

If one studied the videos at PragerU, took them to heart, and then attended a real college, that person would be the dumbest person in the college. They would fail all of their classes and they would look rather foolish during classroom discussions.

 

It is one of those things that gets mentioned a lot in conservative literature, but never really discussed. Thomas Paine and his pamphlet, Common Sense” which sparked among the people, the Revolutionary spirit. But then there is the Rights of Man which was written partly in response to the critics of the then emerging liberalism. And let us not forget the Age of Reason where he deconstructs religion rather soundly. I could not imagine Thomas Paine being the darling of the right.

 

This is the story of America ever since Reaganomics took hold. Voodoo economics at its finest.

 

I use the term libo because so few of these people are liberals. Perhaps Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard were the only real liberals who ran for president as democrats and they got hardly no votes and they slandered and tried to destroy Tulsi.

A liberal always supports civil liberties and almost always is against war.

Libocrats today are right wing reactionary fascists. Trump was closer to a liberal than Biden.

 

Some of the founding fathers wanted to end this. They wanted, upon the death of a wealthy man, that much of his assets be redistributed among young men to prevent the creation of an aristocracy. They opined that when the meritless inherit wealth it is wasted and that the smart and capable would make it grow faster.
Obviously much easier then when most wealth was agricultural but it could still work. It's not socialism, you build what you want but since you can't take it with you it should go to those who will build it further. The smart will get the same as the bred and the smart will take it further than a stupid/inept bred child.
It was close, nearly made it to the Constitution, but we are left with an aristocracy who's most important contribution is to hire someone good.

 

How the frack is anyone socialist? Who is saying the government should take over and run all the productive industries in the United States?

Socialism is a definite and established form of economic organization. It is not "anything I don't happen to like" In today's world it is nearly nonexistent in a pure form but a hybrid of it and capitalism is the dominant type of economics in the existing.

19th-century definitions of liberal and conservative are meaningless today since they were formulated in a world where nobility and royalty still controlled a substantial part of the world's wealth and were an actual counter to the bourgeoisie that was the main nemesis of socialism throughout that century. The "Middle Class" of the 19th century was a class between the nobility, who lived on and from landed estates, and the peasantry who lived on small farmsteads they owned or rented from the Nobles. It contained both the petit bourgeoisie, which is basically what we call the Middle-Class today and the Grand Bourgeoisie, which we call the wealthy and very wealthy

Hasn't any conservative ever watched Downton Abbey?

 

At the time, in England, by law, a man's wealth, upon death, went to the man's eldest son. It was a law meant to perpetuate large estates. Many of those who had come to America, had been younger sons and had to come to America, to make their fortune.

I was reading something the other day about the American Enlightenment. It noted that what set the Americans apart from the Europeans was that the Americans centered many of their ideas around what they called civic virtue. The idea that we the people, our society has to be cultivated into habits where the people work for the betterment of the society, even at a cost to oneself and one's fortune. Because if people are not working for the betterment of society, they are opening the door to tyranny.

 

Is this not taught in high school world history classes?

 

That's where I thought I got it from. Important details are often neglected though, such as the fact that many nobles were quite poor by the 19th century

 

Reactionaries can find passages from the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine that criticize governments, and claim them as one on their side. The forget that during the eighteenth century governments were controlled by aristocrats and rich merchants. When Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations minimum wage laws did not exist. Maximum wage laws existed to protect employers from the need to compete for employees. Adam Smith opposed maximum wage laws.

 

It bears repeating that the big-time subversive power of the 19th century, the one that was going to end civilization and the human race, was the United States. We only became conservative and started defending the status quo after WWI

 

Even worse was the practice of fee entail, or just entail, where a large estate could not be sold but must remain in the family. Illegal in America it was a main reason many old noble families were often poorer than their own peasantry

 

Yep. Leftists love them some thought police...hence hate crimes and other monstrosities.

 

They lie when they say they are Liberals. They are dishonest Left Wing Authoritarians, and especially Pelosi, is a short timer. Those with a longer term view would do well to rein her in.

Pelosi losing Dem support in effort to steal Iowa-2 seat

It doesn't count unless they stop her.​

Several steps too far.

Iowa Congresswoman Marianette Miller-Meeks (R) won the election, Pelosi will not rule out overturning the certified election and replacing her with her Democrat opponent, Rita Hart, who has been certified as the loser.

Another vulnerable Democrat signaled that he couldn’t support the plan to overturn the election results.

This actually wouldn't be the first time that Democrats have done this. The last time the GOP didn't retaliate when they retook the majority, but they damn sure will this time.

Complaining, and stopping her counts.
Complaining and NOT stopping here, doesn't count.