Was Our Revolution More In Line With Liberals OR Conservatives?

[Luther]

What say you?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Considering the status quo of the time was being ruled by the English and King George, I'd say liberal, both in the classical and modern meanings of the word. America cast away the old ways of its time and pioneered new techniques of government and new concepts that would make America more livable for Americans. It's true conservatives, a lot of the time going forward in time is better than going backwards.

Conservatives of the 1770s: "But why shake things up!? We've always done it this way!"

 

[Luther]

Considering the status quo of the time was being ruled by the English and King George, I'd say liberal, both in the classical and modern meanings of the word. America cast away the old ways of its time and pioneered new techniques of government and new concepts that would make America more livable for Americans. It's true conservatives, a lot of the time going forward in time is better than going backwards.

Conservatives of the 1770s: "But why shake things up!? We've always done it this way!"

But Don't forget our Founders tried for a good ten years to reconcile with the mother country because they thought of themselves as Englishmen and NOT colonist

They only wanted the same rights as Englishmen(Conservative)

 

[RabidAlpaca]

But Don't forget our Founders tried for a good ten years to reconcile with the mother country because they thought of themselves as Englishmen and NOT colonist
They only wanted the same rights as Englishmen(Conservative)

Now there's a convincing argument. If it were up to conservatives, we'd still be English. That is pretty much what I said.

 

[Cameron]

What say you?

There was a pretty clear big/small government split at the time between the federalists and anti federalists, and both collaborated to write the Constitution, so I would say both. It was very liberal in the sense that it was radically progressive for its time. But it is also focused primarily on personal autonomy and freedom from government intrusion as opposed to protections for historically disadvantaged classes which could be described as conservative in a modern sense. I see very little Trumpism in it though, insofar as the founders fought a revolution so that we wouldn’t be subjected to one man’s petty whims and built in all these various safeguards to prevent authoritarianism.

 

[Luther]

Now there's a convincing argument. If it were up to conservatives, we'd still be English. That is pretty much what I said.

It was only AFTER the REVOLUTION was WON could they form any Gov they wished

Point is, that 10 Yr period they only wanted reconciliation (CONSERVATIVE)

So, we would still be ENGLISHMEN if it wasn't for the arrogance of King George and company

 

[bluesmoke]

The Loyalist, the Tories, were loyal to Britain and conservative. The opposition Patriots would be considered, though the term was not in use then, the liberals.

 

[Luther]

The Loyalist, the Tories, were loyal to Britain and conservative. The opposition Patriots would be considered, though the term was not in use then, the liberals.

The Loyalist, the Tories, were loyal to Britain and conservative.

And so were the patriots until Jul 4, 1776

What happen just before?

Shot heard around the world?

Battle of Bunker hill

 

[HK.227]

Conservatism didn't become a thing until the end of the Napoleonic wars.
Conservatism was influenced by the American Revolution, not the other way around.

 

[aociswundumho]

Considering the status quo of the time was being ruled by the English and King George, I'd say liberal, both in the classical and modern meanings of the word.

Except classic liberals and modern liberals have almost nothing in common.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Except classic liberals and modern liberals have almost nothing in common.

They have a lot in common. Let's take gay marriage for instance. Both classical and modern liberals would argue individuals have a right to enter contracts and find their own fulfillment in life without having the government step in and stop them. Modern conservatives want to use the government as a weapon to restrict individual liberty and enforce their version of morality.

Another example, marijuana legalization. Conservatives want to use government violence to control people's bodies and overrule their liberties.

 

[aociswundumho]

They have a lot in common. Let's take gay marriage for instance.

A classic liberal would argue that having to ask the rotten government for permission to marry is a blatant violation of personal liberty, whereas modern liberals want government licenses for everything, including for a little girl running a lemonade stand.

Both classical and modern liberals would argue individuals have a right to enter contracts and find their own fulfillment in life without having the government step in and stop them.

Modern liberals do not support the right to contract or freedom of association. For example, they believe in forcing bigots to do business with people they despise, and forcing firms to "negotiate" with labor cartels.

Modern conservatives want to use the government as a weapon to restrict individual liberty and enforce their version of morality.

True, but modern conservatives are not classic liberals. They typically (but not always) believe in drug laws, censorship of porn, marriage laws, etc.

 

[BlueTex]

A classic liberal would argue that having to ask the rotten government for permission to marry is a blatant violation of personal liberty, whereas modern liberals want government licenses for everything, including for a little girl running a lemonade stand.

Modern liberals do not support the right to contract or freedom of association. For example, they believe in forcing bigots to do business with people they despise, and forcing firms to "negotiate" with labor cartels.

True, but modern conservatives are not classic liberals. They typically (but not always) believe in drug laws, censorship of porn, marriage laws, etc.

That marriage license brings all kinds of rights and benefits not available to the unmarried and that's what the liberals were seeking in Obergefell v. Hodges.... you know, equality...

 

[CaughtInThe]

Come on. Everyone knows that the British and the loyalists were uber liberal.

 

[aociswundumho]

That marriage license brings all kinds of rights and benefits not available to the unmarried and that's what the liberals were seeking in Obergefell v. Hodges.... you know, equality...

Special benefits is the opposite of equality.

 

[nvflash]

What say you?

Modern political parties have almost nothing in common with the founders or the founders intent.

The founders signed a document of treason against the Crown of England and sent it to the King, pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

They fought a war in which the stakes were win or hang.

Show me one politician in either party that has that type of stones, I'll wait........

 

[jnug]

Modern political parties have almost nothing in common with the founders or the founders intent.

The founders signed a document of treason against the Crown of England and sent it to the King, pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

They fought a war in which the stakes were win or hang.

Show me one politician in either party that has that type of stones, I'll wait........

Maybe if "Conservatives" (if there are any actual conservatives left) would sit still for a nanosecond instead of dancing all over the map the question posed in the thread title MIGHT be interesting. As it is now, it's a moot topic.

Are there any actual policy initiatives coming out of the GOP that are relevant to America in the 21st Century? Do they even know its the 21st Century?

 

[Jay59]

Come on. Everyone knows that the British and the loyalists were uber liberal.

Conservative is correct, as in preserve the central authority. Liberals were people like Adams and Jefferson, who fought constantly amongst themselves.

The juxtaposition is that the modern Democratic party is aligned with the royalists, while Republicans follow the liberal heritage. Wierd shit, but history does flips like that. 1960s radicals are todays stuck-in-the-mud establishment.

Maybe if "Conservatives" (if there are any actual conservatives left) would sit still for a nanosecond instead of dancing all over the map the question posed in the thread title MIGHT be interesting. As it is now, it's a moot topic. Are there any actual policy initiatives coming out of the GOP that are relevant to America in the 21st Century? Do they even know its the 21st Century?

Of course conservatives are relevant. If you bothered to find out what they were saying, you would know this.

 

[nvflash]

Maybe if "Conservatives" (if there are any actual conservatives left) would sit still for a nanosecond instead of dancing all over the map the question posed in the thread title MIGHT be interesting. As it is now, it's a moot topic.

Are there any actual policy initiatives coming out of the GOP that are relevant to America in the 21st Century? Do they even know its the 21st Century?

Liberty doesn't care what Century it is, neither do Democrats or Republicans, they just want to be in charge of the nations budget.

 

[calamity]

What say you?

Conservatives were Tories. I'll let you figure out what that means.

 

[jnug]

Conservative is correct, as in preserve the central authority. Liberals were people like Adams and Jefferson, who fought constantly amongst themselves.

The juxtaposition is that the modern Democratic party is aligned with the royalists, while Republicans follow the liberal heritage. Wierd shit, but history does flips like that. 1960s radicals are todays stuck-in-the-mud establishment.


Of course conservatives are relevant. If you bothered to find out what they were saying, you would know this.

I know what so-called Conservatives are saying. They are not Conservatives other than in their continuation of the Racial bias and White Supremacy that has its founding in the beginnings of the Contemporary Conservative movement with Bill Buckley. Other than that, they have abandoned Conservatism in favor of Populism and its not even contemporary Popularism in its current configuration. Its Popularism from over a century ago.

 

[jnug]

Liberty doesn't care what Century it is, neither do Democrats or Republicans, they just want to be in charge of the nations budget.

Every National Politician wants to be in charge of the Nation's Budget. So what. That is how it has always been.

 

[nvflash]

Every National Politician wants to be in charge of the Nation's Budget. So what. That is how it has always been.

As long as you are not pretending it's something other than it is, two sides of the same corrupt coin, either party giving and damn about the people or the Constitution more than throwing them a bone now and then on social issues to keep getting reelected, so they can loot the treasury.

 

[jnug]

Conservative is correct, as in preserve the central authority. Liberals were people like Adams and Jefferson, who fought constantly amongst themselves.

The juxtaposition is that the modern Democratic party is aligned with the royalists, while Republicans follow the liberal heritage. Wierd shit, but history does flips like that. 1960s radicals are todays stuck-in-the-mud establishment.


Of course conservatives are relevant. If you bothered to find out what they were saying, you would know this.

"Preserve the Central Authority". That is Conservative? That has NEVER been the Contemporary Conservative position. The Conservative Position has always been States Rights, in opposition to the Central Authority. They are trying that one again but only as a rational for more Voter Suppression. They will abandon that as fast as readopting it if and when it suits them.

Interesting that regardless of what the media talking heads blather on about, when you hear from the actual State Representatives supporting this new wave of voter suppression, they tell you EXACTLY what they are after. They are back to the "better voters not more voters" tropes of a century ago.....care to ask them who they think the "better voters" are?

 

[jnug]

As long as you are not pretending it's something other than it is, two sides of the same corrupt coin, either party giving and damn about the people or the Constitution more than throwing them a bone now and then on social issues to keep getting reelected, so they can loot the treasury.

So if that is your issue, what is your solution?