Is there any evidence (let alone proof) that religions mellow after 1900 years. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14898807
Steve_American wrote:Still no Liberals have come forward to defend this claim. So, I'll explain where this came from.

On another site, this Progressive asserted that in Europe the wave of recent immigrants have brought a culture with them that is in conflict with the recently evolved culture of Europeans. I was jumped on by a group of about 6 Liberals who said I meant Muslims and that I am a racist because I meant Muslin immigrants and by "original people of Europe" I meant White people.

Then they asserted that Islam is so harsh because it is 600 years younger than Christianity. Given time Islam will automatically become more mellow.

I had put in a foot note that "I was not sure 'original' was the right word". I meant the people who lived in Europe 4 or so years ago not 400 years ago. And of course the "original" people of Europe were Homo Erectus and then the Neanderthals. But they didn't care.


Your anecdotes about feeling victimised are not relevant.

I just thought that their claim was BS. You-all here seem to agree that it is BS. That religions do not follow any fixed evolutionary path. So, Christianity was started about 32 AD and so 1900 years later would be 1932. But 1900 was a rounded off inexact number anyway. And Islam was founded about 660 AD, so it will be 1900 years old in 2560 or so. So, how harsh or mellow Christianity was 630 years ago in 1388 is meaningless.


Yes.

I think that European Gov. have made a grave mistake in not enforcing the law when the recent immigrants break it. The Gov. seem to be shooting for an end point of "Multiculturalism", not assimilation. America aims for assimilation, so America is different.

As I understand Multiculturalism it means letting there be 2 different set of laws, 1 for the old Europeans and another for Muslin Europeans. Either by geography or by religion. So, wife beating and child sexual abuse [etc.] will be OK in Muslin areas. I just don't see this as being a workable long term solution. And, there have been stories about some Muslim criminals (at least if I can so label them before the law has done so) who have abused white children and raped them, etc. [you have seen the stories just as I have]. It has been alleged that this has gone on for many years with the police and other Gov. officials doing nothing to stop the criminals or TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN WHO ARE NOT MUSLIMS FROM THOSE CRIMINALS.


No, you are making the same mistake a lot of other conservatives make. You are confusing legal pluralism with multiculturalism.

Also, no government anywhere in the west is making it legal for Muslims to rape and beat women and children. This is a conservative meme that has no supporting evidence.

I just suggested that the European Gov. should do more to protect their non-Muslim citizens from the immigrant criminals. And not have separate systems of laws for different citizens. Those 6 Liberals there jumped all over me for this. I do not post there anymore as a result. Those 6 Liberals have their heads stuck so far up their asses that they can't see truth when it kisses their ass.


You poor victim. Do you need a Kleenex for your conservative tears?

All you did was accuse all Muslim immigrants of being pedophile rapists, and some people disagreed with you. How dare they!
#14898823
Pants-of-a-dog, I said I'm a Progressive.
I didn't accuse *all* immigrants of anything.
I said they have a culture that is not like current European culture. Some more so and some less so.
I said there are reports of the police not doing anything to stop such criminals. Is this not true?
I said there were only a few such criminals. It can't be true that the immigrants are *all* such criminals. If that were true there would be a hugely lot more reports of such criminal acts. Like thousands a week, far more than the few I have seen reported over several years.
I described what I understood Multiculturalism as being. If I'm wrong you might try politely explaining where I got it wrong. But, don't bother, I would not at this point believe anything you said to linked to.
I have decided that I don't like you.
BTW I think you username was well chosen.
Last edited by Steve_American on 22 Mar 2018 17:13, edited 1 time in total.
#14898827
To the OP. Why did you not answer my questions?

What do you do when a conservative like myself disagrees with you?

Why do you use the almost useless term "liberal". This term has been so mauled by the media that senators in the US who opposed the tax cuts because they grew government and the deficit were labeled as "liberal". I challenge you to stop using this term and see if you can still make your arguments.

Note:

The world is not divided into Conservative and Liberal.

There are conservatives like myself with what you would call 'liberal' ideas on some issues and what you would call 'liberals' with decidedly conservative ideas on some issues. I give as a contentious example, guns.
#14898831
Oxymandias wrote:Find your response hilarious. First of all, you give no examples of religious persecution and simply assume that there was because of prior bias, not because you did any research on any of these sects. If I asked exactly how many of the ideologies I listed were Islamic sects and how many were religions, you would not be able to tell me because you are simply too ignorant and too unwilling to cure your ignorance of any Middle Eastern history. You think you can "undermine" my argument through a baseless handwave? If my argument holds that little water yours had none to begin with.


Started laughing when I reached the third 'sect' in your little list and didn't bother with the rest. As I said, practically all of them involved internecine bloodshed and religious persecution. Funnier still is that a lot of these religious divergences were typically characterized with religio-political grievances over accession rights. What you call a handwave, I call common sense, historical awareness, and predictability.

The ongoing persecution of the Ahmadiyya is just one noteworthy example. The recent genocidal carnage wrought upon the Yahzidi (non-Islamic) is another. The Druze are also currently persecuted by Sunni extremists. And these are just off the top of my head.

You can find examples of religious persecution in Islamic history however it is certainly not as genocidal as Christianity's was. If one tried to start a new religion in the medieval West openly they would certainly be sentenced to a quick death.


It's clear from your post that you don't even factor in the absolute carnage rendered upon non-'Peoples of the book'. 'Subhumans' apparently don't count. :excited:

Also how can you call Islam an inherently violent religion if there are several Islamic sects which aren't violent and that has been persecuted by the dominant sect of the time? Wouldn't that just make something like Orthodox Sunnism inherently violent and not all the rest of the sects violent given that they are the ones being persecuted? In fact there is higher religious persecution of Shias than there has been of Christians under the Caliphate so wouldn't that mean that Islam is violent against itself. You're homogeneous perspective of Islam is falling apart Sabbaticus, fast I might add.


You're undermining your own argument, once again, by illustrating inter-religious intolerance within the Islamic religion. :lol:

And you mention none of these reasons. Why don't you give me one hmm? I think you should be well aware that if the Caliph really wanted to kill of a religion, it can but it didn't. There is no compulsion in religion. Also funny that you mention a lack of central authority. The Quran actually is against there being any central religious authority. Even the Caliph is merely a protector of Islam, God is considered to be the sole religious authority. Because of this, the Caliphs had no theological justification for the persecution of Islamic sects and they better have a good reason or they would be displaced. As I stated, the Caliph is merely a protector of Islam. If the people do not think that he is protecting Islam, then he has no purpose. This is one of the reasons why the Abbasid Revolution happened in the first place. The Umayyads were seen as unjust and the Quran states that Muslims cannot stand still in the face of injustice.


I did mention the reasons, but what you're asking of me is concrete examples, however I do not consider that a worthwhile expenditure of my time, as they're readily available in wikipedia. Also, "There is no compulsion in religion." :lol: :knife: :lol: Tell that to the countless of 'kafar', who were slaughtered by pious Muslims.

Why was there a schism in the first place? The Sunnis and Shias, despite their differences did not attempt to kill each other over it and many saw them as simply other Muslims. Can Christian sects not tolerate even the littlest differences between themselves? Furthermore most of those early Christian sects were found in the Middle East which had a very, very different political scene than the West. The medieval sects also either were excommunicated by the Church, driven out of the country, or had to keep themselves hidden lest they end up like the Cathars having even their existence being erased from history.


Christianity was the state religion of an empire divided in two regional blocks. When the empire parted in two, the religion parted in two. Christianity was a vehicle of population control. The history and spread of Christianity is different than that of Islam, mostly because Islam is the religion of the sword and its prophet was a primitive warlord.
#14898860
Drlee, I didn't respond to any non-liberal who seemed to agree with me about the BS-ness of the claim that all religions will mellow after 1900 years. I wanted to talk to that group specifically. They either are not here on this forum or they are afraid to come out and defend that specific claim.

I agree that the word Liberal has lost all agreed upon meaning. Nobody knows what others mean when they use the word Liberal.

I consider myself a Progressive and yet I am scared to watch what seems to be happening in Europe with the recent wave of immigrants

So yes, I understand that it is likely that that not all _____ agree with all the positions of the group called ______. Fill in the 2 blanks with the name of any political group.
#14898903
Ok. You do not wish to speak with me. :roll:

You also said that the term liberal was meaningless and then said this:

I didn't respond to any non-liberal


Just for the record sport, this forum is supposed to invite comments from everyone not just whomever you choose. But I will go away and leave you to your.....whatever.. :roll:
#14898931
@The Sabbaticus

Give me an example. I want a clear cut event in history that deals with this so that we may properly engage with it's context and such contexts relation to Islam. Outside of Shias, there is no other sects there that were formed specifically over accession rights. If you want proof of this, outside of simply looking up most of the sects themselves, all of them were made during the Caliphate and if the treatment of Shia are of any indication, most of these sects should not be as popular as they were if they opposed the Caliphate.

I call it a handwave because you simply make assertions without providing evidence. This not only reinforces my point regarding how little you know of Islamic history but also of how you baseless most of your beliefs are.

The Ahmadiyya sect was started in British India. Any persecution was being done under the British, not Muslim powers. I have stated this before and, due to your complete lack of any reading comprehension, I have to state this again.

Furthermore, I am not talking about modern Syria and Iraq where the religious environment is completely different. Islam is a social institution that adapts to different environments and I delved deep into this idea in my posts with Drlee in this exact thread. If you wish to have any form of discussion with me about Islamic history, I will automatically assume you have read such posts so if you are completely lost, that is entirely your responsibility.

Outside of taxes and pagans I have no idea what you are referring to. The People of the Book are protected entities under Islam. Any form of carnage against them was decidedly un-Islamic for a majority of Islamic history. If you have any arguments against this, give me sources. Show me your supposed knowledge about events of persecution. Surely you do know about actions of violence against non-Muslims in the Caliphate if you are this fervently anti-Islamic?

1. What is supposedly wrong about inter-religious conflict? I don't think anyone with an ounce of knowledge on the history of the Christianity has any right to criticize a religion because of "inter-religious conflict". You guys split Christianity into two because of one minor difference and then had an entire civil war over a different interpretation of the same sect. Until modern times, the Caliphate and Muslims have never had this sort of problem which is why so many different sects and interpretations of Islam are to be found in the first place.

2. That isn't an argument, it's a series of questions. Questions that you have not addressed nor answered I might add.

You don't even bother to go unto wikipedia to learn about Islamic history and you can't just wing it or else someone can put you on the spot like I am doing right now. Furthermore, you cannot completely learn everything there is to learn about Islamic history through wikipedia. Wikipedia, although a very good and interesting endeavor, is primarily "Western-centric" so you'll have great deals of information on say, Europe, but not much in-depth articles on the Middle East. And let's not forget that alot of Islamic history is untouched by Western academia which makes finding out information relatively hard. You have to put effort into this sort of thing and it is worth the effort. By learning more about Islam and it's history, you can properly criticize it and deal with it's nuances with a sense of understanding and solidity in the same way you do when talking about European politics. As you are however, you cannot argue anything meaningful.

The "no compulsion in religion" part was just tongue in cheek. However, this idea of religious tolerance was one of the things that lead to the Abbasid Revolution. The public disagreed with the Umayyads continuous persecution of non-Muslims due to such actions contradicting what they thought was said in the Quran. This helped the Abbasids grow in popularity as they promised the public to instate religious tolerance under their rule. This lead to the overthrow of the Umayyads, and the placement of the Abbasid family as Caliph.

Also piousness is very subjective if you have any knowledge of Islamic history. The Muta'zila for instance, believe that if you don't believe the Quran was created, you could not be a Muslim and Sufis think that interpreting the Quran literally is missing it's point.

Christianity was the state religion of an empire divided in two regional blocks. When the empire parted in two, the religion parted in two. Christianity was a vehicle of population control. The history and spread of Christianity is different than that of Islam, mostly because Islam is the religion of the sword and its prophet was a primitive warlord.


I would like actual evidence to back that claim up. Even if you don't provide sources, I would like you to delve deeper into the issue which should be no issue for you given that you are much more familiar with European culture and history than Middle Eastern culture and history.

I said he was a merchant and I gave my proof for it. It seems that you don't bother reading anything I say and that is a very stupid thing to do in a freaking debate forum because even if you don't care about what I say, you'll end up looking like a complete idiot with no coherency at all. Also Islam spread to the Middle East and North Africa militarily. It did not do so for everywhere else in the world.
#14898936
@Rich

The fact that you use the word "Cultural Marxist" concerns me. I am basing my knowledge off of Middle Eastern history books and primary documents from the time periods I was studying. Both of these things existed before "Marxism" even existed.

Actually many saw the Crusaders as comparable to animals and saw their medical system along with their form of government as barbaric. What you are in fact referring to is how the Muslims saw how the Franks allowed both men and women into public baths. That's about it. In all places of Frankish society, women were baby making machines and while women in Islamic society were somewhat similar, many scholars and important political figures in the Caliphate were addressing the issue of women have low social status in Islamic society. European society didn't even think of this fact until nearly 1800 years later.

Evidence or sources? The Byzantine Empire had greater or lesser degrees of liberty depending on the king. You can't say that the Byzantines were less liberal than modern Western standards because that depended on who was in power. Also the Byzantines effected Islam, not the other way around. Why do you think the Umayyads had such Byzantine style architecture and art? Because they admired them and since they believed in an Abraham religion, they respected them.

That requires loads of evidence. I, a person well versed in Persian, Arabian, and Mughal history, am not well-versed on anything regarding Africa and Hinduism and given this, I highly, highly doubt you know anything outside of stereotypes and stupid assumptions about Ethiopian Christianity and Hinduism.
#14899019
Drlee, you don't need to go away.
I said I was waiting for the Liberals to come and support their claim.
I thought the claim was so obviously BS that I thought it could only be believed as a result of some process of group-think.
I didn't see what you wrote in your early replies as wanting to support the claim I was asking about, sorry.
You say you are a conservative, this is fine, depending on what you mean by that.
In today's US I find very few ideas where I agree with the Conservative [Trumpite] position. In fact I find many of those positions to be evil. But, I don't know you well enough to judge you.
If you want to argue that all religions will mellow after 1900 years have passed from their founding, I will listen and respond. You don't even need to go further and explain why the recent citizens of Europe should have to live with harsh Muslims for the next 500 years while they [Europeans] are waiting for the Muslims to mellow.

To reply to some others -- I don''t really see much point in arguing about which religion was harsher many 100s of years ago. We live in the Now. The last few decades are fair game as evidence of what sort of culture Europeans and the new immigrants have, but 1000 years ago is not really that persuasive.
. . But then, it seems like you didn't understand where I was coming from or where I was going with this thread. And, neither did the Admin. So, I should forgive you for not understanding.
#14899020
Steve_American wrote:Pants-of-a-dog, I said I'm a Progressive.


I call mself Pants-of-dog, but I am not actually a clothing item made from dogskin.

You may call yourslef whatever you want, but your paradigm does not appear to be different from a conservative paradigm.

I didn't accuse *all* immigrants of anything.
I said they have a culture that is not like current European culture. Some more so and some less so.


If you think that all Muslims have the same culture, and you think that the Muslim culture is inherently at odds with ours, you are basically saying that all Muslims are dangerous.

I said there are reports of the police not doing anything to stop such criminals. Is this not true?


Probably not.

I said there were only a few such criminals. It can't be true that the immigrants are *all* such criminals. If that were true there would be a hugely lot more reports of such criminal acts. Like thousands a week, far more than the few I have seen reported over several years.


Yes, it is as if they do not all have the same culture, or that Muslims cultures are not inherently at odds with western cultures!

I described what I understood Multiculturalism as being. If I'm wrong you might try politely explaining where I got it wrong.


And I explained that you are confusing it with a form of legal pluralism that allows Muslims to rape kids.

But, don't bother, I would not at this point believe anything you said to linked to.
I have decided that I don't like you.
BTW I think you username was well chosen.


Lol.
#14899030
Yes.... Of course there is...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Catholics
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism


Fact is these guys are basically back:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)

There is some proof elements of religions can mellow out with each other... Even if there is still resistance.

The Nazarene sect of Judaism basically revived itself. Couldn't have happened without a mellowing between some Jews and some Christians.

Even Mel Gibson's film reminding everyone "Jesus was called Yeshua" was evidence of "Mellowing" to the fact Jesus was in fact a Jewish Rabbi from the Galilee region... He gave the Messianic Jews and Christian Jews a film about Yeshua in their own language(and stuff the Orthodox Jews for bashing on it)......
#14899055
Pants-of-a-dog,
The 2 main areas where I sort of agree with conservatives and Trump are :
European immigration problems. America doesn't have the problems yet, and may never have them, because America favors assimilation and America being further away has not seen the mass illegal influx.

Trade policies. I'm no expert, so it is likely I'm wrong, but I favor a trade policy that favors making more stuff in America [even if it creates few jobs because robots do most of the work]. We need to make our own stuff more. I think.

Examples of where I'm a Progressive are:
I favor a much higher income tax on the really rich and the super rich. The top 1% or 1/2% of earners. Including more tax on capital gains with a 4 teir [or more] time frame rates. Short term = <1 year = high tax. Medium term = 1 to 5 years =medium rate, Long term = 5 to 10 years = lower rate, and Really Long term = 10+ years = low rate.

I favor a net worth tax on the really rich and the super rich. of 33% on wealth over 500 million.

I favor an inheritance tax on large inheritances which is less on the 1st generation, but goes up rapidly on later generations. I don't want old money to be living off the money earned by a guy 100 years ago. They need to earn their own money. They need to contribute to the good of the society.

With the growth of robots I think we need a UBI [basic universal income] which is slightly above the poverty level.

The US Gov. needs to do the following: some it does now.
. . Guarantee bank deposits.
. . Have a Soc. Sec. system for retired people to supplement the UBI.
. . Provide basic health care for all.

Eliminate gerrymandering.
Get campaign contributions out of politics.
And other things.

So, I'm a Progressive.

As for the rest of your reply. I'll ignore it, because I don't like you.
#14899075
I had a white pair of shoes. I loved those shoes. For ten years, they fulfilled all my expectations. Then one day, I noticed soft spots on the soles where pebbles poked me. I stumbled across a pair of black shoes. I laughed at the silliness of black shoes, but tried them on for a joke. The more I wore them, the more I realized they were superior to my old shoes with soft spots. I now demand that all ignorant wearers of white shoes be made to wear black shoes. I know black is superior because I have surpassed white. I never realized I found happiness with both shoes for awhile and it was not up to me to tell others when to change shoes.
Any shoes will do to protect my feet from hard reality.
#14899103
This is one of the strangest threads I have seen.

The OP just plucked some notion out of the air and ascribed it to a group which constitutes a particular stereotype; that notion having attached to it an entirely arbitrary number. The OP then refused to discuss the topic of the thread (fuzzy as the topic is) with those who cannot verify their sufficient purity with respect to affiliation with the particular stereotype.

Really just a strange one all around, which will produce no sound discussion, I am pretty sure (that's your problem, OP, not the lack of pure adherents to your chosen stereotype).

You could have created a topic based on your matter of consideration; phrased the headline a lot differently, and perhaps gotten somewhere. Just a thought.
#14899104
Steve_American wrote:Pants-of-a-dog,
The 2 main areas where I sort of agree with conservatives and Trump are :
European immigration problems. America doesn't have the problems yet, and may never have them, because America favors assimilation and America being further away has not seen the mass illegal influx.

Trade policies. I'm no expert, so it is likely I'm wrong, but I favor a trade policy that favors making more stuff in America [even if it creates few jobs because robots do most of the work]. We need to make our own stuff more. I think.

Examples of where I'm a Progressive are:
I favor a much higher income tax on the really rich and the super rich. The top 1% or 1/2% of earners. Including more tax on capital gains with a 4 teir [or more] time frame rates. Short term = <1 year = high tax. Medium term = 1 to 5 years =medium rate, Long term = 5 to 10 years = lower rate, and Really Long term = 10+ years = low rate.

I favor a net worth tax on the really rich and the super rich. of 33% on wealth over 500 million.

I favor an inheritance tax on large inheritances which is less on the 1st generation, but goes up rapidly on later generations. I don't want old money to be living off the money earned by a guy 100 years ago. They need to earn their own money. They need to contribute to the good of the society.

With the growth of robots I think we need a UBI [basic universal income] which is slightly above the poverty level.

The US Gov. needs to do the following: some it does now.
. . Guarantee bank deposits.
. . Have a Soc. Sec. system for retired people to supplement the UBI.
. . Provide basic health care for all.

Eliminate gerrymandering.
Get campaign contributions out of politics.
And other things.

So, I'm a Progressive.

As for the rest of your reply. I'll ignore it, because I don't like you.


This is all about you and has nothing to do with the topic.

Try this: why do you think there are currently problems between some Muslims and some countries in the west?
#14899370
In today's US I find very few ideas where I agree with the Conservative [Trumpite] position.


Trump is not a conservative. What in the world gave you that idea? Fox News?

Trump is not for a balanced budget. Conservatives are.

Trump is not for adherence to the constitution. For example the first amendment. (He has threatened journalists with censorship) Conservatives are.

Trump is not for free trade. Conservatives are.

Trump is not for getting the government out of our personal lives (sex lives for example). Conservatives are.

Trump has dealt the biggest blow to private charity as opposed to government charity in history. Conservatives dislike this.

One could call Trump any number of things, but conservative is not one of them.

You said to POD:

As for the rest of your reply. I'll ignore it, because I don't like you.


Now who sounds like a Trumpite?
#14899666
"In today's US I find very few ideas where I agree with the Conservative [Trumpite] position."


"Trump is not a conservative. What in the world gave you that idea? Fox News?

Trump is not for a balanced budget. Conservatives are.

Trump is not for adherence to the constitution. For example the first amendment. (He has threatened journalists with censorship) Conservatives are.

Trump is not for free trade. Conservatives are.

Trump is not for getting the government out of our personal lives (sex lives for example). Conservatives are.

Trump has dealt the biggest blow to private charity as opposed to government charity in history. Conservatives dislike this.

One could call Trump any number of things, but conservative is not one of them. "

You said to POD:

"As for the rest of your reply. I'll ignore it, because I don't like you."


"Now who sounds like a Trumpite?"

My reply --
I'm ignoring him because he called me a liar to my face. I don't like that.
He can continue by accusing me of lying in that post also.
On the internet everyone can lie. It is easy. I'm protecting my reputation here with my words. I don't lie here ever about my beliefs. I rarely lie in RL.

I linked Trump with Conservatives because the Repud Party has done that.
It claims to be conservative, it has done so in many places for years now.
Language evolves. The meanings of words change. That was why I added the "Trumpite" thing to make my point clearer.
Your "No true Scotsman" point is not true any longer although it is spot on in some ways.

If I may nit pick a little. Conservatives [or people and politicians who called themselves that] have been writing laws about our sex lives for over a hundred years. So, how can you include that in your list.

On free trade. In the 1790s it was the Conservatives of the day who imposed the import taxes that protected American industry and raised money for the Gov. This continued until at least the 1930s. Sometime later Conservatives changed their tune and favored free trade. So again it seems a little strange you included it.

The Repub Party [and its later version the Repud Party] since Reagan seem to have been more for tax cuts (for the rich) or low taxes more than they are for a small deficit. Reagan and BushII were especially bad for this. Reagan even said,"Deficits don't matter." Clinton was the Pres. who balanced the budget.

So, 3 out of 5 of your points seem iffy. Therefore, your point is iffy at best.
#14900051
I linked Trump with Conservatives because the Repud Party has done that.
It claims to be conservative, it has done so in many places for years now.
Language evolves. The meanings of words change. That was why I added the "Trumpite" thing to make my point clearer.
Your "No true Scotsman" point is not true any longer although it is spot on in some ways.

If I may nit pick a little. Conservatives [or people and politicians who called themselves that] have been writing laws about our sex lives for over a hundred years. So, how can you include that in your list.


Because the term "Conservative" in US politics developed force in the time of Goldwater and Buckley. You seem to be wanting to apply neocon values to traditional conservatives.

On free trade. In the 1790s it was the Conservatives of the day who imposed the import taxes that protected American industry and raised money for the Gov. This continued until at least the 1930s. Sometime later Conservatives changed their tune and favored free trade. So again it seems a little strange you included it.


Sorry. Irrelevant. The people of the day were not conservatives in any real sense of the word. Tariffs and taxes in the early US were not "imposed by conservatives". You are simply bending history to fit your narrative.

The Repub Party [and its later version the Repud Party] since Reagan seem to have been more for tax cuts (for the rich) or low taxes more than they are for a small deficit. Reagan and BushII were especially bad for this. Reagan even said,"Deficits don't matter." Clinton was the Pres. who balanced the budget.


And your point is what? Reagan was a big-spender as was Bush II. They both busted the budget for different reasons. Bush II authored the largest social welfare programs in decades. And please don't try to add Clinton in there in some absurd attempt to cast him as a liberal or progressive. He was not. He was a conservative on all but a very few issues. He also, by the way, imposed the largest cuts to welfare in history.

You are correct that a language has changed. Modern republicans are almost to a man, not conservative in any real sense of the word. You must admit that they have abandoned much of our constitutional protections from privacy to voter suppression. How can that be characterized as conservative?

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] Are you[…]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] The[…]

I (still) have a dream

Because the child's cattle-like parents "fol[…]