What do conservatives conserve? - 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 ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14940934
Drlee wrote:You misunderstand me. I absolutely DO NOT categorize the founders as conservatives. I classify those who embrace their ideas for constitutional government as conservatives. At least when I was younger they were. The conservatives of my youth, Goldwater, Buckley et all did not want to reunite with the crown. They wanted to embrace the principles of our early constitutional government; specifically, small government, the supremacy of individual rights, states rights and a balanced federal government.

The term conservative has become so distorted these days that it is almost useless. Can a conservative believe in a woman's right to choose? Can a conservative believe that the second amendment refers to militias? Can a conservative believe in higher taxes to balance the federal budget concurrent with reducing the size of government because both are necessary to reach the conservative goal of a balanced budget? Nowadays it would be said they could not. That if they did embrace these things they would be "liberals". Well the founders....were liberals AND revolutionaries.

So when I claim to be a conservative (as I said, if you had read what I said carefully) that I was a conservative I embrace those principles that the founder embraced. I believe in smaller government. This does not mean that I believe that the states may not act in place of what the federal government does now. For example several of the states had welfare like programs from the start. As a conservative I simply believe that it ought not be a function of the federal government except when absolutely necessary. I believe that the second amendment refers to the notion of regulating state militias as a check on vast central power. I also believe this is a notion that has lost its usefulness over time. I believe in the supremacy of individual franchise so that is why I oppose corporate money in politics. (The founders made it a felony.)

Simply put I believe that a REAL conservative attempts to conserve the broad principles on which our country was founded and improved through the amendment process. I believe that were Jefferson or Madison alive today they would be disgusted in the size of government and its intrusiveness into our daily lives. I believe their first comment might be, "where the hell are the states?.

In my opinion, these problems are all derived from the central contradiction of American conservatism - it is trying to conserve a revolution. Revolutions, by their nature, cannot be conserved; any attempt to do so ultimately leads nowhere except historical LARPing - endlessly recapitulating the issues and struggles of one particular arbitrary historical epoch. For example, states rights meant something back in the late 18th century, whereas nowadays states rights have no real meaning or substance. The states are no longer sovereign and no longer have any meaningful militias. Yet people still keep talking about "states rights" as though it fucking matters in the modern world.
#14940944
Hong Wu wrote:Early conservatism was about conserving traditions


Drlee wrote:Simply put I believe that a REAL conservative attempts to conserve the broad principles on which our country was founded and improved through the amendment process. I believe that were Jefferson or Madison alive today they would be disgusted in the size of government and its intrusiveness into our daily lives. I believe their first comment might be, "where the hell are the states?.


Potemkin wrote:In my opinion, these problems are all derived from the central contradiction of American conservatism - it is trying to conserve a revolution. Revolutions, by their nature, cannot be conserved; any attempt to do so ultimately leads nowhere except historical LARPing - endlessly recapitulating the issues and struggles of one particular arbitrary historical epoch. For example, states rights meant something back in the late 18th century, whereas nowadays states rights have no real meaning or substance. The states are no longer sovereign and no longer have any meaningful militias. Yet people still keep talking about "states rights" as though it fucking matters in the modern world.


These three responses encapsulate the three perspectives that in some ways need to be simultaneously addressed in my opinion. Hong Wu represents the Far-Right, the julius evola esque reaction against the modern world and traditionalism, Dr. Lee represents a robust Americanism, a believer in the Constitution, and Potemkin is a Stalinist.

Hong Wu is right to point out that the essence of "conservatism" and the "right" is traditionalism, the right like the left is more or less theoretically ambivalent towards the state in theory, but generally supports the need of such to achieve its ends.

natural heirarchy, the family, ethno-nationalism, etc, etc., are something to be preserved for group-identity and there is something morally repugnant to the extinction of such in exchange for leftist egalitarian social programs or capitalist consumerism and strip malls.

Dr. Lee takes conservativism as preserving the american revolution's end goals of establishing a constitutional federal republic designed to protect the rights given to man from God, and while he acknowledges that this move was essentially liberal (classic liberalism), its achievements in many ways are regarded by him, and many Americans, as the pinnacle of enlightened political thought and therefore progress beyond this must be mitigated in regards to their core accomplishments. This is not the conservatism of Hong Wu, but it is definitely a belief that classical liberalism embodies the end of political history in a real theoretical sense. I have no doubt, as Dr. Lee expressed, that the founding fathers would have this view of their own thought and would likely express themselves as Dr. Lee predicted.

Potemkin has rightly criticized the paradox of American conservatism as a movement of attempting to conserve a revolution, but America is young and its identity is not in a historic ethno-religious cultural tradition that is 1,000 years old, its in a document penned in the late 18th century. Only recently has America begun to develop a real identitarian strain of any seriousness, thanks to Trump.

This is a great article on this BTW:




The fundamental flaw in this conversation is the understanding of the conflict between whiggery (liberalism) and conservatism (toryism). One that was rather profound in the 18th century, but in reality is not so great.

The reason someone like Potemkin will see the Far-Right and traditionalists as reactionary, and rightfully so, is because they always attempt to co-op the means of the state to reassert those values and turn-back-the-clock against the progress demanded by the dialectic of history. Fascism for Potemkin is as futile as it is misplaced. In some ways, Hong Wu might even agree with this in his pessimism, but Traditionalists always see the fights as worth the blood even if failure is inevitable.

Dr. Lee likely doesn't give a hoot about traditionalism v, progressivism as regards personal values so long as liberty and equal justice under the law are afforded as constitutionally defined. Dr. Lee sees government as the problem in some ways (to a point) and as long as it stays out of the way to some degree people can live traditionally or progressively and its no matter which they choose so long as they are permitted to make the choice.

My response to all of these perspectives is simple:

Unlike the Far-Right, I do not think traditional or natural values can ever be truly restored by the state. Caesar's attempt to reinstitute traditional values in Rome may have been admirable, but it was ultimately futile. It was reactionary, just as Hitler and Mussolini's attempts.

Likewise, contra Potemkin and even Dr. Lee, I do not regard whiggery, even as manifested in the American revolution as ipso facto liberal. Indeed, this notion is misplaced as it fails to take into account the conditions by which traditionalism and the natural order is best preserved.

Nothing could be more accommodating to the end-goals of a toryism or traditionalism than whiggery in its most extreme form.

Indeed, the greatest error of the American founders was forming a Republic at all.

Yes, I am going to speak of Anarcho-Capitalism, but let me say this.

I left the Alt. Right, a reactionary movement, not merely because I became a sort of libertarian, but because I realized that traditionalism cannot be "conserved" by the state, it must be propogated by people who will praxeologically and rationally gravitate to those values in a state of nature.

The state creates the problem of decadence and all social contracts will eventually lead to Marxism, including America's social contract. Its inevitable given human nature, and any attempt to co-opt the state to restore natural values is appropriately called reactionary by the communists. Its an attempt to take the means of progressivism (the state) and force it to go against progressivism. That would be like showing your hatred of an automobile by changing its driver. The problem is not who runs government and what their motives are, its the government itself.

Thus, the idea of life, liberty, and property is not liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) as many have supposed.

This is because those ideals (shared between American classical liberals and AnCaps alike) are indeed the very conditions of traditionalism and natural order (Far-Right values) itself. In a state of nature, all those things fascists and nationalists long for assert themselves out of necessity and a true rational desire. That this is superior to being forced into such roles by a dictator should be obvious. This difference is a great as eating an actual banana and an artificially flavored banana candy. Fascism artificially institutes and mimics what nature does better and voluntarily.

Perhaps that strain of classical liberalism that arose in France (liberty, equality, and fraternity) could better be described as true liberalism tending towards the inevitable, but the American conception stemming from the English natural law tradition cannot help but be conservative if followed consistently to its ends.

The problem is, it never has since times long past in Christendom.

Perhaps that may change some day, but as it stands, all social contracts will lead to Leftism eventually and all attempts to co-opt these regimes to artificially reinstate traditional values will be reactions that can only fail.

Conservatism's real enemy is not progressivism, but the statism upon which it relies.

Life, Liberty, and Property is the natural soil in which conservatism grows.

The state is a pestilence upon mankind.
#14940962
Potemkin wrote:In my opinion, these problems are all derived from the central contradiction of American conservatism - it is trying to conserve a revolution. Revolutions, by their nature, cannot be conserved; any attempt to do so ultimately leads nowhere except historical LARPing - endlessly recapitulating the issues and struggles of one particular arbitrary historical epoch. For example, states rights meant something back in the late 18th century, whereas nowadays states rights have no real meaning or substance. The states are no longer sovereign and no longer have any meaningful militias. Yet people still keep talking about "states rights" as though it fucking matters in the modern world.


Anyone who is allied with a winning team will want that winning team to continue winning. Anyone who is allied with a losing team will want that losing team to change its fortunes and start winning. Whether one is a revolutionary or counter revolutionary depends on whether one is currently winning or not. The bolsheviks were revolutionaries in 1917 but they were counter-revolutionaries by 1991... In this light there is no more contradiction in an American constitutionalist trying to conserve his revolution than there is a fan of QE2 trying to conserve the dynasty which gained the benefit of the Glorious Revolution 1688 or a politburo hack trying to conserve the regime that followed from the 1917 coup d'etat in Russia.

We are all conservatives when we have what we want and progressives when we don't.

Is that not so?
#14940974
@SolarCross,

That seems to be colloquial and pragmatic definition and I don't think that is what the far-right would consider to be conservative.

I mean, lets say you live in a formerly SJW ruled nation that came under control of Christian theocrats, would the SJW dissenting minority that longed for the "good ol' days" of transgender bathrooms and income redistribution be conservatives?

That is the paradoxical thinking in such an argument. When most people think of conservatism, they think of right-wing politics, which at base, encompasses some sort of traditionalism, even in the American Right this is true which is arguably the most libertarian and classically liberal of any "explicitly" conservative political party in the world. (just compare the U.S. Republican Party with the Tories and the difference becomes obvious, in spite of the similarities on more traditional values). [though this changing under Trump]

This issue that I am addressing is the question as to whether or not traditionalism is inconsistent with extreme whiggery (life, liberty, and property). I am arguing that they are not only compatible, but that the latter is the very condition of the former.

Thus, I am critiquing the idea that Americans are ipso facto wrong for being Traditionalist and supporting some variant of classical liberalism at the same time. The contradiction is manufactured based on a european perspective, but at the same time, I wanted to clarify that classical liberalism did not go far enough and sewed the roots of its own destruction.

The answer is the abolition of the state altogether, that is the only way traditionalism and the natural order of mankind can truly return.
#14940978
@Victoribus Spolia
I don't really know who is "far-right" because people usually mean Nazis and KKK when they talk about the "far-right" but to me they look like collectivists, not as extreme as communists maybe but more than halfway there, so to me they look like the centre left. Certainly they are far to the left of myself...

I don't really know what is meant by "Tradition" with a capital T either. Everybody with a culture or creed has a tradition, some of us even have multiple traditions (I could with perfect honesty call myself a Buddhist, a scientific atheist or a Germanic heathen or perhaps some other things too). Communists, crazy little spawns of Satan that they are, have their own traditions too, their own myths and icons. I don't think there is a Tradition with a capital T but instead there is a mosaic of little t traditions as numerous as there are human minds but then I am an individualist not a collectivist.
Last edited by SolarCross on 20 Aug 2018 20:04, edited 1 time in total.
#14940981
SolarCross wrote:I don't really know who is "far-right" because people usually mean Nazis and KKK when they talk about the "far-right". But to me they look like collectivists, not as extreme as communists maybe but more than halfway there, so to me they look like the centre left. Certainly they are far to the left of myself...


I gave examples and they would include National Socialists and Fascists. At my darkest moment in the Far-Right I was a closet National-Socialist. I share your critique of them.

SolarCross wrote:I don't really know what is meant by "Tradition" with a capital T either. Everybody with a culture or creed has a tradition, some us even have multiple traditions (I could with perfect honesty call myself a buddhist, a scientific atheist or a germanic heathen or perhaps some other things too). Communists, crazy little spawns of satan that they are, have their own traditions too, their own myths and icons. I don't there is a Tradition with a capital T but instead there is a mosaic of little t traditions as numerous as there are human minds but then I am a individualist not a collectivist.


Once again, traditionalism is not merely the status-quo or previous action. That is not how i am using the term. I am referring to traditional (natural) roles of women, fecundity, religiosity, hierarchy, ethno-chauvenism, et al. This is something very specific.

Typically parties that have supported these values have been what the commies like to refer to as "reactionary" (fascists, etc). and historically were parties like the Tories (as when they opposed the whigs back in the day, for example). This sort of view has been contrasted in this thread with the more "American" notion of preserving the American Constitution and "way of life" Which is essentially whiggery (life, liberty, and property).

Several on here have juxtaposed these two ideas "Traditionalism" on one hand and "Life-Liberty-Property" on the other.

I am saying that these two are not only not opposed, but contrary to what the Far-Right might think, the latter is actually the grounds of the former; wheras the Far-Right believes that the former can only be "restored" against progressivism through the mechanism of the state (like a fash takeover resulting in laws protecting religion and subsidizing child-birth, etc).

I am contending that this is very wrong-headed, as the state is the necessary condition of progressivism (leading to Marxism) in the first place and that statism can only ever lead to progressivism and egalitarianism.

Thus, for traditionalists (a.k.a conservatives) the answer is not fascism, but the abolition of the state.

If you want natural heirarchies and roles, you need to remove the mechanism that has allowed for the unnatural egalitarians roles we see in the modern world. That mechanism is the state. There is no egalitarianism is nature. None.
#14969399
Conservatives conserve the following:

- The family institution
- Gender roles that oppress women
- Religion and its obsolete usage
- No sense of reality
- Privatized economics to enforce family
- No economic safety net to promote religion to cope with that
- Demonization of personal freedom, casual sex and masturbation for some religions, and "bad words"
- Money and currency
- Holidays
- Cultures
- Emotional ways of thinking (such as firing someone because you don't like them)
- The environment (1700's-1800's conservatives) to prevent socialized, industrial modes of production
- Social hierarchy
#14977478
SSDR wrote:The family institution



Indeed I do.


SSDR wrote:Gender roles that oppress women


Indeed I do (though I think that such roles, being their natural one, represent true freedom).

SSDR wrote: Religion and its obsolete usage


The True Faith, yes indeed.

SSDR wrote:No sense of reality


The only real understanding of it, is what I think you meant.

SSDR wrote:Privatized economics to enforce family


Correct.

SSDR wrote:No economic safety net to promote religion to cope with that


Also Correct.

SSDR wrote:Demonization of personal freedom, casual sex and masturbation for some religions, and "bad words"


A bit simplistic. I advocate personal freedom in the sence of opposing a state and any state intereference, but regarding what is morally true and right; I affirm Old Testament Law.

SSDR wrote: Money and currency


Just Money.

SSDR wrote: Holidays


Of course!

SSDR wrote:Cultures


My own.

SSDR wrote:Emotional ways of thinking (such as firing someone because you don't like them)


Disagree completely with this one.

SSDR wrote:The environment (1700's-1800's conservatives) to prevent socialized, industrial modes of production


I also disagree with this one, unless its on my own property.

SSDR wrote:Social hierarchy



Absolutely.
#14977575
Conservatives believe in organic change. I don’t think there needs to be a time frame on how long that change takes, so long as it doesn’t up-end their most cherished stability. And I don’t see why a Conservative and a Progressive can’t get along. The actual word ‘progress” lends itself to Conservatism quite nicely.
Last edited by ness31 on 05 Jan 2019 00:41, edited 1 time in total.
#14977580
I used to consider myself a Conservative, and voted as such. As @Drlee has pointed out, however, I feel that the newer parties aren't representing conservatives like they used to.

Conservatives are fiscally responsible, want transparency in government, want small government, support good family and community values, good justice and laws, follow the Bill of rights/Constitution, etc.

Now it's simply seen as fighting change... and I don't feel that that is what Conservativism is, atall. I feel this is mainly from Conservativism being hijacked by populism, bigotry and racism.

Note: Prior to 2012 I've voted Conservative in every election that every took place, except once because our local MP walked from the PC bench over to the Liberal side, as he was a man of strong moral values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kilgour

@Drlee I'd like to think that you're one of the few actual TRUE Conservatives left on this board, as I find it hard to consider the radicals as such(Right-wing is a more fitting term). I associate now with more with Liberalism(classic), since this hijacking of "Conservativism" by radical right-wingers.
#14977585
@Drlee I'd like to think that you're one of the few actual TRUE Conservatives left on this board, as I find it hard to consider the radicals as such(Right-wing is a more fitting term). I associate now with more with Liberalism(classic), since this hijacking of "Conservativism" by radical right-wingers.


Thank you. I cannot disagree. The very term "conservative" has indeed been hijacked. Conservatives from as few as 20 years ago would laugh at the anti-intellectual corporate tools that have led to the abrogating of just about all of the conservatives values you mentioned.

Even the leaderless neo-cons had at leas some traditional conservative beliefs.
#14977588
I never really had any great liking for conservative life. I think I never identified with any of it.

I respect respectful debate. Racist bigots, fake Chritians and people willing to spill blood over proprty, commodities and power full of corrupt values?

Just not worth it to me.

I never came from wealth. Yet wealth alone is not powerful enough in life.

Drlee seems discouraged.

I don't want to live in the states dealing with difficult living conditions.

Move forward in life always. :)
#14977603
Drlee seems discouraged.


I am. I grew up in the greatest country in the world. We felt empowered as citizens. We built great cities, had by far and away the greatest universities and scientific research facilities in the world and most importantly were able to change. We knew we had a lot to fix and a lot to answer for. But we kept trying. We gave rights to people who had not had them before. Enabled the disabled. Cleaned up our air and rivers. Controlled dishonest businesses, cured disease as home and abroad and were safe.

Now we have become divided. Individual votes hardly matter anymore. The government is shut down because a petulant 4 year old backed by about 25% of the population wants to build a stupid and ineffective wall as a monument to his racism and xenophobia. The 25% who follow him are simply not intelligent. He has formed the dumbass patrol and gone on a rampage.

And where are the conservatives? As Buckley said, "conservatives stand athwart history and shout stop". Are they standing up for the constitution? No. Are they standing up for human rights so hard fought for by generations of conservatives who embraced the ideals of the founders? Are they standing up for our ecology as their predecessors did? No.

ARE THEY FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE? NO! Imagine the largest budget in history. Imagine it at a time when the stock market is flying and unemployment is at historic lows. Imagine this unprecedented chance to actually reduce the deficit while leaving room to stimulate the economy during the next inevitable correction. Then imagine people who call themselves conservative supporting the largest deficits in history thanks to a tax cut that was absolutely unnecessary supported by not a single cut in spending. And in service to what? Rich people who donate money. That is who. And finally imagine a president who is a complete sell-out to the Russians. THE RUSSIANS! A piss ant second rate country, ruled by a despot, who's only claim to fame is a shit load of nukes and some oil.

America is broken. Leaders masquerading as conservatives and followers simply too damaged, too unintelligent or too uneducated to even understand what is going on.

Perhaps what bothers me the most is that so many of the fools think they are Christians. Pathetic. Christians running for office on a platform of exclusion, revenge and disregard for the poor. They just have never heard of Jesus and his message. I believe they are reborn alright. Reborn from simple humanity to throwing tear gas at children, locking them up in cages and separating them from their parents who have committed the horrible crime of wanting something better for their children and walked across the proverbial line in the sand.

Christians who do not believe generations of their own teachings. They almost pathologically refer to Leviticus whenever someone mentions gay people but conveniently forget all about these parts of the same book of the Bible:

When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. (Leviticus 19:33-34)


When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. (Leviticus 19:9-10)


Or

He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt. (Deuteronomy 10:18-19)


Or

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49)


Or

Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt. (Exodus 23:9)


Or

“So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the Lord Almighty. (Malachi 3:5)


Or

“As for the foreigner who does not belong to your people Israel but has come from a distant land because of your name— for they will hear of your great name and your mighty hand and your outstretched arm—when they come and pray toward this temple, then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Do whatever the foreigner asks of you, so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your own people Israel, and may know that this house I have built bears your Name. (1 Kings 8:41-44)


Or

No stranger had to spend the night in the street, for my door was always open to the traveler (Job, discussing his devotion to God) (Job 31:32)


Or

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ (Matthew 25:25-36)


Or

Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many. (1 Corinthians 12:12-14)


Or

For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galatians 5:14)


Or

He asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:29-37)


And these so-called Christian conservatives ignore all of these commands by Almighty God just because these strangers committed a misdemeanor when they overstayed their visa. Or worse. When they came to our door from a war torn and lawless land and simply asked us, by far and away the richest country in the world, to help them survive and be like us.

These are not Christians. They are not conservative.

Nixon said:

People react to fear, not love; they don't teach that in Sunday School, but it's true.


When did conservatives become so fearful? In my youth we republicans stood up to generations of racism and oppression. We took to the streets for our black brothers. We sent troops to force open the doors of schools which would not admit blacks. A governor of a southern stated stood in the door way of a public schools to block the entrance of a little black girl and he and his state troopers were forced aside by a troop of federal officers and a company of US Army Infantry.

What are these so-called conservatives so frightened of? Why are they such cowards? That is not the conservative tradition and it is certainly not the Christian one. They cower clinging to their guns like a child clings to his teddy bear, all the while real bravery is being show by liberals who are not afraid to face the future with hope. Who are not afraid to embrace people who speak another language. Who are not afraid of free speech. Who are not afraid to be generous.

Pussies and cowards. Heavily armed Christian Casper Milktoasts.

They are too afraid to come with me, unarmed into crowds of poor, disenfranchised, sometimes criminal, frequently ill, human beings, armed only with some food, some medicine and some time to listen.

That is why I am discouraged. At the end of the day I never thought my republican party would succumb to fear and cowardice. I could never imagine the likes of Goldwater, Carl Hayden, Nixon or Eisenhower kowtowing to a pathological liar and buffoon. I never thought I would see the day when a sitting republican senator from the great state of Texas would allow a presidential candidate to call him a pussy and post an unflattering picture of his wife online essentially calling her ugly, then go on to endorse the offender for president. In my day that senator from Texas would have kicked the dog shit out of him and the rest of the republicans would have run him out of town on a rail.

So yes. I am discouraged. I will vote for people of integrity. People like the openly gay, native American, lawyer and woman who had the cojones to stand up to Trump and an 4 term republican congressman and kick their asses in a red state. That is courage. Conservatives these days think of liberals as weak. Well all evidence to the contrary. They are the ones publicly blowing a serial liar who could not go to war because he had bone spurs. Maybe Trump is right. Maybe they are all pussies.

Well. I don't know what I will do.

No por mucho madrugar amanece más temprano. Right Tainari?
#14977607
Conservatives are people who want a border wall between Mexico and the USA to conserve American English as the language of our land for one thing.
HalleluYah
#14977610
Conservatives are people who want a border wall between Mexico and the USA to conserve American English as the language of our land for one thing.
HalleluYah


What would you know about English. You are from Georgia.
#14977614
Drlee wrote:What would you know about English. You are from Georgia.

I know you are supposed to use a question mark (?) at the end of an interrogative sentence in English.
Praise the Lord.
#14977654
Sigh. You got it wrong Skippy. What kind of a question was mine? Answer that and you will on your way. :roll:
#14977834
Drlee wrote:Sigh. You got it wrong Skippy. What kind of a question was mine? Answer that and you will on your way. :roll:

What is your first language? Your last sentence does not even make sense in English.

One other thing that conservatives want to conserve is separate public toilets for the two sexes, male and female.
Liberals would allow a person to go into whatever public toilet they wish.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
Bernie Sanders 2020

This is great news. The Democrats are moving far […]

Syrian war thread

You blindly refuse to see what that Scripture quo[…]

Apparently he got big by being cheaper than the […]

Or, use cell culturing to produce meat instead of[…]