that is confusing... please explain.
Confusing in what way
that is confusing... please explain.
that is confusing... please explain.
I can see what you are trying to say. But I get my hackles up when someone says our founding fathers were liberals.
I don't think we can use words as they were defined ages ago. It would be no different for me to call a black man a ni***r today. Sure, it was the common term 100 years ago and was not an insult. But today it is very offensive. So I cannot use that word (and don't) today.
Our FF were conservative and libertarian, using terms as understood today.
Mav, are we in Australia?
Yes, it's an interesting note to see how some words have changed over time in meaning. But to just state these things without same-time explanation of your meaning is just asking for an argument. Again, I'll use the example of me walking up to a black man & saying "hey ni***r". The fight would start in milliseconds. What you did was exactly the same thing.
I can respect a real conservative. I can respect a libertarian (although I don't agree on everything, I still can respect their stand). But neither of those are remotely similar to modern democrats/liberals/progressives. Neither Conservatives or Libertarians define 'freedom' as one person stomping the rights of another person. But that is all modern progressives stand for: supporting people who want to stomp on other's rights.
Here's a challenge. Name one thing progressives support that is not conservative or libertarian where they are not separating people, one stomping another's rights? I'm curious.
Thomas Jefferson was what is called a "Classical Liberal." Of course nowadays, Thomas Jefferson is reviled by liberals.
Kevin,
Let me take just a couple of things you said & check if you really mean it. Note that it's not just 'what' you believe, but how you get there. An example:
I'm a strong conservative, but I also believe in keeping a clean environment. How do we get there? I don't think my $3000 exhaust system that reduces fuel efficiency by 30% does that. But chinese cars without even a muffler billowing clouds into the air is a good idea either. When I produce 1% of the output compared to most of the world, throwing piles of money at it just in the US has no impact.
But let me get to your quote above. First you show your lack of understanding when you say "free". You mean "Taxpayer funded". Now let me explain where you draw the line. I am pro-life, very pro-life. You are requiring me to pay to kill babies. Yes, many forms of birth control are methods to kill a fetus. A fetus is a baby. Don't try arguing against this. You are saying that my stance is to be completely ignored and other people who will not take responsibility into their hands are more important than my believes. You are saying that responsible people should be forced to let irresponsible people do what they shouldn't without consequence. So this encapsulates this topic. Explain why my rights don't matter and other people should be allowed to violate me morally and financially?
Good luck. And don't try to explain where killing a baby so I don't have to support it later is a good idea. If killing lots of people so other people can live better is your answer, you really need to examine your premises.
yeah I would think they do , they are funded by the State and they get their money from taxesDo taxes pay to execute people on death row?