Conquer Club

–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

Juan_Bottom wrote:There seem to be no end of threads bashing liberals. They die after 10 posts, but they never end. So I made my own. Bitter butthurt Conservatives can feel free to post here too. For purposes of conformity we will use the modern American definition of "Liberal."

–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

I'll start with one,

BIRTHING AMERICA

No, I'll start with 2,

ENDING SLAVERY

jay_a2j wrote:The civil war and slavery: It was the democrat plantation owners of the south who wanted to keep slavery. It was the republicans headed by Lincoln(R) who pushed for the ending of slavery. This in itself contradicts your definitions.

Our founding fathers liberal huh? Yeah ok. You have to first acknowledge that today's definition of "liberal" is quite different from definitions of the past.

jay_a2j wrote:I'll continue your list with more accurate examples:
3) Political Correctness

jay_a2j wrote:The civil war and slavery: It was the democrat plantation owners of the south who wanted to keep slavery. It was the republicans headed by Lincoln(R) who pushed for the ending of slavery. This in itself contradicts your definitions.

Our founding fathers liberal huh? Yeah ok. You have to first acknowledge that today's definition of "liberal" is quite different from definitions of the past.

pimpdave wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:The civil war and slavery: It was the democrat plantation owners of the south who wanted to keep slavery. It was the republicans headed by Lincoln(R) who pushed for the ending of slavery. This in itself contradicts your definitions.

Our founding fathers liberal huh? Yeah ok. You have to first acknowledge that today's definition of "liberal" is quite different from definitions of the past.

You are dumb.

pimpdave wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:The civil war and slavery: It was the democrat plantation owners of the south who wanted to keep slavery. It was the republicans headed by Lincoln(R) who pushed for the ending of slavery. This in itself contradicts your definitions.

Our founding fathers liberal huh? Yeah ok. You have to first acknowledge that today's definition of "liberal" is quite different from definitions of the past.

You are dumb.

Baron Von PWN wrote:Are we including liberals from accross the world? or just in america?

here are some acomplishments of global liberals

Ending the cold war: would never have ended if Soviet liberals hadn't started refroms

National health care (Canada): Thanks to this all canadians have access to health care garanteed by the state and don't have to worry about being denied service due to lack of money. A service which the great majority of Canadians support.

Equal rights for Homosexuals

Secularism

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:Are we including liberals from accross the world? or just in america?

here are some acomplishments of global liberals

Ending the cold war: would never have ended if Soviet liberals hadn't started refroms

National health care (Canada): Thanks to this all canadians have access to health care garanteed by the state and don't have to worry about being denied service due to lack of money. A service which the great majority of Canadians support.

Equal rights for Homosexuals

Secularism

Satan? Is that you?

Woodruff wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:The civil war and slavery: It was the democrat plantation owners of the south who wanted to keep slavery. It was the republicans headed by Lincoln(R) who pushed for the ending of slavery. This in itself contradicts your definitions.

Our founding fathers liberal huh? Yeah ok. You have to first acknowledge that today's definition of "liberal" is quite different from definitions of the past.

You are dumb.

I like how he avoids referencing how it is actually the political parties (i.e. Republicans, etc) whose definitions have changed, rather than it being the definition of "liberals" which has not changed much at all.

pimpdave wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:The civil war and slavery: It was the democrat plantation owners of the south who wanted to keep slavery. It was the republicans headed by Lincoln(R) who pushed for the ending of slavery. This in itself contradicts your definitions.

Our founding fathers liberal huh? Yeah ok. You have to first acknowledge that today's definition of "liberal" is quite different from definitions of the past.

You are dumb.

Woodruff wrote:You say this as if it's a bad thing, but it isn't. In fact, as a Christian, you should wholeheartedly support political correctness. Yes, I am serious.

porkenbeans wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:The civil war and slavery: It was the democrat plantation owners of the south who wanted to keep slavery. It was the republicans headed by Lincoln(R) who pushed for the ending of slavery. This in itself contradicts your definitions.

Our founding fathers liberal huh? Yeah ok. You have to first acknowledge that today's definition of "liberal" is quite different from definitions of the past.

You are dumb.

I like how he avoids referencing how it is actually the political parties (i.e. Republicans, etc) whose definitions have changed, rather than it being the definition of "liberals" which has not changed much at all.

The North did go to war to end slavery. This notion is only found in grammar school text books. The plane fact is, they wanted their hands on the excessive taxes that they were trying to force on the tobacco and cotton trade. The south felt that they were being gouged by the political powers of the North. They decided to just go ahead and succeed from the Union. It was a war that mirrored in many ways, the Revolutionary war. Only the outcome was the other way around.

Saying that the North went to war to end slavery, is just an example of how the victors get to write the history books. The fact is, The Northerners were just as bigoted and racist, as the Southerners were. They both, for the most part, felt that Negroes were a lower life form than themselves, and equated them with animals. The Union military did not even let Negroes fight in the war. Their warped sense of honor, would not let them allow a Negro to kill a white man. It was only when they were getting their butts kicked, and were close to loosing the war, that they set aside their honor, and allowed Negroes to join the battle. It was a last ditch effort, ...and one that payed off.

The sons and grandsons of the first tea-parties of the revolution went on to end slavery in the nation their own fathers and grandfathers had founded.

porkenbeans wrote:The North did go to war to end slavery. This notion is only found in grammar school text books. The plane fact is, they wanted their hands on the excessive taxes that they were trying to force on the tobacco and cotton trade. The south felt that they were being gouged by the political powers of the North. They decided to just go ahead and succeed from the Union. It was a war that mirrored in many ways, the Revolutionary war. Only the outcome was the other way around.

porkenbeans wrote:
The North did go to war to end slavery. This notion is only found in grammar school text books. The plane fact is, they wanted their hands on the excessive taxes that they were trying to force on the tobacco and cotton trade. The south felt that they were being gouged by the political powers of the North. They decided to just go ahead and succeed from the Union. It was a war that mirrored in many ways, the Revolutionary war. Only the outcome was the other way around.

Saying that the North went to war to end slavery, is just an example of how the victors get to write the history books. The fact is, The Northerners were just as bigoted and racist, as the Southerners were. They both, for the most part, felt that Negroes were a lower life form than themselves, and equated them with animals. The Union military did not even let Negroes fight in the war. Their warped sense of honor, would not let them allow a Negro to kill a white man. It was only when they were getting their butts kicked, and were close to loosing the war, that they set aside their honor, and allowed Negroes to join the battle. It was a last ditch effort, ...and one that payed off.

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote:You say this as if it's a bad thing, but it isn't. In fact, as a Christian, you should wholeheartedly support political correctness. Yes, I am serious.

It is a bad thing. And please explain what one's faith has to do with anything?