Kids Protest thier own Graduation

[Dill]

(05-22-2017, 07:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No one switched topics. You just need to go back and read your entire post that I was replying too. Not just the arbitrary liberals moniker that you wish to assign to folks in the past because that is what you consider yourself today and want to associated yourself with the awesome folks of the past.

Save your history speech for someone who may buy itand believes Goldwater actually got a lot of support.  

I can imagine a couple decades in the future, when an enlightened society condemns us for killing our unborn. Some Democrat will say. Hey we were awesome back then too. We switched after that.

This is simply a refusal to address the points made in my answer as I addressed the points made in yours. 

And my primary point was that liberalism and conservatism are political ideologies which can be identified by people's stated beliefs and actions, regardless of what parties they belong to. We can do that in Western Europe as well as the United States.  Political parties are assemblages of groups whose interests and goals and labels may change over time. Looking at European parties for example, party labels like "Democratic" tell you little. You have to know the party platform.  "Liberalism" and "conservatism" describe political ideals and behaviors existing since the 18th century in many countries. Party labels do not.
Someone who wants women to have the vote in 1919 is behaving as a "liberal" regardless of party, and someone who does not, someone who wishes to conserve the present order, the status quo, is behaving as a "conservative."  When voting women become the norm, the status quo, then yes, conservatives are for it. But until then they prefer "order" to equality.   

For decades, Republicans and Democrats in the US contained BOTH liberals and conservatives, and among them people who were liberal on some issues and conservative on others. After 1965, Republicans began the long process of sorting liberals out of their party, then moderates, then moderate conservatives. Who are the liberal Republicans now?

If what I say is NOT the case, then that would be easy to demonstrate.  E.g., provide examples of conservatives who rode with the Freedom Riders and marched with Martin Luther King, and liberals who supported the Klan. Demonstrate that the Republican party of today has retained many liberals and the Democratic has retained many conservatives.  You cannot.  Instead you would like to equate liberals with the Democratic party, rather than with traditional definition of liberalism, so you can tar today's liberals with the actions of yesterday's conservatives.

And you cannot disprove my points by speaking as if the definitions and history employed here are "arbitrary," simply my opinion. 

So of course you do not want a history lesson. You want to keep your beliefs regardless of whether the historical record supports them.  You have a perfect right do so, as I have a right to contrast those beliefs with the historical record when you drop them in a public forum.