It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: pyramid head
Stop what?
Loyalists existed during the revolutionary war.
originally posted by: pyramid head
Obviously they existed, just not the way your made up version of history says.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert
But here's the problem: How do "the people" uproot corruption in the public system? WE have very little to no control over it anymore.
So, we can complain and point out the failings day after day and many do, but if our betters, the elites who run things, don't take meaningful action, it doesn't matter, so the system becomes abusive and we have no recourse if we cannot remove ourselves from it.
And since it us involuntary, none of us really can remove ourselves from it.
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: pyramid head
Obviously they existed, just not the way your made up version of history says.
How is that? I don't think I gave enough detail for it to even be considered history of any kind.
All I said was that the revolutionaries went after what they wanted and didn't take into account what the loyalists wanted.
Did you kneejerk because I said they were conservative?
originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: TonyS
I'll fight it tooth and nail, prep for the coming shortages, prepare for the loss of capital and lower standard of living.
originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: jamespond
Commie! Screw them jake im doing fine!.
originally posted by: pyramid head
Wouldn't consider it "knee jerk", as a typical lib, you're making up your own history with labels. You labeled the people that conservatives of that time were against, as conservatives.
That's "all" you said. I was simply correcting you're misguided attempt to associate modern progressive authoritarians with the founding of this country.
Really?... Mao was correct?... You are agreeing with a genociadal tyrant... A state of constant revolution means a state of always murdering and oppressing people just for the sake of "the constant revolution"...
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: daskakik
I actually agree with you that these terms are relative.
You certainly aren't a liberal (classical that is).
That makes you a conservative who refuses change from the socialist policies that have now begun to dissolve the fabric of our society.
Way to go dumb resister of change for the better.
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: daskakik
I actually agree with you that these terms are relative.
You certainly aren't a liberal (classical that is).
That makes you a conservative who refuses change from the socialist policies that have now begun to dissolve the fabric of our society.
Way to go dumb resister of change for the better.
I'm none of the above.
I don't advocate anything. All I do is spend my time on ATS pointing out facts.
I don't even care if things get "fixed" or not but I will point out why your "fixes" will probably not fix anything.
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: pyramid head
Wouldn't consider it "knee jerk", as a typical lib, you're making up your own history with labels. You labeled the people that conservatives of that time were against, as conservatives.
I'm not a lib so that isn't going to stick.
Conservatives, in general terms, are those that are against change. That is why the phrase read " The part of the conservtives was played by the loyalists." Meaning that in that situation they were the ones opposing change.
That's "all" you said. I was simply correcting you're misguided attempt to associate modern progressive authoritarians with the founding of this country.
Well you read too much into it and reacted as such and that is called a kneejerk.
I called you out because you were attempting to associate modern conservatives with with loyalists and progressives with the founders, don't backtrack.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: pyramid head
Still over your head.
Saying someone in Ancient Greece was a democrat doesn't mean that he is comparable to a current member of the democratic party.
You are filling in those spaces and trying to attribute those words to me.
I called you out because you were attempting to associate modern conservatives with with loyalists and progressives with the founders, don't backtrack.
No batracking needed. What I pointed out is what happened. I do not claim any other similarity.
originally posted by: pyramid head
If your not backtracking then what I said stands and your comparison is nonsense. The correct comparison is big gov slave loyalists and the modern progressive authoritarian.
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: pyramid head
If your not backtracking then what I said stands and your comparison is nonsense. The correct comparison is big gov slave loyalists and the modern progressive authoritarian.
But then it wouldn't fit with what Beezer was describing.
Can't have it both ways.
I think you jumped before thinking about the context of the discussion that was in progress.
ETA: You seem to be really hung up on labels. I'll see if I can clear the point up a bit, the complaint that Beezer posted (which seems to be shared by people of conservative values) is the same complaint that the Loyalists could have made back during the Revolutionary war.
I don't care what either bunch is called but, that is what they are known as, so I really had no other tags to hang on them.
originally posted by: pyramid head
There is no same complaint, the conservative complaint is the lack of liberties, which he said. The loyalists were just fine with a lack of liberties.
Is there a part where the loyalists are against the king I'm unaware of?