Interesting perspective David.
I view the founders of the US as the opposite of conservative
as their goal was to shake the status quo to its very foundations.
Yes, indeed; we agree, Beth. U misunderstood my point.
U refer to a DIFFERENT subject matter
of the conservation.
Thay were radically (not liberally) against the Divine Right of Kings
and against the Crown controlling or influencing their former American colonies.
They wanted change - extreme change.
They did not like how things were, wanted to change them - and did.
They were liberal in their thinking.
Thay were MORE
than liberal; thay were RADICAL
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms:
No, not necessarily: Hitler was liberal (i.e., deviant)
as to the Weimar Republic, but not
what that lexicografer said ("...freedoms" etc.); agree ??
I was bringing out the point
that Barry Goldwater & I very rigidly & loyally support a literal
application of the Constitution and its underlying filosofy
of limited, curtailed, strangled government jurisdiction,
so as to enhance Individual Freedom at the expense of government jurisdiction.
The subject matter of THAT
conservation is the US Constitution.
The subject matter of the conservation
to which YOU
referred was the property rights of the King of England.
Apples & oranges; we had 2 different things in mind.
Is my reply to u clear ?
Did I succeed in getting my point across ?