Frank Apisa wrote:
During Revolutionary times the conservatives argued that King George III deserved our loyalties...and that talk of independence was treason.
Civil War: conservatives argued that slavery was okay...and a matter for individual states rather than the federal government.
When women demanded the right to vote...conservatives argued against it.
They have opposed every piece of safety net legislation ever proposed.
You aren't gonna tell us about Genseric the Vandal and Attila the Hun being conservatives?
Awwwwwwwwww.
I mean, your little diatribe is so full of holes there's more open space than solid material; you can't legally make a sieve like that.
Moreover, the list I posted above is a tiny list; there are much longer lists of inconstencies in liberal positions. The idea of some racism being bad, other racism good, some undeclared wars bad, others good (Kosovo is "good" for liberals because mainly innocent Christians got killed and it took a credible rape allegation against a demmy president off the front pages), some sexual harassment being horrible crimes (Clarence Thomas telling an off color joke) while other instances of sexual harassment (Clinton forcing himself on Kathleen Willey and then Clintonista operatives threatening to kill her kids if she said anything about it) relatively benign, Bush's war on terrorism being evil while Slick Klintler's releasing 20 FALN terrorists from prison where they'd been put by heroic police efforts in an effort to buy puertorican votes for Ms. Piggy's senate campaign is good. That last one is really sending the right message to the world's terrorists, isn't it?
But you get the idea. Consistency simply doesn't appear to be a demmunist viitue or anything like that.