User talk:LiberalRepublicanConservative

Conservatism
Please do not make any more edits to this article without first discussing them on the article's talk page. Your edits appear to be POV or, at the very least, controversial, involving your own interpretation of documents and events. Do not restore your edits, which have been revertedm without first getting a consensus on the talk page to do so. Read WP:BRD for the recommended procedure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It must be 15 years since I bothered to edit anything here so I am a little bit out of practice and have other pressing concerns right now, so please bear with me. Political labels are mutable and malleable. They are more often intended to obfuscate and deceive rather than clarify. Nazis were not socialists any more than the GDR was ever "democratic." Very problematic. My only objective and intent is clarity, to clarify.
 * “In politics, being deceived is no excuse.” (Kolakowsi, Leszek).


 * Apparently, you found two minor edits - which do not substantively or materially alter the article and rather improve it - so "controversial" and POV it required an immediate revert, rather than contacting me first to discuss the :matter. The article suffers from much greater flaws and defects than my two humble edits tried to correct, but “little steps.” If Kirk was alive today, he’d likely be calling us all “chirping sectaries.” Not just libertarians, who :he had no fondness for. Such is the nature of faction.


 * Your complaint lacks the specificity it requires. It is vague and ambiguous as to which minor edit “appeared to be POV” and which “controversial.” A polite introduction preceding your directions would have been welcome, also, and :courteous. At least you said please, once. Courtesy is owed, respect is earned.


 * Burke apparently never used the term "conservative" in his written work, choosing "conserve" instead. That’s factual. Not POV or even controversial, nor is it a personal interpretation based on documents or events. It is :documented by two Encyclopedias. Britannica and Stanford.
 * If we add that he used “conserve” to the first edit, with above citations, would that satisfy you?
 * To paraphrase Mike Huben, it isn't uncommon for political ideologies to "spiritually baptize the deceased as [Your Philosophy/Ideology Here] because they cannot protest the anachronism."
 * By that logic, I could claim that Thomas Jefferson was the founder of progressive thought, i.e. a Progressive. Fourth Panel:
 * But read the entire letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816, and you’ll be convinced. And Ben Franklin was a closet socialist…
 * All Franklin ever wanted was to give us a Republic, he suspected we could never keep. Just a Republican, not a socialist.
 * If you are a serious student of the development of conservative thought you know, or should know, conservatism is anti-ideological. And both Kirk’s and Hailsham’s POV do not interpret conservatism as anything other than an :attitude. A point of view I have come to agree with after 25 years of considering the matter and the weightier evidence appears to agree with them.
 * Peter Viereck’s book Conservatism Revisited: The Revolt Against Ideology would appear to agree.
 * As to instantiation and the quibble over “minimal” and “limited,” I’ll stipulate to the fact it isn’t an easily accessible concept today. Just as our construction “virtual reality” might give a person migraines back then. I’ve :been looking for years and have not found a single instance of any term other than “limited.” But it may just be a black swan.
 * We are advised to resolve disputes as they arise, or so I just read. If we can’t accomplish this I’m ready to proceed to dispute resolution now, if you are.
 * On the other hand, “bigly” first appeared in the 14c.
 * bigly (adv.)early 14c., "strongly, vehemently," from big + -ly (2). From 1530s as "haughtily, arrogantly."
 * As to instantiation and the quibble over “minimal” and “limited,” I’ll stipulate to the fact it isn’t an easily accessible concept today. Just as our construction “virtual reality” might give a person migraines back then. I’ve :been looking for years and have not found a single instance of any term other than “limited.” But it may just be a black swan.
 * We are advised to resolve disputes as they arise, or so I just read. If we can’t accomplish this I’m ready to proceed to dispute resolution now, if you are.
 * On the other hand, “bigly” first appeared in the 14c.
 * bigly (adv.)early 14c., "strongly, vehemently," from big + -ly (2). From 1530s as "haughtily, arrogantly."
 * On the other hand, “bigly” first appeared in the 14c.
 * bigly (adv.)early 14c., "strongly, vehemently," from big + -ly (2). From 1530s as "haughtily, arrogantly."




 * Cheers LRC 13:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Yunshui 雲 水 13:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)