The differences between conservatives and liberals

Clicker wrote:Polling is nutz in this case. They have Missouri as above average conservative.  How can that be with a Dem Gov and one Dem Senator?

It's a poll with where people self identified as liberal or conservative.

If anything it looks like people on average do not understand what that means. A lot of these principles in this thread are fundamentalist more than conservative as they both don't go hand in hand all the time.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Clicker wrote:Polling is nutz in this case. They have Missouri as above average conservative.  How can that be with a Dem Gov and one Dem Senator?

It's a poll with where people self identified as liberal or conservative.

If anything it looks like people on average do not understand what that means. A lot of these principles in this thread are fundamentalist more than conservative as they both don't go hand in hand all the time.

You are full of shite.

Jammer wrote:It's a poll with where people self identified as liberal or conservative.

If anything it looks like people on average do not understand what that means. A lot of these principles in this thread are fundamentalist more than conservative as they both don't go hand in hand all the time.

You are full of shite.

A lot of your principles seem to be rooted in religious fervor that does not make them conservative.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:It's a poll with where people self identified as liberal or conservative.

If anything it looks like people on average do not understand what that means. A lot of these principles in this thread are fundamentalist more than conservative as they both don't go hand in hand all the time.

You are full of shite.

A lot of your principles seem to be rooted in religious fervor that does not make them conservative.

You are so full of shite, now you are embarrassing yourself.

I guess the principle that our rights come from God equates to religious fervor? However, there is no denying that many conservative principles follow natural law. I know that you liberals think you can pass a governmental law that overrides natural law, but you are wrong.

Jammer wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:It's a poll with where people self identified as liberal or conservative.

If anything it looks like people on average do not understand what that means. A lot of these principles in this thread are fundamentalist more than conservative as they both don't go hand in hand all the time.

You are full of shite.

A lot of your principles seem to be rooted in religious fervor that does not make them conservative.

You are so full of shite, now you are embarrassing yourself.  

I guess the principle that our rights come from God equates to religious fervor?  However, there is no denying that many conservative principles follow natural law.  I know that you liberals think you can pass a governmental law that overrides natural law, but you are wrong.  

He/She/It started embarrassing themselves a long time ago.

Shortie's Lover wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Liberal wrote:Does anyone else think its funny that conservatives need to be told what their principles are? Teabaggers are funny!

This is why you don't have anything nice.  Just because conservatives are not ashamed of their beliefs doesn't mean you should mock them.  Maybe you can actually offer something of value by stating your principles and core beliefs besides killing unborn babies and taking a man up your rear.  Go ahead and proclaim the benefits of all you represent for all to see...whats' that, you are devoid of any...

Your time and your little liberal dreams of utopia are quickly coming to an end that's to the jihadist in chief. Liberal's perverted views, lack of ideals, and shallowness have been on full display for all the country to see.  For that I thank the traitor occupying the White House. Perhaps Islam and liberalism can be jointly eradicated from the face of the planet for the betterment of mankind.  You can throw out your little perverted sexual innuendo all you want but what it does is show what a hypocrite you are and devoid of character. You and your beliefs are a plague upon this country.

Darth I will vouch for the fact that Liberal most certainly does not 'take a man up his rear'.

On a golf outing last summer he repeatedly offered unwelcome unexpected sexual advances in my direction.  Hit on me non stop through 9 holes.  He is most certainly an American male.  I might even confuse him for a horny anglo middle aged Republican (but he is much younger than you fellows appear to be and has a bit of an olive tone to his complexion).  

He probably just wanted to give it to in the back door while calling you Barry.

Jammer wrote:  I guess the principle that our rights come from God equates to religious fervor?  However, there is no denying that many conservative principles follow natural law.  I know that you liberals think you can pass a governmental law that overrides natural law, but you are wrong.  

Speaking of where rights come from .....

Every now and then there are discussions as to where our rights come from, the right to bear arms usually the biggest and/or most heated discussion area.

The insistence by those on the left that the right to bear arms and other "natural rights" comes from benevolence of the government might be proof that those who hold that opinion have forgotten the author of the below quote was a Democrat.

The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

John F. Kennedy,  Inaugural Address (1961)

Skeptical wrote:

Jammer wrote:  I guess the principle that our rights come from God equates to religious fervor?  However, there is no denying that many conservative principles follow natural law.  I know that you liberals think you can pass a governmental law that overrides natural law, but you are wrong.  

Speaking of where rights come from .....

Every now and then there are discussions as to where our rights come from, the right to bear arms usually the biggest and/or most heated discussion area.

The insistence by those on the left that the right to bear arms and other "natural rights" comes from benevolence of the government might be proof that those who hold that opinion have forgotten the author of the below quote was a Democrat.

The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

John F. Kennedy,  Inaugural Address (1961)

These moronic progressive liberals all believe that our rights come from the government.  That puts them completely counter to the Founding Principles the Founding Fathers used to create our great country.  As such, the progressive liberals find it necessary to fundamentally change it.  

My opinion is that we should load these despicable assholes up and deport their sorry asses to a country more their liking.  I can name three that fit their utopian dreams, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela.  They should save everyone a lot of heartburn including themselves and move to a country that embraces what they want to change the United States to.

I think conservatives need to start pointing these despicable people out every time you are with your children and grandchildren.  Our children and grandchildren need to know who these people are that want to destroy any chance they might have to be whatever they want to be, not what the government wants them to be.

Skeptical wrote:

Jammer wrote:  I guess the principle that our rights come from God equates to religious fervor?  However, there is no denying that many conservative principles follow natural law.  I know that you liberals think you can pass a governmental law that overrides natural law, but you are wrong.  

Speaking of where rights come from .....

Every now and then there are discussions as to where our rights come from, the right to bear arms usually the biggest and/or most heated discussion area.

The insistence by those on the left that the right to bear arms and other "natural rights" comes from benevolence of the government might be proof that those who hold that opinion have forgotten the author of the below quote was a Democrat.

The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

John F. Kennedy,  Inaugural Address (1961)

Not that the two are related, but for some reason that reminded me of when Republican President Bush stood in front of that Mission Accomplished sign!

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Jammer wrote:  I guess the principle that our rights come from God equates to religious fervor?  However, there is no denying that many conservative principles follow natural law.  I know that you liberals think you can pass a governmental law that overrides natural law, but you are wrong.  

Speaking of where rights come from .....

Every now and then there are discussions as to where our rights come from, the right to bear arms usually the biggest and/or most heated discussion area.

The insistence by those on the left that the right to bear arms and other "natural rights" comes from benevolence of the government might be proof that those who hold that opinion have forgotten the author of the below quote was a Democrat.

The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

John F. Kennedy,  Inaugural Address (1961)

Not that the two are related, but for some reason that reminded me of when Republican President Bush stood in front of that Mission Accomplished sign!

The thing is, in your eyes, the two ARE RELATED. You believed Bush's "Mission Accomplished" was something to mock....just as YOU believe Kennedy saying that the rights of man come from the hand of God is something to mock.

You must proved Jammer's point better than anyone else can.

Jammer wrote:
You are so full of shite, now you are embarrassing yourself.  

I guess the principle that our rights come from God equates to religious fervor?  However, there is no denying that many conservative principles follow natural law.  I know that you liberals think you can pass a governmental law that overrides natural law, but you are wrong.  

Our rights come from empathy to other humans, much like our laws. Failing that and using anything else is dishonest in the interests of the people. That is called a society/civilization.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
You are so full of shite, now you are embarrassing yourself.  

I guess the principle that our rights come from God equates to religious fervor?  However, there is no denying that many conservative principles follow natural law.  I know that you liberals think you can pass a governmental law that overrides natural law, but you are wrong.  

Our rights come from empathy to other humans, much like our laws. Failing that and using anything else is dishonest in the interests of the people. That is called a society/civilization.

You are an embarrassment to patriotic Americans.  You need to read our Founding Documents:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Back in 1776 there were numerous colonists who did not agree with those words or the document they were contained in.  These people were called Tories or Loyalists.  Today, many of these people with these types of thoughts are progressive socialists inhabiting the democrat party.

BladeRunner wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Jammer wrote:  I guess the principle that our rights come from God equates to religious fervor?  However, there is no denying that many conservative principles follow natural law.  I know that you liberals think you can pass a governmental law that overrides natural law, but you are wrong.  

Speaking of where rights come from .....

Every now and then there are discussions as to where our rights come from, the right to bear arms usually the biggest and/or most heated discussion area.

The insistence by those on the left that the right to bear arms and other "natural rights" comes from benevolence of the government might be proof that those who hold that opinion have forgotten the author of the below quote was a Democrat.

The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

John F. Kennedy,  Inaugural Address (1961)

Not that the two are related, but for some reason that reminded me of when Republican President Bush stood in front of that Mission Accomplished sign!

The thing is, in your eyes, the two ARE RELATED. You believed Bush's "Mission Accomplished" was something to mock....just as YOU believe Kennedy saying that the rights of man come from the hand of God is something to mock.

You must proved Jammer's point better than anyone else can.

No it's actually deeper than that. Skeptical said that liberals have to agree with everything democrats say. So that means you republicans have to stand by your Mission Acomplished boy, by that stupid logic.

Some day, grasshopper. Some day.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
You are so full of shite, now you are embarrassing yourself.  

I guess the principle that our rights come from God equates to religious fervor?  However, there is no denying that many conservative principles follow natural law.  I know that you liberals think you can pass a governmental law that overrides natural law, but you are wrong.  

Our rights come from empathy to other humans, much like our laws. Failing that and using anything else is dishonest in the interests of the people. That is called a society/civilization.

And one more thing - our laws come from the "consent of the governed".  This means that government is the delegation of the rights we have as an individual to a third party (the government) to act on our behalf.  Therefore the laws should only pertain to the rights we hold as individuals, not our empathy.

As an individual we have the right to stand in our doorways 24/7 with a gun and protect our property and family with a gun.  However, most people prefer to delegate that right or authority to a police department (aka government) to act on our behalf as there are other things we would like to do with our livers.  

The exact same thing can be said in regards to protecting our homes from fire.  We have the right to stand on our property 24/7 with a garden hose, but most people prefer to delegate that right/authority to a local government (fire department).

But now let's turn toward your empathy insinuation.  Let's say you and your spouse live in a comfortable house and own one automobile.  You have a neighbor on one side of them the Jones who are a couple with 4 children.  However, they are quite poor and struggling and do not even own a car.  It is tough as they both work and have the kids to get to school and other activities.  

On the other side of you live the Smiths.  They are a married couple with no kids and they own 2 cars.  However, you notice that they rarely drive both cars.  Therefore in your compassionate way you explain the plight of the Jones to Mr. Smith and ask him if he would be willing to give his scond car to the Jones to help them out and make things more equal.  However, he declines and you are upset.

Therefore, later that night you sneak over to his garage and hotwire his car and drive it over to the Jones and give it to them.  You (like the democrats) have just made yourself a lifelong friend of the Jones.  However, the Sheriff is soon at your door and hauls you off to jail to face grand theft auto charges.  You did NOT have the right to redistribute Mr. Smiths car to the Jones.  In fact, it was a crime as you were stealing.

Since you do not have the right as an individual to redistribute Mr. Smith's property, you do not have the right to delegate that authority to the government.  Yes, I know the progressive liberals have gotten away with that all too many times, but it is not the proper role of government.  It is the usurpation of power by the government.

The proper role of government is to protect equal rights not provide equal things through YOUR EMPATHY of the Jones or anyone else.

Jammer wrote:
But now let's turn toward your empathy insinuation.  Let's say you and your spouse live in a comfortable house and own one automobile.  You have a neighbor on one side of them the Jones who are a couple with 4 children.  However, they are quite poor and struggling and do not even own a car.  It is tough as they both work and have the kids to get to school and other activities.  

On the other side of you live the Smiths.  They are a married couple with no kids and they own 2 cars.  However, you notice that they rarely drive both cars.  Therefore in your compassionate way you explain the plight of the Jones to Mr. Smith and ask him if he would be willing to give his scond car to the Jones to help them out and make things more equal.  However, he declines and you are upset.

Therefore, later that night you sneak over to his garage and hotwire his car and drive it over to the Jones and give it to them.  You (like the democrats) have just made yourself a lifelong friend of the Jones.  However, the Sheriff is soon at your door and hauls you off to jail to face grand theft auto charges.  You did NOT have the right to redistribute Mr. Smiths car to the Jones.  In fact, it was a crime as you were stealing.

Since you do not have the right as an individual to redistribute Mr. Smith's property, you do not have the right to delegate that authority to the government.  Yes, I know the progressive liberals have gotten away with that all too many times, but it is not the proper role of government.  It is the usurpation of power by the government.

The proper role of government is to protect equal rights not provide equal things through YOUR EMPATHY of the Jones or anyone else.

Empathy would dictate not harming another person, stealing would be harming that person whether it would directly or not.

Which leads me to believe you don't know how empathy works.

The rest of your hypothetical was a straw man you decided to build so it'd agree with your confirmation bias.

Please explain to me how your religious fervor is greater than empathy related laws?

And just where does empathy come from?

Liberal wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Jammer wrote:  I guess the principle that our rights come from God equates to religious fervor?  However, there is no denying that many conservative principles follow natural law.  I know that you liberals think you can pass a governmental law that overrides natural law, but you are wrong.  

Speaking of where rights come from .....

Every now and then there are discussions as to where our rights come from, the right to bear arms usually the biggest and/or most heated discussion area.

The insistence by those on the left that the right to bear arms and other "natural rights" comes from benevolence of the government might be proof that those who hold that opinion have forgotten the author of the below quote was a Democrat.

The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

John F. Kennedy,  Inaugural Address (1961)

Not that the two are related, but for some reason that reminded me of when Republican President Bush stood in front of that Mission Accomplished sign!

The thing is, in your eyes, the two ARE RELATED. You believed Bush's "Mission Accomplished" was something to mock....just as YOU believe Kennedy saying that the rights of man come from the hand of God is something to mock.

You must proved Jammer's point better than anyone else can.

No it's actually deeper than that. Skeptical said that liberals have to agree with everything democrats say. So that means you republicans have to stand by your Mission Acomplished boy, by that stupid logic.

Some day, grasshopper. Some day.

You can't seem to understand that even though Kennedy was a Democrat his thinking of where rights come from differs so much from modern day Democrats/liberals/progressive/socialists since the majority opinions I have read is that the rights come from the government.

Mock all you want and you will still be wrong.

I said it at the time and still say it was very poor timing and or camera angle to capture the banner in the filming considering that banner represented an accomplished mission of another type and not what your handlers try to spin.

According to Navy Commander and Pentagon spokesman Conrad Chun the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier's 10-month deployment (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself, saying "It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
But now let's turn toward your empathy insinuation.  Let's say you and your spouse live in a comfortable house and own one automobile.  You have a neighbor on one side of them the Jones who are a couple with 4 children.  However, they are quite poor and struggling and do not even own a car.  It is tough as they both work and have the kids to get to school and other activities.  

On the other side of you live the Smiths.  They are a married couple with no kids and they own 2 cars.  However, you notice that they rarely drive both cars.  Therefore in your compassionate way you explain the plight of the Jones to Mr. Smith and ask him if he would be willing to give his scond car to the Jones to help them out and make things more equal.  However, he declines and you are upset.

Therefore, later that night you sneak over to his garage and hotwire his car and drive it over to the Jones and give it to them.  You (like the democrats) have just made yourself a lifelong friend of the Jones.  However, the Sheriff is soon at your door and hauls you off to jail to face grand theft auto charges.  You did NOT have the right to redistribute Mr. Smiths car to the Jones.  In fact, it was a crime as you were stealing.

Since you do not have the right as an individual to redistribute Mr. Smith's property, you do not have the right to delegate that authority to the government.  Yes, I know the progressive liberals have gotten away with that all too many times, but it is not the proper role of government.  It is the usurpation of power by the government.

The proper role of government is to protect equal rights not provide equal things through YOUR EMPATHY of the Jones or anyone else.

Empathy would dictate not harming another person, stealing would be harming that person whether it would directly or not.

Which leads me to believe you don't know how empathy works.

The rest of your hypothetical was a straw man you decided to build so it'd agree with your confirmation bias.

Please explain to me how your religious fervor is greater than empathy related laws?

The responsibility of government is to protect our rights and to balance the competing rights of individuals.  Laws are enacted to balance these competing rights of individuals.  Empathy has ZERO to do with it.

Please point out where EMPATHY is any part of our foundational documents.  The documents along with all of the writings of the Founding Fathers referred to RIGHTS hundreds of times.  I await you pointing out where empathy was any part of what this country was based on.  That is merely a tagline that socialists use to fool the people as they go about fundamentally changing our great country into a third world socialist shithole.

Unless you can clearly point out where empathy was the basis for our system of government, you need to just shove your empathy back up your ass and shut your mouth.

Jammer wrote:
The responsibility of government is to protect our rights and to balance the competing rights of individuals.  Laws are enacted to balance these competing rights of individuals.  Empathy has ZERO to do with it.

Please point out where EMPATHY is any part of our foundational documents.  The documents along with all of the writings of the Founding Fathers referred to RIGHTS hundreds of times.  I await you pointing out where empathy was any part of what this country was based on.  That is merely a tagline that socialists use to fool the people as they go about fundamentally changing our great country into a third world socialist shithole.

Unless you can clearly point out where empathy was the basis for our system of government, you need to just shove your empathy back up your ass and shut your mouth.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

This sums it up pretty nicely, in my opinion.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
The responsibility of government is to protect our rights and to balance the competing rights of individuals.  Laws are enacted to balance these competing rights of individuals.  Empathy has ZERO to do with it.

Please point out where EMPATHY is any part of our foundational documents.  The documents along with all of the writings of the Founding Fathers referred to RIGHTS hundreds of times.  I await you pointing out where empathy was any part of what this country was based on.  That is merely a tagline that socialists use to fool the people as they go about fundamentally changing our great country into a third world socialist shithole.

Unless you can clearly point out where empathy was the basis for our system of government, you need to just shove your empathy back up your ass and shut your mouth.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

This sums it up pretty nicely, in my opinion.

You are a total idiot. First that is merely the preamble to the US Constitution and it has ZERO to do with empathy. If that is all you have got, you are even stupider than I thought, which was only one notch above rocks. Consider yourself downgraded you Marxist liberal.

Jammer wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
The responsibility of government is to protect our rights and to balance the competing rights of individuals.  Laws are enacted to balance these competing rights of individuals.  Empathy has ZERO to do with it.

Please point out where EMPATHY is any part of our foundational documents.  The documents along with all of the writings of the Founding Fathers referred to RIGHTS hundreds of times.  I await you pointing out where empathy was any part of what this country was based on.  That is merely a tagline that socialists use to fool the people as they go about fundamentally changing our great country into a third world socialist shithole.

Unless you can clearly point out where empathy was the basis for our system of government, you need to just shove your empathy back up your ass and shut your mouth.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

This sums it up pretty nicely, in my opinion.

You are a total idiot.  First that is merely the preamble to the US Constitution and it has ZERO to do with empathy.  If that is all you have got, you are even stupider than I thought, which was only one notch above rocks.  Consider yourself downgraded you Marxist liberal.

Oh crap!  You just opened Pandora's box because now the "general welfare" will be picked up as proof those who are mentally and physically able to work but won't should be provided for by those working!

Jammer wrote:
You are a total idiot.  First that is merely the preamble to the US Constitution and it has ZERO to do with empathy.  If that is all you have got, you are even stupider than I thought, which was only one notch above rocks.  Consider yourself downgraded you Marxist liberal.

You are correct it is the introduction as to why this Constitution is being written, based entirely upon human empathy for one another. I agree with that statement. I'm sorry you can't understand it.

Skeptical wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
The responsibility of government is to protect our rights and to balance the competing rights of individuals.  Laws are enacted to balance these competing rights of individuals.  Empathy has ZERO to do with it.

Please point out where EMPATHY is any part of our foundational documents.  The documents along with all of the writings of the Founding Fathers referred to RIGHTS hundreds of times.  I await you pointing out where empathy was any part of what this country was based on.  That is merely a tagline that socialists use to fool the people as they go about fundamentally changing our great country into a third world socialist shithole.

Unless you can clearly point out where empathy was the basis for our system of government, you need to just shove your empathy back up your ass and shut your mouth.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

This sums it up pretty nicely, in my opinion.

You are a total idiot.  First that is merely the preamble to the US Constitution and it has ZERO to do with empathy.  If that is all you have got, you are even stupider than I thought, which was only one notch above rocks.  Consider yourself downgraded you Marxist liberal.

Oh crap!  You just opened Pandora's box because now the "general welfare" will be picked up as proof those who are mentally and physically able to work but won't should be provided for by those working!

Here is the meaning of the word welfare from an 1828 dictionary:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is little doubt for anyone of sound mind to understand what the Founders meant back in 1787.  Words change in meaning over the course of time.  Dumbass liberals want to take the meaning or words today and distort the meaning of what was written in 1787.  

These progressive liberals have no place in our society.  I point these people out to the younger generation every chance I get.  The kids growing up today need to understand the evil these people walking the streets today present to their future well being.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
You are a total idiot.  First that is merely the preamble to the US Constitution and it has ZERO to do with empathy.  If that is all you have got, you are even stupider than I thought, which was only one notch above rocks.  Consider yourself downgraded you Marxist liberal.

You are correct it is the introduction as to why this Constitution is being written, based entirely upon human empathy for one another. I agree with that statement. I'm sorry you can't understand it.

Well I am sure a Marxist like you would believe whatever distorted and perverted comment you could make that helps advance socialism. Just don't expect patriotic Americans to join you in your perversion.

Jammer wrote:
Well I am sure a Marxist like you would believe whatever distorted and perverted comment you could make that helps advance socialism.  Just don't expect patriotic Americans to join you in your perversion.

I say this preamble was written by the most patriotic of Americans and they'd agree with me.