Our Rights Do Not Come From God’

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:Two Questions:

(1) If our rights come from God, which god and which version of that god do we use? Face it, even between the many Christian sects no one can agree on which is the correct vision of God's law. In order to base our laws on God's law we first have to decide which version to use.

Of course everyone thinks their version is the one and only correct faith that knows the mind of God. That's pretty much what's happening between the sunni and shiite. Do we really want to dive into even a mild, non violent version of that kind of mess? That's exactly what the establishment clause was trying to avoid. Let your faith guide your life and your vote but as soon as you try to codify your faith and impose it on others, you run afoul of the constitution.

You slimy progressive liberals make me sick.  Your comment is so typical of the ignorant progressive liberals who infest this world.  And while you cretins are an affliction that plague the earth today, your slimy ancestors also existed hundreds of years ago.  The Founding Fathers addressed your stupidity then and their words defending their principles still apply today.

The Founders' were not referring to any one particular religion, but the religion of ALL MANKIND.  They believed there are 5 fundamental points that  are embraced by all valid religions and they are:

1.  There exists a Creator who made all things and that we should recognize and worship Him.

2.  The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior which distinguishes right from wrong.

3.  The Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat others.

4.  All of mankind lives beyond this life.

5.  Mankind will be judged in the next life for their conduct in this life.


These 5 fundamental points do not address any one single religion, but the religion of all mankind.

So the question never was WHICH RELIGION was the right religion.  The questions was; "Can the government of a free people be maintained without religion"?   And the Founders' believed that the answer to this question was a resounding NO.  

As such the Founders insisted that morality and religion be taught in the schools of this country.  They emphasized this critical belief in Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 where they said:  "Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged".

Somehow us conservatives have let you progressive liberal heathens take this wonderful concept given to us by our Founding Fathers and toss it out with the trash.  I continue to firmly believe this country faces no more devastating enemy than you slimy progressive heathens.

Progressive liberals have done more damage to America than any other enemy we have ever faced.  The sad part is that they are not done, they will continue to push their progressive socialist agenda until America is fundamentally transformed into their socialist utopia.

You had my total and complete admiration in the first paragraph. I wish others could see them for the evil they represent.  The more they expose their beliefs, the more people will recognize them for what they truly are and not their ever clever word-twisting.

Jammer wrote:"Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged".

The full quote is interesting:

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

Nice thought in theory but in practice people used their version of theology to justify the exact opposite policy.

Article 6 is a fine example of how people's interpretation of religious morality can be subjective:

There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.

While it does ban slavery in the Northwest territories it does require them to enable those who do practice slavery, a practice protected by the US constitution.

By today's theological standards most (but not all) people consider slavery to be against God's will, to be a violation of nature's law. But at that time slavery fit neatly into many (but not all) people's religious beliefs. There was a widely varied idea of what Christianity dictates much less some mythical, universal "religion of ALL MANKIND" that everyone agrees with. There was, is and always shall be great divisions of opinion even within the same denomination of the same sect of Christianity, much less some universally agreed upon "the religion of ALL MANKIND".

Even today we can't agree on any kind of universal moral code from pew to pew much less from church to church or religion to religion. My faith says it's a sin to not help those in need, others of the same faith disagree strongly with that concept. So which version of this mythical, universal, all encompassing "religion of all mankind" do we use?

Jammer wrote:...you progressive liberal heathens...

Just out of curiosity, what does your universal "religion of all mankind" say about judging the state of another man's soul? How does this "religion of all mankind" stand on bearing false witness? Does this unitarian "religion of all mankind" observe Jesus' commandment?

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:"Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged".

The full quote is interesting:

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

Nice thought in theory but in practice people used their version of theology to justify the exact opposite policy.

The same old bullshit from you lying ass liberals.  Let's take your point above.  Just like today, the liberal idiots in the democrat party twisted the words and intent of the Founding Fathers to suit their evil agenda.  

The Founding Fathers idea of Manifest Destiny was that their new country the United States of America had been providentially chosen for a special destiny.  However, the evil liberals fundamentally transformed that concept into THEIR evil version of Manifest Destiny which was a phrase which invoked the idea of divine sanction for the territorial expansion of the United States.  It was a popular and easily understood phrase, which was adopted by the liberal democrat party as part of their platform.

So just like ALL of the evil in this country, it has originated with the LIBERALS.  However, when the consequences of THEIR actions are revealed, they choose to directly blame or subtly infer that it was OTHERS who did these evil deeds.  

Evil in this world will never be eradicated until we eliminate liberalism.

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:"Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged".

Article 6 is a fine example of how people's interpretation of religious morality can be subjective:

There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.

While it does ban slavery in the Northwest territories it does require them to enable those who do practice slavery, a practice protected by the US constitution.

By today's theological standards most (but not all) people consider slavery to be against God's will, to be a violation of nature's law. But at that time slavery fit neatly into many (but not all) people's religious beliefs. There was a widely varied idea of what Christianity dictates much less some mythical, universal "religion of ALL MANKIND" that everyone agrees with. There was, is and always shall be great divisions of opinion even within the same denomination of the same sect of Christianity, much less some universally agreed upon "the religion of ALL MANKIND".

Even today we can't agree on any kind of universal moral code from pew to pew much less from church to church or religion to religion. My faith says it's a sin to not help those in need, others of the same faith disagree strongly with that concept. So which version of this mythical, universal, all encompassing "religion of all mankind" do we use?

And let's look at your second point.  Just who in the hell kept slavery alive in this country and fought a civil war in an attempt to preserve it?  Yes, it was the liberal southern democrats.  It was conservatives who fought to rid this country of slavery, but the liberal elitists who had always owned slaves that fought to keep it.  It was Republican President Lincoln who finally stood strong against you evil liberals.

But once again, as soon as the evil of THEIR actions is revealed to the world, the liberals try to blame others for their evil actions.  Good people have got to take a stand against the evil liberals, they have hurt this country and society enough.

Why are liberals incapable of understanding

The Founders' were not referring to any one particular religion, but the religion of ALL MANKIND.  They believed there are 5 fundamental points that  are embraced by all valid religions and they are:

1.  There exists a Creator who made all things and that we should recognize and worship Him.

2.  The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior which distinguishes right from wrong.

3.  The Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat others.

4.  All of mankind lives beyond this life.

5.  Mankind will be judged in the next life for their conduct in this life.


These 5 fundamental points do not address any one single religion, but the religion of all mankind.

Skeptical wrote:
Why are liberals incapable of understanding

The Founders' were not referring to any one particular religion, but the religion of ALL MANKIND.  They believed there are 5 fundamental points that  are embraced by all valid religions and they are:

1.  There exists a Creator who made all things and that we should recognize and worship Him.

2.  The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior which distinguishes right from wrong.

3.  The Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat others.

4.  All of mankind lives beyond this life.

5.  Mankind will be judged in the next life for their conduct in this life.


These 5 fundamental points do not address any one single religion, but the religion of all mankind.

Because we're not all brainwashed into a constant state of fear.

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Why are liberals incapable of understanding

The Founders' were not referring to any one particular religion, but the religion of ALL MANKIND.  They believed there are 5 fundamental points that  are embraced by all valid religions and they are:

1.  There exists a Creator who made all things and that we should recognize and worship Him.

2.  The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior which distinguishes right from wrong.

3.  The Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat others.

4.  All of mankind lives beyond this life.

5.  Mankind will be judged in the next life for their conduct in this life.


These 5 fundamental points do not address any one single religion, but the religion of all mankind.

Because we're not all brainwashed into a constant state of fear.

No, you are brainwashed into thinking that your utopian world of socialism actually works.  However, you are idiots and are only being used.  There is a reason that your handlers refer to you as "useful idiots" at their elitist parties.   You are so pitifully stupid, you fit the role so well.

Jammer wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Why are liberals incapable of understanding

The Founders' were not referring to any one particular religion, but the religion of ALL MANKIND.  They believed there are 5 fundamental points that  are embraced by all valid religions and they are:

1.  There exists a Creator who made all things and that we should recognize and worship Him.

2.  The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior which distinguishes right from wrong.

3.  The Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat others.

4.  All of mankind lives beyond this life.

5.  Mankind will be judged in the next life for their conduct in this life.


These 5 fundamental points do not address any one single religion, but the religion of all mankind.

Because we're not all brainwashed into a constant state of fear.

No, you are brainwashed into thinking that your utopian world of socialism actually works.  However, you are idiots and are only being used.  There is a reason that your handlers refer to you as "useful idiots" at their elitist parties.   You are so pitifully stupid, you fit the role so well.

Your anger and fear can't be good for your physical health.

Liberal wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Why are liberals incapable of understanding

The Founders' were not referring to any one particular religion, but the religion of ALL MANKIND.  They believed there are 5 fundamental points that  are embraced by all valid religions and they are:

1.  There exists a Creator who made all things and that we should recognize and worship Him.

2.  The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior which distinguishes right from wrong.

3.  The Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat others.

4.  All of mankind lives beyond this life.

5.  Mankind will be judged in the next life for their conduct in this life.


These 5 fundamental points do not address any one single religion, but the religion of all mankind.

Because we're not all brainwashed into a constant state of fear.

No, you are brainwashed into thinking that your utopian world of socialism actually works.  However, you are idiots and are only being used.  There is a reason that your handlers refer to you as "useful idiots" at their elitist parties.   You are so pitifully stupid, you fit the role so well.

Your anger and fear can't be good for your physical health.

Liberalism is proven not to be good for your mental heath. Try and get some edumacation.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Liberal wrote:






Your anger and fear can't be good for your physical health.

Liberalism is proven not to be good for your mental heath.  Try and get some edumacation.

These useful idiots have already received their edumacation from their elitist handlers.  They learn the one and only progressive liberal principle that they will ever need to know:

Vote in your OWN best interest.

Then they look for all of the liberal slime ball candidates who promise them the biggest welfare handouts (their OWN best interest) and vote for them as well as come on here and sing their praises and repeat their talking points.

Jammer wrote:
And let's look at your second point.  Just who in the hell kept slavery alive in this country and fought a civil war in an attempt to preserve it?  Yes, it was the liberal southern democrats.  It was conservatives who fought to rid this country of slavery, but the liberal elitists who had always owned slaves that fought to keep it.  It was Republican President Lincoln who finally stood strong against you evil liberals.

But once again, as soon as the evil of THEIR actions is revealed to the world, the liberals try to blame others for their evil actions.  Good people have got to take a stand against the evil liberals, they have hurt this country and society enough.

Not to nitpick a whole bunch, but liberal and conservative activists have switched parties several times in the years this country has been around. Since we are talking about the Civil War, we are referring to the liberal GOP back in the mid 1850s-1880s.

Liberal thinking is what lead to the end of slavery, as that is very liberal ideal.

It really sounds like you might be confused since you think modern times equates to civil war era.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
And let's look at your second point.  Just who in the hell kept slavery alive in this country and fought a civil war in an attempt to preserve it?  Yes, it was the liberal southern democrats.  It was conservatives who fought to rid this country of slavery, but the liberal elitists who had always owned slaves that fought to keep it.  It was Republican President Lincoln who finally stood strong against you evil liberals.

But once again, as soon as the evil of THEIR actions is revealed to the world, the liberals try to blame others for their evil actions.  Good people have got to take a stand against the evil liberals, they have hurt this country and society enough.

Not to nitpick a whole bunch, but liberal and conservative activists have switched parties several times in the years this country has been around. Since we are talking about the Civil War, we are referring to the liberal GOP back in the mid 1850s-1880s.

Liberal thinking is what lead to the end of slavery, as that is very liberal ideal.

It really sounds like you might be confused since you think modern times equates to civil war era.

Absolutely Caitlyn. Not to mention the increasingly liberal GOP right here in SD - except when it comes to henies and vaginies.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
And let's look at your second point.  Just who in the hell kept slavery alive in this country and fought a civil war in an attempt to preserve it?  Yes, it was the liberal southern democrats.  It was conservatives who fought to rid this country of slavery, but the liberal elitists who had always owned slaves that fought to keep it.  It was Republican President Lincoln who finally stood strong against you evil liberals.

But once again, as soon as the evil of THEIR actions is revealed to the world, the liberals try to blame others for their evil actions.  Good people have got to take a stand against the evil liberals, they have hurt this country and society enough.

Not to nitpick a whole bunch, but liberal and conservative activists have switched parties several times in the years this country has been around. Since we are talking about the Civil War, we are referring to the liberal GOP back in the mid 1850s-1880s.

Liberal thinking is what lead to the end of slavery, as that is very liberal ideal.

It really sounds like you might be confused since you think modern times equates to civil war era.

And yet more tortured history. While you are correct in that there is a difference between classical liberalism and contemporary FDR liberalism you are incorrect in stating that the Republican Party was "liberal" in 1860. The Republicans were comprised of remnants of the Whig Party (Lincoln was a Whig Congressman) and the anti-slavery Free Soil Party, neither of which were very liberal. It was the abolitionists and the Radical Republicans which carried the day for the anti-slavery forces and I'd be reluctant to characterize either as liberal.

Nice try but your resorting to the use of a tautology exposes your argument as total BS.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
And let's look at your second point.  Just who in the hell kept slavery alive in this country and fought a civil war in an attempt to preserve it?  Yes, it was the liberal southern democrats.  It was conservatives who fought to rid this country of slavery, but the liberal elitists who had always owned slaves that fought to keep it.  It was Republican President Lincoln who finally stood strong against you evil liberals.

But once again, as soon as the evil of THEIR actions is revealed to the world, the liberals try to blame others for their evil actions.  Good people have got to take a stand against the evil liberals, they have hurt this country and society enough.

Not to nitpick a whole bunch, but liberal and conservative activists have switched parties several times in the years this country has been around. Since we are talking about the Civil War, we are referring to the liberal GOP back in the mid 1850s-1880s.

Liberal thinking is what lead to the end of slavery, as that is very liberal ideal.

It really sounds like you might be confused since you think modern times equates to civil war era.

Nothing but an attempt at outright deception on your part.  I realize that the only way you can reconcile history with the dark side of your evil progressive liberal agenda is to rewrite or distort history.  You might find some dumbasses who already follow your socialist leader around like sheep that will believe your BS, but most people no longer buy your bullshit.

Liberals are evil, point them out to your children and grandchildren when you see them on the street or in the stores.  It is time that the world knows just who these evil people are.

Jammer wrote:
Nothing but an attempt at outright deception on your part.  I realize that the only way you can reconcile history with the dark side of your evil progressive liberal agenda is to rewrite or distort history.  You might find some dumbasses who already follow your socialist leader around like sheep that will believe your BS, but most people no longer buy your bullshit.

Liberals are evil, point them out to your children and grandchildren when you see them on the street or in the stores.  It is time that the world knows just who these evil people are.

I'll leave this here for you to read at your leisure, if you cannot read them: TL;DR GOP is liberal(1880s), Dem is conservative(1880s).

GOP Party Platforms
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29625 - 1880

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78545 - 2008

Democratic (South)
http://www.ushist.com/general-information/1860_national_presidential_election_platforms.shtml - 1860

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78283 - 2008

Jammer wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
And let's look at your second point.  Just who in the hell kept slavery alive in this country and fought a civil war in an attempt to preserve it?  Yes, it was the liberal southern democrats.  It was conservatives who fought to rid this country of slavery, but the liberal elitists who had always owned slaves that fought to keep it.  It was Republican President Lincoln who finally stood strong against you evil liberals.

But once again, as soon as the evil of THEIR actions is revealed to the world, the liberals try to blame others for their evil actions.  Good people have got to take a stand against the evil liberals, they have hurt this country and society enough.

Not to nitpick a whole bunch, but liberal and conservative activists have switched parties several times in the years this country has been around. Since we are talking about the Civil War, we are referring to the liberal GOP back in the mid 1850s-1880s.

Liberal thinking is what lead to the end of slavery, as that is very liberal ideal.

It really sounds like you might be confused since you think modern times equates to civil war era.

Nothing but an attempt at outright deception on your part.  I realize that the only way you can reconcile history with the dark side of your evil progressive liberal agenda is to rewrite or distort history.  You might find some dumbasses who already follow your socialist leader around like sheep that will believe your BS, but most people no longer buy your bullshit.

Liberals are evil, point them out to your children and grandchildren when you see them on the street or in the stores.  It is time that the world knows just who these evil people are.

Yes point 'them' out to your children and grandchildren. Better chance for them to be just like 'pap - a bitterly-angry-at-the-world middle-aged Caucasian male.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
Nothing but an attempt at outright deception on your part.  I realize that the only way you can reconcile history with the dark side of your evil progressive liberal agenda is to rewrite or distort history.  You might find some dumbasses who already follow your socialist leader around like sheep that will believe your BS, but most people no longer buy your bullshit.

Liberals are evil, point them out to your children and grandchildren when you see them on the street or in the stores.  It is time that the world knows just who these evil people are.

I'll leave this here for you to read at your leisure, if you cannot read them: TL;DR GOP is liberal(1880s), Dem is conservative(1880s).

GOP Party Platforms
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29625 - 1880

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78545 - 2008

Democratic (South)
http://www.ushist.com/general-information/1860_national_presidential_election_platforms.shtml - 1860

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78283 - 2008

You are an absolute moron.  You can try to rewrite history in an effort to conceal the evil trail of progressive liberalism in this country, but it is not working.  You people are pure evil.

I am not sure of the accuracy of what you posted.  However using it, here are several of the issues in the 1880 Republican platform along with some of my comments in red font.  These issues in the Republican platform are pure conservatism.  Your deceitful attempt to distort history has failed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and that the liberty secured to this generation should be transmitted undiminished to other generations;   Defenders of personal liberty and not the shameful agenda of progressive liberals to have an all controlling central government make all of our decisions for us.  

that the order established and the credit acquired should never be impaired;    Pure conservatism in that we should never undermine our creditworthiness by living beyond our means and devaluing the dollar through excessive borrowing or of printing fiat money.

that the debt so much reduced should be extinguished by the full payment of every dollar thereof    Pure fiscal conservatism in that we should have not only a balanced budget but also pay down all of the debt that liberal policies have accumulated.  

The Constitution of the United States is a supreme law, and not a mere contract.    Exactly what conservatives believe and not the shameful liberal belief that the Constitution is a living document that can be interpreted by however you are feeling that day  

Out of confederated States it made a sovereign nation.    Identical to what conservatives believe that we are the UNITED States of America and not the UNIFIED States of America like progressive liberals believe.  

Some powers are denied to the Nation,   A firm belief in states rights and not an all controlling federal government that should take care of everything like liberals believe.  

The work of popular education is one left to the care of the several States   The conservative belief that education is a local/state issue.  Do you liberals believe we should shut down the Department of Education and get the federal government out of education?  I think NOT.

that no further grants of the public domain should be made to any railway or other corporation   Stop the crony capitalism that was created by liberals and abide by true free market capitalism.  

insist that further subsidies to private persons or corporations must cease;    Stop the handout of taxpayer money to lazy liberals and the companies that support this garbage in the hopes of being rewarded with more handouts by the democrats.  

regarding the unrestricted immigration of the Chinese as a matter of grave concernment under the exercise of both these powers, would limit and restrict that immigration by the enactment of such just, humane and reasonable laws and treaties as will produce that result.    WOW, that is novel - protect our borders and keep the illegal immigrants out unlike the progressive liberals demand today with their porous border and amnesty for all.  

We charge upon the Democratic party the habitual sacrifice of patriotism and justice to a supreme and insatiable lust for office and patronage; that to obtain possession of the National Government, and control of the place, they have obstructed all efforts to promote the purity and to conserve the freedom of the suffrage, and have devised fraudulent ballots and invented fraudulent certification of returns;     WOW, way back then the liberal democrats were practicing election fraud - who would have ever thought.  

The equal, steady and complete enforcement of the law, and the protection of all our citizens in the enjoyment of all privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution, are the first duties of the Nation.    Everyone treated EXACTLY THE SAME under the law, not the class warfare progressive liberals are preaching today.  Just think equal RIGHTS - not equal THINGS.  

we submit to the practical, sensible people of these United States to say whether it would not be dangerous to the dearest interests of our country at this time to surrender the administration of the National Government to a party which seeks to overthrow the existing policy, under which we are so prosperous, and thus bring distrust and confusion where there is now order, confidence and hope.    Evil liberals trying to fundamentally transform America back in 1880, you would almost think that was the PROGRESSIVE era and for you dumbass liberals, IT WAS.  

Jammer wrote:lots of random text

So, with that long post you tackled one of the four posts. I do find it interesting that you don't differenate between the Democrats in the North (liberal) with the GOP in the north (liberal) with the conservatives in the South for their counter parts.

It really leads me to believe your history lessons might be a bit skewed.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:lots of random text

So, with that long post you tackled one of the four posts. I do find it interesting that you don't differenate between the Democrats in the North (liberal) with the GOP in the north (liberal) with the conservatives in the South for their counter parts.

It really leads me to believe your history lessons might be a bit skewed.

You fuching dumbass, you said that the Republicans of 1880 were liberal and then posted the 1880 Republican platform to prove your point.  From that, I pulled out many of the issues in the Republican platform that you posted and showed you that you were 100% wrong.  There is no need to go beyond that because everything you post is either a distortion, misrepresentation or outright lie.  You have zero credibility so go take a hike shite for brains.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
Nothing but an attempt at outright deception on your part.  I realize that the only way you can reconcile history with the dark side of your evil progressive liberal agenda is to rewrite or distort history.  You might find some dumbasses who already follow your socialist leader around like sheep that will believe your BS, but most people no longer buy your bullshit.

Liberals are evil, point them out to your children and grandchildren when you see them on the street or in the stores.  It is time that the world knows just who these evil people are.

I'll leave this here for you to read at your leisure, if you cannot read them: TL;DR GOP is liberal(1880s), Dem is conservative(1880s).

GOP Party Platforms
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29625 - 1880

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78545 - 2008

Democratic (South)
http://www.ushist.com/general-information/1860_national_presidential_election_platforms.shtml - 1860

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78283 - 2008

There are several issues with your argument.

1) Once again you are conflating the classical liberalism of the 1700's and 1800's with the contemporary FDR/Socialistic liberalism of the 20th century. They are not the same.

2) Comparing party platforms 150 years apart is your other mistake. Party platforms are vestigial throwbacks to when political parties and conventions were tightly controlled by party bosses and were more in tune with the candidates than the contemporary platforms of today written by party flacks and not matching very well with an elected candidate. Does anybody really give a crap about today's party platforms?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Does anybody really give a crap about today's party platforms?  

Actually I  do.  While I agree with what you said regarding the party platforms, I for one wish they truthfully represented what the party stood for and that the party would hold their candidates accountable to the platform.

I certainly understand that not ever candidate will agree 100% with a party platform.  However, there should be some degree of "quality control" by the party when it comes to their candidates.  If a candidate is too far outside of the party's umbrella of principles, then perhaps that candidate should choose a different party or run as an independent.

We have a "truth in advertising" law and I would like to see it apply to political party candidates.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
There are several issues with your argument.

1) Once again you are conflating the classical liberalism of the 1700's and 1800's with the contemporary FDR/Socialistic liberalism of the 20th century. They are not the same.

I think you are confusing liberalism in general, but that is your opinion. After all it was pretty liberal of the GOP to fight for women's voting rights in the 1920s as well. It really seems like sometime after the 70s, they switched their tune.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
2) Comparing party platforms 150 years apart is your other mistake. Party platforms are vestigial throwbacks to when political parties and conventions were tightly controlled by party bosses and were more in tune with the candidates than the contemporary platforms of today written by party flacks and not matching very well with an elected candidate. Does anybody really give a crap about today's party platforms?

Of course its silly to compare the two when they are 150 years apart. The ideals and beliefs from the same parties that far apart in time will change over time. Its part of the process of ideologies evolving with the times and becoming more modern.

I found it interesting that Jammer, doesn't seem to understand how the party platforms have switched so heavily in the course of 100+ years. The Southern Democrats are now the Southern Republicans, thanks to the party lines switching.

Real, Clear, Politics gives a great overview of the switch - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/09/misunderstanding_the_southern_realignment_107084.html

So why did the South finally become Republican in recent years? As Barbour explains, attrition. The Democrats weakened the seniority system in the 1970s, reducing the clout of the old bulls. Many retired. Some lost primaries, as newly-enfranchised blacks and poor whites flexed their muscle. And Democrats who remembered the Great Depression and for whom voting for a Republican was simply unthinkable absent a thoroughly unacceptable Democrat, were literally a dying breed by the 1970s. These Democrats also happened to be the ones who fought desegregation, while also fighting their national party on almost every other issue.

By the 1980s, they were outnumbered by young people like Barbour, who were ideologically sympathetic to the Republicans (as were their parents and grandparents by this point), but also typically as well-off as their Northern middle class counterparts, and didn't have any great partisan attachment to the Democrats.

There are many more articles like this out there available as well, but to think the GOP in the South has stayed the same in the past 200+ years is a bit naive.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:



I think you are confusing liberalism in general, but that is your opinion. After all it was pretty liberal of the GOP to fight for women's voting rights in the 1920s as well. It really seems like sometime after the 70s, they switched their tune.

Of course its silly to compare the two when they are 150 years apart. The ideals and beliefs from the same parties that far apart in time will change over time. Its part of the process of ideologies evolving with the times and becoming more modern.

I found it interesting that Jammer, doesn't seem to understand how the party platforms have switched so heavily in the course of 100+ years. The Southern Democrats are now the Southern Republicans, thanks to the party lines switching.

Real, Clear, Politics gives a great overview of the switch - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/09/misunderstanding_the_southern_realignment_107084.html

So why did the South finally become Republican in recent years? As Barbour explains, attrition. The Democrats weakened the seniority system in the 1970s, reducing the clout of the old bulls. Many retired. Some lost primaries, as newly-enfranchised blacks and poor whites flexed their muscle. And Democrats who remembered the Great Depression and for whom voting for a Republican was simply unthinkable absent a thoroughly unacceptable Democrat, were literally a dying breed by the 1970s. These Democrats also happened to be the ones who fought desegregation, while also fighting their national party on almost every other issue.

By the 1980s, they were outnumbered by young people like Barbour, who were ideologically sympathetic to the Republicans (as were their parents and grandparents by this point), but also typically as well-off as their Northern middle class counterparts, and didn't have any great partisan attachment to the Democrats.

There are many more articles like this out there available as well, but to think the GOP in the South has stayed the same in the past 200+ years is a bit naive.

 

The issue of women voting is 100% in line with conservative principles.  Conservatives now and forever have believed in equal rights, unlike progressive liberals who believe in equal things.  Susan B Anthony who was a leader in the women's suffrage movement, was a staunch conservative Republican.

http://www.nfrw.org/republicans/women/suffrage.htm

As for your explanation of how or why the Republican Party has changed over time, it is pure fantasy and more liberal distortion and lying.  Think about it dipshit, if my father was a democrat and I am a Republican, does that mean the party has CHANGED?  NO, it means that I believe in different values and principles than did my father.

I will agree on one issue only with you and that is that the democrat party was more conservative a hundred years ago.  Back when there were TRADITIONAL democrats and the differences between them and the Republicans was mainly over priorities.  They were arguing about the WHAT to do because they had different priorities.  Since then the progressive socialists have hijacked the democrat party.

This has caused the differences between democrats and Republicans to change from one of arguing over priorities to arguing over the issue of HOW.  Conservatives believe in free market capitalism, states rights, local control and individual liberty.  Progressive liberals believe in socialism, an all powerful central government, federal control of almost everything and the nanny state to make the decision for people.  Therefore, whenever any issue comes up there is a huge disagreement between democrats and Republicans on HOW to address the issue because they believe in different things today.

Southerners have always believed in STATES RIGHTS.  Therefore, it is not surprising that many people in the south gravitate to the political party which believes in states rights.  And the democrat party has always believed in slavery for the black people.  Before the civil war it was the democrats who fought to keep slavery.  When they lost that battle they figured out how to do what they wanted by keeping the black people poor and in debt.

When  person is beholden to another for their subsistence and livelihood, they are held in slavery.  The democrats no longer ask their black slaves to pick cotton.  They have made slavery much easier on their slaves today as all they have to do is continue voting for the democrats in order for their masters to take care of them.

http://humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

I am sick and tired of your constant liberal lying.  You are a shameful deceitful evil person.  There is not an ounce of decency in you.

I really don't think you know what you are talking about. However, that being said you didn't address the points in the previous post at all.

Perhaps you should actually read the articles before coming to a snap decision.