The differences between conservatives and liberals

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

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.

Bull shite and their avoidance of using the word EMPATHY anywhere in any of the Founding Documents proves it. Now go pound sand you slimy socialist.

Jammer wrote:
Bull shite and their avoidance of using the word EMPATHY anywhere in any of the Founding Documents proves it.  Now go pound sand you slimy socialist.

Which makes me believe you don't know what the word empathy means. That is the basis for a lot of our laws and nearly always has been.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
Bull shite and their avoidance of using the word EMPATHY anywhere in any of the Founding Documents proves it.  Now go pound sand you slimy socialist.

Which makes me believe you don't know what the word empathy means. That is the basis for a lot of our laws and nearly always has been.

100% wrong.  Plain and simple that is wrong.  Now I do understand that the FAKE empathy that progressive liberals tend to exert over certain issues is their selling point to create laws, but that is not the basis.  You assholes always say it is "for the kids", for the needy", "for the sick", "for the environment" or whatever crisis you can invent, but it never is.  It is always about moving the balanced center of government our Founders gave us.

Progressive liberals are not happy with the horizontal axis that runs between 100 % government and no government.  Every law you pass moves the fulcrum further to the left toward 100% government and tyranny.  And you are not happy with the vertical axis either with the system of Federalism the Founders gave us.  Almost every law you pass moves that balance point upward toward an all controlling federal (or as you communists like to say CENTRAL) government and away from state and local control.

If you want to know where our laws originally came from try natural law, the Anglo Saxons, Ancient Israel and the 10 Commandments.  You lying liberals are evil with your misrepresentations.

Come on Jammer, aren't you starting to feel his pain or frustration?

Jammer wrote:
100% wrong.  Plain and simple that is wrong.  Now I do understand that the FAKE empathy that progressive liberals tend to exert over certain issues is their selling point to create laws, but that is not the basis.  You assholes always say it is "for the kids", for the needy", "for the sick", "for the environment" or whatever crisis you can invent, but it never is.  It is always about moving the balanced center of government our Founders gave us.

Since you apparently don't like the preamble, here I'll pull some quotes from Section 8 of Article I of the US Constitution.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Of course we also have the Bill of Rights as well which clearly show empathy was fresh in the minds of our Founding Members.

Jammer wrote:
Progressive liberals are not happy with the horizontal axis that runs between 100 % government and no government.  Every law you pass moves the fulcrum further to the left toward 100% government and tyranny.  And you are not happy with the vertical axis either with the system of Federalism the Founders gave us.  Almost every law you pass moves that balance point upward toward an all controlling federal (or as you communists like to say CENTRAL) government and away from state and local control.

This seems an odd disjoint between what we were talking about.

Jammer wrote:
If you want to know where our laws originally came from try natural law, the Anglo Saxons, Ancient Israel and the 10 Commandments.  You lying liberals are evil with your misrepresentations.

The first laws of the land come from Code of Ur-Nammu and were based on empathy towards other humans. After all harming someone, even in 18th century BCE was considered in poor taste Although their penalties, IE Death is a bit extreme by today's standards. I don't think conspiring to commit a crime should carry the death penalty.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
100% wrong.  Plain and simple that is wrong.  Now I do understand that the FAKE empathy that progressive liberals tend to exert over certain issues is their selling point to create laws, but that is not the basis.  You assholes always say it is "for the kids", for the needy", "for the sick", "for the environment" or whatever crisis you can invent, but it never is.  It is always about moving the balanced center of government our Founders gave us.

Since you apparently don't like the preamble, here I'll pull some quotes from Section 8 of Article I of the US Constitution.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;  

Of course we also have the Bill of Rights as well which clearly show empathy was fresh in the minds of our Founding Members.

Jammer wrote:
Progressive liberals are not happy with the horizontal axis that runs between 100 % government and no government.  Every law you pass moves the fulcrum further to the left toward 100% government and tyranny.  And you are not happy with the vertical axis either with the system of Federalism the Founders gave us.  Almost every law you pass moves that balance point upward toward an all controlling federal (or as you communists like to say CENTRAL) government and away from state and local control.

This seems an odd disjoint between what we were talking about.

Jammer wrote:
If you want to know where our laws originally came from try natural law, the Anglo Saxons, Ancient Israel and the 10 Commandments.  You lying liberals are evil with your misrepresentations.

The first laws of the land come from Code of Ur-Nammu and were based on empathy towards other humans. After all harming someone, even in 18th century BCE was considered in poor taste Although their penalties, IE Death is a bit extreme by today's standards. I don't think conspiring to commit a crime should carry the death penalty.

You are full of shite.  PERIOD

Stupid liberal wrote:To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Creating our system of patents to protect intellectual property is what you use to say that our laws are based upon empathy.  You are a clueless stupid liberal twit.

Here you go, sign up for a Constitution course if you really want to understand this stuff.  Otherwise shut your mouth until you know what you are talking about.

https://online.hillsdale.edu/course/con101/register

Jammer wrote:You are full of shite.  PERIOD

I'd love to see something a little more substantial from you.  

Jammer wrote:
Creating our system of patents to protect intellectual property is what you use to say that our laws are based upon empathy.  You are a clueless stupid liberal twit.

Here you go, sign up for a Constitution course if you really want to understand this stuff.  Otherwise shut your mouth until you know what you are talking about.

https://online.hillsdale.edu/course/con101/register

Protecting someones works is benefiting and preventing the stealing from other people. I'm sorry you don't understand the intent of the laws that we have been discussing. It saddens me that you don't know or understand these principles.

Empathy:Understanding what others are feeling because you have experienced it yourself or can put yourself in their shoes


Is it any WONDER that liberals make this decision based on FEELINGS?

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:You are full of shite.  PERIOD

I'd love to see something a little more substantial from you.  

Jammer wrote:
Creating our system of patents to protect intellectual property is what you use to say that our laws are based upon empathy.  You are a clueless stupid liberal twit.

Here you go, sign up for a Constitution course if you really want to understand this stuff.  Otherwise shut your mouth until you know what you are talking about.

https://online.hillsdale.edu/course/con101/register

Protecting someones works is benefiting and preventing the stealing from other people. I'm sorry you don't understand the intent of the laws that we have been discussing. It saddens me that you don't know or understand these principles.

This is my last reply to you since you are evidently dumber than dogshit.  

It is called property rights - do you see the word RIGHTS?  There is no feelings, no empathy no other liberal bullshit.  It is all about RIGHTS.  Intellectual property is just as much property as a building or a piece of land.  PROPERTY RIGHTS

You can search the words of the Founders on the issue of property rights, they are numerous.  It is all about the rights of an individual.

And I am also saddened.  I am sad that the Founders didn't make provisions for people below the IQ level of a rock.  They should have required some type of testing protocol to determine one's fitness to vote in elections.  Somebody as stupid as you would not even qualify to vote for the position of dog catcher.

And finally I am embarrassed that I have wasted the amount of time I have replying to you as you are clearly unfit to be considered part of a human discussion.

Jammer wrote:
This is my last reply to you since you are evidently dumber than dogshit.  

It is called property rights - do you see the word RIGHTS?  There is no feelings, no empathy no other liberal bullshit.  It is all about RIGHTS.  Intellectual property is just as much property as a building or a piece of land.  PROPERTY RIGHTS

You can search the words of the Founders on the issue of property rights, they are numerous.  It is all about the rights of an individual.

And I am also saddened.  I am sad that the Founders didn't make provisions for people below the IQ level of a rock.  They should have required some type of testing protocol to determine one's fitness to vote in elections.  Somebody as stupid as you would not even qualify to vote for the position of dog catcher.

And finally I am embarrassed that I have wasted the amount of time I have replying to you as you are clearly unfit to be considered part of a human discussion.

Rights are exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned laws based on empathy. Well done, we are finally on the same page.

It is disappointing that you cannot maintain a conversation once consensus is reached, but I've noticed that some people lack the ability to converse with others on a regular basis. I look forward to our next discussion.

BladeRunner wrote:Empathy:Understanding what others are feeling because you have experienced it yourself or can put yourself in their shoes


Is it any WONDER that liberals make this decision based on FEELINGS?

Which is exactly what the Bill of Rights is based off of.

"The first laws of the land come from Code of Ur-Nammu and were based on empathy towards other humans. After all harming someone, even in 18th century BCE was considered in poor taste Although their penalties, IE Death is a bit extreme by today's standards. I don't think conspiring to commit a crime should carry the death penalty."


Hahahahahaha. Interesting claim considering that  the ancient laws of Ur-Nammu weren't known to Western Civilization until the cuneiform tablets were discovered in the mid to late 1800's. Translations didn't happen until 100 years later in the mid 1900's.

FYI, most of Western civil law is derived from the Justinian Code of the Roman Empire. And look to John Locke for the roots of the American "social contract".

Crikers you just pull crap out of thin air. You remind me of Nicci at the old GLPVQ. Hmmmmm.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:"The first laws of the land come from Code of Ur-Nammu and were based on empathy towards other humans. After all harming someone, even in 18th century BCE was considered in poor taste Although their penalties, IE Death is a bit extreme by today's standards. I don't think conspiring to commit a crime should carry the death penalty."


Hahahahahaha. Interesting claim considering that  the ancient laws of Ur-Nammu weren't known to Western Civilization until the cuneiform tablets were discovered in the mid to late 1800's. Translations didn't happen until 100 years later in the mid 1900's.

FYI, most of Western civil law is derived from the Justinian Code of the Roman Empire. And look to John Locke for the roots of the American "social contract".

Crikers you just pull crap out of thin air. You remind me of Nicci at the old GLPVQ. Hmmmmm.

Interesting reading:

http://www.nccs.net/1997-04-natural-law-the-basis-of-moral-government.php

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Hahahahahaha. Interesting claim considering that  the ancient laws of Ur-Nammu weren't known to Western Civilization until the cuneiform tablets were discovered in the mid to late 1800's. Translations didn't happen until 100 years later in the mid 1900's.

FYI, most of Western civil law is derived from the Justinian Code of the Roman Empire. And look to John Locke for the roots of the American "social contract".

Crikers you just pull crap out of thin air. You remind me of Nicci at the old GLPVQ. Hmmmmm.

Oral tradition would ensure that the laws were passed down, that is how much of our history originated until written form was well developed.

I agree a lot of our laws look very similar to Roman Empire, but there had to be a place where the Roman's got theirs, which is what I was pointing out.

John Locke had the right of it as well with is Law of Nature, which is derived from generations of laws before him. It is too bad that his works didn't really receive a lot of notice when the were published though. Its great that our fore fathers had the foresight to help base our nation on those with the help of history behind them.

In our world we are confronted with two types of liberals.   While both are evil, there is some value in understanding the differences in these demons that walk our streets.  The first are the doctrinal preachers of liberalism.  They are the educators, the authors, the journalists, the media personalities and political leaders in charge of the democrat party.   They teach liberalism in books, in movies, in articles, by argument or by the authority of the position they hold.  Their teachings while once disguised are now for the most part open opposition to the founding principles of this country.  

In 1808 it would have been pure heresy to say that our founding principles were in error and we needed to change them.  This new country was on a path that was about to become the envy of the world.  There were few people who wanted to change America but there were many who wanted their own country to emulate America.

By 1908 the liberals had been allowed to advance to the point where they could under the disguise of progress preach the wonders of progressivism.  Conservatives should have said ENOUGH at that time and drove a stake through the heart of liberalism.  But no, we sat on the sidelines and let the liberals advance their evil agenda under their lying banners of “but it’s for the kids, but it’s for the needy, but it’s for the sick, but it’s for the environment or whatever cause they could invent.

We sat on the sidelines to the point where in 2008 one of these doctrinal liberal preachers on national TV in front of millions of Americans was actually applauded for saying “we are just five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”.  

All of that inaction by conservatives has allowed a second type of liberal to emerge that can be called the practical liberal.  These practical liberals far outnumber the doctrinal liberals.  Like a flock of sheep they follow their leaders. They know little if anything of the principles which create their liberal policies, laws, programs and systems.  For if they did, they would perceive the perversity of their instructors and would certainly detest them.

While the doctrinal preachers are those who direct, it is the practical liberals who are the hands that act.  Without them, liberalism would have never passed beyond the bounds of speculation.  It is these practical liberals that have given liberalism life.

Unfortunately these useful idiots, as the doctrinal liberals call them, do not recognize the hypocrisy of their leaders.  While the doctrinal liberals divide America with strategies such as their evil 1% mantra, it is these very doctrinal liberals who make up most of the 1%.   When the practical liberals cannot understand that simple fact, what hope is there for them to ever be informed to the point that they will be anything but useful idiots advancing socialism?

In any event, it is these practical liberals that exist in our own neighborhoods.  These are the people that we must identify and expose for the evil they represent.  If we don’t stop them, our children and grandchildren will never have the same opportunities that we had. They will live in socialistic poverty under a tyrannical government.  Unless we confront this evil, it will continue to advance.  We spend a lot of time complaining about the doctrinal liberals, but what we need to do is challenge these practical liberals wherever we encounter them.

The practical liberals sound a lot like the pragmatic republicans which I've heard so much about especially here in South Dakota.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Hahahahahaha. Interesting claim considering that  the ancient laws of Ur-Nammu weren't known to Western Civilization until the cuneiform tablets were discovered in the mid to late 1800's. Translations didn't happen until 100 years later in the mid 1900's.

FYI, most of Western civil law is derived from the Justinian Code of the Roman Empire. And look to John Locke for the roots of the American "social contract".

Crikers you just pull crap out of thin air. You remind me of Nicci at the old GLPVQ. Hmmmmm.

Oral tradition would ensure that the laws were passed down, that is how much of our history originated until written form was well developed.

I agree a lot of our laws look very similar to Roman Empire, but there had to be a place where the Roman's got theirs, which is what I was pointing out.

John Locke had the right of it as well with is Law of Nature, which is derived from generations of laws before him. It is too bad that his works didn't really receive a lot of notice when the were published though. Its great that our fore fathers had the foresight to help base our nation on those with the help of history behind them.

Oh Caitlyn I missed this one when you wrote it.  Oral tradition would have other meanings to these guys (and to me too     ).  Is there another term which could be inserted errr used for this?  

Shortie's Lover wrote:The practical liberals sound a lot like the pragmatic republicans which I've heard so much about especially here in South Dakota.

Not much difference, maybe a little in some areas but overall not a hell of a lot of difference.  But think about it, when the socialists took over control of the democrat party, most of the blue dog democrats came rushing over to the Republican Party and wrestled away control in way too many areas.

If a person is registered democrat, supports democrat candidates and votes for democrats, they are pure socialists which equates to pure evil.  There is no in-between in the democrat party.  Anyone with an ounce of moral fiber in them left along time ago.  The Republican Party remains a melting pot of people.  Unfortunately too many of them have varying degrees of liberalism in them.

Jammer wrote:

Shortie's Lover wrote:The practical liberals sound a lot like the pragmatic republicans which I've heard so much about especially here in South Dakota.

Not much difference, maybe a little in some areas but overall not a hell of a lot of difference.  But think about it, when the socialists took over control of the democrat party, most of the blue dog democrats came rushing over to the Republican Party and wrestled away control in way too many areas.

If a person is registered democrat, supports democrat candidates and votes for democrats, they are pure socialists which equates to pure evil.  There is no in-between in the democrat party.  Anyone with an ounce of moral fiber in them left along time ago.  The Republican Party remains a melting pot of people.  Unfortunately too many of them have varying degrees of liberalism in them.

What is your estimate of the percentage of people who have an ideology that you find acceptable?

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Shortie's Lover wrote:The practical liberals sound a lot like the pragmatic republicans which I've heard so much about especially here in South Dakota.

Not much difference, maybe a little in some areas but overall not a hell of a lot of difference.  But think about it, when the socialists took over control of the democrat party, most of the blue dog democrats came rushing over to the Republican Party and wrestled away control in way too many areas.

If a person is registered democrat, supports democrat candidates and votes for democrats, they are pure socialists which equates to pure evil.  There is no in-between in the democrat party.  Anyone with an ounce of moral fiber in them left along time ago.  The Republican Party remains a melting pot of people.  Unfortunately too many of them have varying degrees of liberalism in them.

What is your estimate of the percentage of people who have an ideology that you find acceptable?

Not sure - it is probably in the 35% - 40% range. I doubt if it is over 40%.

Shortie's Lover wrote:
Oh Caitlyn I missed this one when you wrote it.  Oral tradition would have other meanings to these guys (and to me too     ).  Is there another term which could be inserted errr used for this?  

Haha, I don't know what else to call it other than passing down traditions, just nix the oral part.

Either way I have noticed that our esteemed Gomez apparently agrees with me. Good to know.

Shortie's Lover wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Hahahahahaha. Interesting claim considering that  the ancient laws of Ur-Nammu weren't known to Western Civilization until the cuneiform tablets were discovered in the mid to late 1800's. Translations didn't happen until 100 years later in the mid 1900's.

FYI, most of Western civil law is derived from the Justinian Code of the Roman Empire. And look to John Locke for the roots of the American "social contract".

Crikers you just pull crap out of thin air. You remind me of Nicci at the old GLPVQ. Hmmmmm.

Oral tradition would ensure that the laws were passed down, that is how much of our history originated until written form was well developed.

I agree a lot of our laws look very similar to Roman Empire, but there had to be a place where the Roman's got theirs, which is what I was pointing out.

John Locke had the right of it as well with is Law of Nature, which is derived from generations of laws before him. It is too bad that his works didn't really receive a lot of notice when the were published though. Its great that our fore fathers had the foresight to help base our nation on those with the help of history behind them.

Oh Caitlyn I missed this one when you wrote it.  Oral tradition would have other meanings to these guys (and to me too     ).  Is there another term which could be inserted errr used for this?  

How about taking your pornographic innuendos over to sodomite central.  Most peeps don't want to know your preferred method of substitution for the male appendage that you are afraid of.

Oh wait, sodomite central closed.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Shortie's Lover wrote:
Oh Caitlyn I missed this one when you wrote it.  Oral tradition would have other meanings to these guys (and to me too     ).  Is there another term which could be inserted errr used for this?  

Haha, I don't know what else to call it other than passing down traditions, just nix the oral part.

Either way I have noticed that our esteemed Gomez apparently agrees with me. Good to know.

You assume too much. Don't take my quiescence as a tacit agreement of your ramblings on history, oral or written.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
You assume too much. Don't take my quiescence as a tacit agreement of your ramblings on history, oral or written.

If you are actually going to argue against Locke, I'd be very surprised, but feel free to dissent. Spirited conversations are fun.

How do you know if you are dealing with a liberal?  Well there are many clues since the differences between good and evil are so pronounced.  One that comes to mind that you don’t often hear about is how a conservative deals with something that is not working versus how a liberal would handle it.

First off, the conservative is always grateful for what works and seeks to build on it.  They don’t see the need to tear everything apart just because something is not working PERFECTLY.  Therefore, they seek to conserve the good and make it better by improving the system.  They often are content with incremental improvement as they seek perfection.

Liberals on the other hand never have gratitude for anything.  Their first reaction is always OUTRAGE.  They are simply OUTRAGED that something is not working perfectly or has some problems with it.  Their solution is to completely tear down everything and build something bold new and PROGRESSIVE.  They are so enlightened that they know best and anything that emanates from their closed minded mentality must certainly be the salvation for the planet.

So when you see somebody who is outraged or is advocating for some fundamental transformation that will provide a utopian solution overnight, beware because you are dealing with a LIBERAL and they are PURE EVIL.  And in my opinion, it is high time that we deal with these scum and not leave it up to our grandchildren to take out the GARBAGE.