History of Liberals and Conservatives

Users who are viewing this thread

RedRyder

Gimme Some Heat!
Messages
30,329
Reaction score
33
Tokenz
0.01z
For those that don't know about history, here is a condensed version:

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals, and
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history:

It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to tick them off.

And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self.
 
  • 41
    Replies
  • 726
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

MoonOwl

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,573
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.01z
That is pretty darn funny............:thumbup

What is sad is that Bud is no longer an American beer......:(

I still have a few bottles of American Bud in the back fridge.... I think I'll hang on to them. They're a remembrance of what America used to stand for before our government sold us all out... ;)
 

Codrus

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,668
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
For those that don't know about history, here is a condensed version:

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals, and
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history:

It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to tick them off.

And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self.

:clapquality post............. this will get you some tokenzes:thumbup:thumbup:thumbup:thumbup
 

RedRyder

Gimme Some Heat!
Messages
30,329
Reaction score
33
Tokenz
0.01z
Did you write this? Pretty good. Regarding Peter's comment on Bud, I all most grew up hating beer based on U.S. made horse piss with a Bud label on it. :)
No. I didn't write it.


:clapquality post............. this will get you some tokenzes:thumbup:thumbup:thumbup:thumbup

Thankx for the tokenz.... Even though I didn't write the piece, I thought it definitely worth the read and wanted to share. :D
 

nova

Active Member
Messages
799
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Budweiser is actually a Czech beer which is hundreds of years old and quality. Of course it's only to be expected that the Americans would rip it off and make it shit.

Budweiser Budvar :: Home

Americans screwed it up? Adolphus Busch was a German my man :p

Not that I like Bud/Bud Light. The rice they use in it screws my stomach up. :yuk

Give me a nice dark lager any day of the week.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
We don't want to leave the librarians out... ;)

slideshow_1215000_mike08162009.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Requiem for the Right at Newsweek.

Meacham: So how bad is it, really? Your title doesn't quite declare conservatism dead.
Tanenhaus: Quite bad if you prize a mature, responsible conservatism that honors America's institutions, both governmental and societal. The first great 20th-century Republican president, Theo- dore Roosevelt, supported a strong central government that emphasized the shared values and ideals of the nation's millions of citizens. He denounced the harm done by "the trusts"—big corporations. He made it his mission to conserve vast tracts of wilderness and forest.
They sure don't grow Republican's like that anymore...

The Republicans, so intent on thwarting Obama, have vacated the field, and left it up to the sun party to accept the full burden of legislating us into the future. If the Democrats succeed, Republicans will be tagged as the party that declined even to help repair a broken system and extend fundamental protections—logical extensions of Social Security and Medicare—to some 46 million people who now don't have them. This could marginalize the right for a generation, if not longer. Rush Limbaugh's stated hope that Obama will fail seems to have become GOP doctrine. This is the attitude not of conservatives, but of radicals, who deplore the very possibility of a virtuous government.

In other words if Obama fails, we win.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
You & yours have got to step away from your 2D view of the world. The Democratic Party is in the majority now. They can force anything through against a Republican minority. Can there possibly be more facets to this than simply Democrat & Republican, Obama supporters & Obama haters, Those who want universal healthcare & those who only care for themselves and the hell with everyone else? Consider the possibility that there are those who fall not somewhere between these two extremes, but who think the entire line of thinking is bad for America.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Consider the possibility that there are those who fall not somewhere between these two extremes, but who think the entire line of thinking is bad for America.

I have considered it, thanks. But if you think the entire line of thinking is bad, then regarding UHC, that puts you on the Republican end of thinking, out on one end, don't you think? And no, I'm not calling you a Republican. :)

What I do find puzzling is the consistent negativity a group of you guys have towards government. You live under the best form of government, it is made up of people, it's not perfect, it is the alternative to chaos, and if you believe in it's virtue it can be improved. The loudest voices in these forums sound like they are promoting the eradication of government or a government that does not govern or one that caters to just their desires. That is simply no win. Govt has to serve the majority, not the minority and it must be fair. Now I would not presume to believe your idea of fair meshes with mine, but when it comes to UHC, a viable system is in the majorities best interest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
I have considered it, thanks. But if you think the entire line of thinking is bad, then regarding UHC, that puts you on the Republican end of thinking, out on one end, don't you think? And no, I'm not calling you a Republican. :)

What I do find puzzling is the consistent negativity a group of you guys have towards government. You live under the best form of government, it is made up of people, it's not perfect, it is the alternative to chaos, and if you believe in it's virtue it can be improved. The loudest voices in these forums sound like they are promoting the eradication of government or a government that does not govern or one that caters to just their desires. That is simply no win. Govt has to serve the majority, not the minority.


Not true. Govt is ok.. Tis the morons in charge that are the problem. And that will never change IMO till we have elections that are not bought and paid for. If you are an incumbent the odd of getting re elected are staggering. That should not always be true. But it will as long as there is not public financing of elections to give newcomers a shot.
 

nova

Active Member
Messages
799
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
What I do find puzzling is the consistent negativity a group of you guys have towards government. You live under the best form of government, it is made up of people, it's not perfect, it is the alternative to chaos, and if you believe in it's virtue it can be improved.

Thats just it. Some of us are realists and don't believe in the virtue of gov't. We know that gov't is an inherently evil thing that has a nasty tendency to destroy the sanctity of the individual to satiate the greed for power that those running it have. The actions of gov'ts have killed, enslaved and oppressed more people than any other institution ever to exist on the planet, hands down....

That being said it is a a necessary evil in order to protect the rights of the individual. Gov't just needs to be soundly corraled in a box beyond which it has no power or authority.

Govt has to serve the majority, not the minority and it must be fair.

Gov't only has to serve the majority insofar as it does not infringe upon the rights of the individual. Thats the whole reason our individual rights are specifically protected under the Constitution. It allows for the gov't to do its job serving the majority within certain bounds while at the same time protecting the minority.

The term "tyranny of the majority" springs to mind to describe what we would have without those protections.

Ultimately thats what bothers me about people who think the gov't is the solution to every problem. They basically propose to let gov't do whatever it wants regardless of the legality or its impact on the minority, which is a fundamental violation of everything this nation was founding upon.

Now I would not presume to believe your idea of fair meshes with mine, but when it comes to UHC, a viable system is in the majorities best interest.

Sorry I disagree with your fundamental premise that a UHC system is in the majorities interest. I think specifically not having one is in everyones best interest for a myriad of reasons...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Meirionnydd

Active Member
Messages
793
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Thats just it. Some of us are realists and don't believe in the virtue of gov't. We know that gov't is an inherently evil thing that has a nasty tendency to destroy the sanctity of the individual to satiate the greed for power that those running it have.

That being said it is a a necessary evil in order to protect the rights of the individual. Gov't just needs to be soundly corraled in a box beyond which it has no power or authority.

Come on, don't you think that might be slightly extreme? I think I would sound quite silly if I ranted on about how my local council is inherently evil and exists only to usurp my individual rights whilst propagating their own lust for greed and power.

I don't think anyone would disagree that governments serve a legitimate purpose. I also find it hard to gauge the objectivity of what you're saying, its easy to make a subjective statement decrying the power of government and its infringement on our liberties, but much harder to empirically measure.

Subjectively speaking, I don't see government specifically infringing upon any of my individual rights. People have different views on what they consider a 'right' to be, regardless of any general definition. Also, people will accept to have some freedoms curtailed to protect others, or for the benefit for the community at large. Therefore it's going to be impossible to get a general consensus regarding such an issue.

The actions of gov'ts have killed, enslaved and oppressed more people than any other institution ever to exist on the planet, hands down....

That's a no-brainer, considering that the concept of 'governance' and government has been around since humans were hunter-gatherers, but I don't see how it can support your argument.

Much like how people say "Most of the wars, deaths and prejudice on this planet have been caused by religion."
 

nova

Active Member
Messages
799
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Come on, don't you think that might be slightly extreme? I think I would sound quite silly if I ranted on about how my local council is inherently evil and exists only to usurp my individual rights whilst propagating their own lust for greed and power.

No I don't. Fundamentally, gov't is in the business of restricting the liberties of individuals. If they don't or they can't, they're not much of a gov't are they?

The differences between a good gov't and a bad gov't, are that in a good gov't, the evil is contained in that they're only allowed to operated within a rigid set of rules and liberties are only allowed to be infringed to guarantee the liberties of others whereas the bad gov't is basically allowed to do whatever it wants.

Its the difference between the all powerful kings of old and modern constitutional nations.

I don't think anyone would disagree that governments serve a legitimate purpose. I also find it hard to gauge the objectivity of what you're saying, its easy to make a subjective statement decrying the power of government and its infringement on our liberties, but much harder to empirically measure.

Name any law where the justification is "you might cause harm" or "there is a long dubious cause and effect chain harm" and that is fundamentally an unjust infringment. The example I like to use is the War on Drugs. It started and has continued with justification that somebody somewhere might commit some other real crime because they're on drugs.

Specifically it started as a racist version of that with my fellow white folks being scared shitless that "some negro might get hopped up on reefer and rape a white woman" or some other such BS...

Subjectively speaking, I don't see government specifically infringing upon any of my individual rights. People have different views on what they consider a 'right' to be, regardless of any general definition.

Here's the theory of rights that I rely on

http://www.offtopicz.net/49873-what-right.html#post1235799

Until you can prove direct harm and infringement upon another's rights, you can't curtail any of the life, liberty and property rights of the individual.

That theoretical framework is a big part of the reason I've done a complete 180 on my death penalty views in the last few years. At this point in time, I do not believe there is any way to sufficiently prove a right infringment (which fundamentally is what a crime is for the most part) to justify infringing the life rights of a human being. Rights to liberty through imprisonment yes but not rights to life.

Also, people will accept to have some freedoms curtailed to protect others, or for the benefit for the community at large. Therefore it's going to be impossible to get a general consensus regarding such an issue.

As soon as you start talking about curtailing individual liberties for the benefit of the community at large, especially without direct provable harm, you're talking the proverbial tyranny of the majority.

After all a democracy is a sheep and two wolves trying to decide whats for dinner. Somehow I think the sheep would contest the premise that mutton for dinner is good for society but would be overruled anyway.

That's a no-brainer, considering that the concept of 'governance' and government has been around since humans were hunter-gatherers, but I don't see how it can support your argument.

Much like how people say "Most of the wars, deaths and prejudice on this planet have been caused by religion."

Then break it down to a specific time period in which there were other entities. The 20th century is a good example. Nobody really knows how many people were outright murdered by their own gov'ts during the 20th century because the people in power thought so little of the individuals that they didn't even think it worthwhile to keep records. I can't imagine the systemic evil required to think of human beings as so much refuse to be disposed of.

The nazis: 11-17 million
The USSR: 20-30 miilion just under Stalin, not counting the rest of the 20th century
China: Nobody really knows how many millions Mao killed during the cultural revolution
Cambodi: 1-3 million under the Kmer Rouge

And thats just some of the big perpetrators of death. That doesn't even begin to quantify things like systemic torture and oppression of the people.

For all the institutions that people like to talk about as "evil" and that gov't power should be expanded to control, I don't see any other institutions perpetrating evil like I've listed above. If we wish to control evil, we the people need to control the gov't.
 

Meirionnydd

Active Member
Messages
793
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
No I don't. Fundamentally, gov't is in the business of restricting the liberties of individuals. If they don't or they can't, they're not much of a gov't are they?

The differences between a good gov't and a bad gov't, are that in a good gov't, the evil is contained in that they're only allowed to operated within a rigid set of rules and liberties are only allowed to be infringed to guarantee the liberties of others whereas the bad gov't is basically allowed to do whatever it wants.

Its the difference between the all powerful kings of old and modern constitutional nations.

If by 'rigid set of rules' you mean, following the constitution, it could be said that my system of government does a decent job of that. Ultimately, Australia's form of government follows a Federalist structure somewhat, much like how the US operates (or was intended to).

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I'm approaching this argument from a Socialist viewpoint, I see that you are providing a libertarian perspective, yes?

We're just going to have a fundamental disagreement on the function of government here. If I was living in an authoritarian state, i'd be inclined to agree with you. Since however, I live in a representative democracy, i'm not exactly going to see eye to eye with you on this one.

Name any law where the justification is "you might cause harm" or "there is a long dubious cause and effect chain harm" and that is fundamentally an unjust infringment. The example I like to use is the War on Drugs. It started and has continued with justification that somebody somewhere might commit some other real crime because they're on drugs.

Specifically it started as a racist version of that with my fellow white folks being scared shitless that "some negro might get hopped up on reefer and rape a white woman" or some other such BS...

That's an interesting point you make there. The War On Drugs is absolutely retarded on a number of levels, however, most Western countries have begun to adopt a 'harm reduction' approach to illicit drugs. In the US, and many other countries, drug policy is mostly influenced by the public's punitive approach to drug offenders and the justice system in general.

I would say that would be an example of the people using their own collective power to influence government to make decisions, not the other way around. When a politician talks about 'getting tough on crime', it's just to curry up favor with voters.

Here's the theory of rights that I rely on

http://www.offtopicz.net/49873-what-right.html#post1235799

Until you can prove direct harm and infringement upon another's rights, you can't curtail any of the life, liberty and property rights of the individual.

That theoretical framework is a big part of the reason I've done a complete 180 on my death penalty views in the last few years. At this point in time, I do not believe there is any way to sufficiently prove a right infringment (which fundamentally is what a crime is for the most part) to justify infringing the life rights of a human being. Rights to liberty through imprisonment yes but not rights to life.

That's somewhere where we can totally agree, the state has no right to take someone else's life, it should be held to the same laws and moral standards as the people it represents.

Regardless, would you agree that it is hard to come to a complete census on what a right is? Even if there is a general definition, there will always be differing views as to what a right constitutes. For example, some people consider primary education a right, i'm sure others don't.

Then break it down to a specific time period in which there were other entities. The 20th century is a good example. Nobody really knows how many people were outright murdered by their own gov'ts during the 20th century because the people in power thought so little of the individuals that they didn't even think it worthwhile to keep records. I can't imagine the systemic evil required to think of human beings as so much refuse to be disposed of.

The nazis: 11-17 million
The USSR: 20-30 miilion just under Stalin, not counting the rest of the 20th century
China: Nobody really knows how many millions Mao killed during the cultural revolution
Cambodi: 1-3 million under the Kmer Rouge

And thats just some of the big perpetrators of death. That doesn't even begin to quantify things like systemic torture and oppression of the people.

For all the institutions that people like to talk about as "evil" and that gov't power should be expanded to control, I don't see any other institutions perpetrating evil like I've listed above. If we wish to control evil, we the people need to control the gov't.

Do I see a specific trend in the governments you listed? Okay,

Germany - Fascist (Nationalist Socialist) Government.
The USSR - "Communist" - Stalinist Regime.
China - "Communist" Regime.
Cambodia - "Communist" Regime.

None of these governments were a democracy, in just about all situations, these regimes had a very extremist ideology. It would be absurd that you could infer that modern liberal democracies are tyrannical simply because governments under a completely different ideology and system of governance killed millions of people.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Conservatives complain about liberals being "liberal", but this article indicates, (and as an individual who used to vote Republican I agree) the Republican party has skidded far to the right of where they were in the 1960's.

Bipartisanship is Bad- at newsweek.com.

Fact is, the sort of Republicans who voted for Medicare in 1965 no longer exist. Since the early 1970s, Democrats have drifted only slightly leftward. But thanks to realignment and redistricting—the practice of slicing the electoral map into ever more politically homogenous districts—a 2003 Republican House member with a voting record at the median of his party was about 73 percent more conservative than his Nixon-era counterpart.
 
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top