1. As a guest you have limited access to the forums.
  2. Membership is free.
  3. So why not Sign up now!

A Conservatives view of Liberals

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Affairs' started by Neophyte, Mar 13, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Amanda

    Amanda Account Deleted

    You say someone is a monster and insensitive to the family for theorizing about a murder last summer, but you can’t wait for the body to get cold to express glee over someone’s passing because you didn’t like their politics? There’s a special place in hell for people like that.

    Liberals, particularly journalists, have morphed into something very disturbing since the arrival of Donald Trump onto the political scene. They’ve achieved a new level of hypocrisy and disgusting cruelty that would shame a normal person.

    Something deep inside them, at their core, is fundamentally damaged. Whether it was broken before the election or not is irrelevant, it’s their driving force now. Were they civilians, they’d likely be shouting at streetlights and losing the argument. Since they’re journalists, they’ll probably win a Pulitzer.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 25, 2018
    Zarp, Brutus58 and Neophyte like this.
  2. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    An indication on how far the Liberals have descended, is how they all took up the chant (hyperbole) to impeach Trump, the day after the election (Nov 7th, 2016) instead of waiting till after Inauguration (Jan 20th, 2017). It shows how much they respect the Country, the Constitution and American Society. Another thing is all these Celebrities swearing to leave the country if the Republicans wins (Trying to use their popularity to influence the Vote), but they never leave.
     
    Zarp, Brutus58 and Amanda like this.
  3. Brutus58

    Brutus58 Trusted.Member

    I agree wholeheartedly!
     
  4. Hrothgar Halfdansson

    Hrothgar Halfdansson Trusted Member

    Good to know your basis for voting rights rest on having an SS number. Sort of like that requirement of having property, to have right to vote, which was changed....

    There are 180 DMV offices in California, serving 40M resident... sounds like a plan to limit voters to those who can take off work, travel an office, and stand in line for a couple of hours. The only form of ID one can get a Post Office, and that's really only to submit the forms is a Passport. Good to know that in addition to an SS number one may need to have a passport to vote.

    As for 'liberals' and elections. since 1943, starting with Earl Warren, Republican, there have been 6 Republicans, and 3 Democrats, and 2 of those are from the same family, and 1 of those has been elected 4 times in 2 separate 8 year sequences. An observation of course would be that for example Jerry Brown's second time up to bat was after the disastrous round with Arnold Schwarzenegger, and of course you can bring up Grey Davis as ineffective Democrat, bu Schwarzenegger made up for that on his own account.

    Outside of major metro areas Republicans fare unusually well, given the reputation California has.

    There is no law of the universe that requires I address each and every point someone makes. I address the points I want to, and leave others unaddressed.

    As for moving of specific points to others, again, I don't see a law prohibiting such. By the same token you are not obligated respond to what you may consider to be tangential or irrelevant to your posts or to whomever's post I'm responding to.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2018
  5. Loggerhead

    Loggerhead Trusted Member

    Well damn, there's nothing left for me to say.
    I would throw in that I don't think it's necessary to change the meaning of "General Welfare", that seems a bit drastic to me. There has always been an understanding that it referred to shelter, food, clothing, and the like. I've never heard of anyone even in the worst cases of welfare fraud becoming "Rich".
     
  6. Loggerhead

    Loggerhead Trusted Member

    No evidence of collusion and respect for Roger Ailes. Wow. It's posts like these that make me wonder how many russians are on THIS site.
     
  7. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    You were the one that brought up the subject of SSN's. Are you saying that the subject that you introduced is irrelevant to the argue you are pursuing. I did not say that an SSN be used for Voter ID. You are attributing statements to me that I did not make. I also said that California does not have Voter ID, its even in the section you quoted. It seems your arguments are becoming random and off subject.
     
    Amanda likes this.
  8. Hrothgar Halfdansson

    Hrothgar Halfdansson Trusted Member

    The only people I've heard of 'getting rich' on the 'welfare' system, are people like Ross Perot, and his EDS selling services for Medicare/Medicad billing in the 1960s and building from there. Then there's the now famous Military/Industrial Complex. There are riches to be had... but it sure isn't getting a pink Cadillac and a Beverly Hills mansion, or whatever is one's flavor the trappings of wealth, with a fraudulent number of dependents.
     
  9. Hrothgar Halfdansson

    Hrothgar Halfdansson Trusted Member

    How do you document your citizenship, and your 'right to work' or 'vote' in the US.
     
  10. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    Citizenship in the U.S. is either determined by a Birth Certificate or Naturalization Papers. Right to Work you need a Social Security Number. And in California to vote you need to go to your assigned balloting center where they check to see if your name is on their list, if your name is listed they give you a ballot that you fill out then deposit into a sealed box.
     
    Amanda and Brutus58 like this.
  11. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

     
    Amanda and Brutus58 like this.
  12. Brutus58

    Brutus58 Trusted.Member

    What may be true in California is not true everywhere. When Obama was elected the first time, 110% of Cleveland, Ohio voted for him. Not a single vote for anyone else. No wonder democrats are against voter ID.
     
  13. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    In my county in California, we had 130% voter turnout, in the 2016 election. If you count the total number of votes above the 100% mark, it comes out to over 3 million in California. We don't have Voter ID in California. By the way California voted for the Democrats.
     
    Amanda, Zarp and Brutus58 like this.
  14. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    I've been looking at videos mentioning Lindsey Shepard and Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada. It seems that there is a Freedom of Speech issue involved in this. It all stems from a recent Law passed in Canada designated C-16.

    Text of C-16

    This issue taking place in Canada is very complicated and involved and since its concerns Canada, I don't have much to say about it. But I am concerned that Liberals will try to enact a similar law in the U.S. This would be very dangerous to the U.S. From what I can determine of the law, it clarifies what constitutes Hate Speech and anyone who violates the law can and will be prosecuted by the Legal System and said violation is determined by individuals appointed to interpret what Hate Speech means and said determination is completely subjective. So if a white says something that a Black finds offensive the White can be prosecuted by law, but if the Black says something the White finds offensive said offense is ignored. In essence a system would be instituted where any speech can be determined to be illegal as determined by a Government appointee against anyone at anytime at the whim of the appointee or their superiors. This would be the end of the First Amendment. The Liberals have been targeting the Second Amendment for years and it looks like the First amendment is their next target. On a side note if C-16 or a similar law is enacted in the U.S. it would also invalidate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment. I always believed that the Liberals wanted to destroy the Bill of Rights and rewrite the entire Constitution to suit their agenda.
     
    Amanda and Brutus58 like this.
  15. Brutus58

    Brutus58 Trusted.Member

    There are a lot of stupid people in this country. They think ILLEGAL should be considered legal. Things like murder and rape should be legal. But God help the person who speaks differently. The perpose of the second amendment is to protect the first. Liberals don't want to talk about that. Liberals are truly the Nazis and Stalin lovers of the New World Order!
     
    Neophyte likes this.
  16. Amanda

    Amanda Account Deleted

    5.jpg
     
    Brutus58 and Neophyte like this.
  17. Zarp

    Zarp Trusted.Member

    Actually Amy, what they are saying is crazy. Instead of talking about the actual crime and of course all that your post mentioned. They are bringing the AR-15 into it. The only comments I can find for the most part are just imagine how much worse it could have been with the ar-15 and isn’t it grand how the gun control laws prevented her from using one and all that shit!
     
    Amanda, Brutus58 and Neophyte like this.
  18. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    This is a recording of a meeting Lindsey Shepard had with the professor she was a TA for and other professors in his department along with an observer from the "Diversity and Ethics Office" (Thought Police). Welcome to the "Ministry of Truth". This is a long interview, but if you listen to it, you will get an idea of how Liberals think and what they are doing in Universities to program and control what and how the students think. In other words "Brainwashing."
     
    Amanda likes this.
  19. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    The following is a video of an interview of Jordan Peterson by Cathy Newman. Jordan Peterson was a Liberal Professor from Canada who attained notoriety by opposing the introduction of Bill C-16 in Canada. His opposition to the Bill and other works that he published instigated the Liberal Left to brand him as an Alt-Right Conservative, even though he believed that his views were liberal. After watching several videos related to Dr. Peterson, I believe that an appropriate explanation was given for this position taken by the Liberal Left. The explanation is that Liberals believe that the Truth is subjective definition of the terms used in the inquiry, where Conservative believe the Truth to be objective examination of the facts associated with the inquiry. For example, Liberals believe "Climate Change" to be very bad, because they believe their determination of the evidence says its bad and their view of the determination is the Truth, not any Empirical Data. Liberals believe that "Gun Control" works because their interpretation of the term "Gun Control" makes it truthful, in other words if they control the guns then they can't be used for criminal acts, regardless of the fact that no Law can actually control all guns, its impossible. What Dr. Peterson's crime was that he believed the Truth to be his experience as a Clinical Psychologist and the data he and his colleagues did research to find. So to the Liberal mindset, Dr. Peterson believed that the Truth was based on facts, so he must be a Conservative.





    After watching several of Jordan Peterson's videos, I found him to be a very intelligent and thoughtful person. I rarely encounter a person of his level of intelligence. He probably is even smarter than me.:D Probably.;)
     
    Brutus58 likes this.
  20. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

     
    Brutus58 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.