Our Caveman Ancestors Were Liberals

Well Simba, whenever you get the time, you know where Newsvine is :) You're creating a bit of a reputation here for yourself I think.

#3: (your slave and stalker LOLOLOLOL)♥

Oh... he's already got a stalker? I was going to apply, but I see that he's in very good hands!

:-)

{{{{{G.H.}}}}}

That's right Bitey Love, I've been stalking this guy almost TWO years!(but he loves it!) LOL

(((((((Bitey))))))♥♥

Don't you just hate it when they're *not in the mood*? LOLOL

#3.4: Hey now, who says I've reached my stalker saturation point?

Trust me: where it might ordinarily take a dozen stalkers, G.H. can handle it all alone. "Stalker Extraordinaire," and I've never heard even one complaint.

G.H. is the best of the best.

AWWWW! Bitey, I am blushing mightily! Hee. ♥(((bitey and simba)))♥

#3.6: AWWWW! Bitey, I am blushing mightily!

G.H., dear one, anyone you stalk is just plain lucky!

Heehee! Be Still My Heart! LOLOL ♥

If you don't mind I will drop the link into a couple of my seeds? well worth reading....also please feel free to drop it in somewhere on mine if you see a link!!

I have been gone for a few months . Much too much to do but I am back, good to see you are back too.

I was wondering since I read this piece if the whole vigin in the volcano thing was a conservative caveman idea. Your thoughts?

#10.1: Evocative handle btw

It was the name of a pet rat I once had many, many years ago. Miss Bitemore. She was one of a kind!

#10.3: Bite-a-Min B

I love it! Gotta remember that one!!!!! They are all good names, but the Bite-a-Min B is really creative!

AARRGGHH! Those are GREAT nicknames. LOL!

Yep, I think that happens when we love our fur kiddos. My Cissy is the *wench kitty from he$$* and Tsunami is my *secret service cat* (she follows me everywhere, won't let me out of her sight) great protector. LOL:-)

sort of a bear with furniture I guess

So funny. Some friends I have I always get the impression they are bulls trying to tiptoe around in a china shop. They keep knocking over things inadvertently. And they just don't seem to fit in there at all.

Or rather bulls wanting to mate while tiptoeing around in a china shop.

pfft, have you seen their level of mockery? What they wretched imbeciles don't get is that eventually they only end up mocking themselves by looking like, OK, acting like then, utterly confused leaderless mobs of right trash church constipated ideologically retarded infantile jackasses.

So... in short, this ain't going to take a stoop, it would require digging a trench, a big dig, of unheard of depths, beyond the lowest sewers where biblical ignorance runs.

Joshua, can't you read? "Keep off the lawn"

Hey Simba, my friend, it's awesome to see your article doing well. I think it's one of the most creatively effective things I've ever seen on here. This is awesome. I'm stoked it's doing well in the politics section. This is one I'm gonna be coming back to read. I might even print it out lol Great job.

penchant for regressive government and stubborn insistence on clinging to delusion and ideology is remarkable

LOL! And tell me Simba, how do communally oriented governments fare when they attempt to mircomanage millions of people? I mean, Mao's Great Leap Foward only killed, what, ten million people? Pol Pot killed around the same as did Stalin. Considering that in the history of mankind, the only successful revolutions (i.e Great Britain, the United States) have been based on conservative ideas of property rights and limited government, I'd say that we're more correct than the libtards that gave us communism and socialism.

Our Founding Fathers were most certainly conservatives. I hate how the Left ignorantly insists on revising history. Think about it: the American Revolution was not started by a popular uprising of angry peasants as had been the case in France. Instead, it was carefully planned by a league of rich white privlieged property owners that were interested in protecting their property rights from arbitrary government excesses. That is the definition of conservatism, government respecting the property rights of citizens. Now, you had some Founding Fathers like Jefferson and Paine that were very enamored with the ideas of Voltaire, Rousseau, and Locke. Okay, fair enough, those were new and liberal ideas. But they did not immediately and brashly set it up our new government the way liberals would have. Instead, they worked into the Bill of Rights and let it progress naturally and at a pace that is reasonable, another hallmark conservative idea. We are not oppossed to change, just radical, irrational change that has characterized bloody and unsuccessful revolutions like the one in France. So, my friend, it would appear that it is you, for writing such a potinless and unfair article, that is most sloppy in their use of words and labels. Try reading Russell Kirk before you presume to understand what American conservatism is.

Our founder's ideas on almost everything were considered so Liberal, they were, well, revolutionary...

We are on the verge of a much needed step in behavioral evolution. The Neanderthal conservative genes keep trying to pull us back, the liberal genes keep trying to pull us up a notch. Apparently it has always been so.

Our founders ideas were probably as close to anarchy as you can get and still have a govt. We have swung so far the other way that they would probably not even recognise what we are now. You might want to check this link out.

http://www.natronagop.com/life-span-of-a-republic.htm

Our founder's ideas on almost everything were considered so Liberal, they were, well, revolutionary...

No, they were based mostly on basic and longstanding ideas of English law as stated in the Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution's English Bill of Rights. Principles like trial by a jury of one's peers, habeaus corpus, and such. Sorry, but no matter how much you try to spin it, the American Revolution was conservative in comparison to other revolutions, or at least what we typically think of as a revolution.

And landspirit: Neanderthals were actually more advanced and human than you and pop cultural gives them credit. They had a brain the exact same size as modern humans as well as langauage capabilites and culutral beliefs. Just thought you should know.

Your ad hominen attacks and the fact that you have yet to bring up a solid example to support your argument only shows that I am correct. Nearly all of our basic law found in the Bill of Rights is taken directly from the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. Nothing radical or liberal about that at all since conservatism is based on the principle of freedom under law. The Founding Fathers simply felt that the British government had lost touch with those principles which, coupled with a feeling of nationalism following the French and Indian War and the ill effects of the British mercantalist policies, led to the birth of the Patriot movement. The only radical thing about the American Revolution was that it eliminated the idea of a herditary aristocracy, which was really unnecssary since at the time the rich and landed class formed a de facto aristocracy anyway. Indeed, John Adams coined the phrase "natural aristocracy" to describe how in America, the best and brightest would naturally ascend to a position of power and wealth. Anyway, clearly you are incapable of providing any evidence to the contrary which is why you insist on insulting me.

As far as "secular humanists" go, none of these men felt that the government owed anything to its citizens other than to maintain law and order and stay out of the way. So no, they would not agree with universal healthcare or any other liberal welfare means. Besides, sure famous Founding Fathers like Jefferson, Paine, and Madison were secular, but the majority of lesser known founders, such as Benjamin Rush and delegates from the Southern states were devout Christians. Not saying that we should form a theocracy, but many of them were God-fearing men that were convinced that God had a divine plan for our country, hence their reliance on "Divine Providence" in the Declaration of Independance.

You've apparently taken your debate lessons from our last neocon administration - repeat a lie often enough and people will either accept it or get bored and give up.

Right. All you've said to me so far is "I'm right and you're wrong." Yeah, that's a real compelling and well-stated argument. Unlike you, at least I know what it means to debate. You know, you provide facts and examples, not plug your ears like a six year old and repeat the same thing over and over.

Had our revolution been conservative, there would have been no revolution & we'd be the Queen's loyal subjects still

Had King George III and Parliament acquiesced to our demands (which, before getting violent, we politely petitioned over and over again) we indeed would still be British subjects or members of the Commonwealth. At any rate, you apparently haven't the slightest idea of what conservatism means (which, frankly, is unsurprising given the gleeful arrogance of the Left in this country). If you evaluate what was accomplished given the definition of traditional conservatism, you'd see that the American Revolution was, as Russell Kirk put it, "A conservative reaction, in the English political tradition, against royal innovation".

I know, you and I will never agree and this debate is pointless, but I have made a very compelling case and you have choosen to ignore virtually all of it in favor of some idiotic and illogical mantra about conservatives being against change and therefore were not apart of the American Revolution. Disappointing, really.

Bull@!$%#, and this crap calling itself conservative these days has nothing to do with what conservative meant years ago and in no way is representative or can claim any connection to history unless its the history of @!$%#s like Joe McCarthy or head @!$%#ed religious demagogues like Father Caughlin. The history this so called 'conservative', circa America 2010, is connected to is the raging ugliness of segregation, the treason of succession and the insanity of Ruby Ridge.

Conservative, imho, is now the majority part of a right trash political/religious hysteria that is eating at America from the @!$%# of a perverted voodoo 'c'hristianity and ideological sickness that is like a cancer in this countries bowel.

I find any suggestion that the ignorance rampaging through the social non-conservative church stupid inane and vile politics of the political right is connected in any way to the rebellion that freed us from England offensive and funny . Offensive speaks for itself, lies and ignorance offends all reasoning rational adult people. Funny in that only those with a pitifully inadequate education, the kind of imbeciles that can be taken in by Palin, Limbaugh and Fox, they are the only kind of intellect willing to repeat and use such garbage. Sad little flaccid things.

And everyone but the semi literate knows that.

Keep clutching though ;)

Actually Robert, since red states have the highest divorce and porn subscription rates, the odds are, the liberal men were probably usually busy seducing the women while the conservative men were out looking for any possible means to sexually gratify themselves - however futile that may have been.

I don't think there were many red state during the time in question. The women then would be all over the guys with the food. Let's get real. They still are.

lol oh, there were no red states then. Ok Robert. But there were conservative men and liberal men. And I'm going to assume since conservatives have a hard time staying married and being faithful to their wives that they have a hard time understanding why women have a hard time remaining married to them. From this I can only deduce that you actually believe women were "all over men" because they had the food. Actually Robert, they were probably waiting for the liberal men to come back to the cave so they could tell them how big of jerks their sorry excuses for husbands were. Do you know that women fake orgasms, Robert? Well, they also fake it when they want money and when they want the food. Other than that their hearts really lie with the intelligent man.

I'm sorry for your experiences with women. Conservatives do not have trouble remaining married and the most famous philanderer I know of occupied the White House, sure he stayed "married" if that's what you want to call that sham. As for women's hearts, they seem to have a mind of their own, getting attached to all sorts of men for no apparent logical reason.

Actually Robert, since red states clearly have the hardest time staying married, your statement that conservatives do not have trouble remaining married is wrong. And yes, Clinton was a famous for cheating on his wife, but how come when it's exposed that a politician has cheated on his wife that it's usually a Republican? And regardless of how mysterious women are, they want some basic things that instinctively we both already understand.

Well I see you've left, Robert. It was fun while it lasted. No hard feelings...and it was actually a nice debate. Look forward to more in the future.

No, I got interrupted and had to leave to awhile. I appreciate your civilized and thoughtful back and forth. Thanks.

#17.7: I appreciate your civilized and thoughtful back and forth.

Me too... a lot more fun than watching ping-pong, and easier on the neck muscles!

Other than that their hearts really lie with the intelligent man.

I agree and actually as a liberal woman I can say at least from my experience and those of my friends, liberals are also better lovers. The conservatives tend to be the bing bam boom sort who then think they are spectacular. The liberals tend to be more passionate, more intimate and in the end it works so much better. :)

liberals are also better lovers.

You speak to truth - who wants to shag someone who thinks that sex is a sin, a dirty little secret, or you can only do it to procreate? Liberals do the best sex ever - hurrah!!!!

#17.11: who wants to shag someone who thinks that sex is a sin, a dirty little secret, or you can only do it to procreate?

You left out one important criterion in that: "...unless it is with other than your wife!"

...unless it is with other than your wife!"

or the baggage handler? LOL

I'm sorry for your experiences with women. Conservatives do not have trouble remaining married and the most famous philanderer I know of occupied the White House, sure he stayed "married" if that's what you want to call that sham. As for women's hearts, they seem to have a mind of their own, getting attached to all sorts of men for no apparent logical reason.

This is really funny considering: David Vitter, John Ensign, Mark Sanford, Marc Souder and so, so many more. Anyone can feel free to add to the list. I haven't even covered the repressed homosexual branch of the Republican Party yet.

The way things seem to be headed, a lot of people are probably going to have to skip part one and go straight to part two.

1000 Votes Mongo!!!!!!!!!

Said it pretty good as far as I am concerned.