The Real Difference Between Libs And Conservatives

[LoArmistead]

The Difference Between The Liberal and

Conservative "Debate" Over The War On Terrorism:

 

Question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two

small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a .357 Magnum and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

 

Liberal Answer:

 

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my

wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

 

Conservative Answer:

 

Shoot the son of a gun! Then take your family to a baseball game, eat some hot dogs with apple pie, sing the national anthem, go to church and praise the Lord for one more day of freedom.

 

That about wraps up the ideals of the last 30 political posts on this forum and puts them into one nicely-summed story.

 

The only gripe I have is: Why did the liberal have a .357 magnum in his hand? Isn't he supposed to be for gun control?

[Nerm]

lmao @ Lo! You crack me up man. Although I share your opinion that liberal thinking is a problem I don't share your extreme hate for it.

[LoArmistead]

phooey, I don't "hate" their thinking unless they are wanting to press previously failed idealogy into a government so that it can fail again, and take our pride with it. As long as they are liberal on their own and understand that 'The Liberalism' (must stay in context) is a farse, I'm fine with it. To understand that The Liberalism is a farse , just open any history book and see how the fiscal-liberal policies have played out in European and East Asian countries.

 

Other than that I love them to death.. and I must warn you, I have some liberal in me too...maybe ya'll can figure it out

[Verran]

I will give an equally exagerated conservative response:

 

Narrator: "OK, you are with your family, and you have a gun. A man comes around the corner with a knife..."

Lo: "Shoot him."

Narrator: "But I didn't even tell you what he's doing yet."

Lo: "Shoot him."

Narrator: "But you don't even know what he's doing."

Lo: "You said I have a gun right?! SHOOT HIM!"

Narrator: "But he hasn't even..."

Lo: "He has a weapon! Kill or be killed! KILL HIM!"

Narrator: "But I just said you have a weapon too."

Lo: "Yes, and I'm killing him with it!"

Narrator: "But isn't that kind of unfair?"

Lo: "No, becase I'M still alive, and so is my family."

 

And for the record, republican thoughts have failed too you know. By your rationale we couldn't do anything because one time it didn't work.

[LoArmistead]

I will give an equally exagerated conservative response:

 

Narrator: "OK, you are with your family, and you have a gun.

[Nerm]

Well since Liberal and Conservative thinking both have flaws how about we adopt the "Nerm" thinking. lol

[Verran]

The problem is not with my exageration, nor is it with yours. The problem is with your misinterpretation of the problem. Your analogy proves that.

 

You look at terrorism as the guy who dashed out from behind the corner and left you "mere seconds" to decide between his life and your own.

 

I look at terrorism as the guy that has been running towards me for the last fifty years or so, and is really no closer to me with his knife than he was those fifty years ago.

 

This is why liberals don't look at it as a "do or die". We'd rather make sure the decision is right since we DO have the time, because we know that knee-jerk responses usually don't work out too well in the long run. There is no hurry to make these decisions, contrary to war-monger beliefs.

 

Yes, 9/11 was fairly recent (and even more recent at the time of the war decisions), and yes, that was a horrible horrible loss of life. But that does not mean that we're in a "do or die" situation. We've had problems with terrorist attacks for decades now, and in the long run, 9/11 is just another in the series. The last five presidents (repub AND democrat) have had terrorist attacks under their watch. By your rationale, ALL of them used flawed logic in not immediately going to war over them. The "flawed liberal logic" that you talk about is not a liberal thing, it's a HISTORY thing. The same history that you cherish and swear by. BOTH parties have sat idly after terrorist attacks, not just democrats, as you'd like to believe.

[BarneyGumble]

We should stop calling democrats "liberals." Lo, as a fellow texan, well, I wasn't born here but I live here, we need to look at the facts. There is a difference between liberals and democrats, however there can be liberal democrats. See, democrats generally do nothing other than complain. Liberals, on the other hand, complain but also think that everyone is their friend except for conservatives and anyting capitalistic in nature. A liberal democrat is a combination of the two, they generally complain about an issue, do nothing about it, then go and bash the conservative party with their other democrat liberal buddies while the republican party spanks them on capital hill.

 

PS: You like disturbing the hive don't you Lo? B:) Me too, but from the opposite end.

Edited September 27, 2005 by BarneyGumble

[Verran]

We should stop calling democrats "liberals."  Lo, as a fellow texan, well, I wasn't born here but I live here, we need to look at the facts.  There is a difference between liberals and democrats, however there can be liberal democrats.  See, democrats generally do nothing other than complain.  Liberals, on the other hand, complain but also think that everyone is their friend except for conservatives and anyting capitalistic in nature.  A liberal democrat is a combination of the two, they generally complain about an issue, do nothing about it, then go and bash the conservative party with their other democrat liberal buddies while the republican party spanks them on capital hill.

 

PS: You like disturbing the hive don't you Lo? B:) Me too, but from the opposite end.

551371[/snapback]

Another lever-puller.... yay!

 

You guys are a waste of the system's time. You've already decided your votes before the ballot's even filled. I have a word for that, and it's "sheep".

[BarneyGumble]

It's the nature of the beast man! I would be considered extremely liberal, pro-choice, anti iraq war and don't get me started on that ol' Walker Bush guy, I just hate that everything is either one or the other. I don't like the republican party, but I don't think the democratic party is any better, I don't support the two party system in general. I guess i'm more socialist than anything.

 

Oh, and I didn't vote for either party last time (not that it would matter being that I live in Texas) because I would like to have more than two candidates to choose from.

Edited September 27, 2005 by BarneyGumble

[LoArmistead]

Barney I know full well he difference between a democrat and a liberal, it just so happens that nowadays, and it's sad, the Democratic party is moving further left to accomodate the liberal "base". There is no one way to label anyone a conservative or a liberal without a few exceptions, what I refer to when I say this is "the mainstream" liberals, the base, the ones that get all the media attention. Why doesn't Joe Lieberman get any camera-time? Because he's a conservative democrat, not part of the base, and he is voting FOR John Roberts, which makes him even more outcast from the Democratic party. The Democratic party has shitfted even further to the left since the election last year (that didn't teach them ANYTHING, did it?). Your point a few lines up is very valid though, and I'm glad you see the situation for how it really is.

 

So, this simple joke has turned into: There is no terrorist threat (Who said that before?...oh yeah, Michael Moore). Verran, if you honestly think that we are no closer to being attacked by terrorists than we have been in the past 50 years... you just... I don't even know what to say. One thing I've learned over the past few days is to never argue with an idiot. Keep this thread on the original topic, please. If you think this post sounds "condescending" or "oppressive" or "offensive", you are right. Nobody in their right mind can sit there and seriously say that the terrorist threat is minimal and we haven't a thing to worry about... it's just absurd. The reason you don't have to worry about it is because of your friendly neighborhood government protecting your butt everyday from this 'minimal' terrorist threat.

[BarneyGumble]

  the Democratic party is moving further left to accomodate the liberal "base". 

551374[/snapback]

you're right, they need more votes. But seriously, if someone wanted to carry out a terrorist attack on this country I think it would be quite easy. I mean, what do we have to compare the terrorist threat to? In this country a terrorist attack seems to happen about every ten years. It's not like the government is now preventing car bombings in the US happening everyday, there will continue to be large scale attacks over time. When the time is right, there will be another attack. I honestly believe that I am no safer now than I ever was. If tons (literally) of marijuana can be smuggled into this country, I'm pretty sure explosives and terrorists can be too.

Edited September 27, 2005 by BarneyGumble