I am looking for facts and opinions, but not answers like "republicans are liars" or "liberals are stupid"

Here is my answer, and if you disagree please give your views.  I have my opinions but I like to hear other point of views.

I feel that if liberal policies become too powerful, the world will be a very dangerous place in another 10 years or so.  I find that liberals tend to almost defend our "bad apples" and instead blame those who are attempting to make things better for the problems.

  For example, a man attacks another man in the middle of the street in a robbery attack.  The police are called, and when they arrive, the attacker runs.  The police chase the attacker and the attacker is finally wrestled to the ground and has to be whacked with a wand a couple times to prevent him from getting back up.  The attacker suffers injuries.

My thought: The attacker shouldn't have attacked, and he shouldn't have run from the police. If he hadn't done those things, he wouldn't have gotten hurt.

Liberal thought:  The police shouldn't be using excessive force - the attacker should file a lawsuit.


Another example: The War in Iraq and the Iraqi prisoners who were supposedly tortured

My thought: These people weren't "prisoners" for no reason.  If they didn't want to be tortured, they shouldn't have tried to kill our soldiers.  Our soldiers didn't parade down the streets dragging their dead bodies down the street like they did to us.  Our servicemen were wrong for doing that, but I don't think I'd be any different if I was put face-to-face with a person who had just tried to kill me.

Liberal thought: Our servicemen should be imprisoned for violating the Geneva Convention. We need to make a big stink about those poor prisoners who were tortured, but we don't need to make any stink about the Iraqi's who dragged American bodies down the street.


Those are just two examples of the way I personally feel that liberals think.

I also feel that liberals say "coulda, woulda, shoulda" too much, but it's never "I coulda, I shoulda" it's "SOMEONE ELSE coulda, SOMEONE ELSE shoulda"

An example of that, also pertaining to terrorism, is that right after 9/11:

"Our government should have done something before this happened!!"

If our government had attacked the Taliban and al Qaeda, say, in July 2001 before the attacks happened, don't you think we'd be hearing the same protests and anti-Bush stuff that we're hearing now about Iraq?  Keep in mind that 9/11 would have never happened so nobody would have ever known it was going to happen.

Now we are trying to stop Iraq before it escalates into another 9/11 situation.  So now we hear:

"Our government shouldn't have gone into Iraq! They didn't attack us, and we don't have 100% concrete evidence that they are an IMMINENT threat!"

For all we know, we might have prevented another attack.  We may never know.

i heard this once on a cartoon...a liberal is nothing but a conservative who's never been robbed.

I am looking for facts and opinions, but not answers like "republicans are liars" or "liberals are stupid"

Here is my answer, and if you disagree please give your views.  I have my opinions but I like to hear other point of views.

I feel that if liberal policies become too powerful, the world will be a very dangerous place in another 10 years or so.  I find that liberals tend to almost defend our "bad apples" and instead blame those who are attempting to make things better for the problems.

  For example, a man attacks another man in the middle of the street in a robbery attack.  The police are called, and when they arrive, the attacker runs.  The police chase the attacker and the attacker is finally wrestled to the ground and has to be whacked with a wand a couple times to prevent him from getting back up.  The attacker suffers injuries.

My thought: The attacker shouldn't have attacked, and he shouldn't have run from the police. If he hadn't done those things, he wouldn't have gotten hurt.

Liberal thought:  The police shouldn't be using excessive force - the attacker should file a lawsuit.


Another example: The War in Iraq and the Iraqi prisoners who were supposedly tortured

My thought: These people weren't "prisoners" for no reason.  If they didn't want to be tortured, they shouldn't have tried to kill our soldiers.  Our soldiers didn't parade down the streets dragging their dead bodies down the street like they did to us.  Our servicemen were wrong for doing that, but I don't think I'd be any different if I was put face-to-face with a person who had just tried to kill me.

Liberal thought: Our servicemen should be imprisoned for violating the Geneva Convention. We need to make a big stink about those poor prisoners who were tortured, but we don't need to make any stink about the Iraqi's who dragged American bodies down the street.


Those are just two examples of the way I personally feel that liberals think.

I also feel that liberals say "coulda, woulda, shoulda" too much, but it's never "I coulda, I shoulda" it's "SOMEONE ELSE coulda, SOMEONE ELSE shoulda"

An example of that, also pertaining to terrorism, is that right after 9/11:

"Our government should have done something before this happened!!"

If our government had attacked the Taliban and al Qaeda, say, in July 2001 before the attacks happened, don't you think we'd be hearing the same protests and anti-Bush stuff that we're hearing now about Iraq?  Keep in mind that 9/11 would have never happened so nobody would have ever known it was going to happen.

Now we are trying to stop Iraq before it escalates into another 9/11 situation.  So now we hear:

"Our government shouldn't have gone into Iraq! They didn't attack us, and we don't have 100% concrete evidence that they are an IMMINENT threat!"

For all we know, we might have prevented another attack.  We may never know.


See I feel the opposite, I feel that if conservative policies become too powerful, the world will be a very dangerous place in 10 years or so. That's slowly beomming a reality.

I feel that both liberals and conservatives are trying to tell us how to run our lives and take away our freedoms, just in different ways.

I feel that both liberals and conservatives are trying to tell us how to run our lives and take away our freedoms, just in different ways.

First of all, the terminology is deceptive.  Most Americans who now call themselves "conservative" have, in fact, been sold on fascism and think it's cool to be selfish and mean-spirited.  Too many Americans who call themselves "liberal" are still naive about why the "conservatives" are running the joint.  They are thinking "reform" when it is necessary to think "counter-revolution."

I would be interested to know how the conservative/liberal dialectic plays out in other countries.

Secondly, "conservatives" talk up Jesus, but disregard all his teachings.  Instead, they turn Jesus into a sort of avenger-superhero ala Marvel Comics.  Now, your typical "liberal" will utter pantheistic cliches about Ghandi and Dr. Martin Luther King, but still get mean as a snake if the barista serves him a macchiato instead of a capuccino.
;D

Thirdly, "liberals" think government is the solution to all problems, whereas "conservatives" think government is the solution to all problems.
:o

Now, what's the difference between a Democrat and a Republican?

A Democrat sees the glass of water and says it's half empty.
A Republican sees the glass of water, p*sses in it, and sells it to his grandmother as lemonade.
:P

I think the main difference is Democrats believe we should be governed by reason whearas Republicans think Emotion should rule. 

Dems "tolerate" all whereas Repubs "love" those they find "good" and "hate" those they deem "bad".  I'm more talking the masses than politicians here.  Repubs have more faith in all aspects whereas Dems want are more skeptical.

I think the main difference is Democrats believe we should be governed by reason whearas Republicans think Emotion should rule. 

Dems "tolerate" all whereas Repubs "love" those they find "good" and "hate" those they deem "bad".  I'm more talking the masses than politicians here.  Repubs have more faith in all aspects whereas Dems want are more skeptical.

Both parties are guilty of emotional pandering, and both are slaves to Wall Street.  However, the Republican party seems to be dominated by the fantasies of sociopathic rich white men.  Their agenda is sadistic and mad.
:o

  Conservatism starts from a presumption of "I"; Liberalism starts from a presumption of "We". The former acknowledges the individual alone.  The latter acknowledges a society composed of individuals...

  Conservatives want rights without bearing any responsibility.  Liberalism recognizes both the rights and the limitations...

  I was going to ramble further, but I'm tired...

 

  Oh, and Max...LMFAO...!

I also feel that liberals say "coulda, woulda, shoulda" too much, but it's never "I coulda, I shoulda" it's "SOMEONE ELSE coulda, SOMEONE ELSE shoulda"

An example of that, also pertaining to terrorism, is that right after 9/11:

"Our government should have done something before this happened!!"

If our government had attacked the Taliban and al Qaeda, say, in July 2001 before the attacks happened, don't you think we'd be hearing the same protests and anti-Bush stuff that we're hearing now about Iraq?  Keep in mind that 9/11 would have never happened so nobody would have ever known it was going to happen.

Now we are trying to stop Iraq before it escalates into another 9/11 situation.  So now we hear:

"Our government shouldn't have gone into Iraq! They didn't attack us, and we don't have 100% concrete evidence that they are an IMMINENT threat!"

For all we know, we might have prevented another attack.  We may never know.



  American history, you might find, is a patchwork of myths stitched together by jingoistic duress, Americans seem to have a problem grasping fundamental processes of history. Events and processes seem removed from one to the next; it is hard for the average American to follow the simplest description of the cycle:

- Topple elected Iranian PM (Schwarzkopf, Norman H.)
- Support tyrant Shah for fuel prices and against Soviet influence (Cold War)
- See Shah toppled by revolutionary cleric who resents U.S. for its meddling and support of the tyrant
- Remove Iraq from terror-sponsor list
- Begin supplying Iraq, assisting in its invasive war against Iran and its revolutionary cleric
- Supply weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein's regime, which is known to use the things
- After war ends, continue to support Iraq
- Fail to advise Iraq against military action
- Respond to Iraqi military action (Schwarzkopf, H. Norman)

  You see..?

  The essential idea, ADH13, is that the U.S. plays Pilate when it has even more blood on its hands than the Roman governor. But instead of disputing whether or not the interpretation of the facts, or even the facts themselves, are correct, the first reaction is, "How does the one relate to the other? I don't get it. You're not making any sense...this is the sort of intellectual dishonesty that makes liberal ideals so repulsive..."

  It's a difficult conundrum.  Never mind, of course, that Saddam appears to have had nothing to do with 9/11.

  Argh...I got to get to bed.  Night...

I think the main difference is Democrats believe we should be governed by reason whearas Republicans think Emotion should rule. 



Wrong.  It is 100% the reverse.  Liberals run on emotion.

Another example: The War in Iraq and the Iraqi prisoners who were supposedly tortured

My thought: These people weren't "prisoners" for no reason.  If they didn't want to be tortured, they shouldn't have tried to kill our soldiers.  Our soldiers didn't parade down the streets dragging their dead bodies down the street like they did to us.  Our servicemen were wrong for doing that, but I don't think I'd be any different if I was put face-to-face with a person who had just tried to kill me.

Liberal thought: Our servicemen should be imprisoned for violating the Geneva Convention. We need to make a big stink about those poor prisoners who were tortured, but we don't need to make any stink about the Iraqi's who dragged American bodies down the street.




http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/16815.JPG

--The thing that scares me the most about the left is how quick they will sell us out to the United Nations (UN.)

According to Webster's Dictionary:


Liberal: 1. Favoring progress and reform in social institutions, and the fullest practicable liberty of individual action. 2. (cap) (Brit) of a certain polititial party. 3. tolerant. 4. not strict. 5. bountiful; generous.

Conservitive: 1. Opposed to change. 2. Moderate; not extreme. 3. protecting from loss, waste, or injury. 4. preservative.



*modified to include all the definations-not just the 1st one.





Cat

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/16815.JPG

--The thing that scares me the most about the left is how quick they will sell us out to the United Nations (UN.)


Oh PALEEEEASE!  You must know better than that.  What you call "the left" (and I'm not sure what you mean by that) is just as interested with preserving US sovereignty as you are.  The big differance in this regard is that you seem to think we can go it alone, while liberals believe that evan if we can, it would be much better (and cheaper) if we could enlist the help of others.  That means acknowledging that they too have interests that need to be served.  Or do you believe that, as powerful as we are militarilly (but weakening economically - there is another thread on this point) that we can simply impose our will on  the rest of the world?  Or that we should?  Bullies going back to Alexander the Great all getr their comeuppance sooner or later, and their empires collapse.  Go-it-alone attitudes will only hasten that outcome.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what ADH13 means by liberal.  I guess the referance is to the "liberalism" that springs from FDR's New Deal.  Let me remind you all (and it was before my time) that FDR's policies saved capitalism in this country.  Without them it is a sure bet that we would have either joined the Nazies or suffered a communist revolution.  There were those who favored both alternatives.  FDR's policies appeased the militant working class and the masses of the unemployed, while forcing capitalism to assume a more humane face.  The result was a middle class life style for most workers (financed through increasing levels of debt and dependancy on credit) as a buy-out for labor peace and a de-politicized labor movement. 

What all this means is that "liberals" advocate for capitalism with compassion and with some comfort for the little guy.  Conservatives want to go back to the bad old days when wages were a few cents an hour, enployers could ignore unions and kill organizers (remember Joe Hill, Westley Everet, Joe Little, or even Walter Reuther?) without consequence, and buy the government on the cheap.  The differance between liberals and conservatives is, therefore, a rather small one - how many bones do we need to throw to the masses to insure social peace?

We radicals think the whole thing s**ks and want more thorough-going change.

Wrong.  It is 100% the reverse.  Liberals run on emotion.


No, I think I'm correct.  For one thing, Conservatives like to think only of the now.  Mind, I'm not saying all Republicans are the same, this is just a generalization.  Like Repubs and the environment.  The Repubs really don't care about the environment, although I'm sure Dem leaders don't really either (but at least they help anyway). 

A great example of why Repubs run on emotion is the justice system.  Honestly I think many Dems don't believe in punishment, but the good ones do.  Repubs, on the other hand, believe in revenge, that is, to make the victim feel better by doing sadistic stuff to the perp.  That is not justice because it goes beyond prevention and into retribution.  Jesus was against revenge anyway, yet the far Right uses the Bible as an excuse for destroying our planet and doing violence towards our fellow man. 

Wrong.  It is 100% the reverse.  Liberals run on emotion.

I notice this is something rightwing pundits like to say as they pound their fists and shout about patriotism, faith, and being a loyal American!
::)
Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Rabbi Stooly Botox (whatever his name is), Joe Scarborough...
these are not calm, level-headed, nor rational people.
Well, I've never known Rush to express himself with anger, he just pumps up the audience with inflammatory hogwash.
Now, Noam Chomsky, for example, is so calm as he recites facts and figures that it's narcotic!

Both parties are guilty of emotional pandering, and both are slaves to Wall Street.  However, the Republican party seems to be dominated by the fantasies of sociopathic rich white men.  Their agenda is sadistic and mad.
:o


Yeah, both parties suck and I wish we didn't have em.  But Dems suck less.

But Dems suck less.


On what?  Abortion?  Gay marriage?  Pork?  Illegal immigration?  Crime?  Defense?  Terrorism?

On what?  Abortion?  Gay marriage?  Pork?  Illegal immigration?  Crime?  Defense?  Terrorism?


Abortion, no.  I don't like how free Dems are on that topic.  Gay marriage, Yes.  Pork? I eat meat but I have great respect for vegetarians.  Illegal immigration? Yes.  Crime? Yes, but not by much. Defense? Yes. Terrorism? Yes.

That's 5 out of 6 from the Dems.  8)

On what?  Abortion?  Gay marriage?  Pork?  Illegal immigration?  Crime?  Defense?  Terrorism?

How about on being decent human beings instead of fascist piggies?

How about on being decent human beings instead of fascist piggies?


Good one, Max  ;D  You truly are smart :)

-DR (Mike)  8)

Abortion, no.  I don't like how free Dems are on that topic.  Gay marriage, Yes.  Pork? I eat meat but I have great respect for vegetarians.  Illegal immigration? Yes.  Crime? Yes, but not by much. Defense? Yes. Terrorism? Yes.

That's 0 out of 6 from the Dems.  8)


I'm not going to turn this thread into another gay marriage thread.  But tell how they are better on pork, illegal immigration, crime, defense, and terror; because the statistics don't back any of that up.  Unless of course you like illegal immigration and crime.

And pork is the spending of government money to buy votes.  Congressmen fight to get as much money for their districts as possible for stupid things like street light repairs and money for sunflower research in order buy votes.  Both sides do it.  It's a disgrace.

Good one, Max  ;D  You truly are smart :)

-DR (Mike)  8)

(Blush) Gee, thanks, well I try!

Another example: The War in Iraq and the Iraqi prisoners who were supposedly tortured

My thought: These people weren't "prisoners" for no reason.  If they didn't want to be tortured, they shouldn't have tried to kill our soldiers.  Our soldiers didn't parade down the streets dragging their dead bodies down the street like they did to us.  Our servicemen were wrong for doing that, but I don't think I'd be any different if I was put face-to-face with a person who had just tried to kill me.

Then you do not belong in the military. I find this disturbing. You are the type of person who would have gone along with the Enabling Act.

Then you do not belong in the military. I find this disturbing. You are the type of person who would have gone along with the Enabling Act.


And you're the type of person the military doesn't need.  If we had the same people we have today (talking about the general population, not the military men) during WWII we'd be speaking German or you'd be a lamp shade.

I'm not going to turn this thread into another gay marriage thread.  But tell how they are better on pork, illegal immigration, crime, defense, and terror; because the statistics don't back any of that up.  Unless of course you like illegal immigration and crime.

And pork is the spending of government money to buy votes.  Congressmen fight to get as much money for their districts as possible for stupid things like street light repairs and money for sunflower research in order buy votes.  Both sides do it.  It's a disgrace.

Boy, it takes a true Republican to call the repairing of street lights "stupid."  And I suppose life is pitch black after dark in YOUR gated community!

Remember, the prize for the biggest "pork" spending in the history of mankind goes to your beloved Pentagon.  I'm not just talking about the famed $400 hammers and $600 toilet seats either.  I'm talking about "Star Wars," the Stealth Bomber, and other worthless junk with which military contractors bleed taxpayers white!

And you're the type of person the military doesn't need. If we had the same people we have today during WWII we'd be speaking German or you'd be a lamp shade.


The military doesn't deserve me. If they were carrying out a clear mission of necessity like in World War II, I'd be honored to fight. Everything Bush is doing with our military is a disgrace to what men like my grandfather(a Marine who fought in Guadalcanal, YOUR WELCOME) fought for.

the Stealth Bomber

I build the stealth bomber.  Do you really need to know why it's needed in a time when we haven't modernized our air force in nearly a decade and when Europe is building the Euro-fighter (still doesn't have what it takes, keep trying Europe.)

men like my grandfather(a Marine who fought in Guadalcanal, YOUR WELCOME) fought for.


I'm not going to insult your grandfather who was most likely a great man.  But my step father fought in Vietnam for America (got two purple hearts, real ones, not like John Kerry,) and I had ancestors I looked up who fought in WWI for America and the war between the states for the south.  What's your point?

I'm not going to insult your grandfather who was most likely a great man. But my step father fought in Vietnam for America (got two purple hearts, real ones, not like John Kerry,) and I had ancestors I looked up who fought in WWI for America and the war between the states for the south. What's your point?


My point is, it is wrong for you to try to say the military doesn't need me. You seemed to imply that I wouldn't defend my country if it needed me. Thats very insulting, and very false. I also have had relatives in almost every major American war.

The point: Lets not go there. ;)

Oh, and my grandfather's service didn't make him great. He was great, yes, but because of who he was, not what he did in the war. There have been lots of soldiers who have fought bravely, but are not necessarily nice guys, and most definitely not 'great'.

"Luke Skywalker: I'm looking for a great warrior.

Yoda: Hmph, wars don't make one great."

;) He was proud of his service, and glad he did, but he was not unrealistic. He knew that ultimately, our Armed Forces aren't infallible, because they are a human endeavor. He knew lots of brave Marines, but lots of them were also ***holes too.

The point: Lets not go there. ;)


That would be the best thing.  :)

I'm not going to turn this thread into another gay marriage thread.  But tell how they are better on pork, illegal immigration, crime, defense, and terror; because the statistics don't back any of that up.  Unless of course you like illegal immigration and crime.

And pork is the spending of government money to buy votes.  Congressmen fight to get as much money for their districts as possible for stupid things like street light repairs and money for sunflower research in order buy votes.  Both sides do it.  It's a disgrace.


Oh, that's what you meant by pork.  I'd say the repubs win that :)  But still, 4 out of 6. 

As for crime, I think the Dems are better but only by a little.  I think some Dems are too lax on crime, and almost tolerant of it, but Conservatives are often dehumanizing to criminals and advocate vengance and violence as long as you're not the first to strike.  That's not right, punishment is more about prevention than "getting even".

As for terror, well Osama hasn't been caught after over 3 years, that says enough. 

I don't have a problem with illegal immigration IF they don't have a good shot at getting to our great country legally.  I doubt all of them do.

As for defense, the Iraq War.  I support it in theory but it's going so wrong.

Then you do not belong in the military. I find this disturbing. You are the type of person who would have gone along with the Enabling Act.


I agree 100%.  I would not belong in this type of American Military, because I would go with the goal of winning the war.  Protecting and defending the Americans and our allies would be my top priority.  I would not intentionally kill innocent civilians, but if I wasn't sure if they were innocent or disguised attackers, I would err on the side of caution to protect my unit.  I haven't been in many fights in my life because I'm generally a peaceful person, but if someone attacks me, I generally don't knock them to the ground and then say "Are you ok??  Do you want me to put a bandaid on that?"

If Saddam ever had attacked the US (as al qaeda did) I don't think he would spend millions of dollars to replace whatever he destroyed.  I don't believe al qaeda is replacing our twin towers and I dont believe Japan rebuilt Pearl Harbor.  Why we are spending billions to rebuild Iraq is beyond me.  Even though we have a republican president, the whole "rebuilding thing" seems awfully "liberal"to me.

Nothing liberal about it old boy, all about money. Give Haliburton a call - Don Cheney's got their number on speed dial. Thats why they're spending the money on rebuilding and be assured that someone will have to pay for the work - the Iraqi people in the long run who, if concepts of sovereignty are to be supported are the actual owners of the oil under their country.

Nothing liberal about it old boy, all about money. Give Haliburton a call - Don Cheney's got their number on speed dial. Thats why they're spending the money on rebuilding and be assured that someone will have to pay for the work - the Iraqi people in the long run who, if concepts of sovereignty are to be supported are the actual owners of the oil under their country.


I may somewhat agree with that, although I'm not completely convinced.  All this rebuilding, in my "republican" opinion is not very republican-like, and I don't agree with it.  I do feel there is some other reason than just trying to be "nice guys"

Why we are spending billions to rebuild Iraq is beyond me.  Even though we have a republican president, the whole "rebuilding thing" seems awfully "liberal"to me.



Yeah, lets just burn and pillage, like the Mongols. :)

:D

I may somewhat agree with that, although I'm not completely convinced.  All this rebuilding, in my "republican" opinion is not very republican-like, and I don't agree with it.  I do feel there is some other reason than just trying to be "nice guys"


if you caught bush's last speech, he keeps pounding the democracy drum for the middle east. your not going too get many friends in the middle east if you invade a muslim country only to slash and burn and pull stakes afterwards to let the iraqi's bury their dead. bush wants a democracy in one of the richest oil producing countries in that region. with a stable iraqi democracy, the iraqi's are happy, american friendly arabs are happy, the world is happy and the american people are happy...or so the plan goes.

we'll let history decide if GWB's gambit was for naught.

And you're the type of person the military doesn't need.  If we had the same people we have today (talking about the general population, not the military men) during WWII we'd be speaking German or you'd be a lamp shade.


I consider this response to ElDuderino to be a gratuitous insult, and WAY off base.  What has always (supposedly) destiguished our military philosophy from that of oppressive regimes is the notion that orders ARE NOT to be followed blindly.  Inly legitimate, legal orders need be followed.  The last thing we need is blind obidiance to authority.  The true patriot is the one who is always critical of those who give the orders, especially since they are seldom the ones who die.  And I very much disagree that the youth of America would not rally around the flag if we faced the kind of threat we faced in 1941.  In fact, many people (the Abraham Linclon Brigade) confronted the facists BEFORE that was fashionable, and were branded "pre-mature antifacists".  So much for the way those in power identify the enemy.

Nothing liberal about it old boy, all about money. Give Haliburton a call - Don Cheney's got their number on speed dial. Thats why they're spending the money on rebuilding and be assured that someone will have to pay for the work - the Iraqi people in the long run who, if concepts of sovereignty are to be supported are the actual owners of the oil under their country.


Do you post at the DU?

Do you post at the DU?


What is the  DU?  You lost me on that one.

What is the  DU?  You lost me on that one.


I think it's democratic underground.

The Democratic Underground? Cool, do I get to wear a beard and bandana and hang out in the jungle smoking cigars and talking about 'zee resistanz' ?

Nah, haven't been there yest but I'll pop in to see if there's anything interesting going down

The Democratic Underground? Cool, do I get to wear a beard and bandana and hang out in the jungle smoking cigars and talking about 'zee resistanz' ?

Nah, haven't been there yest but I'll pop in to see if there's anything interesting going down

I think it's time for Max's White Rose League!!