|
Post by Chalupa! on Sept 18, 2006 16:58:14 GMT -8
You are a Liberal:
If you think the answer to ANY crime, infraction, or injustice is counseling If you think the criminal has more rights than the police who arrest this criminal, unless the crime is sexual harassment, or racism If you think only white people can be racist If you think that tax cuts hurt poor people and are uncompassionate but taking 30% from their paychecks is compassionate If you believe that posting the "Ten Commandments" in schools will hurt the children, but putting "Heather Has Two Mommies" or "Ask Alice" (on the internet) won't If you actually do believe that Clinton doesn't know the definition of the words "alone", "is", or "correct". If you think the best way to care about a disease is to wear a ribbon If Sean Hannity makes no sense and Alan Colmes makes perfect sense If you voted for Mondale in 1984 thinking that raising your taxes was a good idea If you make snide remarks to guys for looking at women but champion Clinton's right to do whatever he wants with his interns If you think that the four cops who beat Rodney King should have been thrown in jail forever, but the four thugs who beat Reginald Denny should have fair justice You called Vietnam Veterans "baby killers" but think that allowing a woman to suck her baby into a sink is a constitutionally protected right You scream if a CEO sleeps with an employee but think that Clinton receiveing oral sex from an Intern is just fine You get mad when rape victims' sexual history is plastered all over the news media, but think Paula Jones' sexual history "must be made public." You pale at the execution of child killers, but defend the killing of unborn children as an expression of choice If you hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death because he is a minority or gay and you rally about punishing the bigot who committed the terrible act BUT, if you hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death for his money, and you start talking about the poor disadvantaged person who is forced to commit such acts to survive Jesse Jackson makes sense to you. Barbra Streisand makes even more sense You view race riots as justifiable expressions of rage over injustice and fail to see the similarities between a black mob burning a Korean store and a white mob in the Jim Crow era lynching a black man
Is this you?
|
|
|
Post by LostPeon™ on Sept 18, 2006 17:59:01 GMT -8
Jesse Jackson makes sense to you. Barbra Streisand makes even more sense Is this you? Hahahaha... I guess that means "no" for me.
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Sept 18, 2006 19:48:15 GMT -8
Jesse Jackson makes sense to you. Barbra Streisand makes even more sense Is this you? Hahahaha... I guess that means "no" for me. LIAR! You have all her albums and you know it!!
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Sept 18, 2006 19:52:27 GMT -8
You are a Liberal: If you think the answer to ANY crime, infraction, or injustice is counseling > I think the criminal should be punished and counseled to at least attempt rehabilitation while keeping the population safe at the same timeIf you think the criminal has more rights than the police who arrest this criminal, unless the crime is sexual harassment, or racism > Rights for all involved should be equal, necessary force is OK to subdue an aggravated criminal, continuing to beat someone who has finally stopped resisting is not OK.If you think only white people can be racist > Good lord no, anyone can be a racist.
If you think that tax cuts hurt poor people and are uncompassionate but taking 30% from their paychecks is compassionate > This one I can't fully decide on, will leave it for later or another threadIf you believe that posting the "Ten Commandments" in schools will hurt the children, but putting "Heather Has Two Mommies" or "Ask Alice" (on the internet) won't > Teaching kids rules to live by will help them. Teaching kids tolerance of different sexual preferences will also help them.If you actually do believe that Clinton doesn't know the definition of the words "alone", "is", or "correct". > Yes he knows what those words mean, just like Bush "KNEW" Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 2001. Both got away with their respective schemes. However, one girl get's a ruined dress from Clinton's woes and his wife gets to become a senator. And thousands of soldiers and civilians(and yes evil insurgents) die.If you think the best way to care about a disease is to wear a ribbon > Nope the ribbon is as useful as a support our troops tag on the back of your car. People will still die. Proper funding of both the military and research scientists WILL keep people alive.If Sean Hannity makes no sense and Alan Colmes makes perfect sense > I really dislike most pundits on either side. Neither side ever changes their script.If you voted for Mondale in 1984 thinking that raising your taxes was a good idea > 1) Couldn't vote as I was 4 2) Also CanadianIf you make snide remarks to guys for looking at women but champion Clinton's right to do whatever he wants with his interns > This one seems overly biased since looking at a woman derisively possibly without her consent and having sex with a woman who gave consent are quite different things. Also one is public and the other private.If you think that the four cops who beat Rodney King should have been thrown in jail forever, but the four thugs who beat Reginald Denny should have fair justice > I think all should have a fair trial in a system that is more accurate than 12 random people who may or may not be able to be impartial. Both the cops and the thugs were guilty. Both were acquitted incorrectly due to emotional responses of the jurors rather than facts. This seems to happen often in the LA system of justice.You called Vietnam Veterans "baby killers" but think that allowing a woman to suck her baby into a sink is a constitutionally protected right > Vietnam vets, for the most part, are not to blame. For sure they aren't to blame for the starting or continuation of the war. But killing innocent life is wrong. That includes abortion. At the same time I have no control over what a soldier does or what a woman does.You scream if a CEO sleeps with an employee but think that Clinton receiving oral sex from an Intern is just fine. > Let the families of those people be the judge of them, not the society. In addition, if a person is doing a good or great job then
You get mad when rape victims' sexual history is plastered all over the news media, but think Paula Jones' sexual history "must be made public." > Privacy is privacy regardless of status or situation.You pale at the execution of child killers, but defend the killing of unborn children as an expression of choice > I pale at the execution of anyone and the abortion of any child. In both cases there are other more viable and effective options to resolve a "problem". As before though, I cannot control anything or anyone else but myself. So to prevent abortions I won't jump any woman that moves out of respect for myself, the women, and the potential children.If you hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death because he is a minority or gay and you rally about punishing the bigot who committed the terrible act BUT, if you hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death for his money, and you start talking about the poor disadvantaged person who is forced to commit such acts to survive > I myself have never heard anyone talk about a poor disadvantaged criminal forced to commit crimes.Jesse Jackson makes sense to you. Barbra Streisand makes even more sense > Jackson - Horny Hypocrite, Babs - ignorant on political affairs. Babs ignorance made her look silly, Bush's ignorance cost thousands of people their lives. There IS a difference.You view race riots as justifiable expressions of rage over injustice and fail to see the similarities between a black mob burning a Korean store and a white mob in the Jim Crow era lynching a black man > Riots do more harm to a group wishing to garner more equality. Just like blowing up a city to free it's inhabitants is stupid. And racism is not white only thing(as stated earlier)Is this you? > Apparently not. But I don't consider myself a conservative at all. I think that old politics test had me as a libertarian. This test of course was biased in the way the questions were asked, always presuming the "liberal" person to be hypocritical. In court I suppose these would be called leading questions.Although I'm sure there is a "Are you a conservative" test out there that's just as biased as this one.
|
|
|
Post by dpgunit on Sept 18, 2006 22:14:59 GMT -8
If you suck beyond comprehension.
|
|
|
Post by rabidgecko on Sept 19, 2006 17:48:26 GMT -8
that test is not completely accurate as there are many different positions in any form of a political party, there is not just one single ideal that appeals to every single person as conservatism, liberalism, or other ideaologies, i mean, not everyone who is in the liberal party thinks the same on every subject, but yea you can generalize, but that will not be accurate for everyone in that generalization. but I am sure all of you knew that anyway i'll just shutup
|
|
|
Post by mortalcry on Sept 19, 2006 21:32:16 GMT -8
Liberalism= ;D
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Sept 20, 2006 0:58:16 GMT -8
Since no actual discusion came from this I'll add to the silly insults instead. conservatism = If you have one of several hundred differing opinions on something that does not comply with the ONE republican/conservative opinion--- you are for the terrorists and must be put in a secret prison with no rights for the rest of your life.
|
|
|
Post by dpgunit on Sept 20, 2006 17:08:12 GMT -8
liberals suck. ann coulter > john kerry
|
|
|
Post by mortalcry on Sept 20, 2006 18:08:58 GMT -8
Hey, hawk , I'm not sure if you were reading this thread. Its about LIBERALISM, not CONSERVATISM. I believe i made a clear statement. Take a smite.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Sept 20, 2006 19:14:40 GMT -8
Unlike numerous people here, I do actually read every post(or 90+%) in a thread that I reply to.
Moratlwhiner(aint I a stinker) I decided to reply to your comment in THIS thread instead of a comment in the conservative thread that would then force people to come to this thread to see what it was about.
Plus your statement was not clear. Does liberalism itself vomit? Or does it make you vomit? Or does it make little animated balls vomit?
It's ambiguity like this that lead your conservative leader(dubya) to mislead the public and start a war that has destabilized the middle east and hurt your people.
Smite me if you wish, I smite and exalt a variety of people either because I like what they say or don't. Or just for shits and giggles.
Smiting: It's the christian thing to do. Exalting: It's the nice thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by greeny on Sept 20, 2006 20:32:46 GMT -8
god dammit. thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Sept 20, 2006 22:41:38 GMT -8
Just to correct your misstatement of the facts, the President didn't mislead anyone, nor did he start a war on his own.
The President received approval from Congress (most of the Liberals voted FOR and only a couple I believe voted against) to go to war with Iraq. Congress had the exact same intelligence that the President had. We were not the only Country who believed that Iraq had WOMD.
By the way, we still don't know if he still had them (Notice I said "still" since everyone knows he did have them at one time) because I'm sure everyone here agrees that not finding something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The middle east is destabilized? How?
You couldn't really believe that Iraq was a better place under the rule of Saddam? I think you watch too much Liberal media coverage.
Let me also add one more question to this thread (you made me think of this one)
You know you're a Liberal if:
You distort, falsify or make up the facts in order to impress your point of view. (IE. 60 minutes)
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Sept 21, 2006 1:48:22 GMT -8
I'm not a fan of democrats or republicans. The Dems were idiots to vote for the war, and yes i admit that most of them did.
Just like most of them voted for the patriot act so that they could very well be monitor disenters like me, even though im a canadian(they have monitored canadians).
I don't watch much liberal media or conservative media. Most media outlets distort the facts or jump on a story that has little relevance and/or is bogus(john karr's deportation and alleged murder of jon benet ramsey comes to mind)
Could Saddam have had weapons. Possibly, but NOT in a while. That's what competent UN inspectors found out prewar. Thats what 3 years of being in Iraq has shown.
Plus the fact that IF he had them at the time of the attack, why would he not just start shelling everything in sight like he did in the 90's?
And not finding something is not a garauntee that there wasn't something there but it's a weak argument that could be used for anything. Like if the media doesn't know there are illegal and secret prisons run by the CIA in foreign countries, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
Or if Dick Cheney and Karl Rove et al are really blood sucking demons from the 8th level of hell, but we don't have proof, well it doesn't mean they aren't.
For the people of Iraq, ironically it probably WAS better in some areas and worse in others. If you were a kurd or shitte, you had a higher likelihood of death by Saddam(thats bad).
However, Saddam DID NOT(and a recent study even showed) have ties to al-qaeda and actually disliked/hated them(possibly because they were shitte or perhaps because he didn't want them undermining his own authority. I haven't read the report.)
Now Iraq is a thriving recruiting ground for al-qaeda. And Iran has a better foothold in northern Iraq than it ever did when Saddam was in power.
Heard of Fox News? Propaganda is their motto. So please add that to the conservative thread as well.
and yes the president did mislead people. Remember Colin Powell and his little anthrax speech at the UN. Or George Bush's State of the Union in 2003 that was essentially a list of all the weapons he had.
And Bush's indictment that Saddam tried to get uranium from Niger, even though the guy sent to investigate that said that the report was false and that saddam didn't try that(that guy's wife is the CIA agent outed by Conservative douchebag Robert Novak)
So a recap of my opinions.
Democratic politicians = spineless, mindless drones too scared to stand up for themselves Republican politicians = spawns of satan ruining america and the rest of the world, one war at a time(sometimes two)
This has been almost as interesting as the Jesus debate.
|
|
|
Post by rabidgecko on Sept 21, 2006 6:39:31 GMT -8
those are fightin' words techno. you sure you can do 1 on 1 with chalupa? we'll see
|
|