Liberals vs. Conservatives

The differences are clear

from PolMach Forums

Things to remember about liberals and conservatives:

 

  • Liberals support the troops more than Conservatives. Liberals have always been against using the troops as a first resort where as conservatives seem to have no problem with sending our service men and women to war even if the war is not worth it in the end. The Bush administration ignored many sources that said an Iraq invasion was not worth it and there were no WMDs, but because Bush had a personal vendetta on Saddam prior to his presidency Bush followed through with the unnecessary war, resulting in over 4100 troops dead. Liberals want our military back home to defend the home front from potential attacks in the future, but conservatives don’t care about that and would rather leave the men and women in uniform to die in unconstitutional wars. 
  • Liberals are more Patriotic than Conservatives. The right wing has successfully imbedded the false idea that Liberals are unpatriotic for not supporting the war, the troops, the President, and for saying good things about France. The fact is Liberals are outraged with the Bush administration for using the troops to execute a personal agenda, destroying our very precious rights from our Constitution, and for giving America a reputation that may never allow the respect we deserve from the international community. Bush is ok with torture to others, even if they are innocent, violating international law. All the conservatives defended Bush and his PATRIOT Act which stripped privacy from all Americans, eliminating a precious liberty as listed in the 4th amendment from our Bill of Rights. This reminds me of a quote from an American founder Benjamin Franklin: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  • Liberals are way more open minded than Conservatives. On the issue of climate change, we are presented with a two basic sides. There is a major problem with man made global warming vs. Global warming is the biggest hoax in history. (we are excluding side arguments here such as “there is global warming, but it isn’t man made”) I think that this was never really a political argument until the American people started making it an issue to address. Conservatives needed to protect their big oil buddies so they insisted on making this a political issue and not a scientific one. Liberals looked at the facts and predictions from environmental scientists and the conservatives had no one to attack until one liberal made a movie about it. Then it suddenly became a political issue. Liberals tend to base their ideas on facts, and are always open to changing their mind if the facts provide it. Many liberals including myself, Eric Alterman, and Michael Moore were all upset by Clintons lies and yet no conservative leaders and/or pundits have gone after the many Bush lies.
  • Liberals support the U.S. Constitution, unlike the Conservatives. The number one reason liberals are outraged about the Bush Administration in general is the complete disregard that Bush and his minions have for the Constitution. From the PATRIOT Act to the war in Iraq, the Bush executive fraternity has stripped the power of the Constitution from the people. The right wing says it is a natural necessity to give up some of our liberties when raging the war on terror. But the left wing insists that the Constitution is the sacred document that kept this country free and safe since it was signed. Anyone who tries to take away the liberties that our founding fathers promised to us in the Constitution is a fascist. 
liberal conservative
4,577 views 13 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Liberals support the troops more than Conservatives
End of quote


Spitting must be a new form of support.

Liberals are more Patriotic than Conservatives.
End of quote


Threatening to leave a country is now patriotic.

Liberals are way more open minded than Conservatives
End of quote


Shouting down those that do not agree with you is open minded.

Liberals support the U.S. Constitution, unlike the Conservatives.
End of quote


Revoking parts of the constitution unconstitutionally is now supporting it.


Welcome to 1984! Newspeak is here. Glad to meet you big brother!
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top

I think the funniest thing here is that you refer to me as "big brother", ofcourse from the classic novel "1984". I find this funny because in here I mention the PATRIOT Act which clearly takes all privacy away from all citizens thatnks to the Bush Administration. So I think you should read Orwells book again and take a better look.

But anyway, most of your reponses can be directed to conservatives. I have heard many "concerned" conservatives say they would "leave the country" if that muslim is elected. (refering to Barrack Obama, ofcourse). I have had many conservatives shut down my arguments just because they don't agree with me; this displays some sort of close mindedness...

Rush Limbaugh calls troops who speak out against the war "phoony soliders", Bush and Cheney have not given proper treatment for veterans who come home from Iraq, and McCain wants to keep the troops in the middle of a Civil War for the next 100 hundred years. Obama is responsible for the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act (SAVE Act) which provides education, housing, medical, ect. to veterans.

Did you even read my little writing here? If you read my arguments you would've responded to my claims and not just write jibberish that you pass off as a logical response.

Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I find this funny because in here I mention the PATRIOT Act which clearly takes all privacy away from all citizens thatnks to the Bush Administration. So I think you should read Orwells book again and take a better look.
End of quote


Newspeak! Better reread the act. It does no such thing BB.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have heard many "concerned" conservatives say they would "leave the country" if that muslim is elected
End of quote


Name them.

Rush Limbaugh calls troops who speak out against the war "phoony soliders",
End of quote


Liar. Better get the actual statement. He called people who pretended to be soldiers who served in Iraq phony soldiers.

Did you even read my little writing here? If you read my arguments you would've responded to my claims and not just write jibberish that you pass off as a logical response.
End of quote


Yes I did. And I rebutted each and every accusation with facts. Sorry if that does not fit into your stereotyping.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top

First things first, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." On his show he had a caller who was upset about the media not interviewing any of the soliders who support the war, saying "No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers." Limbaugh then interjected with "phony soliders" and the caller agreed.

Now Stephen Baldwin (the right wing actor) said on Fox News "If Barrack is nominated, I'll be leaving the country". There you go, I have also heard in passing people I know express there concern with Obama by leaving if he is elected. like on Yahoo there is a question by a regular right-winger and he asked: What country should I move to if Obama is elected? (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080706173751AAWUOVB)

You didn't use facts to counteract what I wrote, you just used what you know of the english language to attempt to write some sort of response to what I wrote and you...failed. But it was funny none the less.

p.s. how is your re-reading of 1984 going?

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
First things first, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." On his show he had a caller who was upset about the media not interviewing any of the soliders who support the war, saying "No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers." Limbaugh then interjected with "phony soliders" and the caller agreed.
End of quote


Better get the actual transcript. You will see that taken out of context, one can assume that (just using the snippet of Limbaugh without any before and after dialog). But taken in context, it is in black and white that he was referring to Jesse MacBeth since he had been discussing him prior to the statement. People usually do not continually repeat the subject when discusssing an issue in every sentence. That is why it is so easy to take things out of context if you have a mind. Which Media matters sure does as it has been after Limbaugh for years, unsuccessfully.

Now Stephen Baldwin (the right wing actor) said on Fox News "If Barrack is nominated, I'll be leaving the country".
End of quote


I have not heard of this (and would love a link if it is true) since one of the ones that was yelling about moving in 2000, and 2004 was his Brother Alec (the child abuser). So I find it highly Ironic, somewhat pat (without documentation) and probably, if true, said in sarcasm for his brothers promise. But one person does not an exodus make. (The link is a nice attempt by a bunch of anonymous posters to do what? nothing)

You didn't use facts to counteract what I wrote, you just used what you know of the english language to attempt to write some sort of response to what I wrote and you...failed. But it was funny none the less.
p.s. how is your re-reading of 1984 going?
End of quote


Yes, I used facts. Those pesky things that seem to elude you and get in the way of your well crafted, if erroneous, rhetoric. I did not provide supporting links for them, but you can google them if you so desire. They were in all the major news papers after all.

I read 1984 a long time ago. I dont need to see a tatoo on your forehead to know when you are trying to tell me "4 legs good, 2 legs better" (psst! That one is not from 1984 in case you are googling the quote). Perhaps you need to stop blindly following the clowns that give you your talking points and ask questions?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
and would love a link if it is true
End of quote


Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks for the link. Indeed, it was said with sarcasm, but he did say it.

You gotta love his sense of humor. ;)
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top

Spitting must be a new form of support.

Threatening to leave a country is now patriotic.

Shouting down those that do not agree with you is open minded.

Revoking parts of the constitution unconstitutionally is now supporting it.

************************************************************

These are all statements not facts. You did not use facts to "rebuttal" what I wrote. Anyway, I don't wish to worry about your ignorance anymore, no matter how amusing you are. Thanks.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
These are all statements not facts.
End of quote


You deny anyone spitting on returning soldiers?

You deny that many liberals threatened to leave the country?

You deny that liberals have used that tactic to silence the opposition?

You deny that Ginzberg tried to revoke the second amendment?

They are facts, you just choose to ignore them. You do so at your own foolishness.

I am glad I amuse you, I am sorry you are such a luddite and cannot even google very well published events. Can I send you step by step instructions?
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top

I acknowledge that some people who call themselves liberals have spit on troops in the past, but I am also aware of Bush sending troops into a war that is wrong and unnesscary. I am also aware of liberals AND conservative who have delcared that they will leave the country for a vareity of reasons. Also, I don't deny that there have been liberals who shut down other people for having a different point of view than theirs, but I mean even Bill O'Reilly cuts peoples microphone if he disagrees with them. I actually can't find where Ginzberg tried to revoke the 2nd admendment, but I would actually a appreiciate the link for that, but until then I can say that the Bush administration tried (and succeeded) to abolish the 4th admendment with the PATRIOT Act. The Military Comissions Act says that people arrested by the U.S. no longer have the right to a speedy trial thus abolishing the 6th admendment and the 7th admendment.

But all this is fine to discuss, but my article does not deal with spitting on troops (which by the way I nor any other of my liberal friends ever consider justifilable), leaving the country, or debate tactics. The only one of your arguments that may hold water is Ginzberg. I actually think you are very well informed and I would appreiciate talking with you in more details the issue at hand, specifically in my article. It's refreshing to have an opponent who actually knows their point of view in depth.

I hope from this point we can agree to disagree with respect. Thank You.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can say that the Bush administration tried (and succeeded) to abolish the 4th admendment with the PATRIOT Act.
End of quote


No you cannot. You should have said "I would like to say" but then you would still be wrong. Re-read the Patriot act first. Then show me where it has anything to do with the 4th admentment. Then explain how Bush enacted a law without congress (dominated by democrats) passing it.


I actually can't find where Ginzberg tried to revoke the 2nd admendment,
End of quote


Since you asked politely, I will oblige:

"There is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."
End of quote


You dont have to look for intent, as the constitution addresses this issue in black and white. Yet She and the other 3 liberal law makers (versus their stated job of Jurists) tried to change the writing, not the intent, of the constitution.

I mean even Bill O'Reilly cuts peoples microphone if he disagrees with them
End of quote


Very lame. And irrelevant. I cannot dictate to you in your house what to do. So you cannot dictate to O'Reilly what to do on his show. SO that is not even relevant.

However, a more valid analogy is - if I invite you into my house, and a second guest in MY house stops you from talking. Again, that is not their right, but that is the practice when liberals do not agree with the likes of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, et. al.

We can only ask why? The answer is obvious. They are afraid of the message. But that is a point for another debate.

The Military Comissions Act says that people arrested by the U.S. no longer have the right to a speedy trial thus abolishing the 6th admendment and the 7th admendment.
End of quote


The Military does not "arrest" citizens. They imprison enemies. And they have always had that right. Also according to the Geneva Convention, Article 84, they CANNOT be tried by the holding power. What you are advocating is a breach of the treaty (given that most communist nations do not adhere to it, that is not surprising).

but my article does not deal with spitting on troops
End of quote


Yes, you opened the door. I merely stepped through. You made broad blanket statements that I showed to be untrue. You could have said "I and any other of my liberal friends" which would then be arguable, but not false. Instead you stated your facts, which I easily debunked with truth.

You will also note I did not claim that Conservatives are more anything than liberals, or that all conservatives are anything or all liberals are anything or that all are one way and all are another (or for that matter even most of all).

That is for a reason. Every false statement you made could be true for a selected population. On both sides. And the only ones that seem to feel a need to demonstrate their patriotism is the liberals, which indicates that there is some kind of deep seated feeling of guilt. Probably not by the author, but for the reality of what they see happening with others on their side of the aisle.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fact is Liberals are outraged with the Bush administration for using the troops to execute a personal agenda, destroying our very precious rights from our Constitution, and for giving America a reputation that may never allow the respect we deserve from the international community.
End of quote


Please describe this personal agenda.

Please list the rights that Americans have lost because of this president.

Please list the nations that don’t respect us. Please explain how we have lost respect in the international community.

Liberals are way more open minded than Conservatives. On the issue of climate change, we are presented with a two basic sides. There is a major problem with man made global warming vs. Global warming is the biggest hoax in history. (we are excluding side arguments here such as “there is global warming, but it isn’t man made”) I think that this was never really a political argument until the American people started making it an issue to address. Conservatives needed to protect their big oil buddies so they insisted on making this a political issue and not a scientific one. Liberals looked at the facts and predictions from environmental scientists and the conservatives had no one to attack until one liberal made a movie about it.
End of quote


I have written a myriad of articles debunking global warming as a man made issue. I have presented proof that global warming is happening and that man is not the cause of it. If man is not the cause of this global warming then how can man fix it? In my articles I presented theories on how to solve the problem but it is outside the realm of our technical ability to solve. This makes the man made global warming position a hoax. Try reading my posts on the subject and countering them with facts then I might give some credence to your claim that all liberals are open minded and more open minded than conservatives.

But the left wing insists that the Constitution is the sacred document that kept this country free and safe since it was signed. Anyone who tries to take away the liberties that our founding fathers promised to us in the Constitution is a fascist.
End of quote


Back in 1962 John F. Kennedy, issued a statement on the then steel crisis, and I quote "Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steel corporations increasing steel prices by $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest in this serious hour in our Nation's History, when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking reservists to leave their homes and families for months on end and servicemen to risk their lives...." The Steel industry backed down.

Congresswoman Waters responded, in part, "And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …"

She meant nationalizing but could not get the word right.

"House Democrats responded to President’s Bush’s call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live.
Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.
They also reasserted that the reason the Appropriations Committee markup (where the vote on the amendment to lift the ban) was canceled so they could focus on preparing the supplemental Iraq spending bill for tomorrow.
At an off-camera briefing, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said the same. And a senior Republican House Appropriations Committee aide adds that “there were multiple reasons for the postponement” including discussion on the supplemental. But the aide said there was the thought that Democrats may wish to avoid a debate today on energy amendments.
Here are the highlights from briefing
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling
1115
We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market."


Here are three examples of liberal democrats that want to take over peoples business contrary to the constitutions unreasonable search and seizure clauses. Let’s add to this the Clinton administration wanting to nationalize health care and the auto industry. Will any citizen have the right to start a business and become successful?

So what if you own stock in these companies, your rights don’t matter because stealing the companies from you is what is best for the nation in their eyes. These are public statements made openly not in secret or a misstatement by someone.

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
William Jefferson Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993.

So according to a liberal democrat our rights are not important when it is an issue they don’t like. Please show me the converse with conservatives wanting to take away our rights and property in the same manner.

The Bush administration ignored many sources that said an Iraq invasion was not worth it and there were no WMDs, but because Bush had a personal vendetta on Saddam prior to his presidency Bush followed through with the unnecessary war, resulting in over 4100 troops dead. Liberals want our military back home to defend the home front from potential attacks in the future, but conservatives don’t care about that and would rather leave the men and women in uniform to die in unconstitutional wars.
End of quote


I have written on this topic extensively and have yet to be disproved. Here is your chance to do what others have failed to do. Please show me where the President wanted to go to war with Iraq. Statements and transcripts of the Presidents meetings prior to going to war say the opposite.

The president with the approval of the Congress sent those troops into harms way. He felt it was justified the Congress agreed and the war began. How is it that this war was wrong when we were attacked first? The terrorists we are fighting start turning up in Iraq. Wounded terrorists are in Iraqi hospitals. Iraq said they had so much in stockpiles of WMD at the end of the Gulf war. The UN destroyed a large amount of them but not all. The difference was still a threat to us and since Iraq refused to give up the stuff they said they had and we were seeing a link with Al Qaeda why would we want our enemy to have access to any weapons of mass destruction? Iraq did not do as they agreed to do in the armistice agreement which means the war was not over and was re-started. To date we have found over 500 tons of WMD but I guess that is not enough to count as any serious amount of WMD. Don’t come back with the statement that they were degraded that was another find of 500 shells of chemical munitions, this find was intentionally confused with the 500 tons of WMD in order to belittle the find.