? for liberals

[Big D]

Two liberals are walking down a street when they notice a man who has been robbed and very badly beaten. One of the liberals looks at the other liberal and says with anger, we need to find the person who did this to this man. The other liberal replies, yes we do because who ever did this is going to need help.

? for liberals:
http://www.americandaily.com/nucleus/plugins/print/print.php?itemid=3869

 

[DKSuddeth]

I suppose the conservative stance would have been to tell the victim he should have been more responsible and protected himself better?

seriously though, I understand that you're trying to be funny, it just didnt come across that way.

 

[jimnyc]

Nope, the conservative response would have been to find the guy and kill him, not try and find out why he beat someone.

 

[DKSuddeth]

then afterwards they would have discovered that the initial victim was really a child molester and had been beaten by the father, which they killed before learning why he beat him.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
then afterwards they would have discovered that the initial victim was really a child molester and had been beaten by the father, which they killed before learning why he beat him.

Then they would go back and kill him too. Now we have one less molestor and one less person committing assaults. We now live in a more peaceful place!

 

[DKSuddeth]

oh jeez :

 

[janeeng]

 

[Aquarian]

There is no question in the original post.

 

[Big D]

DK,

I wish what I wrote was a joke, unfortunately this is the mindset for alot of liberals as you have shown in your responces.

Finding out why someone commited a crime is a good idea,
using the reason why someone commits a crime as a excuse is a liberal idea.

 

[DKSuddeth]

unfortunately this is the mindset for alot of liberals as you have shown in your responces.

so you think you have my mindset pegged by my responses in these forums? I'd say thats extremely presumptious on your part. I COULD even go so far as to call you a 'typical' neoconservative simply because you've assumed that anyone who wonders why is a liberal. That wouldn't necessarily mean I'm right, but thats what you have done.

using the reason why someone commits a crime as a excuse is a liberal idea.

point out to me where I've excused anything related to the topics in this forum

 

[Big D]

DK,

You started off by trying to already suggest that there is a excuse for commiting a crime.

Did you read the article?

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Big D
DK,

I wish what I wrote was a joke, unfortunately this is the mindset for alot of liberals as you have shown in your responces.

Finding out why someone commited a crime is a good idea,
using the reason why someone commits a crime as a excuse is a liberal idea.

I think i'm getting to understand your apathy towards that approach. As an aside, I'm sorry if i vented on a previous thread in a manner that was unbecoming. I believed you to be a racist troll, but now am thinking that at least you are presenting your views with some considerations. I still disagree with you though

That being said, why is the "liberal" approach wrong? Solving root causes is an excellent way to deal with problems. For instance, eating a healthy diet is a much better way to keep your heart health rather than treating the symptom later and say get a triple-by pass.

International relations are no different. The root of the conservative approach is to deal with the symptoms of a given problem. Ie kill terrorists rather than asking one's self why terrorism exists and removing the base causes ie poverty, uneven foreign policy. However, though you may profess me to be a liberal I believe there exists a balance between the two idealogy one that needs to strike with one hand and nurture with the other. However, there is much merit in the liberal approach even though the improvements are rarely immediate.

 

[Isaac Brock]

No comments? I'm surprised!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Big D
DK,

You started off by trying to already suggest that there is a excuse for commiting a crime.

Did you read the article?

No, I didn't read the article D, I just went off of what was in your first post. I also didn't try to suggest that there was an 'excuse' but a reason. There's never an excuse for a crime, but to understand the reason may prevent another crime like it from happening again.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I think i'm getting to understand your apathy towards that approach. As an aside, I'm sorry if i vented on a previous thread in a manner that was unbecoming. I believed you to be a racist troll, but now am thinking that at least you are presenting your views with some considerations. I still disagree with you though

That being said, why is the "liberal" approach wrong? Solving root causes is an excellent way to deal with problems. For instance, eating a healthy diet is a much better way to keep your heart health rather than treating the symptom later and say get a triple-by pass.

International relations are no different. The root of the conservative approach is to deal with the symptoms of a given problem. Ie kill terrorists rather than asking one's self why terrorism exists and removing the base causes ie poverty, uneven foreign policy. However, though you may profess me to be a liberal I believe there exists a balance between the two idealogy one that needs to strike with one hand and nurture with the other. However, there is much merit in the liberal approach even though the improvements are rarely immediate.

Isaac, partisanship is quite apparent in your analysis of the difference between liberal and conservative approaches.

Conservatives design policy based on reason and results.
liberals design policy based on emotion and good intentions, and even ignore reason and results when confronted with them.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Isaac, partisanship is quite apparent in your analysis of the difference between liberal and conservative approaches.

Conservatives design policy based on reason and results.
liberals design policy based on emotion and good intentions, and even ignore reason and results when confronted with them.

RWA, per your first part of your post, partisanship has always been apparent in any of your analysis of the differences between liberal and conservative approaches.

Furthermore, your one track thinking continually distorts reality by always following the ultra conservative ideology about policy differences between the two as well.

If you must feel the need to continually be divisive and derogatory simply because you idolize the hatred represented by republican pundits, do so, but know that the more you do so, the less substance and legitimacy any of your posts or points will have.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
RWA, per your first part of your post, partisanship has always been apparent in any of your analysis of the differences between liberal and conservative approaches.

Is this similar to the "I know you are, but what am I?" argument?

Furthermore, your one track thinking continually distorts reality by always following the ultra conservative ideology about policy differences between the two as well.

If you must feel the need to continually be divisive and derogatory simply because you idolize the hatred represented by republican pundits, do so, but know that the more you do so, the less substance and legitimacy any of your posts or points will have. [/B]

You misunderstand completely, DK. My analysis is based on analyzing much available data, and looking at it from many perspectives. Then I make decisions.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Is this similar to the "I know you are, but what am I?" argument?

No, that would be the 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' argument

You misunderstand completely, DK. My analysis is based on analyzing much available data, and looking at it from many perspectives. Then I make decisions.

so you say. Its too bad those decisions aren't based on reality, but your perception of reality, which certainly seems very clouded at times.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Compassionate Conservatism: Shoot the wounded.

Neoliberalism: Shoot the wounded then tell them "I feel your pain."

 

[Annie]

Can anyone imagine dems saying they disagree with something their leading candidate says and not donate and TELL? Can you imagine other liberals saying that while they disagree with the candidate, the other party makes donations imperative?

Liberals have a problem, they refuse to criticise when justified. Because of this refusal, they are left in the position of turning to a Nader when they can't reconcile their beliefs with their candidates proclamations, and turn to a Nader.

Conservatives will withold their $ to get a message across. They also will give, and then SAY that it's in SPITE of the stupid blunder. The other side though is wrong too often to switch to, so the blunderer will get the votes, though not always the bucks.