if WAR broke out between CONSERVATIVES & LIBERALS who would win?

[Grandma]

Conservatives have the guns. They're hunters/outdoorsmen and they're better marksmen. They live in areas where guns aren't virtually outlawed {like Chicago, NY, NJ etc.}. They've served their country, believe in the constitution and have a cause worth dying for. They're better trained, better equipped and would be more motivated. CONCLUSION: Liberals would be wiped off the map faster than you can say "living wage".

That's a bit of stretch.
Here in Conservative Southern America, most people can't shoot straight if their lives depended on it, let alone something like a moving target. Hell, I've gone hunting with people and seen them miss sleeping targets.

No, if Libs and Cons went to war, what'd you see is a hilarious fight where 99% of shots miss and a bunch of people who think war is like Call of Duty where "OMG 360 NO SCOPE" reigns supreme.

And then the military shows up and wipes the floor with the civvies.

Exactly.

 

[Grandma]

Why does no one see that there is already a war going on right now between the two defined sides, and yet it has only been a "war of words" and propaganda so far, but the defining lines between the two have been drawn, and this be it all over political strengths, cultural differences and the ideologies involved, also along religious lines just as well, so someone finally throws this question out there to see what the next moves may be, and what might the what if's could be also ? If a war were to break out in actual physical actions taken, otherwise I guess this is what many responders to this query are actually playing with in their heads and many responses given, so I think the nation as a whole will lose after studying the social networks on such a war of words that is going on right now.

The reason the nation will lose as a whole, is because we have always had diversity here, but the will to push even further and further into separating into tribes or factions could actually result eventually into physical actions being taken by one side or the other if not careful, but Lord I hope not as this would undermine our constitutional and structural systems big time. Anything could be possible in this world, as man is in it and he is far from perfect in his resolve for such issues, and this as it has been seen over the years or in the not so distant past.

You speak of diversity. If there were a war between the factions, the libs would win. The cons would lose. The cons cannot tolerate diversity, they fear and loathe diversity more than anything. Therefore diversity would improve.

 

[beagle9]

Why does no one see that there is already a war going on right now between the two defined sides, and yet it has only been a "war of words" and propaganda so far, but the defining lines between the two have been drawn, and this be it all over political strengths, cultural differences and the ideologies involved, also along religious lines just as well, so someone finally throws this question out there to see what the next moves may be, and what might the what if's could be also ? If a war were to break out in actual physical actions taken, otherwise I guess this is what many responders to this query are actually playing with in their heads and many responses given, so I think the nation as a whole will lose after studying the social networks on such a war of words that is going on right now.

The reason the nation will lose as a whole, is because we have always had diversity here, but the will to push even further and further into separating into tribes or factions could actually result eventually into physical actions being taken by one side or the other if not careful, but Lord I hope not as this would undermine our constitutional and structural systems big time. Anything could be possible in this world, as man is in it and he is far from perfect in his resolve for such issues, and this as it has been seen over the years or in the not so distant past.

You speak of diversity. If there were a war between the factions, the libs would win. The cons would lose. The cons cannot tolerate diversity, they fear and loathe diversity more than anything. Therefore diversity would improve.

How would diversity win out, otherwise if you kill all the cons ? Oh you want a certain kind of diversity where cons are not included in your style of diversity eh ? Kind of hypocrytical wouldn't you say ? Do you have proof that cons hate diversity or is this how you roll here ?

 

[tinydancer]

Conservatives have the guns. They're hunters/outdoorsmen and they're better marksmen. They live in areas where guns aren't virtually outlawed {like Chicago, NY, NJ etc.}. They've served their country, believe in the constitution and have a cause worth dying for. They're better trained, better equipped and would be more motivated. CONCLUSION: Liberals would be wiped off the map faster than you can say "living wage".

I thought at first this was a joke thread....I gave you rep when I realized holy toledo you aren't kidding.

I've done primal so this will be an interesting read for me.

 

[tinydancer]

I fish I hunt not going to take out the elk I just saw thats another day freaking awesome I garden. mega garden.

I can live without government. I can live without money. And you?

 

[tinydancer]

Why does no one see that there is already a war going on right now between the two defined sides, and yet it has only been a "war of words" and propaganda so far, but the defining lines between the two have been drawn, and this be it all over political strengths, cultural differences and the ideologies involved, also along religious lines just as well, so someone finally throws this question out there to see what the next moves may be, and what might the what if's could be also ? If a war were to break out in actual physical actions taken, otherwise I guess this is what many responders to this query are actually playing with in their heads and many responses given, so I think the nation as a whole will lose after studying the social networks on such a war of words that is going on right now.

The reason the nation will lose as a whole, is because we have always had diversity here, but the will to push even further and further into separating into tribes or factions could actually result eventually into physical actions being taken by one side or the other if not careful, but Lord I hope not as this would undermine our constitutional and structural systems big time. Anything could be possible in this world, as man is in it and he is far from perfect in his resolve for such issues, and this as it has been seen over the years or in the not so distant past.

You speak of diversity. If there were a war between the factions, the libs would win. The cons would lose. The cons cannot tolerate diversity, they fear and loathe diversity more than anything. Therefore diversity would improve.

Are you nuts? You'd be dead before the first winter chatting on about freaking diversity.

Talk freaking food and wood.

See you are the reason libs really would be dead.

 

[tinydancer]

Ok lets put it this way.



You are out in the bush.

You have nothing.


Except me.

or RDean.



maybe we should do a poll.

this could get good.

 

[bucs90]

Well, if the 'war' happened today, it'd be a horrible fight, but, I think the right wing would win. They have more weapons. They have more motivation. They have more military and police loyal to them.

BUT, if elections are worth noting........give it 10 years. The right will be outnumbered 5-1.

 

[Noomi]

The right wingers would win. They are more likely to shoot and kill someone. They are ore likely to support war, therefore they are more likely to kill their own people. Plus, they have the guns.
And after they have killed their own countrymen, they'll all to church and pray for forgiveness.

 

[Agit8r]

"Da libs" kicked the southern redneck's asses once before, and they can easily do it again.

and who was potus again?

 

[editec]

if WAR broke out between CONSERVATIVES & LIBERALS who would win?

The rest of the world​

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"Da libs" kicked the southern redneck's asses once before, and they can easily do it again.

Hey stupid - you ARE and WERE the "southern redneck's" whose asses were kicked. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and it was the Republican's in Congress who lead the efforts.

Leave it to Black_Liar to rewrite history.

Please tell me you aren't so stupid that you don't even know what the southern strategy was. Though from looking at your posts, intelligence isn't one of your strong suits.

Black Label? I think you better re-examine your knowledge of American History as it pertains to the issue of slavery and the south.

The roots of the Republican Party lay in the opposition to slavery, which took a variety of forms in the pre–Civil War era. Some opponents of slavery looked to political methods as a way of attacking the institution. Unable to find sufficient support in the dominant Democratic or Whig parties, antislavery men launched the Liberty party in 1840. Soon thereafter, antislavery forces fixed on a specific issue—opposition to the extension of slavery into U.S. territories. In 1848 this led to the formation of the Free Soil party. Although both these third parties quickly faded away, they helped crystallize attitudes on the issue of slavery. As the political climate heated up in the 1850s, the existing two-party system collapsed with the disappearance of the Whig party and the splintering of the Democratic Party. Out of this political upheaval emerged the Republican Party.

The Republican Party was born in an outburst of protest against the Kansas-Nebraska bill in 1854. The bill provided that the question of slavery in the proposed territories of Kansas and Nebraska would be left to the residents of each territory. This enraged opponents of slavery because it repealed the Compromise of 1820, which banned slavery in that area. Northerners committed to the principle of free soil held the first anti-Nebraska gatherings in February 1854. After passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in the spring, opponents of the measure held a series of conventions that led to the formation of the Republican Party.

 

[Sallow]

Why does no one see that there is already a war going on right now between the two defined sides, and yet it has only been a "war of words" and propaganda so far, but the defining lines between the two have been drawn, and this be it all over political strengths, cultural differences and the ideologies involved, also along religious lines just as well, so someone finally throws this question out there to see what the next moves may be, and what might the what if's could be also ? If a war were to break out in actual physical actions taken, otherwise I guess this is what many responders to this query are actually playing with in their heads and many responses given, so I think the nation as a whole will lose after studying the social networks on such a war of words that is going on right now.

The reason the nation will lose as a whole, is because we have always had diversity here, but the will to push even further and further into separating into tribes or factions could actually result eventually into physical actions being taken by one side or the other if not careful, but Lord I hope not as this would undermine our constitutional and structural systems big time. Anything could be possible in this world, as man is in it and he is far from perfect in his resolve for such issues, and this as it has been seen over the years or in the not so distant past.

You speak of diversity. If there were a war between the factions, the libs would win. The cons would lose. The cons cannot tolerate diversity, they fear and loathe diversity more than anything. Therefore diversity would improve.

Are you nuts? You'd be dead before the first winter chatting on about freaking diversity.

Talk freaking food and wood.

See you are the reason libs really would be dead.

Conservatives would get rolled..and fast.

Simple as that.

And I mean literally.

Ever spend time in conservative states? Holy crap..they are the fattest people on the planet.

 

[Sallow]

The right wingers would win. They are more likely to shoot and kill someone. They are ore likely to support war, therefore they are more likely to kill their own people. Plus, they have the guns.
And after they have killed their own countrymen, they'll all to church and pray for forgiveness.

Naw.

They tried that during the civil war.

They shot first..and got their asses kicked.

Liberals don't like war..but when they fight it..watch out.

 

[Sallow]

Hey stupid - you ARE and WERE the "southern redneck's" whose asses were kicked. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and it was the Republican's in Congress who lead the efforts.

Leave it to Black_Liar to rewrite history.

Please tell me you aren't so stupid that you don't even know what the southern strategy was. Though from looking at your posts, intelligence isn't one of your strong suits.

Black Label? I think you better re-examine your knowledge of American History as it pertains to the issue of slavery and the south.

The roots of the Republican Party lay in the opposition to slavery, which took a variety of forms in the pre–Civil War era. Some opponents of slavery looked to political methods as a way of attacking the institution. Unable to find sufficient support in the dominant Democratic or Whig parties, antislavery men launched the Liberty party in 1840. Soon thereafter, antislavery forces fixed on a specific issue—opposition to the extension of slavery into U.S. territories. In 1848 this led to the formation of the Free Soil party. Although both these third parties quickly faded away, they helped crystallize attitudes on the issue of slavery. As the political climate heated up in the 1850s, the existing two-party system collapsed with the disappearance of the Whig party and the splintering of the Democratic Party. Out of this political upheaval emerged the Republican Party.

The Republican Party was born in an outburst of protest against the Kansas-Nebraska bill in 1854. The bill provided that the question of slavery in the proposed territories of Kansas and Nebraska would be left to the residents of each territory. This enraged opponents of slavery because it repealed the Compromise of 1820, which banned slavery in that area. Northerners committed to the principle of free soil held the first anti-Nebraska gatherings in February 1854. After passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in the spring, opponents of the measure held a series of conventions that led to the formation of the Republican Party.

And?

The Republicans were the liberal faction of the Whigs.

After the civil right act, Dixiecrats fled the Democratic party and joined up with the Republicans. Since then, Republicans have been purging itself of Liberals in favor of racists.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

WOW! really you expect everyone to believe that lie.
Nice try.
Or maybe you don't live in the United States, pardon me.

Unless you want to throw out that I drive on the roads so I'm dependent on government bullshit.
I have never used food stamps or any other gov programs. I was taught it was a bad thing to be a drain on my country.
You appear to be one of those who think that if someone has money they stole it from a poor guy.

Did you receive a free public school education? did your children? Did you take a tax deduction for your kids?
Is there a difference in someone who takes money to feed there kids and someone who takes public money to educate them?

Free stuff

No I didnt receive a free education. I'm paying for it right now. On top of that I dont have any kids.
Why do libs always try and twist the question? You know damn well we're discussing FREE shit to people who dont contribute to society monetarily.

 

[rightwinger]

Unless you want to throw out that I drive on the roads so I'm dependent on government bullshit.
I have never used food stamps or any other gov programs. I was taught it was a bad thing to be a drain on my country.
You appear to be one of those who think that if someone has money they stole it from a poor guy.

Did you receive a free public school education? did your children? Did you take a tax deduction for your kids?
Is there a difference in someone who takes money to feed there kids and someone who takes public money to educate them?

Free stuff

No I didnt receive a free education. I'm paying for it right now. On top of that I dont have any kids.
Why do libs always try and twist the question? You know damn well we're discussing FREE shit to people who dont contribute to society monetarily.

Why is your free shit more valid than their free shit?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It just cracks me up!!
Conservatives are accused of stockpiling ammo and having way to many guns. We are warmongers who only think about killing.
The libs tell us we dont need guns and everyone should be disarmed.

Now all of a sudden the libs have an armory in the closest and are the second coming of Rambo.

It's a strange world we live in.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Did you receive a free public school education? did your children? Did you take a tax deduction for your kids?
Is there a difference in someone who takes money to feed there kids and someone who takes public money to educate them?

Free stuff

No I didnt receive a free education. I'm paying for it right now. On top of that I dont have any kids.
Why do libs always try and twist the question? You know damn well we're discussing FREE shit to people who dont contribute to society monetarily.

Why is your free shit more valid than their free shit?

It's like talking to a brick wall........
Do you pay taxes?

 

[rightwinger]

No I didnt receive a free education. I'm paying for it right now. On top of that I dont have any kids.
Why do libs always try and twist the question? You know damn well we're discussing FREE shit to people who dont contribute to society monetarily.

Why is your free shit more valid than their free shit?

It's like talking to a brick wall........
Do you pay taxes?

If you pay $2000 in taxes and receive $4000 in free stuff, you are still getting free stuff

I had two kids and paid $2400 in school taxes. My school costs $11,000 a year per child
I am paying $2400 and receiving $22,000 in education for my kids.......Thats $19,600 in "free stuff" every year