It is interesting that few replied to this simple challenge, since most know a liberal and vise versa when they see it. Or are these just patterns of thought?
Shouldn't it be a statement if the answer is True or False?
An ACORN Bus accidentally crashed into a parked vehicle while traveling the wrong way down a one way street at a protest site in Connecticut. T/F
There are 57 States in the US. T/F
or
The General Health and Welfare Clause in the Constitution means The Government has the Right to Redistribute Private Property. T/F
Unalienable Rights are a past concept between man and Government, with no place for any God, no longer recognized, and no longer needed. T/F
The mandate to implant tracking devices in all our Citizens if within the boundaries of federal and state authority, without knowledge or consent, only if everyone is included without exception. T/F
Works. Acorn is bad to conservatives, and (potentially) good to liberals. So we can know who answers our statement true or false. But was Enron bad too?
Works. Is 57 states on a par with our last English language butcher? Or 'provide for' must mean something. One sees sharing the other stealing.
Iffy. God is certainly allowed, that is part of those rights. No one has ever stopped the religious so long as they remain outside the federal world.
Tracking device doesn't work, they would all be arguing.
1. Which do you love more "God & Country" or "weed"?
2. Do you think Clinton should have been impeached?
3. Would you reduce the number of Federal Departments or increase them, if reduce, name them? (the libertarian would cut more than the conservative)
Is country more important than 'weed'? doesn't work, there are pot heads on both sides of the aisle.
Lying [complex fabrications] about BJs under oath constitutes an impeachable offence? may work?
Reducing the number of Federal depts would have a positive outcome on society? may work but what part of society and for whom.
question #1: You love visiting San Francisco more than Fort Lauterdale, true or false?
question #2: You found the 1960s a good time, true or false?
question #3: The Constitution is protecting your freedom more today than in the past, true or false?
doesn't work. I'm a backroad liberal and love the common folk and places, so it doesn't work for me. Been to both but don't care to go back. [but I try to keep myself out of some debates]
iffy. With Vietnam bad with great society good, with voting rights good. It was a time of turmoil, change, and backlash. How would you answer?
Iffy again. I would say T and I guess you would F. Your statements are more ambiguous but interesting. That's what TE are about.
----Should gay lovers be allowed to adopt children? T/F
----Did Bush suck? T/F
----Were Iraq invasion protesters freedom infringed when they were called unamerican --------and even traitors and abetting the enemy for protesting the war? T/F
my questions included in your quote:
Works. Gays are too complex for conservatives, but what to make of the log cabin republicans?
Works. But Bush was so bad you may get a stray T from a conservative. LOL
Works. But rather complex as it crosses into what 'freedom' really means under tough circumstances.
love - (T or F) (que - do you think?) People like Bill Ayers or Saul Alinski love America as much as any flag-waver or military member?
history - (T or F) (que - do you think?) Whitaker Chambers framed Alger Hiss as a communist spy?
freedom - (T or F) (que - do you think?) You can advance the cause of freedom in a country like Iraq by invading it and killing its people?
These questions probably delineate differences between Ls and Cs much more than between many Ds and Rs, many of either party are not much involved in ideology or philosophy. I know ardent Ds who would probably surprise a Liberal with their answers of at least two of these propositions?
works. I would say they do, but obviously most conservatives would say F. That gets us into the deep.
too complex? F - You would need to have studied it more as it became a icon and not a case of lying and a time when communism seemed like a viable political structure. The failure of capitalism in the last century led to many problems. Actually communism like most ideologies has little chance of long term success in the real world. This looks excellent: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Communism-Archie-Brown/dp/0061138797/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Rise and Fall of Communism (9780061138799): Archie Brown: Books[/ame]
iffy. I say no (F) as society built from within creates freedom, consider the collapse of Russia or changes in the Eastern block nations. Getting back to communism, it actually seems the only nations in which it works (?) are the Oriental nations where community has a different meaning compared with our more individualistic social frame. Some think that WWII serves as an example for the possibility of invasion democracy, but a reading of history creates a more complex picture. Germany and Japan were not Iraq or Afghanistan.
Yes, they are about L and C and not D and R, this liberal has in a few elections voted for more republicans than democrats. Keep that secret.
When I thought of this I had no specific answers questions statements, only wanted to see if we could easily define one or the other - I think we can, which means we really don't think hard about politics or our beliefs. But I still am still pondering. lol
