Some reasons why you should be a liberal rather than a conservative

[Moonbeam]

Conservatives are especially wound tight about homosexuality today because, with the loss of testosterone in their systems, with Obama's victory, most of them are fucking women and wives who are more men than they are, those of course, who aren't actually closet gays.

 

[werepossum]

We share a lot of common DNA with tons of animals and tons of animals share tons of common DNA also, that doesn't mean shit imo. Also, Bonobos suck, Orangutans are way cooler.

No way. Orangutans are solitary creatures living in the forest, rarely even seeing another orangutan. Bonobos live in groups and screw everything that moves. This best resembles celebrities, and as celebrities are the coolest people in the human world, so must Bonobos be the coolest creatures in the animal world.

On an unrelated side note, we should all think Jesus that we are not still living under Old Testament rules. That would suck major ass, and not just for homosexuals.

 

[blackangst1]

Conservatives are especially wound tight about homosexuality today because, with the loss of testosterone in their systems, with Obama's victory, most of them are fucking women and wives who are more men than they are, those of course, who aren't actually closet gays.

Doc not renew your lithium prescription?

 

[werepossum]

Doc not renew your lithium prescription?

The most ankle-biting, moon-howling leftists are totally consumed with conservatives' genitalia, anuses, and sexual habits. Clearly these people are closet conservative-lovers. I imagine Moonbeam has giant posters of Ronald Reagan and Carl Rove tacked above his bed for when he wants some "me time".

 

[BoberFett]

The most ankle-biting, moon-howling leftists are totally consumed with conservatives' genitalia, anuses, and sexual habits. Clearly these people are closet conservative-lovers. I imagine Moonbeam has giant posters of Ronald Reagan and Carl Rove tacked above his bed for when he wants some "me time".

You've noticed that too?

 

[bfdd]

No way. Orangutans are solitary creatures living in the forest, rarely even seeing another orangutan. Bonobos live in groups and screw everything that moves. This best resembles celebrities, and as celebrities are the coolest people in the human world, so must Bonobos be the coolest creatures in the animal world.

On an unrelated side note, we should all think Jesus that we are not still living under Old Testament rules. That would suck major ass, and not just for homosexuals.

Pfft Orangutans are way cooler than Bonobos. Bonobos are lamer versions of Chimps. Chimps are awesome cause they 1. go to war and 2. eat Bonobos. In order of coolness apes(not including Humans) go in this order 1. Orangutan 2/3. Chimps and Gorillas 4. Gibbons 5. Siamangs 6. Bonobos.

 

[Craig234]

Pfft Orangutans are way cooler than Bonobos. Bonobos are lamer versions of Chimps. Chimps are awesome cause they 1. go to war and 2. eat Bonobos. In order of coolness apes(not including Humans) go in this order 1. Orangutan 2/3. Chimps and Gorillas 4. Gibbons 5. Siamangs 6. Bonobos.

I'd say anyone who thinks going to war is "awesome" raises the question not only whether they're closer to human or ape, but where they rank on the ape scale.

 

[Craig234]

The most ankle-biting, moon-howling leftists are totally consumed with conservatives' genitalia, anuses, and sexual habits. Clearly these people are closet conservative-lovers. I imagine Moonbeam has giant posters of Ronald Reagan and Carl Rove tacked above his bed for when he wants some "me time".

Your ignorance is massive, annoying and shamfeul. By the way, Karl not Carl.

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by werepossum
The most ankle-biting, moon-howling leftists are totally consumed with conservatives' genitalia, anuses, and sexual habits. Clearly these people are closet conservative-lovers. I imagine Moonbeam has giant posters of Ronald Reagan and Carl Rove tacked above his bed for when he wants some "me time".

You've noticed that too?
__________________

Nonsense, I am just relaying recent scientific information I learned in attempting to explain the psychotic outbreak that occurred in Republican voters after the 2008 election.

Those who remember the street parties of Election Night 2008 might think the testosterone levels of Obama voters had shot up in triumph. That would be wrong.

Instead, liberal testosterone levels stayed stable, while those of male Republican voters plummeted. The latter also reported feeling submissive and unhappy.

There are many ways to read these results, which are based on saliva samples taken from 183 men and women as the polls closed, and again when President Obama’s victory was officially announced.

First, male voters get the same vicarious boost from a candidate’s political victory as they would their favorite sports team beating a rival. That’s the main academic finding of the study, published Wednesday in Public Library of Science ONE, but one that seems rather self-evident.

Much more interesting is the split. Obama voter testosterone merely stabilized. The researchers suggest that, as nighttime testosterone levels typically dip, stabilization “is conceptually similar to a rise.”

But if testosterone usually just dips at night, it positively plummeted for Republican men.

Indeed, Republican men “felt significantly more controlled, submissive, unhappy and unpleasant at the moment of the outcome” than those who voted for Obama, the researchers wrote. “Moreover, since the dominance hierarchy shift following a presidential election is stable for four years, the stress of having one’s political party lose control of executive policy decisions could plausibly lead to continued testosterone suppression in males.”

Women of both political parties, it should be noted, experienced no significant testosterone changes on election night.

 

[Woofmeister]

One reason is because, as a nation that is mostly Christian, we want to honor the work of Jesus and emulate his life.

Jesus cared for the poor as liberals do. He did not deny them because they were weak or unworthy. He was crucified with thieves, just like the right claims democrats are with it comes to taxing the rich and giving to the poor. That is part of ones religious duty anyway, so what matters if it is also the secular law.

Watch how in everything conservatives say about welfare there is this hate of folk who can't make it on their own, as if being lucky yourself to have capacity and the good fortune to have been born where you can make something of yourself, some how gives you the right of righteous indignation, and some sick need to look down your nose at those who have to struggle. Never mind that some people don't have much in the way of IQ to do lucrative work, or may have been badly damaged, emotionally, as children. Jesus came with his message for these, the meek who will inherit the earth.

So you can be a nice loving liberal or an egotistical pig conservative.

Do not post to tell me I'm trolling or that my thoughts are on a low level. They are posted in P&N which if filled to the brim with idiots. The above, while able to be put far more eloquently, I am sure, is still basic fact.

Since I'm an atheist as well as a conservative, can you offer some compelling argument to me as to why I should be a liberal?

The notion that I should conduct my life according to the second hand reports of the teachings of some ancient Rabbi doesn't really persuade me.

 

[jhbball]

Since I'm an atheist as well as a conservative, can you offer some compelling argument to me as to why I should be a liberal?

The notion that I should conduct my life according to the second hand reports of the teachings of some ancient Rabbi doesn't really persuade me.

Because life is too short to be a greedy douche bag? How's that?

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Moonbeam,

Your statement, “One reason is because, as a nation that is mostly Christian, we want to honor the work of Jesus and emulate his life.”

I know Jesus, do you? If we are to emulate him, should we also do what he says? ()

It is Written, “We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. --Thessalonians 3:9-11*(New International Version)

Here we have an authorized ambassador of Jesus commanding us to work or not eat!
Certainly this statement does not nullify the requirement for charity, however.

Charity does not and can not flow properly from an impersonal government.

It must flow from you and from me, as individuals.

That is the crux of the disagreement between Liberals and Conservatives.

 

[Woofmeister]

Because life is too short to be a greedy douche bag? How's that?

Why would you assume that just because I am conservative I am a greedy douche bag? Are you aware that study after study shows that conservatives are more generous than liberals?

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/charity-who-cares/

And I certainly don't need Jesus to tell me to give to others less fortunate.

 

[Moonbeam]

Since I'm an atheist as well as a conservative, can you offer some compelling argument to me as to why I should be a liberal?

The notion that I should conduct my life according to the second hand reports of the teachings of some ancient Rabbi doesn't really persuade me.

You are not persuaded by Jesus but you want me to persuade you? Hehe, out of simple modesty and the fear of lightning bolts, I should probably turn down that offer.

But just for fun, let me ask you what it is about being a conservative you like. Is it, as I said, even without God in the picture, that you feel morally superior because you have been lucky and were unconsciously driven to make something of yourself you can trade for worldly acclaim and admiration, something that allows you to look down on the less driven, the less genetically capable, or mentally turned off to that kind of self-satisfied reward?

 

[Woofmeister]

You are not persuaded by Jesus but you want me to persuade you? Hehe, out of simple modesty and the fear of lightning bolts, I should probably turn down that offer.

But just for fun, let me ask you what it is about being a conservative you like. Is it, as I said, even without God in the picture, that you feel morally superior because you have been lucky and were unconsciously driven to make something of yourself you can trade for worldly acclaim and admiration, something that allows you to look down on the less driven, the less genetically capable, or mentally turned off to that kind of self-satisfied reward?

My being conservative has nothing to do with feeling superior to anyone. At bottom, my conservatism is rooted in a general preference for freedom of opportunity over equality of outcome. Real wealth is created by rewarding people who take genuine risks. Government action frequently distorts that process in favor of preferred groups that deliver either money (see, Goldman Sachs) or votes (see, Acorn) back to the people in government.

 

[Moonbeam]

Avvocato Effetti:

Moonbeam,

Your statement, “One reason is because, as a nation that is mostly Christian, we want to honor the work of Jesus and emulate his life.”

I know Jesus, do you? If we are to emulate him, should we also do what he says? ()

M: I was asked and already answered a question like this earlier. If you read the thread you would know that I am not a Christian. But one would expect a Christian nation to practice it, no?

A E: It is Written, “We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. --Thessalonians 3:9-11*(New International Version)

Here we have an authorized ambassador of Jesus commanding us to work or not eat!

M: I am not much on self appointed ambassadors of anybody, especially Christian ones as it usually means the death of millions of natives.

But of course I have no objection to work as long as work is also play and the expression of the love in ones heart. I am not much on the economic enslavement of the human race by starvation and homelessness if they don't take a 20 hour a day job turning gears to make flour for the king. As long as corporations are illegal and everybody has to work for himself to stay alive, there is no private property and plenty of hunting gathering and fishing, then everybody should, and of course for millions of yeard, did contribute to society, if differently as men women or children, then certainly, existentially essentially equally.

The arbeit macht frei mentality of the Western Christian world, however, is a sick thing, where the cunning use the stupid and unfortunate as cattle, urging them on with threats for moral inferiority, if they do not willingly go into slavery.

You live in a world that is mentally sick and have where the best at being sick are called winners.

A E: Certainly this statement does not nullify the requirement for charity, however.

M: I guess not. The bums will always be with us.

A E: Charity does not and can not flow properly from an impersonal government.

M: Scandinavians make you a liar.

A: E: It must flow from you and from me, as individuals.

That is the crux of the disagreement between Liberals and Conservatives.

M: Had you read the thread you would know that I do not accept assertions of posters who offer no proof of what they say. You are a bot program spouting what has been programmed into you. Just empty bull shit, sorry.

 

[Sclamoz]

I'd say anyone who thinks going to war is "awesome" raises the question not only whether they're closer to human or ape, but where they rank on the ape scale.

We are a type of ape you dipshit.

 

[Moonbeam]

My being conservative has nothing to do with feeling superior to anyone. At bottom, my conservatism is rooted in a general preference for freedom of opportunity over equality of outcome. Real wealth is created by rewarding people who take genuine risks. Government action frequently distorts that process in favor of preferred groups that deliver either money (see, Goldman Sachs) or votes (see, Acorn) back to the people in government.

Are you really that blind? Goldman Sachs has been a collection of the best and brightest risk takers the planet has ever seen. We have poured our most talented youth into banking. It's where risk and reward met to destroy the nation. Capitalism is a yeast infestation. It grows and consumes and collapses. It is like the release of neutrons in fissionable material.

In order to get anything good out of it you have to control the fission, you have to regulate and create artificial, intelligently designed rewards, put the risk out there in areas where the world population will benefit from the product, not be destroyed by it. The brightest kids should be channeled into the field of science and technology with the goal, cheap renewable energy and resource. Instead of competition we need cooperation. In stead of self gain, we need people who are gratified by saving the planet.

 

[Moonbeam]

We are a type of ape you dipshit.

Most people don't have the habit of saying are you closer to the human ape than the ape ape. It doesn't flow well in conversation.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Moonbeam,

Your statement, “where the cunning use the stupid and unfortunate as cattle,”

I submit that several people who fit your description are:

Barack Hussein Obama

Harry Reid

Nancy Pelosi

Oprah Winfrey

Keith Olbermann

Do agree that these people use the “stupid and unfortunate”?

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonbeam,

Your statement, “where the cunning use the stupid and unfortunate as cattle,”

I submit that several people who fit your description are:

Barack Hussein Obama

Harry Reid

Nancy Pelosi

Oprah Winfrey

Keith Olbermann

Do agree that these people use the “stupid and unfortunate”?

Submit whatever you like. My point was unrelated, in my opinion. I was speaking of folk who are automatically fucked by the system on account of who their parents are, what their genetic abilities are, and their personal talents and abilities. Can you see Jesus in a sweat shop sewing shirts to support his mother Mary?

The market is sick because it offers nothing for things essential to human life. How much is a loving mother worth. More than the sun and the moon and the stars, but she will get not one dime without wasting her life in grinding labor.

 

[lothar]

Liberals care for the poor?

Look at their donation rates!
They only care when they can reach into SOMEONE ELSEs wallets for their pet projects

Aren't liberals the biggest donors?
They have Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Hollywood.

Who are the big conservative donors?

 

[bamacre]

I think there are a handful of major problems with this thread. First and foremost, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are tossed around ignorantly too often. As someone who is very socially liberal and very fiscally conservative, I see a lot of misconceptions and half-truths in this thread. Also, the notion, especially within the OP, that fiscal conservatives are inherently "greedy" is preposterous. It assumes that only government can aid and assist people, which can easily be proven to be false.

 

[Craig234]

Aren't liberals the biggest donors?
They have Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Hollywood.

Who are the big conservative donors?

On average, Republicans give more to private charities and oppose taxes more than liiberals - though as I said before, I don't recall seeing th numbers adjusted for wealth.

 

[Craig234]

I think there are a handful of major problems with this thread. First and foremost, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are tossed around ignorantly too often. As someone who is very socially liberal and very fiscally conservative, I see a lot of misconceptions and half-truths in this thread. Also, the notion, especially within the OP, that fiscal conservatives are inherently "greedy" is preposterous. It assumes that only government can aid and assist people, which can easily be proven to be false.

You're misusing them as bad as anyone.

Socially liberal includes wanting to address social ills, especially such as anti=poverty efforts, typically supporting government programs to try to improve a variety of things - not just libertarian permissiveness.

IOf you say your social conscience has grown and you are all about the government helpingthe poor now with assistnace programs, I'll correct the statement.