would a neo-lib demoncrat save first? (My money is on the monkey, but the terrorist is up there too.)
2007-01-16 01:51:49 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
None. The Lib would spend too much time blaming society, the republicans, and setting up a government agency to prevent things like this and a fund to pay their families rediculous amounts of money for them drowning.
The Conservative would tell the immigrant to swim back to his shore, jump in after the mother (carrying the unborn child), use a branch to save the monkey, and put his foot on the terrorist's head!
2007-01-16 02:02:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Since I am a Neo Lib democrat, thank God there are still a few of us out there, the unborn child is well unborn, not a person so why save it, it would probly just be put on welfare and drain the economy even more, so that one drowns. Next the immigrant, america has to many immigrants legal or illegal, I would definently let them drown and push there family members in with them. The last two are difficult to decide because it depends on who the terrorist is and what his motive is. We are all a terrorist to someone else. If we are talking about 9/11 terrorists that were actually involved in killing real americans than hell yeah let him drown, so that leaves us with the endangered monkey. He might hold the cure for some disease and by letting him drown, millions of people could die. Thank you.
2007-01-16 01:59:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The unborn child would be real hard to save if was inside a 300lb woman. The terrorist would`nt let you save him because they like a bit of martyrdom, and the monkey would probably scratch your f*cking eye`s out. The immigrant would probably not speak english, so i would`nt be able to understand his needs and he`d be dead before i could translate. My answer is the unborn child with the correct lifting equipment.
2007-01-16 01:58:14 · answer #3 · answered by dingdong 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1) the unborn child could be the antichrist. let it die.
2) the terrorist is probably a fundamentalist instead of a liberal. let him sink, too.
3) monkeys know how to swim.
so, we'll keep the immigrant. he might be so grateful that he'll do my yardwork in return.
2007-01-16 02:00:21 · answer #4 · answered by evoleye 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the monkey because the unborn child can't drown as they live in water into they are born. so yeah a dem i have to go with the monkey
2007-01-16 01:59:01 · answer #5 · answered by mrs. smutty aka sodachix 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They would have to send it to vote in the Senate first. Once the decision came down as to who the congress wants to save, then the liberals would know who to support. Individually, they won't be able to make the decision without knowing what all the other libs think.
After all, each entity has the right to choose whether to live or to die.
2007-01-16 02:00:41 · answer #6 · answered by Culture Warrior 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the neo-lib.
Most would save the terrorists, because it is his "right" to blow up Americans, and we should not stop him from doing so.
However, the tree-huggers would save the monkey, because they hate all humans. They would probably go out of their way to make sure the humans drowned.
2007-01-16 01:54:50 · answer #7 · answered by I STILL hate hippies 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Definitely the monkey.
2007-01-16 02:02:39 · answer #8 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The terrorist.
2007-01-16 01:55:42 · answer #9 · answered by Lily VonSchtupp 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
silly person.. only a cold hearted neocon would have to ask that question.. who wouldn't save a pregnant woman first?
2007-01-16 01:59:15 · answer #10 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋