Why is it when liberals and Democrats hear the words: "God, Jesus, pledge of allegiance, boy scout, Christian, Jew, or USA" they declare war but when they hear: "suicide bomber, Jihad, Arab, infidels, Taliban, Hezbollah, Muslim terrorists," they break out the peace signs?
2007-07-20 02:42:26 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The general ethos of the Leftist mind necessitates that you must resist restraining conservative impulses. Logic and reason are restraining impulses. Since modern liberalism is primarily a state of unrestrained emotional turbulence, the liberal must find reasons for excusing his most base emotional instincts and instead embrace the “liberation” that comes from not being able to summon reason to control impulses. Many consequently fall prey to the tempting natural impulse of letting emotion override logic and reason. The liberal creed dictates that feelings are more important than anything and that they shall hold court over reason.
2007-07-20 02:48:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
I think the cons still think their godly. Tell me what part of the GOSPELS you all follow. The part about killing everything you don't understand and fear , or the part about leaving the poor and downtrodden to waste away, or the part about hating everything because you feel your better. A liberal life is closer to JESUS than a cons life. And the askerof this question shows what I've been saying for a long time cons are undereducated and thus can't understand.
2007-07-20 03:02:48 · answer #2 · answered by David R 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
strictly based on the type you asked that question, you sound like a racist bigot... And from my information its been greater often than not the conservatives who look to oppose the way human beings communicate, different than for helping racist feedback... even although that's obvious to me that the controversy between liberals and conservatives, or are basically 2 factors of an identical coin to distract human beings from whats incredibly occurring... as an occasion the patriot act (that's what fairly takes away american unfastened speech using fact its definition of a terrorist is so primary that it might want for use to describe each and every guy or woman - examine it) replace into first handed by George w. bush (republican) and then replace into those days reauthorized by Barrack Obama (democrat) with just about no re-provisions.... SO each and every guy or woman who's the two totally staggering winged or left winged is obviously ignorant or so blinded that they won't be able to decipher reality from lies even while its staggering in front of their eyes... you unquestionably job my memory of a pal of mine, who isn't a real racist yet is racially biased... for my section you're finding in the incorrect place to your solutions... Race isn't something yet an phantasm. and there are lots of greater severe concerns to hand... such using fact the particularly probably journey of fireplace palms being banned from non military voters making it achieveable for usa to be ran by martial regulation... "the whole ingredient on the subject of the 2d replace is that it will not be mandatory until eventually they attempt to take it." Thomas Jefferson "The maximum useful clarification for the individuals to preserve the staggering to maintain and submit to palms is, as a final hotel, to guard themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson...
2016-10-22 03:54:49 · answer #3 · answered by ramswaroop 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most government officials and military officers must swear an oath to support and defend our constitution from ALL enemies, both DOMESTIC and foreign.
Cons seem to be forgetful about the domestic enemies, such as those trying to discriminate based on religion in this country and in fact aid and abet those enemies.
Liberals proudly defend against BOTH types of enemies.
2007-07-20 03:43:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are very confused in your logic. Now ask yourself. What was Gods greatest commandment for all of mankind to follow?
Hint, it's in the Bible. It's very clear to me and I am a Democrat.
Invade my country, the country I love and will protect the USA with my life. You will not see any peace signs.
2007-07-20 02:51:23 · answer #5 · answered by jack09 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. A liberal society is characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, up holding the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy, free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.
Now compare the libs ideology with Bush and Cheneys idea of how it should be.
A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and oppose the Iraq war.
"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."
The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to "blocking property" of US citizens and nationals. It targets those "Certain Persons" in America who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability" program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.
The Executive Order also targets those "Certain Persons" who are "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction", or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq's oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants.
These sons of bitcdhes are making it up as they go, and Americans dont give a stuff!!! The law doesnt apply to them because theyre inventing the laws to suit themselves!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.
2007-07-20 09:42:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorry if that's the way you see it, in the home that you're living in, but in the real America things are quite different.
My family members have been Democrats for 5 generations because we are of the working class, and how dare you suggest that my grandmother was not a Christian!!!
You ought to be ashamed of yourself!
It's the republicans who steal the food out of little baby's mouths in order to hoard it somewhere, until it rots.
.
2007-07-20 02:51:01 · answer #7 · answered by Brotherhood 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Geezus another 12 year old asking questions in here, shame youre backing the warmongers kid, but when you grow up youll learn the hard way.
2007-07-20 11:22:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Two sets of invalid assumptions. But since you're only trying to bash the other side, don't reality stop you.
Liberals oppose anyone who breaks the law -- whether in the name of religion or terrorism. And whether in the name of committing crimes or if the govt breaks the law prosecuting those accused of crimes.
They don't make exceptions and say it's OK for the govt to break the law if the people the govt is prosecuting are accused of really bad things. To them, the law is the law, and it applies to everyone.
2007-07-20 02:47:10 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Extremism is extremism.
Too far Left. Too far Right.
Best to stay in the middle of the pack where life is safe.
2007-07-20 02:54:44 · answer #10 · answered by gary L 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋