Conservatives are the true "liberals"

Funny you claim its butchering children, yet we are able to carpet bomb and use napalm on children or how about this child?
I'll let you look at it then reposnd before I post what happened to this poor kid and why.
GRAPHIC
free.freespeech.org...
Yet another hurt and familyless child after our "precision" strikes...
www.nomorebush.premiumfinder.com...

Originally posted by devilwasp
Funny you claim its butchering children, yet we are able to carpet bomb and use napalm on children or how about this child?
I'll let you look at it then reposnd before I post what happened to this poor kid and why.
GRAPHIC
free.freespeech.org...
Yet another hurt and familyless child after our "precision" strikes...
www.nomorebush.premiumfinder.com...

Yep, war sure is violent. I guess that means we should never have any war, right?

Originally posted by Herman
Yep, war sure is violent. I guess that means we should never have any war, right?

Violent is a bit of an understatement, how about sickning?
Yes we shouldnt have wars but then again humans are naturally evil.

Well Herman would be thinking differently if the fighter jets with napalm and tanks came rolling into his town blowing up houses and melting children.

But out comes good ole bible thumpin' conservative Herman running for his life, heh toting his shotgun.

The reality is that right-wing conservatives are the ones who want more control of peoples lives, they want to control what religion you should believe in, whether you have the right to marry or not based on your sexual preference, whether a woman can sell her body for money, whether she can have an abortion or not.

The entire war motive was profit, too bad nobody takes these scumbags out and have them shot infront of the international community. It's too bad that the scumbags who lead the international community also have there filthy hands in someone elses pockets.... wealth gain at the deaths of others. I wouldn't shed a tear of these warmongers were taken out tommorow.

"liberals" believe in giving the free right to these things, conservatives want to control. They are very selective on "freedom", for example they want to have full freedom over there money, but deny other things like martial freedom.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Herman
Yep, war sure is violent. I guess that means we should never have any war, right?

Violent is a bit of an understatement, how about sickning?
Yes we shouldnt have wars but then again humans are naturally evil.

That is why the individuals who spread evil need to be taken out.

Most average folks are peaceful people, the trouble makers are those with much cash who decide to use it for political gain and war.


[edit on 16-3-2005 by RedOctober90]

Originally posted by RedOctober90
Well Herman would be thinking differently if the fighter jets with napalm and tanks came rolling into his town blowing up houses and melting children.

But out comes good ole bible thumpin' conservative Herman running for his life, heh toting his shotgun.

Wow, that was nice. I love the bible thumpin' shotgun totin' part. The fact that I don't even own a gun (don't even like hunting for that matter) makes you look really smart.

So basically, what you're saying is that since war has civilian casualties, it shouldn't happen? It's sad, yes. I really do feel sad everytime I hear or see something like that. But what about if Saddam were still in power? It would be much much worse, happen more often, and be on PURPOSE. We don't just "roll into town bombing homes and melting children." Those civilians killed in action are killed by accident. When we bomb buildings, it's strategic. Generally, if we injure civilians, we do all we can to make sure they're alright. Taking them to the hospital, applying medical aid, etc. (Or at least that's what we're supposed to do. Don't hold me accountable if there is some sick person who actually likes to hurt civilians.). It happens, and a lot of the times, the soldiers who injure these civilians are punished. Remember that trial where the marine shot the terrorist because the terrorist was reaching for his gun? People died in the revolutionary war, should it never have happened? People died in the civil war, should IT never have happened? I guess the slaves...didn't want to be freed? After all, I'm sure there were deaths when their 'owners' realized they're going to have to let them off.

[edit on 16-3-2005 by Herman]

Originally posted by RedOctober90
The entire war motive was profit, too bad nobody takes these scumbags out and have them shot infront of the international community. It's too bad that the scumbags who lead the international community also have there filthy hands in someone elses pockets.... wealth gain at the deaths of others. I wouldn't shed a tear of these warmongers were taken out tommorow.

Wow, and you call us evil and violent...

"liberals" believe in giving the free right to these things, conservatives want to control. They are very selective on "freedom", for example they want to have full freedom over there money, but deny other things like martial freedom.

The same can easily be said about liberals. You supposedly want everybody to be free, yet you feel that we should be forced to give our money to the government, people who are poorer than we are, or just about anyone! Now I'm not going to go around saying that conservatives want complete freedom, and liberals want us to be controlled, but I think what you said is biased and unfair. There are liberals that want to deny freedom, just as there are conservatives who want to deny freedom.

The purpose of taking Saddam out was to install the usual elitest ran corporate government which pretends to be democratic. Typically all you have in an elitest ran corporate government is one CEO posing as a republican another CEO as a democrat... there is no difference between the two candidates because they are both working to maximize personal profit and to promote elitest policies.

It's like Cuba, the only reason why Cuba is the way it is because it has been engineeed by such by the United States. It takes away trade and blames poverty on a nonexistant "communism" I am sure all these idiots with PHDS in government should realize that communism never existed in any country really... all that was called "communism" was a state capitalist dictatorship.

Iraq is under a phase of artifically engineered government, with the same crooks who run the USA running Iraq. These elitests will stop at nothing untill every country has been created in it's form, Russia is a good example.

You must sift through the elite garbage propaganda and to see what these bastards are planning.

Like I said, I wouldn't care of certain elitests ( you know who they are) were found hanging from a tree tommorow would not bother me, I might even laugh.

This is why the entire liberal VS conservative debate is worthless and a waste of time, of course most people have been sucked into it.

Some people are conservative in some ways, liberal in others, how can one be 100% conservative? Or 100% liberal? This is childish...

I hate to use these labels but...

The difference between the conservatives and liberals is that the liberals would like to see money given for peaceful purposes while the conservative republicans are for WAR WAR WAR BOMB BOMB BOMB and constant spending on nationalist policies.

Putting the mob ran democracy in Iraq just makes it easier for the scum sucking bastards in the US government to toy with the nation.

Yes, these people in government are scum sucking bastards, they deserve to be called this and worse.

Originally posted by Herman

Originally posted by RedOctober90
The entire war motive was profit, too bad nobody takes these scumbags out and have them shot infront of the international community. It's too bad that the scumbags who lead the international community also have there filthy hands in someone elses pockets.... wealth gain at the deaths of others. I wouldn't shed a tear of these warmongers were taken out tommorow.

Wow, and you call us evil and violent...

"liberals" believe in giving the free right to these things, conservatives want to control. They are very selective on "freedom", for example they want to have full freedom over there money, but deny other things like martial freedom.

The same can easily be said about liberals. You supposedly want everybody to be free, yet you feel that we should be forced to give our money to the government, people who are poorer than we are, or just about anyone! Now I'm not going to go around saying that conservatives want complete freedom, and liberals want us to be controlled, but I think what you said is biased and unfair. There are liberals that want to deny freedom, just as there are conservatives who want to deny freedom.

[edit on 17-3-2005 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 17-3-2005 by RedOctober90]

When you have any form of government, your not going to have total freedom. I don't give a damn what these conservatives preach, they should realize no government can bring you the type of freedom you desire.

That is called anarchy.

Originally posted by RedOctober90
The purpose of taking Saddam out was to install the usual elitest ran corporate government which pretends to be democratic. Typically all you have in an elitest ran corporate government is one CEO posing as a republican another CEO as a democrat... there is no difference between the two candidates because they are both working to maximize personal profit and to promote elitest policies.

Do you have any proof of this? Where did you gain this 'knowlege'? I'd like to hear.

Originally posted by RedOctober90
This is why the entire liberal VS conservative debate is worthless and a waste of time, of course most people have been sucked into it.

Some people are conservative in some ways, liberal in others, how can one be 100% conservative? Or 100% liberal? This is childish...

Hey, you're actually starting to sound pretty reasonable here. I've said this a lot before myself!

But then.....aww man

You go and say something like this:

The difference between the conservatives and liberals is that the liberals would like to see money given for peaceful purposes while the conservative republicans are for WAR WAR WAR BOMB BOMB BOMB and constant spending on nationalist policies.

Your two points completely contradict one another. Just because you said "Hate to use labels here", doesn't make it ok. I don't agree with you here.

Originally posted by Herman

Originally posted by RedOctober90
The purpose of taking Saddam out was to install the usual elitest ran corporate government which pretends to be democratic. Typically all you have in an elitest ran corporate government is one CEO posing as a republican another CEO as a democrat... there is no difference between the two candidates because they are both working to maximize personal profit and to promote elitest policies.

Do you have any proof of this? Where did you gain this 'knowlege'? I'd like to hear.

It's the most likely scenario, it is more likely than some billionaire CEO who happens to be big in the oil industry deciding he is going to "liberate" Iraq. There HAS to be a more hidden motive here, you think your cowboy president is doing this out of his heart? Lmao.

Out of the many countries which could be "liberated" He picks Iraq, which happens to have had no standing military and was on one of the biggest oil stockpile reserves in the world. Hmmmm.


A president who insisted Iraq had all sorts of chemical stockpiles which "happened to disapear" and blamed it all on his intelligence advisors who are smarter than he is. He even insisted Iraq had UAVS... !!!! LOL.

You want a war? I think you should of gone fought it rather than someone else. It's like those idiot right-wingers that call for revolution and civil war but expect someone else to do it for them.

No kidding all the world leaders have their filthy hands up someones arse, one year they are all angry at Bush, another year it's all find and dandy. He must of paid them off pretty good with the bloodstained cash and economic deals.

The only people who know whats going on is the innocent people being butchered and tortured. I wouldn't mind seeing some of those leaders butchered and tortured myself....

Originally posted by Herman

Originally posted by RedOctober90
This is why the entire liberal VS conservative debate is worthless and a waste of time, of course most people have been sucked into it.

Some people are conservative in some ways, liberal in others, how can one be 100% conservative? Or 100% liberal? This is childish...

Hey, you're actually starting to sound pretty reasonable here. I've said this a lot before myself!

But then.....aww man

You go and say something like this:

The difference between the conservatives and liberals is that the liberals would like to see money given for peaceful purposes while the conservative republicans are for WAR WAR WAR BOMB BOMB BOMB and constant spending on nationalist policies.

Your two points completely contradict one another. Just because you said "Hate to use labels here", doesn't make it ok. I don't agree with you here.

I'm trying to explain these concepts using labels and terms that a member of mainstream politics such as yourself would understand.

The types of idiotic terms like "conservative" and "liberal" or "blue state" and "red state"

Unlike many of the users who are simply drama queens, I like to talk the reality and I am not afraid to be insulted or put down because of my willingness to speak the truths.


[edit on 17-3-2005 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 17-3-2005 by RedOctober90]