The Difference Between The Liberal and Conservative "Debate" Over The War On Terrorism: Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a .357 Magnum and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do? Liberal Answer: Well that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that's inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion. Conservative Answer: Shoot him.
Oh, I don't know--I think the proper answer depends on the conservative. For many conservatives I've met, the appropriate answer is: Blow your own male member off while trying to draw the gun from your pants, thus saving the terrorist with the knife the bother of having to stab you.
The correct answer: By actually listening to the obsenities, I learn that he is unhappy with the tomato cutting ability of the knife and wants to return it at the Macy's behind me. I let him pass.
Many male conservatives don't have a member. That's a fact. Thus, the need for an overcompensating gun.
a slight correction, shoot him, then set off a bomb in his neighbourhood in order to kill the main guy behind the attack, doesnt matter if a hundred innocent people are killed. Oh and the evidence linking this main bad guy to the attack is very convincing and would not leave a shadow of a doubt in anyone (nevertheless no one may has the right to see this "incriminating" evidence) after that go to another neighborhood, and identify another bad guy as a threat to his family, and start making plans to blast off his neighborhood also (this bad guy lives in another state but thats irrelevant.) It is only because the poor dad could not find the main guy behind the first attack that he needs another bad guy. He has to do this to boost his image in front of his wife, as she was getting ready to file a divorce as his income kept getting smaller and smaller. this did not prevent him from "bailing" out some of his rich friends from some trouble they fell into. But the new bad guy has diverted the attention away from all that.
This is a pretty good example, because like most Americans, after filming an episode of Ozzie and Harriet, my family and I always take walks down deserted streets in the knife-wielding maniac section of town while packing heat. Anyway, no. The real difference between conservatives and others is that many conservatives actually believe that crimes such as this are typical and represent a significant portion of all crime in this this country. On the other hand, those who say they wouldn't shoot him say so because they know that crimes of this sort are around 0.00000001% of all crime in this country, and don't bother considering such ridiculous examples when it comes to policy debates. Out of curiosity Ian: A) In how many other situations do you make certain to have your hand on a 357 magnum and B) What would you do if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered?
Yes you're right, because in 2000, relative to the net cost of our military - 397.3 billion dollars - we spent so damn much on education, training, employment, and social services... How much? an underwhelming 53.3 billion... http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cach...+social+programs+cost+billions&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 WAKE THE FUCK UP!
From where you stand, you have no idea how galactically stupid that statement is... I'm calling to task your shoot-a-bum solution in the light of the fact that we spend no money on our "bums," particularly relative to the $$$ we spend on killing platforms... Like I've said here before, I've taken an oath and stood a post in this nation's military; I saw first-hand how we don't need to spend that much money...
Well I'm glad you enjoyed living near the poverty level while putting you life at risk. That makes one of us. But don't you dare lecture me about what we sacrifice as military members to guarentee the protection and safety of this great nation. I, for one, am glad that someone of your ilk no longer serves. Good ridance. And when the bums are ready to help themselves, then the government is there to more than help them. I'm sure they didn't get to their miserable state by busting their asses working.
The only one who needs to wake up is someone who would compare the costs of apples (military) to oranges (social services/education).
Of course, you are excluding social security and medicare as well as state spending. It's not an either or situation. We have the means to increase social spending without harming the military. Some spending, like for national health insurance, would save money in the long run. What we can't do is keep giving tax breaks for the top .5% and make necessary social investments. It's not guns or butter. It's yachts or butter.
Boy! LOL that is mike sogreasy funny. btw, having to watch the Open Cup on tape delay because FSWe showed the world series game 5 instead really sucks.