Anyone that defines shit in broad strokes annoys the dick out of me.

I'm a moderate.

I see Ron Paul as a typical conservative.

But maybe that's because I'm in the minority that actually knows what "conservative" means. I realize you what you asked about is probably the typical republicunt.

I think all liberatives BLAHBNLAHBDFFFFWHOCARES

>>2415074
I can't tell if this post is intended to be fabulously witty or if the poster is just exceedingly ignorant.

I think of my side as the one that can admit wrongdoing and tries to be reasonable to the other side, which never doubts its own beliefs and freely vilifies my own.

>>2415102
Your post is the ignorant one. I'm not the post you quoted, btw. People define liberal and conservative, generally speaking, with no real knowledge of the history of the ideology behind it. Hence liberals calling conservatives fascists and conservatives calling liberals communists. Hence the rampant, meaningless stereotypes like liberals are socialists - ignoring the fact that liberals have always been capitalists. How some random twit on /r9k/ perceives things means nothing. It's just, as the other gentleman said, broad strokes. Few of you are qualified to comment otherwise.

>>2415110
so, you're neither liberal or conservative?

>>2415127
>>2415127
Fuck any faggots that generalize anyone by a label, especially in politics. Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you

It's funny that the rest of the world has a political compass of right and left, while you guys have right and even more right.

>>2415127

This is wrong.

Being conservative means, literally, to want to keep things the same, so technically conservatives can rightfully be called fascists if the governmental system is working towards that. Liberals mean they are liberal with their moral set and work towards overall change. So a liberal can ALSO be a fascist if the government they are currently under is not.

And Liberals have not, under any circumstances, always been capitalists. Being always anything goes against the definition of the type.

I see conservatives as mean-spirited ideologues who celebrate ignorance.

See: Sarah Palin's approval ratings amongst republicans vs approval rating amongst independents and democrats.

Conservatism is ideologically bankrupt in America, their last great huzzah of "deregulation" got us into this financial crisis, and as a result America has shifted into a center-left nation.

>>2415783
No. Conservatives are concerned about the social fabric, but they are not fascists. Should they become such, then they would no longer be conservatives. Similarly, the history of liberal thought has been based AROUND the importance of private property, e.g. Locke. To say they are socialist makes no sense. Were they to be socialist, they would no longer be liberals.

Typical liberal = upper-middle class, painfully lacking in general knowledge but very good in a specialized field, drinks starbucks, shops at the GAP. Has a Mac. Wears those 'live strong' type bracelets as a fashion statement rather than a political/cause oriented thing.

OR

typical liberal = any minority

>>2415783

Simplify much? Being conservative if the government was moving towards fascism would mean wanting to remain as things were before - before fascism.

And liberals have most definitely always been capitalists. Look at Locke's treatise on private property.

I'm not a fucking retard who sees everything in either blue or red, as I have my own thoughts and opinions on issues.

>>2415793

You're thinking the very narrow view that party ideas are rigid. Look at Canada, they have both a liberal and conservative party but the values they stood for have actually shifted completely to opposite ends of the spectrum.

Being liberal or conservative is the concept behind it, hence why they are called liberal (able to change) and conservative (keeping whats already there).

>>2415808
Liberalism and conservatism are not party stances. They are political ideologies. The failure of one nation's party to fully take in traditional elements of the ideology, or to change them, does not mean anything relative to the ideology itself. Just like Labour in the UK can call itself "Labour" and barely represent it meaningfully. That's irrelevant.

>>2415798

How do you explain liberal sentiments in cultures before Locke and capitalism then?

>>2415808

But if conservatism is about keeping what's already there, then how could an opposition party ever be conservative? They would surely want to keep things the same, i.e. the ruling party would have to stay the same.

>>2415820
Social contract, e.g. Hobbes. Also, primitive (by our standards) concepts of liberal rights.

I'm a conservative (by the general American view, fuck off you definition whores) and I see most liberals as being naive fools who don't realize the path their party leaders are taking will fuck up the country.

I'm a liberal, here's my conservative stereotype, skipping religious nutjobs etc.:

Conservatives think rich, affluent people reached their social position due mostly to their own actions, and only slightly due to environmental factors beyond their control.

(Actually, they don't all believe this directly, but the majority of their policymaking supports this belief).

>>2415821

I think what we're confusing is Conservative with conservative. Similar to being something in name only.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

Definition of being liberal. No where is being capitalist mentioned. The basics of it state that a liberal is one for political and social reform, or the loosening of rules. Conversely a conservative would be someone who wants to keep the rules the way they are (or tighten them in some cases to prevent them slipping).

I guess by saying "keep the way they are" I was being too general. My bad.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative

>>2415838
Yeah, because 8 years of the conservative path has done so well. I love how you push away from defining yourself as a conservative, and then thrust a completely unrealistic label on liberals. What's the weather like in your world?

Liberals are the kind of people who put Robert Mugabe in power. And they don't have any remorse over it.

>>2415849
This is a good point. Liberalism and conservatism, theoretically, operate outside of economic modalities. So one could be a capitalistic or socialistic liberal or conservative. My only point was that Locke, who is arguably the most important liberal philosopher, was quite adamant about the place of private property and, by extension, capitalism, within liberal rights.

>>2415855

Social and racial conservatives put Hitler in power. Try again man.

Typical liberal.
Generally well to do with a college education, but still very dense. Does not know the actual policies of its leaders, but will dogmatically support them against all logical argument. Petty, small people who don't actually take the time to think up opinions for themselves, taking them from whatever talking head the media has seen fit to indoctinate them with that day. Should you try to explain why they are wrong, all you get is "you just don't get it, man". Makes me sick....

>>2415850
Well the OP asked our ideas on the other side, not ourselves.

I'm a white male 21 year old suburban American in college. I don't spend much money, I don't hate people. I understand that our financial policies tend to suck ass, but my key issues are foreign policy and gun control. Conservative policies have always been to relax gun control laws and restrict foreign aid and such. That's why I identify as conservative.

The weather has been pretty shitty. Cold with some hail, but it all melts fast so it's like walking in a swamp.

>>2415875
Your primary foreign policy concern is foreign aid? Why? It's barely gone up or down from a liberal to conservative administration. It's gone way up under Bush. Don't you think non-proliferation regimes or intelligence reform might be more important issues?

>>2415859

Economics is important in looking at both of them mostly because money makes the world go round. But they aren't the main motivators behind individual philosophies.

Similarly, the description of liberal and conservative kind of exists on a line with moderate in the center. But I'm not talking about specific parties here, just the philosophy behind them. Socialists would be, traditionally, very liberal, unless for some reason those rules became the majority.

As well, I wonder how many people know that Nazi Germany was a capitalist, Christian country ruled by a religious conservative government?

Conservatives and liberals represent a fundamental schism in ways of conceptualising life, reality, whatever.

Conversatives split real people, including themselves, into good and evil parts. Anthing they identify as evil they say belongs exclusively to other people. Anything that is good belongs to them. Thus someone shoplifting socks from Walmart is evil and deserves several years in prison. Someone torturing an Arab is American and thus part of them and thus good.

Liberals are too aware of their own shortcomings to persecute others too much over their shortcomings. Liberals know they are good and evil rolled into one sad mess. They find it hard to act at all against criminals unless the bad guys are so bad their very gaze withers flowers.

So the guy who steals ten thousand dollars gets a slap on the wrist from a liberal and life from a conservative.

>>2415060
>Christian American
>material worth

This is the main problem with this country. One of them needs to go.

>>2415865
Nazis were left-wing socialists.

>>2415914
THIS IS WHAT CONSERVATIVES REALLY BELIEVE.

>>2415884
Foreign aid AND SUCH. I also disapprove of keeping American soldiers in countries like Germany, Japan, Russia, and generally all over the fucking world. You see terrorists complaining that we're policing the world, and we pretty much are. Why the hell do we need military bases in Germany? They're not gonna pull another holocaust, and it costs us money.

I think that when we go to war like we did in Iraq, we shouldn't go in half-assed. We should've fought the war like it was a war, and not a police action. If we had sent in more soldiers and equipment, then we would've been able to consolidate our our hold and reduce insurgent activity.

I disagree with foreign aid because the nations that get it are usually corrupt as hell, and the leaders just steal the aid and use it for themselves while the people starve.

>>2415924
"And such" is a bit vague, you can hardly blame me for asking. I agree with most of your post, although foreign aid has its uses. Beyond humanitarianism, it also benefits populations that may otherwise become so entrenched in poverty as to succumb to radicalization. ALL nations do not just take our aid and do with it whatever they wish, although more do than we'd like.

>>2415922
No it's what sad retards on the internet believe. Damn kids are stupid these days. Now let me guess.... You wan't to tax away more of my money to pay for a program to fix that????

>>2415914

They were a National Socialist party, hence Nazi. But that doesn't make them left-wing. Their values were entirely right-wing Christian. And Germany as a country retained its Capitalist values after the Nazi's were brought in, thus discounting the theory that they were really socialist at all.

>>2415960
That "program" would be education. So yeah, that'd be nice.

>>2415947
There's an island in the Pacific, it begins with an M I think. It's an American territory, and we send aid money to them every year because they are at the grass-hut level economy. We send them blankets, food and other materials. The result?

Their economy has completely collapsed. Why buy things made there when you can get them for free from the big country over there? They have no employment, no industry, and our solution is to keep sending more aid.

Kind of a vicious cycle. I wish I could remember the name of the island. My public policy class had us do research on it.

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.

>>2415993
Bolshevism and Christianity? I thought Communism was by nature atheistic...

>>2415924
Actually, we keep our soliders all over the world so we have quick strike capabilities against our enemies, not so we can police our host nations. You youngsters may not recall what it was like living with the Soviets, but it was pretty damn scary knowing you could go to war with them at any second. NOBODY, conservative or liberal, thought it was a bad idea to keep troops in Germany, least of all the ther Germans. And yes, I know that things have changed, but things could change right back too, and it would be better to be prepared and not need it than to get smashed because we let our guards down.

>>2415993

Hmmm... But wasn't the Nazi flag a mix between a Hindu symbol and a hooked cross?

If the Nazi's were atheist color me confused. Germany was a Christian country, and the center of Protestantism and the Holy Roman Empire, and can't see an atheist government taking over any more then I can see it happen in Italy.

>>2416042
No, they weren't. The SS had a lot of neopagans, but most of the Nazis were enthusiastically Christian, including Hitler. They worked quite well with the Catholic Church until Hitler decided they'd be a threat to his control of the populace.

>>2416042
The Nazi's persecuted most churches to one degree or another. They wanted to set up a state religion based around germanic mythology/odinism.

>>2416056

That's what I thought, but the seemingly legit quote threw me off. Though really it wouldn't surprise me if Hitler was atheist while everyone else was Christian.

Liberals are people who take thriving countries and destroy them. It takes liberals to turn "The Breadbasket of Africa" into a country where millions of people are starving and need food aid to survive. Liberals think that inflation in the trillions of percentages is a small price to pay for being able to ethnically cleanse your country of white people.

>>2416082
You're looking in "Liberal Foreign Policy."

You need to go to the "European Colonization" section.

>>2416082
Conservatives are people who take struggling countries and rebuild them. It takes conservatives to turn The Weimar Republic into an economic and military superpower. Conservatives think that getting rid of Jewish bankers is a small price to pay for being able to have a stable currency which is not undergoing hyperinflation.

>>2416114

I lol'd.

Seriously though. I'm a moderate, I feel both Conservatives and Liberals are people too stuck in their ways to view things properly. Every situation should be looked over prudently and judged to the best of your ability. And don't spend a million years doing it.

>>2416082
>>2416120

TL;DR: Liberals destroy. Conservatives create.

>>2416132

Both are extremes that kill people.

>>2416082

Actually I think European Imperialism and the political instability they left in their wake have more to do with the problems in Africa but what the fuck do I know?

Typical conservative doesn't understand hardship and is unable to think outside of their own situation. They may have had rough patches here and there, but for the most part their lives have been very comfortable. Are hardworking and resentful of those those they perceive has being lazy. They feel everyone is trying to steal from them or is too stupid to figure out how to do for themselves. The world seems to be changing and they're not really sure why as everything was already swell to them. Every problem is simple and has a simple solution and you're an idiot if you make it into more than what it is.

Less affluent conservatives are uneducated and proud of it. Being unemployed and sitting on the front porch drinking beer bought with their girlfriend's welfare check while complaining about "the fucking gov'ment" stealing their money and the various minorities stealing their jobs.

Both groups believe everything Rush Limbaugh says.

The third and smallest group are the rich fuckers who know exactly what's going on as they are the architects of it.

I'm conservative. I am a gun toting semi-redneck who thinks that dirty foreigners should keep their tribal fuedal bullshit in their country and not bring it to mine. I am Canadian.

Being from western Canada I do hate the liberals for their past fuck ups. It seems every liberal govenment we get here tries to fuck over the west. I live in Alberta the only debt free Province because of our oil. Everytime a liberal party gets in, they fuck over our province and try to use the money to do shit in the east.

This and many other things has led to the coalition in the east. The liberals and the democrats. All because of this french faggot named Dion, our country might be divided into two. Luckily Dion stepped down. Hopefully the next liberal leader won't want to join the coalition. However, in January they want to do a re-vote because now the coalition has a majority. Which would mean my vote for Harper and the conservatives in October meant shit.

Thanks you liberal assholes. Just remember who has the oil and the guns when you decide to split this country in two.

Typical economic conservative: My girlfriend, and other people who think that the government is too incompetent to help people more than private enterprise can.
Typical social conservative: Christfag, Islamofascist, or other form of xenophobic douchebag.

>>2416146

I don't think you know what "extreme" means.

When I think of a liberal I think of a WASP who has given up on religion because they saw Zeitgeist on YouTube last week. Their parents are UAW workers with a boat and a cottage in Muskoka, but they act like times are so tough because they have credit card debt from buying a third car with VISA, and as a result they can't buy a new 42" HDTV. They then turn to their television and forums for answers, and Lou Dobbs and MySpace tell them that it's all Bush's fault, so they complain and complain and argue against every foundation that the United States was built on. Not only that, but they adopt similar stances on abortion and vegetarianism because of what they hear from the same people, and so they go out to Urban Outfitters and buy the latest bohemian fashions, then parade around their community college telling others that their way of thinking is the only correct one. They're also in psychology, teaching, kinesiology, or any other generic, easy, useless program at said school, which their fathers' union got them a scholarship for.

>>2416174
>but what the fuck do I know?

Practically nothing, apparently.

Rhodesia was doing just fine as an independent state, until liberals worldwide rallied together to destroy it.

>>2416179
blame the re-vote on petty shit that Harper and the conservatives did while ruling with a minority government. Namely, trying to take away public financing from everyone which asymmetrically hurts the other parties far more than the conservatives.

I'm not really a typical liberal or conservative. Not a libertarian either, but probably closest to that. Making every issue about one political idea is generally shitty, so this goes out to both conservatives and liberals.

Both sides tend to blame the other side no matter what happens, and forcing every issue to be a yes or no question, and showing that their side obviously has the right answer.

Liberals: In general they care too much about everyone's problems. People are always going to have problems, and you can't cure pain. You can make the world a better place, sure. But heaven on Earth, never. As with conservatives, a lot of their solutions don't really seem like they cure the problem, and if they're told that it's not working they won't change and admit defeat. Obama's hope-nosis is pretty typical behavior, and people hopefully won't be too let down.

Conservatives: Everything is a culture war, and the suburban white family must be protected at all costs. This pisses me off to no end, because instead of talking about the trillions of dollars in debt that the entire fucking government is in, they'd rather talk about homos getting married, or babies being killed, or how they can't buy automatic rifles anymore. 99% of the time I don't give a shit about their cultural issues and they refuse to talk about anything else.

Both sides are definitely guilty of trying to police the world and be morally superior, because for some reason 'MERICA is just the best place ever and we want everyone to be like us, despite several studies showing otherwise.

Liberals think that farmland should be equally distributed among the population. For no apparent reason.

Conservatives think that farmland should be left in the hands of the farmers who own it. They can easily produce more than enough food to feed everyone, and time not spent struggling to subsist off the land can be better spent getting an education or starting a business.

Retarded Americans, please use the term Liberal properly. Just because you are so retarded that you have guys even more right-wing than liberals, doesn't mean you can name the left-wing around the world LIBRUL GHURR DURR

>>2416605
I've lost the ability to differentiate between trolling and genuine clinical retardation. I mean, can someone THIS stupid really be able to use a keyboard to type that? I find that hard to believe...

A lot of liberals have no idea about reality, and shout about a lot of humanitarian stuff without actually offering advice/plans on how to go about it.

A lot of conservatives are too damn selfish/close-minded, acting almost entirely out of their own interests and rarely out of others, even when filling others interests will eventually fill their own.

I'm a moderate.

>>2416647
What is retarded about it?

>>2416689

This is why you fail.

m000tblox

Depends. I'm very liberal and I know a lot of conservatives just want small government and less spending and I can respect it because I want a smaller government as well, but want more social spending at the same time.
The more vocal conservatives though I have a clear picture. They, and this is in my experience, have little knowledge of the political system. They do not want to know more of the system and they vote as a way to enforce their morality. Economics is a secondary issue. In essence they are the worst kind of voters in existence.

I have no problem with a conservative who votes on the basis of wanting a small government and what he sees as more responsible spending, we have differing views, and they can usually defend their case logically. They do not tend to be ignorant buttfucks who just vote on the basis that they have a right. The ignorant moral-fags are just as bad for the system as those who do stay home and not vote on the basis that the system is shit and will not change with their vote (w00t, self-fulfilling prophecy). There's enough of these fags and if they did vote they actually would probably be an important voting block.

conservative: Haughty, unthinking sheep who say only the opposite of what liberals say. Cunt-rich executives or obnoxious college students who act like they're better than everyone for thinking some old guy is the shit. Either worship rush limblol, or say they don't for credibility's sake and secretly do. Thinks liberals are little kids and lazy poor people

liberals: Sheep or obnoxious stuck-up motherfuckers. Often intolerant of even liberal-leaning centrist views. Thinks conservatives are evil businessmen trying to take all the money (possibly true?).

>>2416849
Both parties can't be sheep, or else they have no one to follow.

>>2416605
>>2416605
>>2416605
>>2416605
>>2416605
>>2416605
>>2416605
>>2416605
>>2416605
>>2416605

Accurate and concise explanation of the difference between liberal and conservative.

Looking over this thread gives me the impression that partisan bickering is trolling you're supposed to take seriously.

I have affixed an illustration which accurately portrays the difference between "typical liberals" and "typical conservatives".

Conservatives are either rich, ignorant or misanthropic.

Conservatives: jaded monetarists

Conservatives place undue faith in abstract transhuman concepts such as market forces, religion, the nation, and so on.

I have nothing but contempt for this bullshit because I am a humanist.

Typical liberal here. Conservatives are people who have no satisfying answer for the success of the Scandinavian countries, no answer that really explains why they're policies succeed so well despite their obvious socialism.

Conservatives are the whitest of the white folks, who nevertheless live in the most backward parts of the country. If you are conservative, there's an excellent chance your part of the country has a problem with being fat. On the other hand, if your city/state is one of the major cash cows and economic engines of this country, there's a very high probability that you are not conservative (in b4 things states luck into, like oil; if you include that, then Saudi Arabia is the most advanced state in the world).

Conservatives also have no ideological consistency, talking up conservative principles while simultaneously disowning the most conservative President (pro-military? check. pro-business? check. anti-taxes? check) we've had since, well, forever.

Mugabe is a typical liberal.

>>2417036
Conservative here.

Scandinavian countries are successful because they are full of White people.

>>2417036
I hate to burst your bubble, buddy, but Bush was extremely liberal. Hell, he was even for amnesty and open borders.

You can't get much more liberal than Bush.

The most "conservative" person I know honestly believes that communist russia was the same or at least intricately linked with nazi germany, and that the nazis were communist.

Conservative's want Government to be small enough to drown in a bathtub yet are obsessed with expanding the military. National security is good of course but the thought of a skeleton crew in DC dwarfed by a giant pentagon is quite terrifying.

>>2417057
liberal secular white people

I'm a relatively atypical conservative. Very much to the tune of, "You do what you want, I do what I want, so long as no one gets hurt."
I believe strongly in separation of church and state, I approve of gay marriage, the legalization of pot, I'm pro-choice, and I don't think the government should be putting its nose where it does not belong.
Lower taxes, small government, less federal power, and less gun control are some of the more "tradition" things I believe in.

Also, I'm not a peace-nick.

>>2417141

Your a libertarian.

>>2417119
No, the liberals are consistently making life in Scandinavia worse. Their crime rates are skyrocketing thanks to immigration, the tax burden on the middle class is increasing thanks to immigration, average wages are dropping thanks to immigration, unemployment is rising thanks to immigration, etc. Give them enough time and Scandinavia will be not unlike Rhodesia (Zimbabwe).

The only redeeming qualities that Scandinavia has are purely a result of their ethnic composition and not any sort of political ideology.

>>2417165
Don't forget: Scandinavians have lost any sort of right to free speech thanks to liberal speech crime legislation.

Human rights and liberalism don't mix.

Go watch Democracy Now (democracynow.org) and you'll see the definition of liberal.

Liberals: Modern progressives who think that people can be made better through social engineering, and that the government should be made to be trusted, and should control people's lives "for the better." Also, people who think that everybody is obligated to help everybody else.

Personally: I don't have a fucking clue. I think that government (period) fucks up most, if not all, of the things it touches. I think that people should be entitled to make their own decisions and think the way they want to think.

Ultimately, I believe that anything done out of obligation is inauthentic, and should not be done at all.

A liberal is someone who enthusiastically strips people of real human rights like free speech, but will fabricate make-believe "rights" in order to support their political positions. Such as a "right to immigrate to your country" in order to justify their support for mass illegal immigration, or a "right to not be exposed to hate" in order to justify eliminating free speech and sentencing people to years in prison for speech crimes.

When I think of stereotypical Liberals:

Progressives that believe that the government should control people's thoughts, actions, and behavior, "for the greater good."

Unlike conservatives, who spout off their rhetoric at any opportunity, the Liberals would rather indoctrinate new members at an early age by forcing them through rigid social programs that stress that the children should adopt their mindset.

Liberals place no emphasis on family structure, they would rather have teachers raising children according to what they deem is right, rather than leaving that up to the parents.

American Liberals all adopt the worthless humanitarian mindset, and believe that dropping free aid to people around the globe is going to help them advance, rather than stagnate like they do.

When I think about what the Typical Liberal looks like, I see a young white person, who has grown up with both parents and had a rather comfortable life. He or She has always felt bad about the Poor or the downtrodden, and feels that SOMEONE ELSE should do something about it. They then got into their first semester of college, and after hanging on every word from a single liberal professor, they believe they know how to fix the world, life, the universe, and everything.

Liberals are parasites.

Conservatives are people who earn their living.

Typical Conservative:

Rich kind:

They are upper class but think that they are middle class. Is only rich because they got lucky in the stock market. Hates taxes, workers and Unions (but mostly taxes.)

Poor kind:

They are working class but think that they are middle class. Hate taxes even though they hardly pay any. Hates other working class folks, especially minorities. Blames minorities for all the problems in America instead of corporations.

this is how i define libertarians and conservatives

"But maybe that's because I'm in the minority that actually knows what "conservative" means."

Typical Liberal:

Spoiled suburban little shits, doesn't know the true meaning of being poor or having strong traditional values that raised this country out of the Great Depression. Tries to be understanding of all cultures and minorities but unconsciously feels superior to all of them and paints anybody that is a minority under a broad stroke. Your typical liberal shithead doesn't know that blacks hates gays, but thinks that all minorities, regardless of skin colour or sexual orientation are banded together to fight against the evil WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant).

Your typical liberal shithead bitches about gas prices and yet buys $5 Starbucks coffee. Your typical liberal shithead thinks that taxing businesses will somehow drive the price of goods down and cast out the evil in all businesses. Your typical liberal shithead thinks AmeriKKKa is the most evil country on the planet but believes the USSR was a great country where poor people didn't exist (because Stalin killed all of them).

Your typical liberal is a stupid shithead.

liberals are whiney pussies

YOU WILL NEVER TAKE AWAY MY GUNS FAGS

GIT R DUNNNNNNNNNNNN

>>2418347

awesome troll. i'm serious. even if it was obvious.

Moderate leaning on conservative here.

Here's how I picture the typical liberal:

A liberal is someone whose beliefs and morals revolve around the alleviation of personal responsibility. This person wants anything even remotely harmful banned and for the state to "protect" and "care" for everyone. The constitution and traditional values mean nothing to these people. They are spineless and believe that even the most despicable social parasites should be given the utmost of care and rights at the expense of everyone else's hard work without realizing the implications of doing so.

Then again, I'm not a retard and I realize that not all liberals are like this.

>>2418325
Pretty accurate, I'd say.

>>2415924

I'm really not sure which part of that post makes me rage more. More importantly, i think you're an idiot.

First off, you have troops based in foreign bases for power projection and influence. Take Germany for example; it gives you a huge amount of influence in Western European affairs, as well that military base allows you to respond quicker to threats to your interests in regions such as the Middle East, and central Asia.

If you think Iraq was fought like a police action, you're just an idiot. Stop what you're doing, and go look up the definition for "police action", and then stop being an idiot. I don't disagree with the lack of force used in iraq (ie, failing to implement the Powell Doctrine), but to call it a police action just makes me rage so fucking much.

Please note that you don't have to be an ignorant redneck to appreciate the value of the 2nd amendment. I was constantly appalled at how many anti-bush super liberals didn't see the value in the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government.

>>2417163

Not really, sounds more like a classical liberal.

Libertarians are pig disgusting.

Libtard here. I see the average conservative as someone who just hates liberals. Not a whole lot of people liked Bush or McCain, but they got voted in just because they weren't liberals. They're also uneducated about actual issues, simplifying it down to NOT MAH GUNS and DEY DURKA JERBS.

>>2419332

You don't need guns to overthrow a government.

Also, most liberals aren't anti-gun; they just want tighter restrictions, and to lessen the availability of certain guns, ie handguns and assault rifles.

>>2416120
FYI: Hitler was extreme Left Wing. It's not called "National SOCIALISM" for nothing, genius.

>>2417057

>Scandinavian countries are successful because they are full of White people.

Let me quote

> no satisfying answer for the success of the Scandinavian countries

Because, honestly, I don't believe that a 10% African-American population (which is what you're talking about) is sufficiently large to torpedo a policy model that excels so well in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. There's a reason those countries consistently come first in the 'quality of life' rankings, you know. There's also a reason conservatives states like Alabama and Mississippi don't.

>I hate to burst your bubble, buddy, but Bush was extremely liberal

Bush? Liberal? Then what does that make Kerry? What does that make Obama? If Bush is liberal, and every candidate we're going to elect in the foreseeable future is to the left of him, then the USA must be the most ultra-liberal state in the world.

>>2419380

Playing word associate is the stupidest fucking argument. Hitler's main supporters were Germany's capitalists; he violently suppressed trade unions, and intellectuals. Yeah, he was a total leftist.

>>2419366
That's the thing though, most of the shit they think they're trying to do is already legislated against. Felons cannot buy guns legally. Non-felons cannot buy guns for felons legally. What more do you really need to restrict? "Assault Weapons" (which is to say semi-automatic, generally small bore, rifles intended for <300m shooting) are used in less than %1 of crime. People only want them banned because they look scary.

You cannot legislate crime away. It's all currently illegal, yet it still seems to happen. The only people affected by laws are those who follow them. (that would be non-criminals, just in case you missed that.)

>>2419389

I'm not the poster that you orignally replied too, but I agree with him Bush was a rather centerist conservative, with a large liberal influence. Of course that didn't stop him from being a complete asshat. Domestically, he expanded the role and size of government. And his foreign policy fits right in line with liberal internationalism (neoconservatism, is simply an off-shoot from that).

>>2419398
He also Nationalized EVERYTHING, and started state funded programs for underprivalged youth. So your definition is equally wrong in it's broad strokes.

>>2419411

How many innercity Americans were slaughtered with handguns this year? Too many.

And gun restrictions in the US are a fucking joke; look at how easy that guy who ran to town in Viringia Tech was able to acquire his weapons. You face more restrictions driving a car.

As for assault weapons, why do you need them?

>>2419449

And the main benefactors of such nationalization, were his capitalist backers, the elite of the country, not the working masses. State sponsored capitalism at its finest. Again, not really sounding left wing, is it?

>>2419449

Also, Otto Fucking Bismarck introduced social programs to Germany, and no one in their right minds would accuse him of being a leftists. Social programs don't always equal "leftist".

>>2419457
it was regulations on concealed carry on VT's campus that lead to that whole shebang.

A place where it's guaranteed no one will have a weapon? it's a goldmine for murderers.

When I think of conservatives, I usually think of somebody like me with a bit of a dull look in their eye.

>>2419502

Lulz, i love that argument; yeah lets turn our schools into the wild west, with everyone packing a six shooter, that'll solve the problems.

Fact remains, if he hadn't have been able to LEGALLY purchase those weapons, 33 of your fellow americans would still be alive today. Any logical thinker would suggest that when facing a problem, the best course of action is cutting off it's source. Restrict the sale of guns, save American lives.

>>2419535
The Wild West had a lot less violent crime than it's made out to have had.

And as for what happens when there are no guns, let me link you to the fact that every 4 minutes someone is stabbed in Britain.

Then lemme links this one right here. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article603869.ece

Then there are the knife slaughters in Japan.

>>2419616
In Japan there is great concern about what is perceived to be a rising level of knife crime. In June a man ran amok in a Tokyo shopping district, killing seven people and injuring seven more, stabbing his victims with a double edged hunting knife. Sadly, such incidents are not as unusual here as they once were.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7508418.stm

Time to ban knives.

>>2419648

Fuck, now how am I supposed to toast my butter?

>>2419799

You... don't? Because butter doesn't toast..?

>>2419616
You can kill people with cars as well, or baseball bats as well. That's still not an argument for keeping guns. It's a stupid line of thinking.

>>2419616

You can run away from a fat guy with a knife, you can't run away from a bullet.

>>2419616

Guns are everywhere in America, yet you still have stabbings, you still have murders, you still have robberies. Guns don't prevent crime.

Typical liberal attitude: Anyone who disagrees with my political opinions is clearly an uneducated, racist, extremely poor or extremely rich, redneck, religious fanatic.

liberals are dumb college kids amd people who want to be cool and counter to the dirty, old repulicans. They want to "teach the sheep" and "be original" while doing the same as other liberals. Macbooks and starbucks. Conservatives are dumbass southerners, bigots, and christians who can't stand it when someone goes against their religion or what's been spoon fed to them. INTERNET IS EVIL and CHURCH COFFEE

liberals use belitling tones and tweaked information to get you on their side. Conservatives use shock tactics and generous information loss to get you on their side.

forgot he bit that liberals think that anyone against them are either uneducated, stupid, poor, religious, or any combination thereupon

>>2419845
You're right. It's also not an arugment for banning them, any more than it is for banning baseball bats or cars.

Guns are neither the source of, nor solution to crime. They are a variable, and one that has already been eliminated from a legal standpoint. Why you think someone who is planning to commit multiple felonies will suddenly stop and say "Oh man, I can't legally acquire a gun with a 30rd magazine, so I won't go to the black market and get one for 1/8th the price a legitimate dealer will have one for!"

>>2419929
tell us about the gold standard plz

God this is stupid.

Dumbasses on all sides resort to stupid arguments, ad-hom attacks and strawmen to defend their positions and paint their opponents as deluded.

In reality, conservatives are resistant to change and support the status quo (hense the name). Liberals are willing to experiment, on the belief that there is a better way.

Some things should be changed and some new ideas are dumb. Between the believers pushing for change and the skeptics putting on the brakes, we all move forward. Not as fast as some would hope, too fast for others, but forward none the less.

>>2419866
Guns don't DO anything until someone picks them up and makes a decision.

>>2419993

I wasn't using that apology as an argument, you were. I use a baseball bat to play baseball, a car to drive to work, don't have another use for a gun, other then to kill people. It's what it was designed to do.

Guns aren't the source of crime, but they give perpetrators of crimes the ability to kill far more people, then they should have. You won't be able to go on a rampage killing 33 people with a knife.

>>2420008
Bravo captain obvious, they're inanimate objects, you fucking idiot. That still ignores the fact, that gun ownership does not reduce crime rates.

>>2419535
I felt the same way you did until I was actually exposed to firearms in a safe, regulated environment. I find that most irrational fears are founded in ignorance, and after I realized that I could enjoy firearms safely, following proscribed rules, I stopped being afraid of them, and now carry a pistol daily. I have never been forced to draw it, but its simple presence has defused a mugging. I voted for Obama, I'm pro-choice, and pretty liberal about damn near everything except firearms, thanks to a little exposure and education.

>>2420059
That's debatable, but regardless of whether or not it reduces crime rates, why do you think passing laws will affect criminals? I'm just curious. Also, I have fired between 8-10,000 rounds in my life, at least, and have not killed one person. Are all of my guns malfunctioning? Is there a part missing?

>>2420059
7 people dead, 7 people wounded with a knife wielded by a pathetic otaku.

It's not 33, but if people in ether case had protection the outcomes would have been radically different.

Also, guns aren't designed to do anything beyond fire a small metal object at high velocity.

What they're used for is for hunting, recreation, sports, self-defense and less frequently, killing other people.

>>2418325
>>2418325
>>2418325
>>2418325
>>2418325

Truer words have never been spoken. We have dumbasses like them here in Germany, thanks to them our country is slowly turning into New Islamabad.

>>2420095

If you can't legally buy a gun, you can't own a gun other then through the black market. Would legislation totally keep weapons out of the hands of criminals? No. However, would it reduce the supply and thus the amount of gun related crimes? Yes. If such legislation saves just one life, is it worth it? Yes.

Gun use throughout human history as shaped my views on their purposes. You may not have killed anyone, yet, but that will not negate the fact that guns were designed to end life.

>>2420072
I am also pro-gun, but I'm the most liberal of the liberals...I'm a socialist.

The worker's revolution needs weapons, amirite?

But no, not really, I was exposed to guns in a safe manner as well, and became pro-gun rather quickly.

>>2419535
>Lulz

Stopped reading there. Go back to reading ED and listening to U2, you underaged piece of shit.

>>2420137

You really want to place knives on the same levels as guns? Stop being an idiot.

Virginia Tech wouldn't have happened if he had a couple of switch blades, instead of a pair of hand guns.

>>2420176

Lulz, easier to insult, rather then address my arguments, isn't it?

>>2419457

Because most of them are Blacks and Hispanics, these selfish savages can barely reason. Seriously, they act without thinking on the consequences. Or why else communities filled with gun-toting rednecks have almost zero crime?

>>2420165
There are 200 million firearms in the united states legally owned, many more than that if you take into account weapons illegally owned I would assume.

Probably enough guns for every person in the united states to own one.

Be hard to put a damper on gun crime with that many laws without prohibition and confiscation of legally owned firearms.

>>2420200

You don't even have a logical argument, that's why.

>>2420220
Not every pro-gun advocate is a racist, but every racist is a pro gun advocate.

You guys keep great company at NRA meetings.

>>2420220

This. See also Switzerland.

I'm American, and heres my take on our parties. I think that many people who identify as conservative, are somewhat hypocritical. they support rugged individualism in some aspects (free markets, less gun control), but then turn around and are socialistic (fascist? dont really know which is which) on social values, under the premise that its "the greater good for society". Liberals hold the opposite beliefs, with the result of being equally hypocritical (we should be individualistic in social values, but socialistic in our economy). Additionally, I think that while liberals may have good intentions, their "solutions" do little more than cover the problem up (affirmative action, tax the rich cause they dont need it, etc). many conservatives on the other hand are openly competitive, to the point of being somewhat destructive to others.

>>2420250

Holy strawman, Batman. Silly negro loving American, we don't have a NRA here in South Korea.

In b4 go back to Starcraft.

>>2420243
Reduce the sale and access to guns and reduce gun related crime. If that isn't logical, then i don't know what is.

>>2420165
I'm obviously not going to change your mind, but one of the things that really turned me around to the possibility of owning a gun for sport/self defense was learning the following: There is not a law enforcement agency in the United States who has a specific duty to protect you, your family, or anyone else in the world from bodily harm or death. It is not their job to keep you alive, unraped, unwounded, etc. It is their job to find out who did that to you and teach them that it's not ok to do that again. If LEOs were held accountable for people who died, there would no longer be any cops, FBI, etc because they would have been sued out of existence long ago by families of the deceased, rape victims, etc who called the cops and died/were raped waiting for them to show. The only person who has a vested interest/obligation to keep you alive is you. If Katrina didn't hammer this home, I don't know what will, but good luck to you.

There were five Presidential candidates running in the 2008 election. Can you name them all without using google or wikipedia?

i bet you can't.

You shitheads don't even know what's going on.

>>2420239

You're not thinking big picture. Those guns aren't going to last forever. Gun legislation won't eliminate gun crime, but it is a step in the right direction.

It is pretty obvious why we don't put these signs up. As with many other gun laws, law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, would obey the sign. Instead of creating a safe zone for victims, it leaves victims defenseless and creates a safe zone for those intent on causing harm.

Many Americans have learned this lesson the hard way. In 1985, just eight states had the most liberal right-to-carry laws - laws that automatically grant permits once applicants pass a criminal background check, pay their fees and, when required, complete a training class. Today the total is 35 states. My new book, "The Bias Against Guns," examines multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 and finds that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent.

No other gun control law had any beneficial effect. Indeed, right-to-carry laws were the only policy that consistently reduced these attacks.

To the extent attacks still occurred in right-to-carry states, they overwhelmingly happened in the special places within those states where concealed handguns were banned. The impact of right-to-carry laws on multiple-victim public shootings is much larger than on other crimes, for a simple reason. Increasing the probability that someone will be able to protect themselves, increases deterrence. Even when any single person might have a small probability of having a concealed handgun, the probability that at least someone will is very high.

Suomifag here. The way I see it, liberal Amerikkkans are the cancer killing civilized countries. Conservatives are idiots too but at least they stopped being relevant ages ago.

>>2420282
Then you don't know what is. You know what's illegal? You know what's completely impossible to get legitimately under Federal Law (Not counting awesome state laws like CA and OR)? Weed. See also, coke, crack, heroin, phenecyclidine, etc, etc. Somehow people still get it. Guns would be exactly the same way.

>>2420306
Let me direct you to military surplus, 40-50 year old weapons that operate pretty much just as well as they did when they were used during WWII.

Nazi Mausers, Mosin-Nagants, etc, etc.

Lets not forget the AK-47.

>>2420309
Exactly. Look @ NYC, Washington DC(until Heller), and Chicago. Are they the safe, gun-free utopias they were supposed to be?

lol, I love the hypocritical liberal douchebags. They whine about discrimination based on race but they will be happy to discriminate based on appereance and mainstream beliefs (see the 90% of ED userbase).

This thread is disgusting. Almost everyone in here thinks in black and white.


I say almost since I haven't read the entire thing.

>>2420339
Um, didn't i just mention there would be a black market? However, ff either of those drugs were able to be legally purchased in stores, then the number of people using them would increase. If you'd deny the fact that banning a something would not decrease the amount of people using it, then you're just being obtuse. And like I mentioned, if such legislation saves just one life, then it is worth it.

>>2420396
Yeah, alcohol use sure dropped during prohibition, not to mention alcohol related crime. No sense being obtuse about it.

And I'm sure you bought that "If it saves just one life it's worth it" bullshit argument when the Bush Administration was pushing warrantless wiretapping, or torture.

>>2420340
You've got to think about the bigger picture. What about 80 years from now, how about 100, 150? And do you really think that the average crackhead is going to be able to maintain a gun for even 20+ years?

90% of "anti-gun" liberals would change their mind if they have ever fired a gun and decided to own one. They're ignorance of the issue is really the only basis of their arguments.

Gun control is less of a rational, thought-out idea for public safety, because statistics show gun control doesn't work as intended. Its more of an emotional knee-jerk reaction to "omg scary guns" and thats why you see renewed gun control rhetoric after some lunatic shoots up his school or whatever.

>>2420410

Drugs and guns aren't the same thing. To equate the two is idiotic.

And you're line about Bush, ect, the comparison is bullshit.

>>2420426
I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti hand-gut and assault weapon. Also, protip: i've used handguns and even a semi-automatic rifle.

>>2420426
I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti hand-gun and assault weapon. Also, protip: i've used handguns and even a semi-automatic rifle.

>>2420416
Haha, wow. Ignorance, and prejudice all rolled into one.

cover/fill a rifle with vaseline, wrap it in rags, and bury it in a shitty metal case, and it'll last for centuries. 100+ year old rifles come out of soviet armories working just fine.

>>2420429
No, it's not. Your "Just one life" argument boils down to "I don't care about how anyone else feels about the argument so I'll appeal to some difficult to object to theme like tiny baby children not dying."

>>2420442
>100+ years old
>Soviet

Jesus Christ you're dumb.

my idea of the sterotypical liberal is someone who preaches tolerance and peace but is a hypocrite who wont accept christianity into his spectrum of "tolerable religions" yet still defends Islam. also I hate the liberal notiion that reducing guns would reduce crimes. it would reduse SOME crime but most organized crime and gang warfare is done using ILLEGAL WEAPONS. so basicly all your doing when you take away guns is you make the law-respecting part of the population defenseless(911 average response time: 15min. time it takes for a bullet to reach your head: SPEED OF SOUND)

>>2420460
He could be right, if hes talking about current day armories actually in russia.

>>2420460
Hurr... they made guns before it was the soviet union and didn't throw them into the ocean or some shit when Imperial Russia became the soviet union.

Dumbass. Learn2Mosin-Nagant

Liberals:
Embarrassed by being American in foreign countries
Constantly talk about how evil white people are, but love European countries
Macbook
Starbucks
Feel guilty for slavery
Believe in conspiracy theories
BUSH IS HITLER OMG
Either non-religious or will say they are Christian but constantly bash their own religion
Muslims are great, Christians are evil
Minorities are great, whites are evil
Abortion is awesome!
Let's have gays make out in front of my 4 year old!
Arrogant
Constantly bash poor white trash, but at the same time say they support the "working man"

I really don't even know why I post here. This board is overwhelmingly liberal. Maybe I should join you guys. Western Civilization is slowly beginning to die anyway.

>>2420487
You're a biggot and an idiot. It's people like you that gives conservatives a bad name.

>>2420510
That's not what he was implying, and you know it.

i'm a canadian moderate-liberal.
NDP: art-school idiots and kids too stupid to realize that the ndp are a bunch of clowns who have no real economic plan and think that everything can be saved by socializing butterflies and rainbows.

>>2420487
I will never understand why leftists love Islam so much. It makes no sense at all. Islam contradicts nearly everything they believe in.