|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
War! Liberals vs Conservatives. Who would win?
Say there was another Civil war. Blue states VS. Red States. Who would win and why?
Breakdown by County:
Breakdown by State:
Here's the way I see it...
The blue states have the big/important cities; LA, Washington DC, NY City etc. IMNSHO, these will quickly become a burden. Starved hungry masses don't make good army's.
Given that liberals live in cities and conservatives live in the country.
Given that cities need the country for food.
Given that conservatives are more familiar with arms.
Given that arms would be needed to get the food.
Then factor in the higher percentage of Republican gun ownership, military experience, and weapons proficiency, I think it's a sweeping victory for the red states.
Breakdown by County:
Breakdown by State:
Here's the way I see it...
The blue states have the big/important cities; LA, Washington DC, NY City etc. IMNSHO, these will quickly become a burden. Starved hungry masses don't make good army's.
Given that liberals live in cities and conservatives live in the country.
Given that cities need the country for food.
Given that conservatives are more familiar with arms.
Given that arms would be needed to get the food.
Then factor in the higher percentage of Republican gun ownership, military experience, and weapons proficiency, I think it's a sweeping victory for the red states.
Blue states don't believe in
- the right to life
- the right to use lethal force to protect one's self or one's family
- violence to effect one's goals (though that doesn't stop their violent protests or hurling ojects at peaceful prolife assemblies)
Gee, I wonder. The blue state people would start with a decade letter writing campaign (like the 'effective' one against saddam insane), proceed to whining, study groups, protesting, smoking pot, more whining, more pot... who knows
Let's just serpate into two homogenous regions: one for red staters, and one for blue staters and make each sovereign. When the blue region economy fails (because they won't be able to steal jack from the red region) which blue faction will retain blue control?
the marxists? the straight up anarchists? the pedophiles?
Assuming of course their population doesn't implode from all the abortions, and condom use. Will the STD epidemic kill them first? How will their moral relativism impede social progress?
All much more interesting questions
- the right to life
- the right to use lethal force to protect one's self or one's family
- violence to effect one's goals (though that doesn't stop their violent protests or hurling ojects at peaceful prolife assemblies)
Gee, I wonder. The blue state people would start with a decade letter writing campaign (like the 'effective' one against saddam insane), proceed to whining, study groups, protesting, smoking pot, more whining, more pot... who knows
Let's just serpate into two homogenous regions: one for red staters, and one for blue staters and make each sovereign. When the blue region economy fails (because they won't be able to steal jack from the red region) which blue faction will retain blue control?
the marxists? the straight up anarchists? the pedophiles?
Assuming of course their population doesn't implode from all the abortions, and condom use. Will the STD epidemic kill them first? How will their moral relativism impede social progress?
All much more interesting questions
| gonzo wrote: |
| Blue states don't believe in
- the right to life - the right to use lethal force to protect one's self or one's family - violence to effect one's goals (though that doesn't stop their violent protests or hurling ojects at peaceful prolife assemblies) |
Blue states don't believe in
- allowing more fatherless children to grow up in ghetto communities only to survive by brute force and slinging crack OR denying the creator of a life to choose whether or not her spawn will grow into anything larger than roughly 100 cells of tissue
- allowing people the possibility of using guns for a more likely scenario than protecting their family from invaders, i.e. drive-bys, theft, immoral retaliation, etc.
the violence at prolife ralleys is a ridiculous remark you have to admit, even if it's a joke. i've watched just as many violent right wingers imposing brutally on prochoice campaigns as lefties doing just the same in conservative junctions. it's the person or people, not the color.
| gonzo wrote: |
| Gee, I wonder. The blue state people would start with a decade letter writing campaign (like the 'effective' one against saddam insane), proceed to whining, study groups, protesting, smoking pot, more whining, more pot... who knows |
| gonzo wrote: |
| Let's just serpate into two homogenous regions: one for red staters, and one for blue staters and make each sovereign. When the blue region economy fails (because they won't be able to steal jack from the red region) which blue faction will retain blue control? |
Actually, it would be an incredibly amazing feat to partition the ****** up political party into two geographical factions. No more bitching, no more taunting. Peace at last.
| a.Bird wrote: |
|
- allowing more fatherless children to grow up in ghetto communities only to survive by brute force and slinging crack OR denying the creator of a life to choose whether or not her spawn will grow into anything larger than roughly 100 cells of tissue - allowing people the possibility of using guns for a more likely scenario than protecting their family from invaders, i.e. drive-bys, theft, immoral retaliation, etc. |
Justification for abortion as a form of birth control is not going to work, sorry.
| Quote: |
| the violence at prolife ralleys is a ridiculous remark you have to admit, even if it's a joke. i've watched just as many violent right wingers imposing brutally on prochoice campaigns as lefties doing just the same in conservative junctions. |
Oh really? Like where? When? I've looked for such instances and haven't found many. They're easy to find from the Dems trying to silence free speech, though.
Perhaps you could provide proof?
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
|
Justification for abortion as a form of birth control is not going to work, sorry. |
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| Oh really? Like where? When? I've looked for such instances and haven't found many. They're easy to find from the Dems trying to silence free speech, though.
Perhaps you could provide proof? |
I'm sorry, what I mean to say was that I've seen Democrats acting violently at the same junctions that other Dems have been very peaceful in that were thrown out by violent Republicans. I apologize that my angst of conversative views twisted my words.
Enjoy.
| a.Bird wrote: |
| It works for me. |
Mod edit : disturbing image removed
I don't doubt that abortion "works". There are ethical ways to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
Mod edit : disturbing image removed
This is an atrocity. Do you care?
| gonzo wrote: | ||
Nod edit : disturbing image removed I don't doubt that abortion "works". There are ethical ways to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Nod edit : disturbing image removed This is an atrocity. Do you care? |
He cares that you call it an atrocity. It is not in his eyes. That says a lot about him.
Democrats, the baby-killing party, would never win. I am still disappointed that my home state went Democratic, but that's because of Detriot.
I think we're forgetting a few things about the libs that will give them an edge. They could quickly arm themselves and be trained up by their good friends in Iraq, Iran and Korea. They would also have no problem with requiring an embryo harvest from everyone receiving government aid for use in a supper warrior program.
They would be most vulnerable in the first days when they have no warriors. Not being willing to instate a draft and all. I doubt they could gather enough volunteers. Unlesssss, they’ll just change the meaning of the word parade….
Just to humor me, throughout the rest of this post replace the word “war” with “parade”, if you are at all conservative anyway. 
They would be most vulnerable in the first days when they have no warriors. Not being willing to instate a draft and all. I doubt they could gather enough volunteers. Unlesssss, they’ll just change the meaning of the word parade….
Just to humor me, throughout the rest of this post replace the word “war” with “parade”, if you are at all conservative anyway.
How long would they last before they started protesting against themselves and exploding out of sheer confusion?
Thank you for the colorful images. I sincerely hope those don't look like balls of roughly 100 tissue cells to you.
To be honest the graph that shows blue vs. red in counties is misleading because the majority of places where it gets blue are very high density areas such as major cities. Don't let it mislead you.
The blue states would win easily. Aside from holding the largest cities they have a much smaller area to defend. This is wonderful news for their supply lines, which can be much simpler and shorter (not to mention most major cities are already linked together). Of course this only means that they will have an easier time defending themselves, not an easier time conquering. However this, combined with the disjointedness and disorganization of rural conservatives, would allow them to hold out long enough for reinforcements.
Yes, reinforcements. From where you ask? Everywhere. It is better for almost every country to have a liberal government in the US as opposed to a conservative one. Thus, the blue states would have reinforcements pouring in from all sides. This would hand the blue states a solid victory.
Yes, reinforcements. From where you ask? Everywhere. It is better for almost every country to have a liberal government in the US as opposed to a conservative one. Thus, the blue states would have reinforcements pouring in from all sides. This would hand the blue states a solid victory.
| gonzo wrote: | ||
Mod edit : disturbing image removed I don't doubt that abortion "works". There are ethical ways to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Mod edit : disturbing image removed This is an atrocity. Do you care? |
I must not have a soul. That did nothing for me.
Hey, yeah, that's a totally GOOD idea; let's make EVERYTHING black & white. And you know what, even if conservatives would win, they'd start killing themselves off afterwards with infighting. Because what would they do without the Democracts to blame for all the ills in the world?
And I'd just like to say Gonzo, regardless of people's position on abortion, those pictures were completely inappropriate and uncalled for. That's like someone posting equally offensive hardcore porn.
And I'd just like to say Gonzo, regardless of people's position on abortion, those pictures were completely inappropriate and uncalled for. That's like someone posting equally offensive hardcore porn.
| Scaramanga wrote: |
|
And I'd just like to say Gonzo, regardless of people's position on abortion, those pictures were completely inappropriate and uncalled for. That's like someone posting equally offensive hardcore porn. |
Please explain how this is at all similar. Gonzo's point is that members of our future society are being removed, violently. What point would be made with pornograph? Possibly a situation where someone is being forced?
What an annoying thread!
I had to edit 3 posts and remove the "disturbing" images from them!
I also think I misspelt "Mod"as "Nod" in a couple of them... typo... blah!
Well, gonzo's use of those images is uncalled for because not all abortions are like that. Most abortions happen much earlier and much cleaner. Using anti-abortion sites and their propagandist images and trying to convince other members about how disgusting and wrong abortion is through this propaganda is uncalled for. It's interesting to note though, that every topic in the General Chat forum is becoming a debate on abortion... hmmm...
Anyway, regarding the original topic of this thread... I kinda knew it as an All-Republican let's-meet-up-and-bash-the-liberals party... and I was kinda right.
Party on, dudes. Just don't start flaming though. Have fun... I won't lock this thread... I suppose Republican fanboys do need a place to rant about liberals apart from all the Republican forums they may be a member of.
But to give this thread its share of credit, there have been some replies that were not simply insults being thrown at a party the poster does not support.
I had to edit 3 posts and remove the "disturbing" images from them!
I also think I misspelt "Mod"as "Nod" in a couple of them... typo... blah!
Well, gonzo's use of those images is uncalled for because not all abortions are like that. Most abortions happen much earlier and much cleaner. Using anti-abortion sites and their propagandist images and trying to convince other members about how disgusting and wrong abortion is through this propaganda is uncalled for. It's interesting to note though, that every topic in the General Chat forum is becoming a debate on abortion... hmmm...
Anyway, regarding the original topic of this thread... I kinda knew it as an All-Republican let's-meet-up-and-bash-the-liberals party... and I was kinda right.
Party on, dudes. Just don't start flaming though. Have fun... I won't lock this thread... I suppose Republican fanboys do need a place to rant about liberals apart from all the Republican forums they may be a member of.
But to give this thread its share of credit, there have been some replies that were not simply insults being thrown at a party the poster does not support.
| tidruG wrote: |
| What an annoying thread!
I had to edit 3 posts and remove the "disturbing" images from them!
I also think I misspelt "Mod"as "Nod" in a couple of them... typo... blah! Well, gonzo's use of those images is uncalled for because not all abortions are like that. Most abortions happen much earlier and much cleaner. Using anti-abortion sites and their propagandist images and trying to convince other members about how disgusting and wrong abortion is through this propaganda is uncalled for. It's interesting to note though, that every topic in the General Chat forum is becoming a debate on abortion... hmmm... Anyway, regarding the original topic of this thread... I kinda knew it as an All-Republican let's-meet-up-and-bash-the-liberals party... and I was kinda right. Party on, dudes. Just don't start flaming though. Have fun... I won't lock this thread... I suppose Republican fanboys do need a place to rant about liberals apart from all the Republican forums they may be a member of. But to give this thread its share of credit, there have been some replies that were not simply insults being thrown at a party the poster does not support. |
Yeah, but... did you vote???
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | ||
Yeah, but... did you vote??? |
haha... it's pretty ironic... I was just thinking about the fact that I did not vote...
And the reason I did that is because as you once said (a long time ago), I am not American, I don't live in America, and I don't know much about the place... so it would be pretty pointless of me to vote without much of an idea about which places are more densely populated, which places have more resources and what kind of resources and stuff like that...
Cheers though... the topic is definitely interesting.
| tidruG wrote: | ||
haha... it's pretty ironic... I was just thinking about the fact that I did not vote... And the reason I did that is because as you once said (a long time ago), I am not American, I don't live in America, and I don't know much about the place... so it would be pretty pointless of me to vote without much of an idea about which places are more densely populated, which places have more resources and what kind of resources and stuff like that... Cheers though... the topic is definitely interesting. |
Red States would win...
Most all Nuclear weapons bases are in the unpopulated areas.
Most Red States are more willing to go to war over a belief.
Because of the 2 above reasons, the Red States have they bomb and are not afraid to use it.
Blues area represent high loss of life areas because of congestion.
Collateral Damage.
"Smart people" live in the cities which means the smart people who invested the bomb will die by it.
Red States provide the food for the Blue. Ever seen a cattle ranch in Manhatten?
By the time the UN gets around to writing a resolution to condemn the Red State the war will have been over.. by several years I might add...
Most all Nuclear weapons bases are in the unpopulated areas.
Most Red States are more willing to go to war over a belief.
Because of the 2 above reasons, the Red States have they bomb and are not afraid to use it.
Blues area represent high loss of life areas because of congestion.
Collateral Damage.
"Smart people" live in the cities which means the smart people who invested the bomb will die by it.
Red States provide the food for the Blue. Ever seen a cattle ranch in Manhatten?
By the time the UN gets around to writing a resolution to condemn the Red State the war will have been over.. by several years I might add...
| atomictoyz wrote: |
| Red States would win...
Most all Nuclear weapons bases are in the unpopulated areas. Most Red States are more willing to go to war over a belief. Because of the 2 above reasons, the Red States have they bomb and are not afraid to use it. |
See though, they are afraid to use it. If they used it the fallout would be enormous, probably large enough to damage them. Aside from this is the simple fact that if they use it the rest of the world will destroy them.
| atomictoyz wrote: |
| Blues area represent high loss of life areas because of congestion.
Collateral Damage. |
I suppose this is true, but like I said, it is a positive, as they have less area to defend. Especially since if the Red states dare not actually bomb the cites, the collateral damage would be enormous, bringing the rest of the world down on them.
| atomictoyz wrote: |
| Red States provide the food for the Blue. Ever seen a cattle ranch in Manhatten? |
No, but I do know there are farms in other parts of the world, like China, Europe and everywhere else, all those places which would be giving the Blue states aid.
| atomictoyz wrote: |
| By the time the UN gets around to writing a resolution to condemn the Red State the war will have been over.. by several years I might add... |
Not so, with all of the permanent members of the Security Council vehemently in favor of providing aid it would take no time at all. Not to mention the fact that, not everyone listens to the UN.
Red States would win. While a lot of the blue is in the big cities, just look at that red splashed across the map! I am sure that it outnumbers the people in the cities, besides, it's not the size of the army, it's how you use it.
Blue States would get confused and take varying positions on issues and ultimately perplex themselves to death.
Blue States would get confused and take varying positions on issues and ultimately perplex themselves to death.
Who would win depends on how you look at it, and I don't mean between republicans and democrats, because regardless of which of them happened to be able to defeat eachother in whatever idiotic conflict you are attempting to start, the probable outcome is such: the winner is the american populace as a whole, due to the fact that the "liberals" and 'conservatives" have finally made themselves so far removed from the actual people with REAL opinions and thoughts(rather than a canned set of preset ideals) that the american people will finally be able to elect officials that aren't "party" members. the situation would be so extreme that it would FORCE people to revolt against the idiotic party system, and think for themselves. in addition, I think the WORLD would win, because the US might actually gain some semblance of intellect in it's leadership, rather than whichever of two puppets a placated mass choses between. The only people to lose this war would be the extremist spin-doctors, who are always trying to define every issue in either "liberal" or "conservative". to a "conservative", thinking for oneself is too "liberal", and vice versa.
Who wins? Everyone.
Who wins? Everyone.
| silvermesh wrote: |
| Who would win depends on how you look at it, and I don't mean between republicans and democrats, because regardless of which of them happened to be able to defeat eachother in whatever idiotic conflict you are attempting to start, the probable outcome is such: the winner is the american populace as a whole, due to the fact that the "liberals" and 'conservatives" have finally made themselves so far removed from the actual people with REAL opinions and thoughts(rather than a canned set of preset ideals) that the american people will finally be able to elect officials that aren't "party" members. the situation would be so extreme that it would FORCE people to revolt against the idiotic party system, and think for themselves. in addition, I think the WORLD would win, because the US might actually gain some semblance of intellect in it's leadership, rather than whichever of two puppets a placated mass choses between. The only people to lose this war would be the extremist spin-doctors, who are always trying to define every issue in either "liberal" or "conservative". to a "conservative", thinking for oneself is too "liberal", and vice versa.
Who wins? Everyone. |
STOP TRYING TO SHINE INTELIGENTS IN HERE!!! Where having fun.
The conservatives would have the alien technology so they would surly beat the libs who only have the terrorist, cubans and Canadians for help.
Hello! its simple!
1-Conservatives have more guns.
2-Conservatives have more heavy farm and industrial equipment
3-Conservatives have all the food supply
4-Conservatives have a large number of military bases
1-Conservatives have more guns.
2-Conservatives have more heavy farm and industrial equipment
3-Conservatives have all the food supply
4-Conservatives have a large number of military bases
Somebody plz distinguish liberals and conservatives for me. Who are the lefties and how do things work?
First, the population is split essentially in half, half red, half blue. Those maps up there are misleading. Sheer land area is an inadequate way to view party affiliation.
Second, I'm so happy that you see this as an acceptable way to talk about political differences. Who would win if we just started shooting each other to solve our problems.
"We gonna smash 'em!! Hyuk!!"
Seems a bit childish and violent, if you ask me. But then again, that is the face of the conservatives in this forum, so I guess I shouldn't be suprised.
Neither side would win, because people will not kill their friends and families just because they have different political ideologies. At least, sane people would not.
Second, I'm so happy that you see this as an acceptable way to talk about political differences. Who would win if we just started shooting each other to solve our problems.
"We gonna smash 'em!! Hyuk!!"
Seems a bit childish and violent, if you ask me. But then again, that is the face of the conservatives in this forum, so I guess I shouldn't be suprised.
Neither side would win, because people will not kill their friends and families just because they have different political ideologies. At least, sane people would not.
| LeviticusMky wrote: |
| First, the population is split essentially in half, half red, half blue. Those maps up there are misleading. Sheer land area is an inadequate way to view party affiliation.
|
I made that clear in my original post. You seem to have, um... missed it. (sounds familiar, eh?
)
| Quote: |
| Second, I'm so happy that you see this as an acceptable way to talk about political differences. Who would win if we just started shooting each other to solve our problems. |
If it's accpetable for leftards to diss the Pres at every turn, including lying about the pres, then this is very acceptable.
| Quote: |
|
Neither side would win, because people will not kill their friends and families just because they have different political ideologies. At least, sane people would not. |
Not true, I killed my family because they were leftards.
 |