Liberal Logic. . mans ABE any run Lou ltr WHEY ; Baum. i just want to burn her hair Liberal Logic mans ABE any run Lou ltr WHEY ; Baum i just want to burn her hair
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (244)
[ 244 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
67 comments displayed.
#13 - ieatbengay
Reply +154
(01/26/2013) [-]
i just want to burn her ****** hair
#35 to #13 - hudspud
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
If you lit that **** everyone in a ten-mile radius would get blazed out of their minds
#81 to #13 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
hold the **** up, this isn´t a boy ?
#107 to #13 - wheel
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
her or his?
#180 to #13 - blackfloorboards
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Doing that alone would burn a massive hole in the o-zone.
#59 to #13 - frink
Reply +3
(01/27/2013) [-]
You would probably get high from all the fumes.
#16 to #13 - FlyingButt
Reply +7
(01/27/2013) [-]
From the state of it, I think someone beat you to it.
#106 - randomserb
Reply +70
(01/27/2013) [-]
Liberals who want to ban sodas aren't really liberals. Being a liberal means you believe in the people's freedom and minimal restrictions by the government, other than those necessary to keep law.
The words "liberal" and "conservative" have become synonymous with pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, and anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage respectively. They relate to things other than these issues too.
#146 to #106 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Im sorry i raelly just want an answer no need to hate. How did liberals, if they believe in individual freedom primarily etc, become part of the democratic party which is generally accepted as the "big government" party i.e. more gov't less individual?
#215 to #146 - deerbeer
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Republicans are conservative only when it comes to abortion and gay marriage, and such. Democrats are liberal also only when it comes to those kind of topics. Either than that, it's actually reversed. People who are called liberals, aren't necessarily real liberals. That's the point he was trying to make, and you also confirmed it.
#271 to #215 - randomserb
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Spot on.
#149 to #106 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
cool stroy bro, what about gun control?
#179 to #106 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Actually, conservatives are the ones for limited government. liberals believe in implementing social programs like welfare and affirmative action whereas conservatives are agaisnt raised taxes and a powerful federal government. You sound more like a libertarian
#208 to #106 - partnerintroll
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
That's why we have the terms Democrat and Republican that are never used by these 14 year old anti-american retards on this site
#238 to #208 - randomserb
Reply +2
(01/27/2013) [-]
Those terms are very ambiguous. They don't represent political philosophy, but alignment to a political party.
Democrat =/= liberal, and republican =/= conservative.
#279 to #238 - partnerintroll
Reply 0
(01/28/2013) [-]
That's what I'm getting at, that the terms are used incorrectly for the position of the parties
#109 to #106 - karouin
Reply +34
(01/27/2013) [-]
Exactly. It's the radicals on both sides who are ******* things up.
Exactly. It's the radicals on both sides who are ******* things up.
#113 to #109 - PiMaker
Reply -10
(01/27/2013) [-]
name a moderate republican.
#206 to #113 - pooflinger
Reply +2
(01/27/2013) [-]
You clearly don't understand how political ideology works. There are Democrats and Republicans spread out through the entire spectrum, including extremes and moderates on both sides.    
   
To answer your question:   
   
Lee Terry (R-NE)   
Chuck Hagel (Former Republican Senator NE, currently on his way to Obama's cabinet)   
Richard Lugar (Former Senator of Indiana)   
John McCain (R-AZ)   
Susan Collins (R-ME)
You clearly don't understand how political ideology works. There are Democrats and Republicans spread out through the entire spectrum, including extremes and moderates on both sides.

To answer your question:

Lee Terry (R-NE)
Chuck Hagel (Former Republican Senator NE, currently on his way to Obama's cabinet)
Richard Lugar (Former Senator of Indiana)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
#263 to #206 - PiMaker
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
okay, now name some extreme democrats
#266 to #263 - pooflinger
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

And based on the diagram to the left, Stalin, Putin, Mao, and Marx.

Again, there are extremes to both parties, and bad people on both sides of the spectrum.

Note where freedom is placed on the diagram
#123 to #113 - neutralgray
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Oh, look. A prime example of "******* things up."
#192 to #123 - neutralgray
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
I got to be honest, I'm really not sure why I'm being thumbed down here.
#6 - fishtacos
Reply +39
(01/26/2013) [-]
I hope you know that this is a ********* waiting to happen, just because of the title.
#7 to #6 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
I think wings are functionally irrelevant at this point; it's one monolithic body with wings painted on the front.

**** THIS gay COUNTRY. LET ME THE **** OUT!!!
#8 to #7 - fishtacos
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
Exactly. The liberals are hypocrites because of above reason, and the conservatives are hypocrites because of the whole "Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Therefore, let's give EVERYONE a gun cuz that's totally gonna work out ok." among other reasons. The extremes of both sides are idiots, and it all manifests itself on the internet.
#9 to #8 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
I hope there is a civil war before "muh gunz" get taken. Just be honest
#10 to #9 - fishtacos
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
I think all guns should be banned and destroyed. Then we give every single citizen the sword of their choice. That way we can go back to the civilized age of hacking each other to pieces.
#11 to #10 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply +2
(01/26/2013) [-]
I don't think that's the best idea because the country is so full of illegal gun smuggling that disarming us all would put the smugglers in power. They will know that everyone else is a sitting duck.
#12 to #11 - fishtacos
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Meh, I was joking. I just prefer swords over guns
#14 to #12 - nightstar
Reply +7
(01/27/2013) [-]
You don't have to reload an assault sword.
#24 to #14 - leanonwut
Reply +9
(01/27/2013) [-]
I like both
#148 - wheresthefudge
Reply +37
(01/27/2013) [-]
mfw people use the term 'liberal' wrong.
mfw people use the term 'liberal' wrong.
#150 to #148 - datuser
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Then how is it really used?
#170 to #150 - wheresthefudge
Reply +5
(01/27/2013) [-]
The idea of classical liberalism is much closer to what we'd call libertarianism now.   
There's also the idea of the political spectrum, where 'liberal' and 'conservative' on either extreme of the spectrum. By this way of thinking, a liberal want to have more freedoms, and a conservative wants to keep things the way they are. The far extremes (radical, reactionary) take these and push them further (a radical wants everything to be legal, a reactionary wants to go back to the laws of some point in the past).   
Regardless, neither of these definitions has a liberal wanting to ban anything.   
   
The problem comes when you try to say that the American Democrats are liberals and the American Republicans are conservatives. Each party is liberal in some ways and conservative in others. Even saying that one or the other is for 'small government' doesn't work, since each has policies that favor small government, and others which favor large government.   
That was a very long reply, and thus, I don't have an adequate reaction gif to sum the whole thing up (not, at least, without seeming like a pretentious asshat); so please enjoy this magical helicopter.
The idea of classical liberalism is much closer to what we'd call libertarianism now.
There's also the idea of the political spectrum, where 'liberal' and 'conservative' on either extreme of the spectrum. By this way of thinking, a liberal want to have more freedoms, and a conservative wants to keep things the way they are. The far extremes (radical, reactionary) take these and push them further (a radical wants everything to be legal, a reactionary wants to go back to the laws of some point in the past).
Regardless, neither of these definitions has a liberal wanting to ban anything.

The problem comes when you try to say that the American Democrats are liberals and the American Republicans are conservatives. Each party is liberal in some ways and conservative in others. Even saying that one or the other is for 'small government' doesn't work, since each has policies that favor small government, and others which favor large government.
That was a very long reply, and thus, I don't have an adequate reaction gif to sum the whole thing up (not, at least, without seeming like a pretentious asshat); so please enjoy this magical helicopter.
#177 to #170 - laserkirby
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Thanks man, cleared some things up.
#186 to #170 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
mfw clever people on funnyjunk
#249 to #186 - wheresthefudge
Reply +2
(01/27/2013) [-]
mfw no face
mfw no face
#166 to #150 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Good read about it. Or if you are too lazy just think of american liberalism as british conservatism. They are not the same but to make it simple for you they are the same enough. they believe in traditional right wing laissez faire society. Whereas every where else liberalism is generally about being a free, equal and progressive society.
#162 to #150 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Differently.
#160 to #148 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
In the American context it is different from elsewhere. I understand your confusion.
#185 to #148 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Basically, Democrats were liberal for a long period (opposing federal powers and tariffs), but FDR got the country to switch its understanding of liberal and conservative. When running for office the first time, he actually criticized the Republican conservative Hoover for overspending, but after taking power he changed his goal to spending loads more to end the Great Depression (shockingly, it didn't end until he died over a decade later). However, the whole time he called himself a liberal and his opponents conservative, and everybody was willing to debate him on his own terms. We've been discussing politics in backwards terms ever since, much to Europe's chagrin.
#52 - lincey
Reply +35
(01/27/2013) [-]
#74 - timerce
Reply +30
(01/27/2013) [-]
i would just like to point out that no one pushed for a soda ban except bloomburg. here have an actual example of a hypocrite activist
#167 - blacklite
Reply +26
(01/27/2013) [-]
Yeah....I've never met any liberal who actually thought this.   
   
In my opinion, both radical liberals and extremist conservatives are ******* stupid. No matter what side you're on you can still be wrong.
Yeah....I've never met any liberal who actually thought this.

In my opinion, both radical liberals and extremist conservatives are ******* stupid. No matter what side you're on you can still be wrong.
#183 to #167 - ohlookathing
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Amen
#198 to #167 - themarineelite
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#204 to #167 - Marker ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
This is why I prefer to remain left of center, as some will call it.
#175 - arstya
Reply +24
(01/27/2013) [-]
All these liberals and conservatives, and I'm just sitting here not giving a ****.
#193 to #175 - blondieee
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#205 to #193 - martbeast
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Please read what the pic says. And realize you're stupid.
#184 to #175 - augustusxxiv
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#197 to #175 - sairento
Reply +3
(01/27/2013) [-]
like I give one
like I give one
#243 to #197 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
What is this sorcery ?!!
*mind blown*
#159 - soggytomatoe
Reply +17
(01/27/2013) [-]
Conservative Logic:

All Americans deserve to have rights and be free

Except gays, blacks, women, immigrants, and anyone who isn't a rich white guy
#163 to #159 - durkadurka
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Since when?
#203 to #163 - Marker ONLINE
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Since the Tea Party.
#268 to #203 - durkadurka
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
How? If you want to make an incredibly ignorant statement, be prepared to back it up.
#272 to #268 - Marker ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
I'm not trashing all conservatives, but the Tea Party has given the entire Republican party a bad name. That is, unless you want to argue that Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and Michelle Bachmann are intellectual individuals.
#273 to #272 - durkadurka
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
So you really think a significant portion of the country hates many people? Really? You gotta be smarter than that.
#274 to #273 - Marker ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
I'm saying that because of this movement, conservative logic has become that bad.

I'm not saying all Republicans are moronic bigots, but the Teabaggers sure have made them look like it.

Look at this "essay" for example, by Judson Philips, founder of the Tea Party Nation website.

You need to login to view this link

This man uses this form of "logic" to assert that President Obama should prove that he is not gay and does not smoke crack. Philips also thinks that releasing medical records would prove that. The sad part is, people buy it. When dealing with the Tea Party, all logic and reasoning goes down the drain.
#275 to #274 - durkadurka
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
It should be no shocking revelation that there's always a fringe to every side. Naturally you'll get your crazies on any side of any issue, and I have no desire to defend them.

I don't think you quite grasp the nature of the tea party. There's no central organization, no one group or person to speak for all. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of the "vocal minority." While the majority are more interested in issues like balancing the budget, unemployment, the economy, etc, there's always that portion that shriek and holler about irrelevant/erroneous issues.

The whole Occupy Wallstreet movement was of the same nature. It wasn't centrally organized and was without real leadership. And while most people involved were interested in fixing the things most of us are concerned about, there were the few anarchists and borderline-communists who got all of the media attention.

So in short, yeah there's going to be crazies. But they don't speak for the majority, and we don't have to validate them, nor should we.

Also, do you really need to use derogatory names? Not only does it come off as uninformed, it makes it seem as though you've made up your mind regardless of new things you may learn.
#181 to #159 - actionmastermegatr
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Don't forget Asians, Hispanics, Muslims, Atheists and Feminists...
#169 to #159 - harryblazer
Reply +22
(01/27/2013) [-]
last time I checked, you could get a bunch of free **** no matter what race you are, so long as you are poor and lazy, and you get get money from the goverment for it. However, certain races( everyone thats not white) could, for instance, get a special scolarship for not being white and get money off their tution (appyling for colleges made me angry)
soooo....yeah
#269 to #169 - soggytomatoe
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
I understand your opinion and respect it wholeheartedly.    
   
gif unrelated
I understand your opinion and respect it wholeheartedly.

gif unrelated
#188 to #169 - anonomoz ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
this is true
#21 - Aleafe
Reply +20
(01/27/2013) [-]
MFW people finnaly snap on these faggots
MFW people finnaly snap on these faggots