The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

I was directed to a piece written by Beth Allen in regards to this subject by a friend recently. What an eye opener. All the rah rah liberal bullshit you could ever want to read. However, Ms Allen leaves herself and her followers wide open for contradiction in her own words. Her supporters re-enforce the fact that liberals are sheep as expressed in their comments, but we aren't here for them, we are here to take apart Ms Allen's diatribe and try to show her the error of her ways. Fat chance, I know, but I'll give it a shot.

Ms Allen writes her piece in response to an article of the same name by a conservative writer. Let's take a look at what she writes. The writer of the original article will be referred to as S.B. to keep things straight.

Ms Allen says that "Liberals believe in civil and human rights, for all." This seems a bit contradictory when it is the liberals who want to withdraw from places like Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as possible. I guess the people in those countries don't deserve any civil or human rights. They deserve the Taliban, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il instead. The "for all" part must mean just Americans.

She goes on to say "Liberals believe in religious freedom for all Americans, without the detrimental interference of the government." Okay, no argument there. Conservatives believe in allowing people to do what they want as long as it's within the law. But the next sentence is rather telling. "But most of us just don't want government employees forcing us into praying to their god or spending our tax money to preach their religion." No government employee is forcing anyone into praying to anything. The liberals are forcing the removal of the Ten Commandments from public buildings though. They are forcing the elimination of prayer in the schools. They are forcing the removal of the word "God" everywhere it is found. They are so set on being politically correct and not offending anyone that they cannot help but offend everyone of every political or religious stripe. Remember when you could have a Christmas tree and your Jewish friends were not insulted? They have their Yom Kippur and Chanukah and Christians aren't offended. The Muslims can have their Ramadan and the Africans can have their Kwanza and no body will be offended. The offence comes into play when the libs tell you that you are insulting or offending someone who really doesn't give a shit one way or the other and tells you to stop it. "Conservatives believe in state-sponsored force-fed Christianity. How can they be moral and intolerant at the same time?" she goes on. No, they don't. They believe in live and let live and stop bending over to placate the thin skinned minorities. Intolerance? Hardly. Merely trying to keep some of the ideals that made both Canada and the USA great nations.

She refers to the writings of S.B. and says "Conservatives believe that if you have to get on welfare, you should be made to pay that welfare back by cleaning public toilets, and other humiliating practices." I don't think so. What S.B. wrote was, "Conservatives believe in helping people get on their feet. If a single parent or family is in financial trouble beyond their ability to manage, welfare is a good safety net. It was never intended to be a permanent lifestyle! It never occurs to them to get an education or even find a job at McDonalds. With new technologies popping up nearly every day, there should be no shortage of jobs for people willing to learn and work for a living." Hardly a cry for cleaning public toilets or other humiliating practices, wouldn't you say?

Ms Allen writes, "Some liberals feel they can chortle with delight at the President now that he's finally been revealed to 80% of the country as a dictator." Really? Compared to whom? Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini? Perhaps our buddy Saddam. Or Kim Jong Il. Yep, he's a real dictator alright. We have a real dictator here in Ontario. His name is Dalton McGuinty and one of the laws he put in place, in the name of Liberal leadership was our draconian smoking law. You can't smoke anywhere in Ontario now except for your own home and car. Smokers must be outlawed and to hell with the financial losses to come. Cigarettes are still legal, and the Liberals still count on the tobacco tax for their budget, but their "smoking police" try to prevent smokers from even lighting up outdoors. Yeah, Bush is a real dictator. The statement is so ridiculous it doesn't warrant spending any more time on it.

Turning her talents to another subject she knows nothing about, Ms Allen scribes, "I know it's taken so many lives in Iraq to finally wake people up to the fact that the War on Terror is a farse." (Sic) (I don't make this spelling up folks) War is hell and in war people die. No one wants war, but sometimes ya just gotta do whatcha gotta do. But the war is a fact we have to learn to live with and so far Bush has kept the terrorists at bay by taking the fight to them. Ms Misguided says, "Was it a democratic president who made his first calls on September 11, 2001, to have the Bin Laden family safely moved out of the country?" No, it wasn't, but then she answers herself with the following, "Those kooky liberals feel strongly that we need to make sure we're dealing with terrorists." Gee, do you think Bush thought maybe the bin Laden family wasn't quite as nuts as he is? What the libs fail to acknowledge is that no matter who's in the White House, America has to play by the rules or be seen as a country full of bastards. The terrorists know no rules and thus feel they can play any way they want to.

"Is it a democratic president who still can't answer the question ,'Why haven't we gotten Bin Laden?' " she asks. Perhaps not sitting, but the name Bill Clinton comes to mind. He was recently on TV ranting about how he did everything in his power to get bin Laden killed. He failed. He didn't even get close. At least Bush has the cajones to go after him, even if he does need a coalition to help him. Hey, you can only stretch your resources so far. As the police force to the world, the US has to keep an eye on matters such as North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Darfur and any other hot spots where trouble is brewing and the locals come running to them for help. Democrats and Republicans had the same information the President had and they resoundingly agreed to go to war. It was only later, when politics reared it's ugly head, that the Dems decided to pretend the war was forced upon them. Instead of fighting an evil that threatens to consume the entire free world, the liberal pacifists want to blame America for the war. If they can't blame Bush for starting it, they try to say that somehow the US either caused it or are making it worse by fighting back.

S. B. writes, "Liberals want to increase taxes on those with higher incomes and give it to those with smaller incomes. They hope to tax the population into prosperity." How true, how true. Here in Ontario, Mr. Bob Rae, then an NDPer, now a Liberal, became Premier and promptly got us into an $11.2 billion annual deficit with a provincial debt of more than $100 billion. In just one term, he managed to more than double the $42 billion debt accumulated by every other government in Ontario history. Now he wants to lead the Liberal party. Conservatives want a smaller, less intrusive government. Again, allow people to do what they want as long as it's within the law.

Ms Allen fails on her health care charges. Conservatives backed a bill in the senate awhile back that would allow small businesses, such as funeral homes, to insure their employees under the umbrella of the Funeral Directors Guild and provide coverage for the same price as Guild members. Unfortunately, the Democrats fought it down. Who's in favor of cheaper health care?

Ms Allen touches on education and says what S.B. wrote was so racist that it is not worth mentioning. Wrong again. There is nothing at all racist about the remarks. S.B. wrote, "Assuming that people "of color" need special treatment because they aren't smart enough to get through school or get a job is insane." Thomas Sowell and Bill Cosby seem to agree with this statement. Why should the bar be lowered instead of being kept where it is? "Democrats were in charge of education for more than 40 years, complaining during every election about the need for more funding. They got more funding every year, compliments of the taxpayers." S.B. continues. Think about it. Our kids can't spell, can't write, need such great programs as 'Ebonics', figure out a simple math equation and the libs think they're doing fine. I just hope the youngster who cares for me when I'm in a nursing home has a good grasp on the 'Three R's' so I know he can read a medication chart. I don't think it'll happen with the Dems in charge. Money doesn't solve all the world's problems. Sometimes you have to lay down some hard and fast rules and then adhere to them to get results. I would more likely listen to the likes of J.C.Watts, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice than blindly follow the ravings of Minister Farakhan, Jesse Jackson and Maxine Waters.

Perhaps Ms Allen would benefit from a Conservative run education system. She would at least, by the end of it, know how to read and not have to make up things that were never said. Perhaps it's fitting that the Democratic Party chose a mule (sterile) or donkey (ill mannered) or jackass (self explanatory) or whatever you want to call it for their mascot. It really does seem to fit.