Rock
Here’s a good story for you to read and get some ideas from. It’s the story of tribes. The Sheep, the Wolves and the Sheepdogs. Written by a conservative guy who used to be a liberal. He was an AF pilot I believe.
I found the changes that have occured in both parties over time kind of interesting.
If you scroll down he also wrote a great commentary on Sanctuary, or lack of ,for an enemy in battle.
I don’t know if it will piss them off but it may spur an interesting discussion.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
One way to piss off a lib…
Work hard, earn money and be happy with it![/quote]
You know…I think that’s all you really have to do!
ragehonor,
“If guns kill people, spoons make Michael Moore fat.”
I laughed my but off and will be using this one today. I thank you sir.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Careful with this though, it can backfire on you if those pesky liberals switch to bashing religion… given that the typical conservative is also a religious one. “Illogical justification of cowardice”… damn, that’s got a nice ring to it. If I borrow it in a post somewhere, I’ll give you credit, don’t worry.[/quote]
Well I live in the bible belt, we dont get many religion bashing liberals. Just as we dont really have many anti-gun, pro-choice democrats around here. Besides, I veiw Jesus like I do guns, better to have him and not need him, than need him and not have him.
Religion is easy to debate on also, just keep in mind, faith is a personal journey, it really doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks of it. Never make the mistake of debating faith, as if it were an empirical factual issue.
Feel free to use that quote where-ever you want. No need for crediting it to me.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
!vic wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
I’m spending Thanksgiving with my in-laws who are staunch Liberals and Bush haters. They like to ask baited questions like:
…
Don’t take the bait!
Politics, religion, whatever… If you don’t engage them you can sit back and watch the battle between those that do. Neither side will ever change their mind, so why not enjoy the show.
I’ve done this…to no avail.
[/quote]
It would be nice if such tactics worked. It’s like throwing chum in the water, as it empowers cowardly liberals whom assume you must be weak on the subject matter at hand. I find conversations get a whole lot less messy if you act decisivly fast. Otherwise, the other side gets too invested, and has too much face to loose by dropping it.
[quote]ragehonor wrote:
dermo wrote:
As a moderate liberal, I give you guys credit…reading these suggestions has pissed me off. Rockscar, I think that I speak for all those who lean left in verifying that these discussion points will enrage liberals…strong work, guys.
The fact is it’s not difficult to enrage a liberal - It never ceases to be entertaining though.
You liberal girliemen tend to be very sensitive creatures ;)[/quote]
Jesus, you guys act like its impossible to piss off Conservatives! No one can piss off Conservatives like I can…when it comes down to it its more one’s temperment than political views that make people fly off the handle.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ragehonor wrote:
dermo wrote:
As a moderate liberal, I give you guys credit…reading these suggestions has pissed me off. Rockscar, I think that I speak for all those who lean left in verifying that these discussion points will enrage liberals…strong work, guys.
The fact is it’s not difficult to enrage a liberal - It never ceases to be entertaining though.
You liberal girliemen tend to be very sensitive creatures 
Jesus, you guys act like its impossible to piss off Conservatives! No one can piss off Conservatives like I can…when it comes down to it its more one’s temperment than political views that make people fly off the handle.
[/quote]
Conservatives and newbies.
You’re the king pisser-offer
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
ragehonor wrote:
dermo wrote:
As a moderate liberal, I give you guys credit…reading these suggestions has pissed me off. Rockscar, I think that I speak for all those who lean left in verifying that these discussion points will enrage liberals…strong work, guys.
The fact is it’s not difficult to enrage a liberal - It never ceases to be entertaining though.
You liberal girliemen tend to be very sensitive creatures
Jesus, you guys act like its impossible to piss off Conservatives! No one can piss off Conservatives like I can…when it comes down to it its more one’s temperment than political views that make people fly off the handle.
Conservatives and newbies.
You’re the king pisser-offer[/quote]
I try
Here’s the solution.
Haven’t read the whole topic just the title but the best way to piss off a liberal is to be a pro communist. Like say how Stalin single handidly brought Russia from a third world country to a super power. Or talk about how Lenin was running the country on a workers wage or how Marx is your prophet. That really pisses off liberals because they know communists are more left then they could ever imagine being. Then they will argue that Stalin killed 20 or something million people. And of course the reasonable response to that is that he had to because it was the liberals in office that made him such methods to prevent his country from falling. I guess if your a republican this argument wont work either because you are also probably anti-communist but it is an alternative. Read up some communist history and politics and you will be able to out argue any American about politics because none of them are ready for a communist.
[quote]randman wrote:
Papa wrote:
When a libral is bad, they are anoying as all hell, but when a conservitive is bad, they are violent and dangerous. What’s worse?
I vote this the most simple-minded generalized statement on this thread. The 20-something, word misspelling, misguided liberals are coming out in full force here. You are implicating your own kind with ridiculous mispelled posts like this one. Please try to sound more intelligent and we will try to take you more seriously.
P.S. libral = liberal, anoying = annoying, and conservitive = conservative.[/quote]
So, instead of an intelligent argument, the conservative picks on the fact that I didn’t run a spell check on my post. thankyou for making my point. And you did it with name-calling no less! (LOLROF) All that’s missing is the threat to kick my ass!
Man, I hope you made your post a joke on purpose.
[quote]Papa wrote:
randman wrote:
Papa wrote:
When a libral is bad, they are anoying as all hell, but when a conservitive is bad, they are violent and dangerous. What’s worse?
I vote this the most simple-minded generalized statement on this thread. The 20-something, word misspelling, misguided liberals are coming out in full force here. You are implicating your own kind with ridiculous mispelled posts like this one. Please try to sound more intelligent and we will try to take you more seriously.
P.S. libral = liberal, anoying = annoying, and conservitive = conservative.
So, instead of an intelligent argument, the conservative picks on the fact that I didn’t run a spell check on my post. thankyou for making my point. And you did it with name-calling no less! (LOLROF) All that’s missing is the threat to kick my ass!
Man, I hope you made your post a joke on purpose.
[/quote]
There’s just something so pathetically feeble about someone who says:
“I vote this the most simple-minded generalized statement on this thread.”
Only to directly follow that sentence with the generalized statement:
“The 20-something, word misspelling, misguided liberals are coming out in full force here…”
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Jesus, you guys act like its impossible to piss off Conservatives! No one can piss off Conservatives like I can…when it comes down to it its more one’s temperment than political views that make people fly off the handle.[/quote]
I agree about the temperament, but I also think that temperament strongly influences what political view an individual might tend to side with.
[quote]Celticwolf wrote:
Religion is easy to debate on also, just keep in mind, faith is a personal journey, it really doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks of it. Never make the mistake of debating faith, as if it were an empirical factual issue.
[/quote]
Actually, as much as I agree with your Iraq war views, I might tend to disagree with you here. I would say that religion is the Achilles Heel of the typical American conservative viewpoint. You guys are spot on with regard to foreign policy, gun legislation, property rights, and so many other things, but when you guys are called out to justify certain issues such as being anti-stem cell research, anti-gay marriage, and anti-abortion rights, it would help to have some kind of ground to stand on besides “my illogical beliefs in my religion says so”, wouldn’t it?
What I mean is that the tendency is for y’all to fall back in those issues and say “The bible says XYZ.” That’s not a good footing for an argument… because when the relevance of the religious beliefs are then inevitably called into question by the liberal challenger, you guys invariably say “It’s MY faith, and you can’t question it.”
Well… yeah we can. We can question the hell out of it. A lot of it doesn’t make sense in this modern age… WWJD with stem cells, man? So I’m just saying that if y’all want to really own the shirt off of a reasonably well-equipped liberal in an argument without being needlessly called a “bible-thumping fool” or some such garbage, y’all might need a bit more to go on when it comes to some stuff.
Take the “sancitity of life” argument for being against abortion or stem cell research, for example; it is so full of holes it isn’t even funny. Most libs will throw a few scientific facts in there and completely strip you guys down, leaving you posting pics of partial-birth abortions (a horrific thing, to be sure) in order to score some kind of points.
Bring more ammo… just a suggestion.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Most libs will throw a few scientific facts in there and completely strip you guys down, leaving you posting pics of partial-birth abortions (a horrific thing, to be sure) in order to score some kind of points.
[/quote]
What “scientific facts” can stand against pictures of partial-birth abortions? Being revolted by those pictures has NOTHING to do with religion and everything to do with decency. You don’t have to believe in some imaginary man in the sky to be disgusted by partial-birth abortion.
What “scientific facts” do you think are stronger arguements than those pics?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Bring more ammo… just a suggestion.
[/quote]
Pssst…
If they had it, they would bring it…
[quote]doogie wrote:
What “scientific facts” can stand against pictures of partial-birth abortions? Being revolted by those pictures has NOTHING to do with religion and everything to do with decency. You don’t have to believe in some imaginary man in the sky to be disgusted by partial-birth abortion.
What “scientific facts” do you think are stronger arguements than those pics?
[/quote]
Fact #1: A bunch of fetal cells are NOT a baby.
Fact #2: Although life does begin at conception, as per the scientific definition of life as we call it, the fact that something is alive does not reasonably guarantee that it counts as a full-born (or close enough to it) human being, with full rights to life et al. If this was the case, it would be necessary to scan all women constantly to make sure that the eggs they normally flush out of their system every month aren’t somehow fertilized. It happens all of the time, dude. There are like a billionty natural accidental “abortions” of implanted and gestating feti all over the world every day. The only way to stop this is to stop everyone from having sex. The Catholics have tried this… it doesn’t work. 
Fact #3: A partial birth abortion is NOT the same as a “normal” abortion performed before the end of the first trimester or whatever. The fact that you guys fall back on this just makes your argument look weak. It is very similar to “look! this is bad!” and pointing to a woman getting raped when the discussion is one of simple sex. World of difference. World. The fact that I can say this, being the atheist that I am, just confirms what you wrote above.
This is not about religion, this is decency. But if you take that same argument back to that first trimester baby, then your argument falls apart. That “decency factor” disappears, because the microscopic pre-human being gestating in the womb that looks like a mini-alien of some sort just doesn’t have that same “decency appeal”, and so you guys resort to the religion thing. Every single time. There’s got to be more than that to your argument, right? I mean, if it’s worth lobbying so diligently to outlaw… right?
Bring more ammo… just a suggestion.
On the original topic:
Bring gifts, nicely wrapped. Make sure said gifts are copies of any of Anne Coulter’s books. That should work.
Another idea:
Go back to Bush v. Gore. Bring up the fact that the recounts that were done by the media according to accepted criteria still showed Bush winning.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
On the original topic:
Bring gifts, nicely wrapped. Make sure said gifts are copies of any of Anne Coulter’s books. That should work.[/quote]
This flies out of the window if they have a functioning fireplace.
So… how did things go?
Rockscar…
You still out there mate?