When a Conservative does not like something, he ignores it, won't buy it, won't eat it but lets others decide for themselves.
When a Liberal does not like something, he bans it so no one can have it.
So much for "Free Choice"
Anonymous
Favorite Answer
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't` buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative sees those with more money, he's fine with it.
IF a liberal sees someone with more money, he wants him taxed more
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't` eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for
it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
Anonymous
They only allow free choice if it is on the approved free choice menu .
?
Exactly. Liberals have a groupthink and Conservatives are autonomous.
A Modest Proposal
It would be too much to ask an example of you that could be attributed to liberals, wouldn't it?
Hm, guns and happy meals. All right:
Gallup, 2008 - 73% of Americans believe the Constitution gives us the right to own firearms:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/public-believes-americans-right-own-guns.aspx
(Here's a hint: more than 26% of the American population is liberal.)
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed mainly by liberals in Congress, yes. A Republican filibuster took place but was overcome, and the bill was signed into law.
However, the most recent attempt to revive the law, the Assault Weapons Ban 2008 bill, was sponsored by Republican Mark Kirk and cosponsored by 4 other Republicans, them being Castle, Ferguson, Ros-Lehtinen, and Shays. The bill, however, died in committee as that Congress ended.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6257:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6257
Also, President Obama stated that he would not support the reinstatement of the ban, even though he himself said it made sense. Instead, he favored CIFTA, which would help stop international firearms smuggling.
In Chicago and DC, there were laws that had banned the possession of firearms. Yes, these were put in place by liberals. However, if your assertion is that every liberal tries to ban something he doesn't like, then firearms is not a good example. It is a mixed issue that, while having many liberal supporters, has conservative ones as well. There are also many liberals against the banning of firearms (such as myself, though that does not matter much).
Also, I'm not sure if you would necessarily disagree with some of the bans that have been put in place, such as banning the transfer of firearms to minors or the possession of firearms by convicted felons?
As to the happy meal example, it is not a ban on happy meals but a ban on the toys that come with them in San Francisco:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/11/03/2010-11-03_san_francisco_enacts_happy_meal_ban_city_decides_to_prohibit_toys_to_come_with_f.html
Also, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat as well, has promised to veto the measure. Odd that a liberal would threaten as such, if we accept your premise.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/BA111G5PCN.DTL&tsp=1
As to the other, lesser examples given regarding religion or meat banning, virtually all of these are straw man arguments and do not adequately represent the view of liberals in this country. These topics (such as religious references) are usually specific (for example in that the government should stay impartial) and cannot be broadly painted over with a brush like "they want to ban everything." I don't like religion, but I completely support the right of a religious group to put up decorations, build where they want, advertise, so on. I just don't support it when the government also does this because there is an implied separation of church and state.
If you'd like a list of things conservatives try to ban, here's one:
- Gay marriage (I'm not going to bother arguing over the semantics involved in "ban" and "continue the illegality of")
- Pornography
- Park 51 ("Ground Zero Mosque")
- Abortion
- Marijuana
- Stem cell research
- Burning of the American flag
- Human cloning
- (There have been a few off-hand comments in the Global Warming section here regarding stopping all funding for climate science - no official bans have been attempted though.)
And there are liberals who support some of these bans too. It is not as black and white as you make it out to be.
Anonymous
Well, the oxymoron known as "gay marriage" would be an exception to the rule. But, I can see why it would be. "Gay marriage" is destructive to society. However, there was never a federal law to make it illegal.