The failure of liberalism can be summed up in 1 quote from Obama.

[Max E.]

“If there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try,”

-Barack Obama

This single quote is the main reason why liberals, and far left thinking are so destructive. When it comes down to it, you cant save everyone but liberals will take up almost any cause that shits on the majority of people in order to save a select few. Basically what obama said is the antithesis of freedom.

Look around, even outside of the gun debate, and you will see that liberals have created an environment whereby they are unilaterally taking away our freedom, all under the premise that we have to watch out for that 1 person who might be saved.

I dropped my nephew off for school recently, the same elementary school i went too, and was shocked to see that they had torn down the out door hockey rink. Apparently some kid lost an eye, only one in 50 years, so the hockey rink had to go. Screw excercise, screw fun, one kid got hurt, so everyone has to suffer.

I often wonder what kind of life the a-holes who live by obama's mantra live, you are more likely to be struck by lightning than die by the hands of an AR15, how do these people even leave their house when they are that scared?

Liberals are slowly moving us into a society that is the equivalent of a padded room, all in the name of "saving that one person" as obama would say.

 

[Wide Tailz]

Liberals believe in evolution but not natural selection?

 

[Max E.]

Quote from Wide Tailz:

Liberals believe in evolution but not natural selection?

Good call, in a liberal society we are actually de-evolving, we are probably the first species ever to do this.

Think about it, your average hill billy/crack head is going to have 8 kids, where as responsible intelligent adults are averaging less than 2 kids, which means they arent even replacing themselves. These days we support and encourage the people who are least likely to survive on their own, at the expense of the people who help create a productive society.

We are the only society where people who supposedly live in poverty also suffer from an epidemic of obesity. Imagine a 350 pound mother of 8 living on food stamps, section 8 housing, and welfare trying to explain how hard her life is to a serf from 500 years ago.

Liberals promote failure at the expense of success, then lie or distort reality to tell themselves its working.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Wide Tailz:

Liberals believe in evolution but not natural selection?

Yep, a point I've mentioned several times before.
But then the hypocrisy of liberalism knows no bounds.



“If there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try,”

-Barack Obama


A common cry of the bleeding heart anti gun loons. The fact is though that more children are saved from the crime prevention provided by armed citizens than are lost to school shootings and the like. IF they do the math AND they're genuinely concerned for the children. They cannot factually argue we need to disarm the good guys.

 

[Max E.]

Quote from Lucrum:



A common cry of the bleeding heart anti gun loons. The fact is though that more children are saved from the crime prevention provided by armed citizens than are lost to school shootings and the like. IF they do the math AND they're genuinely concerned for the children. They cannot factually argue we need to disarm the good guys.

Milton Friedman summed up the point best in this video, liberals seem to be incapable of doing a cost benefit analysis, in obama's eyes, we should screw 300 million people even if we can save only 1, that kind of thinking is assinine especially when you consider the costs of some of these programs, and the fact that the economy and life in general is somewhat of a zero sum game.

Lefties think that they have compassion for people, and try to tell themselves they are doing whats best for humanity but they never consider the fact that when you use taxation and regulation to "help" someone all you are doing is stealing the ball from one person in order to hand it to someone else.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cD0dmRJ0oWg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[TGregg]

Quote from Max E. Pad:


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cD0dmRJ0oWg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

". . . and over 1000 lives have been lost.

Typical libtard - a liar. 27 lives lost to fires, same number as died in Pintos due to transmission problems. 2 million cars produced.

Recall

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ultimately directed Ford to recall the Pinto. Initially, the NHTSA did not feel there was sufficient evidence to demand a recall due to incidents of fire. 27 deaths were attributed to Pinto fires (the same number of deaths attributed to a Pinto transmission problem) and in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no "recallable" problem.[21]

In 1978, Ford initiated a recall providing a plastic protective shield to be dealer-installed between the fuel tank and the differential bolts, another to deflect contact with the right-rear shock absorber, and a new fuel-tank filler neck that extended deeper into the tank and was more resistant to breaking off in a rear-end collision.[9][22]
Schwartz paper

In a 1991 paper, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, for the Rutgers Law Review, Gary T. Schwartz[7] said the case against the Pinto was not clear-cut.[23][24]

According to his study, the number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the 27 recorded by a limited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database. Given the Pinto's production figures (over 2 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time. Schwartz said that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed "smoking gun" document that plaintiffs said demonstrated Ford's callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life — rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford's potential tort liability.

Schwartz's study said:

The Pinto Memo wasn't used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose (p. 1021, Schwartz study).
The Pinto's fuel tank location behind the axle, ostensibly its design defect, was "commonplace at the time in American cars" (p. 1027).
The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs (p. 1037).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

 

[nutmeg]

“If there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try,”

-Barack Obama


Sheesh, that quote annoys me.

There's always that dang unintended consequence of losing lives in the obligation.

How many kids died from airbags? How many people died from wearing a seat belt? I understand the how and why but spare me the "save one life" quote nonsense, you've just knocked off a few lives saving us from ourselves.

 

[Ricter]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

“If there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try,”

-Barack Obama

Hypocrite*. He says the some folks should be denied medical care and just be "sent home to die".

*Stupid, greedy sheeple for swallowing his bilge.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Scataphagos:

Hypocrite*. He says the some folks should be denied medical care and just be "sent home to die".

*Stupid, greedy sheeple for swallowing his bilge.

So no one should be denied medical care?