# Question:What's the difference between democrats and repubs?



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

Question: How do you tell the difference between democrats, and republicans?

Answer: By asking the following question... You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

-Democrat's Answer: 
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or Oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healther street that would discourage such behavior. This is so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.

-Republican's Answer: BANG!


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

I love it!!!


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

:beer: You got it man.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Goose,

Are you sure you are from the "Left Coast"???? None the less, good post.... :thumb: :thumb:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

This Republican's answer: BANG BANG...BANG
(I was taught the three round drill, 2 center mass, 1 to the head) 

k: k:

:beer:

huntin1


----------



## north14 (Oct 1, 2004)

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

So basically the democrat thinks things through, possibly for too long, where as the republican makes a quick and rash decision. Yep, you've got it down pat :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If you run into more of these that you don't understand MT just pm any of the conservatives on the site and they can explain it for you. You see MT the gist of the text was that liberals are so tied up in political correctness that in the above situation they would die before they could make a decision. Much like the war on terror. Our major cities would be smoldering and they would still be debating. If the mugger didn't shoot the liberal the liberal would die of old age before he could make a decision. Also, the scenario described set a scene that requited a fast decision and lethal force was required. The fast mind lives, the slow one dies.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> So basically the democrat thinks things through, possibly for too long, where as the republican makes a quick and rash decision. Yep, you've got it down pat :beer:


No, the democrat dies while trying to use his imagined superior intellect to ponder a situation that requires action in order to stay alive.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> If you run into more of these that you don't understand MT just pm any of the conservatives on the site and they can explain it for you. You see MT the gist of the text was that liberals are so tied up in political correctness that in the above situation they would die before they could make a decision. Much like the war on terror. Our major cities would be smoldering and they would still be debating. If the mugger didn't shoot the liberal the liberal would die of old age before he could make a decision. Also, the scenario described set a scene that requited a fast decision and lethal force was required. The fast mind lives, the slow one dies.


It was understood, the situation itself simply wasn't logical. If it was an unarmed bum running at you, that would be a more apt situation. Even so, where do you get these things about the war on terror? Who exactly didn't support the war in afghanistan (you remember, when we were fighting terror)? I'm sure that you're speaking of Iraq though, because you still refuse to admit that Iraq was no threat to the US whatsoever, and that you were wrong. We passed up actual threats like Saudi Arabia in favor of somewhere that didn't have the ability or the want to hurt us like Iraq. With democrats in office we would have a secure future, free of terror. Thanks to the republicans and their values such that a good economic deal is more important than safety from terror (the saudis) we have an uncertain future, and one which may well include another major attack.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

huntin1,

I think we need to get together and drink a few beers.....2 to the body and one to the head.....you are exactly correct...a "hammerd pair" which is one "sight picture" and 2 shots which is much more effective than a "controled pair" which is 2 "sight pictures" and 2 shots....lol....we dont want to forget about the 3rd shot .....to the head...... :wink: it is usually not needed...none the less it is taught......although it is usually a "mercy" shot......Remember "muscle memory".....training at its best.....I can "go into" why a "hammered pair" is more effective in a situation such as this but wont beings this is not the topic.....

Mt,

You will NEVER cease to amaze me!!!!


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Jiffy,

Yeah, the 3rd shot normally isn't needed, but is good insurance, or practice, whichever the case may be. 

Beers? that sounds good to me.

:beer: :beer:

huntin1


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

I think it's safe to say that Tiger and his family would be dead.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Storm said:


> I think it's safe to say that Tiger and his family would be dead.


Give me a reasonable situation and I will give you a reasonable response.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So basically the democrat thinks things through, possibly for too long, where as the republican makes a quick and rash decision. Yep, you've got it down pat





> Give me a reasonable situation and I will give you a reasonable response.


Your first response indicates that you think that a democrat was justified in the actions taken. Why do you need another situation, your dead in the first one. You also state in your first post that the republican made a rash decision. So how would you have handled it?


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> > > If you run into more of these that you don't understand MT just pm any of the conservatives on the site and they can explain it for you. You see MT the gist of the text was that liberals are so tied up in political correctness that in the above situation they would die before they could make a decision. Much like the war on terror. Our major cities would be smoldering and they would still be debating. If the mugger didn't shoot the liberal the liberal would die of old age before he could make a decision. Also, the scenario described set a scene that requited a fast decision and lethal force was required. The fast mind lives, the slow one dies.
> ...


You need to stop being so damned naive. Terrorism has happened no matter who is in office. The main difference is how it is dealt with. Reagan handled it, Bush is handling it while Clinton bombed an aspirin factory...see the differences?

You cannot rationalize with irrational people....the terrorist are irrational. The only way to deal with them is to kill all of them off....you cannot have tea and cake with these people.

JG


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Hey Left coast goose hunter. Your words made me think!



> You cannot rationalize with irrational people....the terrorist are irrational. The only way to deal with them is to kill all of them off.


I wonder who tends to think more rational, Rep's or Dem's?

Just look at the original post.

TC


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I wonder who tends to think more rational, Rep's or Dem's?
> 
> Just look at the original post.


Yeah, but the Dem's only get to do it once. The Rep's can do it as long as they don't run out of ammo........when they do, then they become a statistic like the OP Dem.
:lol:


----------

