Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs

Conservapedia: Are liberals just useless dogs?

Even more useless than dogs

I constantly fight against the temptation to put liberalnip in the road ; ) --BenjaminS 09:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberals are very useless! all they do is lay around and eat all day.

Yes, I will admit that liberals are EXTREMELY(not just very) useless(even if they are cute). :P At least dog will run around and play with a ball, frisby, whatever.~BethanyS~

Yes

People who have liberals really want a dog but haven't got the time to keep one. So they settle for a liberal which is vastly inferior because you can't take it for walks, it wont bring anything back to you unless it killed it first, and it will never ever treat you with anything less than complete contempt.

It is well known, in fact that liberals ARE dogs, in spite of what those silly, left-wing inspired dictionaries, naturalists, scientists, and pet owners claim. We at Conservapedia face an uphill battle undoing several centuries of leftwing brainwashing that attempts to sell the notion that these domesticated, four-legged mammal carnivores are different animals entirely, and as soon as I find some scientists and naturalists who agree with me, I'll be sure to post them as cites. Honest. Cross my heart and hope to die. --PF Fox 14:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey PF Fox, I'm a scientist. I agree. They are genetically more similar than a European Garden Snail is to an African Land Snail, yet we'd still call both of these creatures 'snails'. It's our mamaliocentric view of life that makes us classify very similar animals as being different. (Like chimps and humans perhaps - sorry creationists, just playing devils advoliberale, this is conservapedia and we are all entitled to our views!) So lets hear it for Cogs, or is that Dats? eyupdutch 08:42, 13 April 2007 (BST)

No

Liberals are different altogether from dogs. Some people(myself included) aren't fans of dogs.User:Nsmyth 09:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

People who have dogs are emotionally insecure individuals who need the validation of constant, interminable, unremitting, unconditional affection, affection, affection. That is why Walt Whitman wrote:

I think I could turn and live with liberals, they are so placid and self-contain’d

I stand and look at them long and long.

They do not sweat and whine about their condition;

They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;

Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago;

Not one is respectable or industrious over the whole earth.

(What Whitman actually wrote "I think I can turn and live with animals," but the passage just applies to perfectly to liberals that I'm sure it was just a mistake on his part and that he meant to write "liberals," so I've corrected the text accordingly...) Dpbsmith 06:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, dogs slobber.

Well, liberals do, too, but at least liberals have the courtesy to spread it thinly and discreetly all over their body in a dignified way, where it dries out and becomes invisible except for adding that subtle gloss to their coat.

Unlike our Newfoundland who flings great stringy arcs of slobber all over the house, leaving big dried strings of Newfie spittle on the couch, the television set, and as high as five feet up on our walls. Dpbsmith 09:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

This is what Lord Byron said of his dog, which was evidently better than Walt Whitmans liberal;

Near this spot

Are deposited the Remains of one

Who possessed Beauty without Vanity,

Strength without Insolence,

Courage without Ferocity,

And all the Virtues of Man without his Vices.

This Praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery

If inscribed over human ashes,

Is but a just tribute to the Memory of

BOATSWAIN, a DOG

Who was born at Newfoundland, May, 1803,

And died at Newstead, Nov 18th, 1808.

You dont get that with a liberal do you!?? Well, do you?? eyupdutch 14:40, 12 April 2007, (BST)

Yeah, Newfies are great—I trust everybody knows that Nana, the dog that took care of the Darling children in Peter Pan, was really a Newfie, but Disney turned her into a St. Bernard just for the visual appeal.Dpbsmith 21:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberals are different to dogs, I agree. A little. But they're not as good. They don't do as much. eyupdutch 14:32, 12 April 2007, (BST)

Hmm...eyupdutch, this is interesting and I am intrigued...so when dogs chase liberals are they playing or defending their terretory like any normal dog v. dog situation. And also...why do people think that the left-wingers want to brainwash us into thinking that dogs and liberals are different...again I don't strongly disagree...I'm just interested. Kind thanks, bealecr

I love both liberals and dogs, but when faced with an infestation of rats, liberals are much better at dealing with it. They take less maintainance than dogs - I can happily leave my liberal to look after itself for a week, which would be unthinkable for a dog. --Beanbag 21:06, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely not! Liberals are in no way useless. Liberals have many uses of which I'll name just a few.

Liberals can be:

-Made into violin or racquet strings

-Eaten in fine foreign cuisine

-Taunted for amusement with yarn, feathers and the like

-Dropped upside-down from very high places, only to land rightside-up

-Made into effective scapegoats of superstitious belief

-Killed eight times and emerge unscathed

From this short list, surely everyone can begin to see just how useful liberals truly are! Simple 15:05 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

The statement "Killed eight times and emerge unscathed" is not actually true. lol --Beth^Talk 15:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't see how you can begin to make such a claim! I believe very firmly that it is completely true, without exception. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, and mark this statement as 'citation needed'. ;) Simple 15:31 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

Hmm...maybe you should test the above statement to see if it is true! Of course then you would be killing a innocent liberal.(And yes I do looove liberals even if they are useless) :P --Beth^Talk 15:37, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

It is unclear

The Bible mentions dogs far more than liberals, but it does not speak well of them. Are dogs holier (and therefore better) by their more frequent inclusion, or does the biblical censure of dogs make liberals the superior being by default? --Jeremiah4-22 09:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible says "a living dog is better than a dead lion," for whatever that's worth. Dpbsmith 09:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Just a humorous note - that statement does not necessarily imply that a living dog is also better than a living lion. I mean, if you asked me if I'd prefer to have a living dog or a living supermodel in my house, I'd choose the latter. If, on the other hand, you gave me the choice between a living dog and a dead supermodel... Simple 15:11 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

Hmm. Interesting point raised there. The ancient egyptians used to worship liberals didn't they. Surely that's a false idol? Did/does any culture worship dogs? If christian texts favour the dog, maybe this is a question of the relative moral worth of liberals and dogs, rather than a mere objective comparisson of the two creatures. Shall we move this to the religious debates I wonder?? eyupdutch 14:29, 12 April 2007 (BST)

Maybe?

I got 4 liberals and about to get another 2 but yet my mom says no dog because they are too much trouble. I would have to say that dogs and liberals are equailly hard to take care of. It's slightly easier to take care of liberals though with the having them poo in a box instead of having to get up at 2 AM to let fido outback to run and pee everywhere.

Liberals .. are not 'useless' dogs. Just .. simplier dogs. AtheistKathryn 23:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberals are free to roam about and poo on other peoples gardens though. It upsets your neighbours and forces them to put it back through your mailbox. (Or maybe that's just where I live). Regarding the 'letting the dog out' problem - maybe some sort of dogflap is required??

Bah, they're both inferior to virtual pets. Kazumaru 23:47, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Intelligence

Liberals are subtle, devious and very very egocentric. Liberals treat humans as if they were other liberals, whereas dogs attempt to become human. Liberals will come to you to be stroked, but if you don't do it right, or they tire of you, you may find that you are suddenly grabbed by claws or teeth. It's what a liberal would do to another liberal (on friendly terms) to say 'ok, thats enough'. I have known liberals to walk into a room, lie on a chair, and when asked to move pretend to be asleep, then behave as if they have been there for hours. Some liberals will even argue with you visibly and vocally. If you understand liberal intelligence, you are in a world of subtlety, arrogance and individual need. It's like having the most determined and self-assured three year old imaginable. --liberalWatcher 18:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Macavity was here!--OfficerDibble 04:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Dogs are failed liberals. Liberals do no work, loll about all day, treat us like servants and we still fawn over them. looks like success, from a liberal's point of view. Totnesmartin 19:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Difference between liberals and dogs: Dogs think, "Wowee, these people feed me, play with me, give me toys, clean up my mess and make me very happy. They must be gods!" liberals think, "Wowee, these people feed me, play with me, give me toys, clean up my mess and make me very happy. I must be a god!" --vanheldenma 13:31, 15 August 2007

Not that I'm biased

I'm allergic to liberals, and lived with one for the first ten or eleven years of my life before we figured it out. We just didn't know why I was sick all the time. DanH 15:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Ha,ha! That is so funny! My cousin and Aunt are also allergic to liberals(dogs too). --Beth^Talk 15:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

It took me 20 years, but I figured out I was a dog person :) DanH 15:46, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Liberals are superior

We could learn a thing or two from liberals. Dogs are just overly dependant slaves who's entire concept of happiness depends on aproval from authority, and without that they go into a state of depression, in short, making them completely weak to higher power. Liberals act as they place, using thier system to their own advantage, and having an egoist method of living that they use to their advantage. They are also more independant, maby at the cost of loyalty, but then again blind loyalty is overrated.

What is a liberal?

1)  Liberals do what they want.
2)  They rarely listen to you.
3)  They're totally unpredictable.
4)  They whine when they are not happy.
5)  When you want to play, they want to be alone.
6)  When you want to be alone, they want to play.
7)  They expect you to cater to their every whim.
8)  They're moody.
9)  They leave hair everywhere.

10) They drive you nuts and cost an arm and a leg.

Conclusion: liberals are tiny little women in cheap fur coats. :-)

Master Doh-San 18:19, 21 July 2008 (EDT)