Question for the Liberals on this forum
 

I always hear Conservatives say that Liberals are wussies because Liberals are always on the defense as they cannot come up with solutions. Do you find that true?

Personally I was raised in an ultra-conservative society, but I have always wanted to be a Liberal & I am in the learning process of becoming a Liberal (you know...the transitional period). I am finding it very painful when a conservative attacks me without providing an intelligent response.

Do you find it painful too, or do you have enough "solutions" to back up your liberal beliefs and fight back as well?

Half the questions are just a collection of words than a real question. plus the world is just too complicated to solve everything with a simple "do this to fix this job done" attitude that seems to prevail from the right.

You're much more likely to get something working if you can listen and actually understand rather than be knee jerk reactionary and black and white about everything.

Well I would classify myself as middle of the road but if someone attacks you, you really have no reason to respond. However if you have views and you spit them out you need to have good rationale for believing what you do. I think that there are alot of people in this world who believe something on the basis of what a source tells them. You should definitely not try to fight for something you have not done any personal research into as you are simply spouting a single view that isn't even yours. Even if it sounds right to you. You should have something to backup your opinion and a counter argument for alternative views.

Also you need to see the difference between someone attacking you and someone debating with you. Someone who attacks starts out their comments with something derogatory. Like "Bush Sucks because" or "The cut and run liberals would have you believe...". These are the signs you are dealing with someone who doesn't know how to debate without attacking and will likely use attacks on things you believe to make you feel stupid for believing in them. I do not agree with the use of such tactics in debate as they have no purpose in finding truth.

In order for said conservative to acquire you as a "target," you must have done or said something that would make you stand out as a so-called liberal. Once you figure out what that is/was, then you can learn how to defend against said attacks.

Re: Question for the Liberals on this forum
 

It's going to be really hard to "backup" any "beliefs" when you want to throw every issue into one camp or another.

What?

Liberal, conservative? Both are fucking stupid. The concept of being on "one side" is probably the biggest mistake you can make.

Case in point:
"Are you liberal?"
"Yeah, I like to see myself as pretty liberal, I guess."
"Then you abort babies and smoke pot!?"

^ I'm for The Right of someone to do both!
I'm a left liberal! And the "right" is easily upset anyway. The "Right" usually, in my experience, asks questions in such a way that they want "their" answer. A lot of questions start with..."But don't you think blah blah blah...?" Uh..no! I don't!:weird:

I think my main problem with the liberals that are in control of this state is that they aren't liberal.

You can go to jail for a ridiculous length of time for relative nothing, while real scumbags will be viewed as "victims".

In McMinnville yesterday, there was a bad situation that went on too long. It seems the kids at one of the middle school adopted the custom of slapping each other on the ass for a greeting. The girls were doing it too. What else would you expect from 8th graders?.

This harmless hazing wasn't stopped by the school like it should have been. Now 2 boys are in jail for 5 counts of 1st degree sexual harrassment.

An interview with one of the "victims" shows she didn't think it was that big of a deal. The boys face spending the rest of their childhood in detention as the penalty for this is 10 years in prison. They will be labeled forever as sex offenders.

So much for "liberal".

If you think conservatives are going to lead you to a police state, look left. It isn't any better when menopausal democrats try to enforce their liberal "utopia" with police power.

Smoke em while you got em.

^ I'm a Liberal. I think, if what you are relating, are the true facts, that it has absolutely nothing to do with being liberal. It does have a lot to do with stupid. The Right And The Left can be stupid!:D

Hell, I'm a liberal too. I think this country should be "No autopsy, No foul". This isn't the "micromamage everyone's life" view that the democrats here hold.

One thing that I realize whenever politics comes up in any conversation (outside of the internet) is that very few liberals live in San Francisco, smoke pot, drive civics, or eat tofu just like very few conservatives own assault rifles, drive hummers, watch Nascar for hours on end or live in Texas.

These kinds of views are less acute here in out forums, but they seem to be a subconscious factor whenever one group talks about another.

I try to be very careful when talking to anyone lest I should make the debate into an attack, as Jay said.


By the way, what do you mean "learning to be liberal?" You make it sound as if you're being reeducated.

Meh, left and right are just different sides of the same coin. No matter who it is, you are going to get fucked. Government's #1 goal is to keep itself in power, not to help you; sometimes those goals coincide, usually they don't.

Arguing about politics is equatable to arguing on the internet which is of course equatable to running in the special Olympics: retarded.

I smoke babies.

Re: Question for the Liberals on this forum
 

There's rarely ever been an intelligent response in an argument between self-proclaimed "conservatives" and "liberals". In my experience, people who categorize themselves politically (especially when it's to the point of having a membership card) are rarely able to formulate an intelligent response to anything.

The need to stick to a category compromises an argument to the point of irrelevance, or at least to the point of rendering it a mitigated priority. And, as such, don't worry about "defending yourself". "Attacks" from self-proclaimed political positions don't warrant defense. If they can't brainstorm with all the options on the table, then I have no use for them.

(Not talking about anyone in particular, but rather, about "category holders" in general.)

You sound more like a libertarian, ROH, not a liberal.

libertarian = new name for a Classic Liberal

and, considering ROH's views on foreign policy, he is definitely not libertarian.

In my experience, the only people who view things in an us versus them, liberal versus conservative, democrat verus republicans, are the simpletons.

Don't be afraid to have your own opinion. In the United States most people are brainwashed to think with a hive mentallity. Just look at these forums ;)

You have a great name! And you're wrong!:D
I define myself because of how and what I vote on!:D

You might confuse my view on foreign policy for my view on the use of military force. Our military is not social workers. When the Iranians said they had nukes, a missile program, and the desire to wipe Israel off the planet, cruise missiles should have been hitting these facilities 5 minutes later.

Instead we are engaged in expensive, useless diplomacy which only serves the radicals. You can go back to the mistake Jimmy Carter made when he let america get "held hostage".

30 years to embolden themselves and arm. It should have never happened. I think a stronger posture would have saved us many of the problems we have now and hundreds of thousands of lives.

I disagree!:D

I can give you one example and a miscalculation by Kudafi. He thought he was dealing with Carter, when he started sinking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.

Reagan blasted him into the stone age. I don't think Kudafi ever would have tried that, if our response to the Iranians was more terse.

I think we could have avoided many of the problems, including the Lebanese and Libyan civil wars. Saddam probably wouldn't have invaded Kuwait etc. Saddam thought he was gonna get to keep Kuwait. Why wouldn't he think that?. I imagine he was astonished that we would send troops.

What we've taught these rogue states is that they can do anything they want and we won't do anything about it.

I think that's a mistake.

I think no matter how fucked up the world gets, NATO (and definitely not the US by themselves) are not the world police. Thinly veiled threats are not enough in my opinion, the only way to justify military force is

1. A response to an attack to your country
2. A response to a full-blown, no BS threat of an attack to your country

That's exactly the same theory that got Europe bombed to rubble in WWII. Your country, not mine.

Isn't preemption the line of logic that the Germans used to start WWs I and II?
Isn't preemption the reason the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor?

Pre-emption?.

The polish cavalry met Hitler on horseback with swords. The chinese met a modern Japanese army with sticks. The japanese killed 7 million chinese. The japanese attacked the Phillipines, which had no army at all. The french had devoted all their efforts to an "inpenetrable" defensive structure at the Maginot line. Holland lost in a day, surrendered, and then Hitler bombed Rotterdam flat. I could go on.

And here's the count of the dead....

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

62,537,800

What did America do after we won?. We gave them back their countries. We even gave them money to rebuild.

America is only the "Great Satan" if you listen to house democrats and radical islamic fundamentalists.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Sometimes you post things kind of related to something kind of mentioned, but has absolutely no logical continuity with the topic at hand, This is one of those times.

[quote] Isn't preemption the line of logic that the Germans used to start WWs I and II?
Isn't preemption the reason the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor?{/quote]

What are you talking about?. You say Hitler was acting pre-emptively. Against what?. Some Polish guys with swords?.

You say Japan was acting pre-emptively. Against what?. Unarmed Chinese?.

Hitler invaded France to stop what?. A DEFENSIVE army?.

I guess Britain must have been somehow asking for it when Hitler bombed them.

YES.
This is my point exactly.
Bush so far has acted preemptively against what? Some guys on camels?
Preemption is an excuse to be the cause of wars!
so when you advocate Preemptive strikes on Iran:
You are advocating mindless warring, not anything reasonable of any sorts.

They aren't on camels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic...c_of_Iran_Army
http://www.iranwatch.org/wmd/wmd-iranmissileessay.htm

And they have told us that they would not stay inside their borders, if they had a choice.

Re-read:
So far, we haven't preemptively attacked Iran, yet.
We did meaninglessly invade Iraq.


And you apparently missed (*cough*dodged*cough*) my main point:
Preemption is an excuse to cause wars!
When you advocate Preemptive strikes on Iran, you are advocating mindless warring, not anything reasonable of any sorts.

Back to the "Bush is Hitler" nonsense eh?.

Typically, when people resort to misrepresenting the other side's arguments, it's because they have none of their own.
Glad to know you've taken it there.

It's just so clear from your other posts, that Bush is a warmonger, but somehow democrats that voted for the war too will save the day with some liberal goop.

If you look back at WWII, the same political struggles were taking place in Europe and the US. This detained us in stopping Hitler, when we could have.

The French especially. Political bickering, which had little to do with the realities of their situation, was their undoing.

I've never claimed to have faith in either major political party.
This might seem mind blowing to you, to the point of maybe even being some sort of scam, but I promise you it's a perfectly legitimate claim.

"It is in your own interest (western nations) to distance yourself from these criminals (Israelis)... This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow," he cautioned. "Nations will take revenge."

“Our dear Imam [The late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder the Iranian Revolution] said that the occupying regime [Israel] must be wiped off the map, and this was a very wise statement.”

"The train of the Iranian nation is without brakes and a rear gear. We dismantled the rear gear and brakes of the train and threw them away sometime ago."

"Nuclear energy is our undisputable right," "Death to America," "Death to Israel," "Death to Denmark."

"The Holocaust's 'a myth,' Israel must be 'wiped off the map,' the U.S. should just mind its own business."

“The only tool against the enemy that we have with which we can become victorious are martyrdom-seeking operations and, God willing, our possession of faithful, brave, trained and zealous persons will give us the upper hand in the battlefield”

""The first target is Israel. For us, that is the battlefield. All the Jews are targets."

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation."

"Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine, and more eternal than the art of martyrdom? A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity."

"We are all obliged to keep alive the culture of martyrdom-seeking in the society."

-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran

This guy should not be allowed to have a button to push. NO HOW!.

how's that any different than:
?

Hail Cesar! Kill the Persians!
Heil Hitler! Kill the Jews!
Heil Bush! Kill the Arabs!
Allah o Akabar! Jihad against the great Satan!

When will you people learn? The message has not changed only the voices of the clowns shouting.

True, true, on foreign policy and wars in general but his views on domestic policies are often libertarian. i.e. no government intervention in most every aspect of daily life. --> "no autopsy, no foul."

Libertarians are more like the extreme wing of the Republic party in that they believe in complete freedom from interfering government officials. If someone tells you he's a libertarian, it probably means he doesn't care about gay marriage or abortion other than he thinks the government should keeps its big nose out of private affairs.


Liberals like laws to protect the social contract and restraints on corporations.

The republic party favors laws to protect the social/moral code in distinct areas where their interests lie -- abortion/gay-osity and no restraints on business of any kind.

Those are simplifications but work as a basic outline. All pov's are sometimes right and sometimes waaaaay wrong, a fact not often ceded in these divisive/divided times we live in.


ROH, like most of us on this forum is a complex human, meaning he is probably a so called liberal on some issues, rock solid rightie on some, libertarian on some and moderate on none (kidding)

I'm not quite a libertarian. I believe that we do have a social responsibility to help the poor etc.

What I don't believe is that the current democrats are interested much in accomplishing that goal.

I think they are bogged down in expensive trivia, and I think they are far too willing to exert police power to solve social issues.

Reagan dissenters accused him of "trickle down economics". I accuse the democrats of "trickle down social programs".

It's not enough that they want to mis-micromanage our lives, they want to get paid for it.... well paid.

In order to accomplish this goal, they need to break down your family, bust up your churches and reduce the average intelligence of people.

And they are succeeding.

Frankly, it scares the hell out of me. "Liberals" running around screaming "I hate Bush", but they don't know why. For the vast majority of us, things sucked before Bush and they continue to suck.... but not any worse...

I think many of my political views are driven by my line of work. Since I work in public education, it's only natural for me to side with the more liberal standpoint on educational issues. In my opinion and based on the research I have seen, historically, liberals have done more good to get the general public educated when compared to conservitaves. The conservative view tends to vote against funding education, and that hurts me personally, knowing I have to see the faces of the students that are directly affected by it. That's a big part of why I tend to sway to the left when voting and engaging in political discussions.

There are other things too, far too many to list, but really, that's probably the biggest reason for me to sway left.

One thing I tend to sway right on is the abortion issue. I am an adopted person, having been almost a victim of abortion. Luckily my birth mother went through with the pregnancy and birth despite the fact that she didn't at all feel she could handle raising a child. She gave me up for adoption and I was picked up by good adopting parents. Because of this I only support abortion for medical purposes (e.g. saving the mother's life during a complication, preventing a life of suffering when the baby has a major disorder, etc.)

So I guess I do occasionally swing right, but it's a lot less common when compared to my left views.