How Difficult is it to Find 'Common ground' to have a Discussion with a Liberal ??

Question

Post a question on Terrorism.. . ....and they deny it's existence or importance .
Post a question about Morals or God.. . . . . and they deny the existence of God and double-talk the morals question.
Post a question about Achmadinejad of Iran. .. ... . ..and they make excuses for his behavior, blame it on Bush, Blame it on the U.S., blame it on anyone EXCEPT him .
Post a question about the CLEAR inadequacies of Nancy Pelosi.....and they defend the fool .
Post a question about Iraq.. . ...... . . ..and they'll do anything BUT answer the question logically or even address the question at all !!
Post a question about Nancy Pelosi's appointment of Reyes as HEAD of the 'Select Intelligence Committee' .. . . . . . .. and they are clueless that he's clueless..... ..that's dangerous .

Aren't the Liberals among the most dangerous and evasive and evasive and evasive and evasive and evasive people who have ever walked this planet ???????

And I should have included : Ask a question about Jon Carry's subversive and illegal acts of negotiating with our enemies.. ......and they defend his right to 'free speech' !!! Are they even aware of the LAW ?
For those of you who absolutely NEED a 'link' to live.. . . . . . ..read my question profile and then of corse, you'll be EVASIVE AGAIN !! Several users told me to 'give up' on you liberals, but for some reason, I keep thinking that you must have some decency and maybe one or two of you have a heart and soul !!!

Answer 1

I see once more, the liberals have failed your test of having to actually read through the question before pitching their typical temper tantrums. Of course, oh clever one, you know your audience all too well, naturally this would be the outcome. Well done!

There actually is an answer to your question, as you well know, and the answer is clear, the common ground can be reached only on the level of property rights. In other words, whereas the two groups often disagree as to what degree, and to whom the property rights belong. Neither would suggest that people aren't entitled to certain inalienable rights, which are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, the fabrics of our "Bill of Rights".

In the case of abortion for instance, a conservative may say the right to life belongs to the infant, and the liberal may state the liberty to make choices pertaining to one's own body belongs solely to the mother. Both however agree that it is not the governments place to deprive life from either (as in the case of the Chinese government policy of forced abortion for purposes of population control.)

One may say, that the Iraq invasion, was either a mistake, or even wrong, until the liberal is confronted with the question of "Well did you feel it was acceptable for Iraq to invade Kuwait, for purposes, of 'I don't know' stealing oil resources?" The answer is, "Of course not", or perhaps, position it a different way, "Did you feel it was appropriate for the dictator of Iraq, to murder millions of his citizens and adversaries?" Obviously, your liberal friend would be forced into an agreement once more, in which, the only appropriate answer would be, "Well, uh No, I don't think this dictator's actions should have been ignored given the massive evidence, and mass graves, and admitted nuclear plans in the works. In this case, not taking action, could be far more damaging (Let's not forget, this was a dictator, who allowed Al Qaeda to train in terrorist training camps in Northern Iraq)."

Yes, it does no good to attack their politicians, both are inclined to defend their own party's politicians, in spite of clear evidence, politicians are often self-serving regardless of party. Just stick with the tenets of fairness, and ask the simpleton in each case, who has the right to violate another's rights, and what should be done each time this condition exists.

Of course, the UN was an organization designed to settle such disputes, but given the current climate there, we must rely on our "Cowboys" in the interim. Thank God for the Cowboys!!

Answer 2

You can't be totally serious. Do you read all the quesions and answers? Do you see all the name calling and evasiveness from the conservative side? I would say the evasiveness is pretty equally split. We could debate forever on which side is cruder and ruder.

As one responder mentioned, this site is about opinions. Occasionally, we will find remarks that are backed up with information, but how often have you seen a well thought out answer with links to back it up, still garner a bunch of "thumbs downs"? Happens all the time.

I don't consider myself to be a complete liberal, but know that becuase I am not a fan of Bush, I am labeled as a liberal.

That said, here are some of my opinions on what you have brought up:

Terrorism is real. We were attacked on 9-11 by terrorists. There needs to be a "war on terror" by every country on earth. It is important, but I do not think attacking Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror. I think it has drained our resources to fight the real war on terror. I also do not know if anyone of us knows how serious the war on terror is becuase Bush and the Republicans have been using it as a tool to win elections.

I will not deny the existance of God. I am a Chistian and God and Jesus are very important in my life. You need to realize that the majority of so called liberals are Christian. Anytime you see an answer that denies the existance of God, you are NOT seeing an answer that represents the majority of Liberals in America.

Achmadinejad of Iran is a fool. Perhaps even insane.

Liberals do blame a lot on Bush. Many liberals do not feel the war in Iraq was the way to go. Many believe we were "conned" into the war by the President selling it to Congress as the war on terror. We get tired of hearing how great the economy is when we are well aware that personal savings are at an all time low and personal debt is at an all time high.

You say blame Bush, blame Bush, blame Bush. What about all the Clinton talk that we see daily. It is almost 2007, why does this guy even get brought up. Usually it is used as part of some conservative evasive manuver.

Liberals respond defensively to Pelosi becuase the "new" Democratic controlled Congress doesn't even start until 2007. I personally am concerned about her, but I am willing to give her a chance and hope she doesn't screw it up.

I've already commented in another post about Reyes. He should have known those answers.

You know how I feel about Iraq. It shouldn't have happened. Now it is a mess. You posted a question asking how we could leave these people becuse they will die if we do. We shouldn't be there. Now they are in a situation where they thousands have died becuase we are there and you think many more will die if we leave. Sadly, that almost makes it sound as if they would have been better off if Saddam was still in power. We know that is not true, but too many of them have had to die. Do you realistically see an end to this thing? This country is divided in to three parts and they all hate each other. How are WE supposed to fix that? Not only that, the majority of them want us to leave now.

You are going to continue to see evasive answers on here, but you need to notice that it is coming from both sides. Part of it might be that people aren't used to seeing intelligent questions. They are few and far between.

Answer 3

Someone wanting to find why logic has failed usually needs look no further than themselves.. you ask a question about an OPINION you have and get upset because they have a different opinion? If you truly want to have a debate about something and not just the stuff that is for fun (lets face it.. this site isn't exactly the most serious venue) then you may have picked the wrong place.. I save my serious debate for face to face with my friends (I have friends from all over the political spectrum.. heck.. my girlfriend is a republican and i'm a democrat lol) .. on here.. just sit back and enjoy the show imho.

Oh wait.. I almost missed it.. you are sitting back and enjoying the show lol.. whew I thought you were serious for a minute :P

Answer 4

First of all, you're not being objective with your questions. You won't get an open minded dialog when you put people on the defensive from the start.
If the discussion is an open dialog, you'll find liberals and conservatives have similar concerns, particularly on the terrorist threat. There are some people who believe no such a threat exist, but those people are few.
The gap between liberals and conservatives is not as wide as the politicians want you to think.

Answer 5

I think the problem mostly lies in needing to divide all people up into the liberal or conservative camp. It should be possible, for example, to disagree about how terrorism should be handled without automatically labeling someone a liberal because they don't agree with you. The Nancy Pelosi issue is a great example. To you, she has CLEAR inadequacies. I tend to see her strengths, and they are many, though I don't think she walks on water. When people talk about Bush's inadequacies you bristle, but it is CLEAR to them that he is inadequate. Why does a difference in political opinion have to include an assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is dangerous and evasive?

Most of all, why is everyone who disagrees with you labeled a liberal? I disagree with the way the war on terrorism is being handled. I don't deny the danger or its incredible importance. I just don't think Bush has addressed it adequately or correctly at all - for one thing he underestimates the weaknesses of our infrastructure in regard to it and hasn't done enough to make us able to fight it from within. He puts too much weight on the assumption that his war will keep them from our shores, and I think that's extremely dangerous and makes us a little too comfortable and blind to the fact that we will most likely see another attack on our soil and we should be ready for it. That's my opinion, and it hardly makes me a liberal. I guess I'm just tired of the black and white dividing up of people into the conservative and liberal camps. A lot of us have opinions that tend to reflect both sides from time to time. Why is that never acknowledged so a debate can simply be a debate without labeling or name calling?

Answer 6

It depends on who yer talking to. Me I don't side fully with either party, but I suppose that politically I'm more liberal than conservative. As far as terrorism goes, I think that if the evidence and the intelligence pointed to Ossama having funded or at least help train the attackers and kamikaze's and sleeper cells throughout the world, we should be there wherever we have credible evidence that he is there, fighting his protective forces and hunting him and his counterparts down. I don't believe for a second that Hussein had anything to do with bin Laden, but I do think he had WMOD's, we just haven't got a lock on them yet. It's important to us that we find them because we provided them and manufactured them, so we are still solely for them and any atrocities committed with them. That toll is on our heads. Kim Jong Il is not a force to be reckoned with, but something to keep an eye on. Those new nuclear programs may very well be powered by the WMOD's that we couldn't find in Iraq.China practically owns us, and they are a pragmatic and practical people, they won't allow some itty-bitty third world power to blow up their investment before they blow Korea out of the water. If they suspect or observe anything they'll shut him down for us.

I believe in GOD, and I think that morals are subjective to the individual. But when the Untied States is involved in anything at all, it is crucial that a common or middle ground be found observed mutually by all political and military angles, even if the specifics of application differ. The world will always look at us differently than it will itself, we are a world super-power of epic proportions, and yet we are so young as an empire, and even younger as a world power. When it comes to Christmas and celebrating it, call it what it is, Jews Muslims, Hindus atheists and everyone else were able deal with it for years before all this bullsh*t sensitivity stuff got to cluttering the airwaves. They didn't celebrate it b/c it wasn't their belief and they went on with their day, the only real inconvenience was that a lot of business places were closed for that holiday. If it's gonna be so bad to call Christmas what it is, I better find a K-Mart, a Target a Toys-R-Us McDonald's Pizza Hut hair salon and a Radio Shack open and delivering on the 25th b/c now that the inconvenience of acknowledging that it's the Christian holiday and not another religions holiday is gone it should not be a hassle for me to order in and pick up a movie if my family isn't readily available to celebrate.

I don't buy for a second that Achmedinejad's actions are justifiable. But there have been some questionable maneuvers made by the US in that region of the world and I cannot and will not deny that. Achmed acts of his own free will and accord, and I believe that anyone who attempts to defend him using the argument of 'look what the US is doing though' is too cowardly to admit to themselves that it is not always black and white, Either that, or they aren't intelligent enough to form their own opinions, so they piggyback another obscure or objective opinion or analysis so they can look like they are standing out and being smart. I don't like Bush, but I personally don't blame him for what goes on, I blame his cabinet and his daddy's cronies. They're pulling the strings and making sh*t happen. He lacks the introspective capacity and level of genius required to carry out dictate and enforce the things done in his name. But the reason I don't like him is because he lacks competence, and it is for that reason that all those bureaucrats are able to use him as their tool.

I don't believe that Iraq had anything to do with Ossama or 9/11, but since we are there our primary concern should be finding and disarming or decommissioning (whatever the term is) the WMOD's we provided. That being said, I think we should explore the possibility that Korea might be where they were relocated to. I think that if we are going to 'stay the course' we should make that course a little more realistic is substantial. That being said we should try to trace the WMOD's that obviously aren't there anymore and go extract them from wherever they are now, before they can do anymore damage.

I haven't really paid much attention to Nancy Pelosi so I can't rightly say much on the issue and the same goes for Reyes.

Answer 7

ok in an attempt to locate hardship-unfastened floor i will answer Adam N's 4 factors. a million) Throwing funds on the answer wont artwork. Why? the traditional value of inner maximum college is $3,116per student and the ave value in step with student for public college is $6,857.(source: US Dept coaching) inner maximum colleges have a lots bigger fee a commencement and added coaching for his or her pupils. The vouchers enable the poorer childern the oppertunity to have a extra useful coaching at a decrease fee in step with student for the tax payer. How is this a bad ingredient? inner maximum colleges ought to accomplish nicely or they are going to fail. Public colleges have not any hardship of failing so as that they dont do tremendously much as good of a job. Competion breeds sucess. 2) I agree a hundred%. 3) wonderful shall we drop the subsidys yet shall we additionally drop the taxes that account for 37% of the fee of gasoline. those taxes are what pay for the subsidys so gasoline could nonetheless finally end up being extra low value. additionally enable do away with each and every of the "specific" blends that each and each state, hell sometimes each and each county has and formulize one blend for each 3 octane tiers. this additionally will shrink the fee of gasoline approximately 5%. A observe on Ethanol in spite of if each and all of the corn procuded in the U. S. became switched over for gasoline it may be adequate to capacity our vehicles much less industry that relies upon upon crude to offer capacity. And thge terrific gasoline cells(capacity produce and toughness) are made with petrolium. 4 Agian I agree. purchase a truck in case you like the hauling capacity in any different case purchase a (mini)van or station wagon.

Answer 8

You can't expect them to agree with you or what fun would this site be. The whole idea is a free experssion of ideas, and just to make it fun, there should be some wit and sarcasm involved too. The trick is to not be so over the top that the Yahoo Politboro removes you.

Answer 9

Given the framing of your question and subsequent: post.....they.....observations; I'd think you would have an extremely difficult time conversing with anyone who disagrees with your views. Unfortunately or fortunately, you actually don't want to "find common ground". Your 'mind' is locked up.

Answer 10

Well put. Notice how the first response was to call you dumb. This is so he does not have to debate you in the arena of ideas. His comment is to say you are not worthy of his intellect.

It would be refreshing to see our elected officials worry more about finding real answers to difficult problems than worry about getting re-elected.

Isn't it time for term limits?