Do Liberals Believe in Free Will or Preordination?

[jwoodie]

I ask this question because I find that most Liberals are either unable or unwilling to express their own solutions to problems until it has been determined by their superiors. Particularly in foreign affairs, they seem to have no idea what to do other than to oppose what they think is the Conservative solution while waiting for the Liberal solution to be developed. Ironically, if the Liberal solution happens to be the same as the Conservative solution, they will immediately turn around and enthusiastically support the same solution that they had criticized (and claim it as their own).

For Liberals who dispute this assertion, I invite you to disprove it by stating, specifically, what actions YOU think should be taken by the U.S. government in dealing with (A) the spread of ISIS and (B) Iran's nuclear weapon capability. Please note that if you are unable to state anything other than what you would NOT do, you have proved my thesis.

 

[bendog]

I think your thread is pre-ordained, but I'm not a liberal. I think Obama's for policy is a mess beyond Hillary seems to have done a good job in forcing Iran to at least engage constructively. Of course I realize you would prefer something other than the deal that's emerging.

 

[rightwinger]

A. ISIS: ISIS is a global problem and we need to use an international effort to isolate them and anyone who funds or harbors them. As usual, follow the money and hunt down their funding sources. It is not the job of the US to invade and provide security

B.Irans nuclear weapon capability: Iran has not invaded or fought anyone in over 30 years. They are currently being contained by international sanctions. Offer them a way out economically for discontinuing nuclear programs. Military action is not warranted

 

[jwoodie]

I think your thread is pre-ordained, but I'm not a liberal. I think Obama's for policy is a mess beyond Hillary seems to have done a good job in forcing Iran to at least engage constructively. Of course I realize you would prefer something other than the deal that's emerging.

As opposed to preferring a "deal that's emerging?" Thanks for proving my point.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do Liberals Believe in Free Will or Preordination

This one believes in neither.

A, liberalism, and not your business.
B, not your business.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The OP is clearly an idiot.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The OP is clearly an idiot.

Yes, but you have to wonder, where did he get the idea that the US gets to make the decisions for the rest the bloody world?

 

[jwoodie]

Yes, but you have to wonder, where did he get the idea that the US gets to make the decisions for the rest the bloody world?

You might want to reread this part (emphasis added):

For Liberals who dispute this assertion, I invite you to disprove it by stating, specifically, what actions YOU think should be taken by the U.S. government in dealing with (A) the spread of ISIS and (B) Iran's nuclear weapon capability. Please note that if you are unable to state anything other than what you would NOT do, you have proved my thesis.

If you think the U.S. government should take no actions regarding these issues, why not be honest enough to admit it? What about Obama's actions, both now (e.g., bombing) and in the future? Do/will you oppose them?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes, but you have to wonder, where did he get the idea that the US gets to make the decisions for the rest the bloody world?

You might want to reread this part (emphasis added):

For Liberals who dispute this assertion, I invite you to disprove it by stating, specifically, what actions YOU think should be taken by the U.S. government in dealing with (A) the spread of ISIS and (B) Iran's nuclear weapon capability. Please note that if you are unable to state anything other than what you would NOT do, you have proved my thesis.

If you think the U.S. government should take no actions regarding these issues, why not be honest enough to admit it? What about Obama's actions, both now (e.g., bombing) and in the future? Do/will you oppose them?

Read #5.

And yes, I oppose them just like I did the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. None of our damn business.

 

[rightwinger]

Conservative solutions

A. ISIS: Invade

B. Iran: Invade

 

[jwoodie]

For Liberals who dispute this assertion, I invite you to disprove it by stating, specifically, what actions YOU think should be taken by the U.S. government in dealing with (A) the spread of ISIS and (B) Iran's nuclear weapon capability. Please note that if you are unable to state anything other than what you would NOT do, you have proved my thesis.

Is this concept too difficult to grasp?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Liberal religion: govt

 

[rightwinger]

Liberal religion: govt

And?

 

[deltex1]

A. ISIS: ISIS is a global problem and we need to use an international effort to isolate them and anyone who funds or harbors them. As usual, follow the money and hunt down their funding sources. It is not the job of the US to invade and provide security

B.Irans nuclear weapon capability: Iran has not invaded or fought anyone in over 30 years. They are currently being contained by international sanctions. Offer them a way out economically for discontinuing nuclear programs. Military action is not warranted

Why should iran fight a war when they can use surrogates?

 

[SwimExpert]

This is a stupid thread. You may as well be asking whether blonds prefer ice cream or frozen yogurt. The first has no causal relationship to the second.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The OP is clearly an idiot.

Yes, but you have to wonder, where did he get the idea that the US gets to make the decisions for the rest the bloody world?

He gets it from the Spanish-American War, from 1917, Munich, the Cold War, Containment Policy, the Domino Theory, and the American Century – the errant, anachronistic notion propagated by the right that America must 'fight evil' wherever it manifests in the world, and that we must 'take the fight' to that manifestation of evil lest we end up fighting 'communists' or 'jihadists' or whomever on Main Street, USA.

It's the same failed policy most conservatives advocate that cost the lives of thousands of Americans in pointless wars such as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

He gets it from the wrongheaded conservative belief that only Americans can 'save the world,' and that America has the 'right' to engage in a 'preemptive strike' against a country the United States perceives to be a 'threat.'

That many conservatives wish to see more Americans die in pointless, failed wars is both telling and disturbing.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The OP is clearly an idiot.

Yes, but you have to wonder, where did he get the idea that the US gets to make the decisions for the rest the bloody world?

He gets it from the Spanish-American War, from 1917, Munich, the Cold War, Containment Policy, the Domino Theory, and the American Century – the errant, anachronistic notion propagated by the right that America must 'fight evil' wherever it manifests in the world, and that we must 'take the fight' to that manifestation of evil lest we end up fighting 'communists' or 'jihadists' or whomever on Main Street, USA.

It's the same failed policy most conservatives advocate that cost the lives of thousands of Americans in pointless wars such as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

He gets it from the wrongheaded conservative belief that only Americans can 'save the world,' and that America has the 'right' to engage in a 'preemptive strike' against a country the United States perceives to be a 'threat.'

That many conservatives wish to see more Americans die in pointless, failed wars is both telling and disturbing.

Maybe that's why they are so rah rah about the cannon fodder, guilt.