After recent events in other topics, I decided to make this one.

All liberals on this site, I want you to post a comprehensive, intelligent list of what you think is wrong with America, with reasons and sources to any random, specific info. Then the conservatives will respond, and then Conservatives will post a list etc. So, I ask you, liberals, formulate a list and post it on hear. I'm sure I'll enjoy this.

heres a list
war in iraq - we should have never gone and should be leaving rather that increasing(to those who say congress can't do anything about the troop icrease they can block the funding needed to send the roops there democrats plan to block funding
genocide in darfur - we should be helping the situation in darfur, a diplomat from Africa claims we need to help or the genocide won't stop darfur

heres a list with some other important things from turnleft.com

has good links supporting all these issues

Maybe we should have not gone to Iraq but is pulling out the troops the smartest option? Yes the immediate effect would be a massive drop in troop casualties, but if and when a civil war erupts as it threatens to do this moment, and the government is overthrown, we would be forced to send in troops not against guerilla forces but all out radical military forces. By blocking funding you would only cause troops to go into battle unprepared and under equipped, which would not only lose the battle, but the drastic increase in casualties would be a huge blunder on the liberal side.

If your giving them equal rights just don't call it marriage

I don't think economic fairness can coexist with human nature.

Civil rights for all?...Even illegal immigrants, (I'm not talking about people who are waiting for their visa but people who have no intention on getting one)

You could say that with an insane defense there would be no worry of going to war as opposed to a sane defense in which another nation would not think twice about attacking.

Civic Values huh? It sounds good on paper but like Economic fairness, it simply can't coexist with human nature.

I'm not sure if you do or not, but I do agree on harsher gun laws.

Wow, I still can't comprehend why people think abortion should be legal, enough said.

We have to freedom to speak our mind, just be prepared to hear what someone else has to say.

I believe in some cases torture should be deemed necessary

As for Religious Liberal Perspectives, they seem good only on paper.

You however did bring up an impressive stand, that even liberals here would not, good job, instances like this is why I belive this forums were created.

Without sounding too repetative, I agree with Nemo.

And not with Is Fusa. :angry:

While saying we should have never gone in may be legitimate, those are our troops over there. Not supporting funding will not only make the democrats look anti-soldier, but anger the families of everyone who has a young man or woman on the fields. Bush is going to send the men over there, despite whether or not he has some extra cash to spend on extra protection for the soldiers. Ragardless of whether Bush is justified, is this what the democrats want? As long as our troops our there, they must be supported.

Now, I don't want to sound biased or biggoted at all, but with all due respect Africa is a lost cause. If one side wants to kill another, the United States can do all it wants and the genocide will not stop. The one thing that can prevent genocide on that continent is, quite simply, realigning the borders in Africa to coenside with the tribal regions. That way, we will not have multiple warring tribes in one nation causing civil wars that decimate the economies and cause stagnation. Simply going in there now would not only risk American lives but only temporarily relieve a situation that will without question return to these activities, as history has proven. What do you suggest we do? Send our troops to simply stand in the middle and mediate? Short of that, our words will mean nothing to them. And as I said, sending troops will put our soldiers on the line and solve nothing.

Feminism -- Great and all, but women need to take the good with the bad. Women want to be in the army? Then they should be drafted as well. However, I am not so fond of the modern day feminist movement as I am of the previous decades. The woman's place, even though free and equal, is at home, raising the children. Absolutely there are households where the mother MUST work, yes, but in a household where the father makes a substatial income to support the family the woman should be home with the kids. Not having someone home breeds partying, alcohol and drug abuse, and irresponsibility on the part of the teenager or child. And babysitters do NOT cut it. They need a mother, loving, caring and strict, home with them.

Gay Equality -- Dont even get me started. Homosexuality is "against my religion", as so many people say in my school to get out of the pledge of alleigance. However, I have come to terms with the fact that they should have equal rights, and this country will never deny them that. So therefore, I am all for equal rights. But I am not for my church having to marry them. Let the government give them benefits, but the christian religion as a whole should not have to marry homosexuals.

Environment -- If protecting the earth for our children means crippling our economy, then no I do not support that. I will find the sources shortly as I do not have time currently, but we did not sign the Kyoto Protocol and STILL reduced emissions, whileas other nations who reduced emissions by the treaty nearly crippled their economies (europe, some east asian nations). Reducing emissions by the Kyoto protocol would decimate the US economy. I'm a decently big fan of government regulated Laissez-Faire, and I don't want government hurting the economy to save the earth from the "ever-so-impending doom" of it being hotter.

Abortion -- Nobody, NOBODY, has the right to choose murder.

Gun Issues -- Now this here is a little touchy. I used to be all for gun control laws, but I recently saw a show on TV that may alter my opinion. It said that criminals are going to get guns no matter how strict the gun laws are, which I figure to be true. The question is, will YOU have a gun to protect yourself when someone breaks into your house threatening to kill your family and you can't get to the phone? And Liberals, of all people, should understand the need to be able to fight back against an oppresive government. What happens if citizens can't have guns? That's right: the government can treat us however they want and not worry about civilian retaliation. Because after all, how can we defend ourselves?

There is no such thing as religious liberal perspectives. Every liberal I know either doesn't go to church or is entirely atheistic or non-practicing.

Civil Rights -- If civil rights means, as it does in New Jersey, that towns should be forced to implement low-income housing in order to "spread the diversity", then that is taking it a step too far. That is trying to make a Utopia, which will never exist. Segregation, as Nemo told me in a prior post, exists by people OF THEIR OWN RACE. So yeah, a lot of black people live in compton. Well, they choose to live their to be near each other! That is just how the world works. You cannot force people to live with each other, or otherwise be weary of the consequences. It will only breed more discrimination.

Yeah, I am a little on the fence with gun laws as well.

On one hand, when they wrote the Constitution about 230 years ago, America was all frontier land and everybody NEEDED a gun, which is not true today.

On the other hand, I do feel good knowing if I were ever in any danger, I had the right to use a gun to protect myself or family. FacistFool makes a good point. Even if the US bans al guns in America, criminals would just get them from border hoppers in Mexico. The same ones who bring illegal drugs here (I guess that clears up my stance on illegal immigration too).

As of now, the government should try MUCH harder to restrict illegal guns, i.e. criminals who have them. Until I'm sure no criminal will ever get guns to use against civilians, I am for the right to bare arms.

So Bush is a madmen willing to send our men into battle naked if he has to, and this makes the Democrats look bad?

As much as I admire the concept of trying to bring some kind of organization to debate, this thread is not the way to do it. It simply is not possible to argue 10 topics at once, as has become obvious in all the "Liberals vs. Conservatives" threads. Pick a specific topic and debate it.

You folks are not even sticking to a "conservative" or "liberal" position exclusively, which should clue you in to the fact that endlessly dividing everyone and their ideas into the "us" and "them" of "conservative" and "liberal" is really dumb. I'm tired of hearing "liberal" defined as "everything which I am against" and "conservative" as "everything which I am for". It isn't that simple, and if you think about it, you know that.

Stop listening to Ann Coulter and Michael Moore; there are no such things as "the evil godless liberals" or "the horrible moneygrabbing conservatives", and even if there are, it is really, really stupid to have arguments that constantly cite things as "liberal" or "conservative" as if it adds something to the debate at hand. Debate specifics, not general partisanism; if you really like arguing whether "liberals" or "conservatives" are better, I suppose that's fine, but you certainly won't get anywhere closer to actually solving the country's problems.

Recap:
- Stop making "debate everything under the sun" threads.
- Stop with the pointless "us and them" labelling.
- Cite actual facts, not just your own hot air.

Facts aren't everything, Orbode. I can't cite facts to my opinions. While sure, everyone should have facts to numerical and statistical data, I don't expect, and neither should anyone else on this forum, that every time someone speaks their mind there has to be a citation. This isn't a forum of mini research papers. I agree with you on partisanism, but debating is fun, and if everyone enjoys the debating, why try to make it stop. If nobody wanted to debate, they wouldn't. Debate is fun, works the mind, is a learning experience, and changes peoples opinions sometimes. And it would be pretty hard to make a new topic for every single debatable outlook on the planet. Why not lump them into one forum where all the debating can take place?

My Recap:
-Let us debate if we want to.
-Agreed about partisanship.
-We aren't out to solve the nations problems. We are out to talk about them. That is what forums are for ;).

I think you missed the point about the "no everything under the sun" topics. Create a "Gay Marriage" topic, a "feminism" topic, etc. Don't try to do them all at once; it simply doesn't work, and is impossible to follow.

I don't expect opinions to be backed up by facts. What I want is simply citations for the facts you do use, not "I saw it on TV sometime" or "my friend told me". Facts aren't everything, but they do matter. Take a look at the stem cell thread for a good example of why I bang on about this so much, In order for the debate to be meaningful, it has to be somewhat informed; otherwise, things go in circles of argument that lose all touch with reality.

I have no problem with debating; as you may notice, I enjoy it quite a bit. I prefer my debates to go somewhere, though, instead of simply creating a bunch of identical and ill-defined threads that go nowhere, and I try to encourage this spirit of keeping things moving.

If you ever do any sort of competitive speaking, try Congress, which is a miniature version of the real thing. At the end of Congress, there is always a vote, a decision is made, and discussion is closed. Things have to keep moving, and wasting time repeating yourself is, well, a waste. I don't like waste; it tires me to see a lot of fiery discussions that don't get anywhere. This isn't Congress, but some of the lessons on how to debate productively do apply.