Liberals - Practice Conservative Argument Techniques

Clinton is a private citizen.

What is the Dem plan now?

<But, notice Clinton wanted to privatize---just like Bush. Why did you like it when Clinton said it...? Isn't it as good now?>

Now how simple is this guys? There sure are a lot of words here.

I'll have to catch up tomorrow.

nimh, I look forward to reading your extended composition. I just know there's a good argument in there somewhere. Can't wait.

And Dys..........you are toooooo bad. too bad. <laughing>

What a fine gathering we have. Everybody that's anybody is here. Surely we can teach each other something. If not, I'll open the broom closet where we keep all the bats and we can try to at least club each other to death. That'll teach us. I'll try to get here early.

Good night all.

DTOM wrote:


Conservatives prefer to return surplus monies to those who contributed it rather than set up the most dubious 'private accounts' proposed by Clinton. The fact is, it never was more than a gimmick since all of us paying into social security already have private accounts. They discussed whether the government should invest the money and decided against that as it would have politicized the stock market. If private citizens could direct some of their own money into the market, however, that could work beautifully on many different fronts. Clinton never proposed or agreed to that.

oh dear........I just remembered. I have to go to a conference tomorrow. There's no way out of it. But don't worry. Blatham has kindly agreed to fill in for me.

Now Foxy, I want you to keep it up with the straight man role. Good job so far. Thanks for your kind help.

so what then was the republican counter proposal to Clinton's plan?

Privatizing part of social security I believe. That concept did not originate with George W. Bush.

Noone on the dem side has been thinking about revamping SS for the last four years. We've been a little busy with the whole war thing.

And now we're chastised for not having a plan for a non-existent problem (the implication that SS will self-destruct if we do nothing RIGHT NOW simply isn't supported by fact), when the president hasn't proposed a plan that will solve the problem, either.

Face it, the Dems aren't going to fall into the trap of coming out and saying 'we need to raise taxes in order to make SS work,' (like the prez was hoping) so they could point at that fact in order to mobilize public support for the president's non-tax plan.

You want to talk about fixing SS? Propose a plan to FIX SS, not just to put money into some sort of 'private account' without any plan for where the money this is going to cost is going to come from....



A quick look at the title would show you that the intended and original pupose of this thread was to practice conservative argument techniques. This doesn't mean arguing with conservatives, I'm sure you can see the difference.

Cycloptichorn

Noone on the dem side has been thinking about revamping SS for the last four years. We've been a little busy with the whole war thing.
----------
#4 would be--Learn how to do things at one time.

Notice how no one has said what the Dems' plan is?

Must work on #1....

Get a plan.

Let's recap this argument.

A conservative asks what is your plan for Social Security?

A liberal says--well, what is your plan?

Conservative answers and asks what is the Dem plan?

A liberal says he doesn't think you can say no to a plan that doesn't exist.

A conservative says the plan exists--and the media is saturated with it.

A liberal says what the plan was six years ago.

A conservative says--that was six years ago, what is the plan now?

A liberal says--what was you plan six years ago?

Another liberal says we can't think about Social Security and a war at the same time.

A conservative asks----what is the Dem plan for Social Security?

A cautionary tale...

no 1 is still "selling the plan"
you don't get to making the plan until no 3 which follows no 2 accusing the dems of not having a plan. there still is no plan, if there is again please post such a plan. this inded is the the best example of a tautology I think I have ever seen.

Nimh writes:


And this does??????

Yes, this is a wonderful example, especially the Conservative answers part which only occurred in the mind of the conservative and doesn't exist, neither on this thread or anywhere else, including the part about the media being saturated with it.

There is, as of yesterday, neither a Presidential plan nor a Congressional proposal to reform Social Security.

What conservatives apparently believe they are hearing is a plan, but it is nothing more thus far than the kind of talk one hears in beach houses after midnight. The President is going around the country talking like my Uncle Ed, "Hey, wouldn't it be great if we could go out for ice cream?" and he hopes no one asks him if he's got any money to pay for it, but all the kids think we are going out for ice cream. So they ask the mom what she thinks and she, knowing that Joe's Ice Cream is closed after midnight, says she doesn't think we are going out for ice cream. "Boo,,oo on you" say the kids. Uncle Ed goes to sit on the porch. He smiles.

Let's do recap:
A conservative asks what is your plan for Social Security?
I already said what we had it mind. Did you miss it too? More Conservative myopia I guess.

A liberal says--well, what is your plan?

Conservative answers (with smoke and mirrors, tales of vast canyons of debt and nothing substantive to show for the effort ) and asks not {what is the Dem plan? } but why are the Democrats opposed to the plan?

A liberal says he doesn't think you can say no to a plan that doesn't exist.

A conservative says the plan exists--and the media is saturated with it.
But there really isn't a plan just a lot of hot air.

A liberal says what the plan was six years ago.
Which was to conserve the surplus. Ah. By gone days.

A conservative says--that was six years ago, what is the plan now?

The liberal answers thusly: We Democrats being out of power in both Houses can neither introduce bills nor control what is proposed before any of the Committees nor, in some cases, offer amendments to bills, that is the way it is, so we intend to do our job which is to examine the proposals of the majority should there ever be any and offer our input. It is a role better suited for our Republican friends, a role they have played many times sometimes well. We hope to do as well.

The facts of the matter with SS are these, he said again more loudly, there is no immediate need for changes. A financial shortfall some thirty years hence can be eased or erased by several methods including raising the present limit on income taxed, but conservatives and the President are talking about something entirely different that has nothing to do with that shortfall and seems to be some sort of diversion, the purpose of which we cannot guess. Can you?

Joe(What is your plan for not thinking about a white bear?)Nation

Conservative: Here's what we are thinking. Right now all surplus social security funds are spent by Congress on things other than social security. Let's talk about that elephant in the room.

Liberal: No.

Conservative: Right now if you die young, your spouse/family gets a tiny final social security benefit that won't even cover the flowers at the funeral, and all other contributions you made are swallowed up by the government. We propose that a portion of the money you contribute be controlled by you and pass on to your family if you meet an unfortunate early demise. If you don't die, this could greatly increase your ability to enjoy your retirement years while easing the pressures on the whole system. Let's at least discuss how that might work.

Liberal: No.

Conservative: We don't have the details worked out and are open to anybody's suggestions on how this can be accomplished. Please give us your ideas on how we might do it.

Liberal: No.

conservative argument technique # 17...make vast, general and frightening proclamations ("crime is skyrocketing across the nation", "they hate us for our liberty", "our forests are filled with ritual Satanic child murders", etc) without supporting evidence and where contrary evidence is advanced, repeat proclamation.

There's another instance! (Note use of 'failure'). Excellent example, Lash.

Damn tootin.

Conservative argument technique #18...ignore completely all inconsistencies and conflicts in one's own argument or with others advancing the same ideology and if people notice, attack some country.

Lash: The conservatives have a plan.

Foxfyre: We don't have the details worked out.

Bush is using the Madison Avenue technique -- run it up the flagpole and see if it waves. Trouble is, he has other plans for the use of the flagpole. Bend over, everyone.

The conservatives have a plan that doesn't solve the problem. That's what it all comes down to. If the problem was that my house was in disrepair, and a repairman came and suggested that he could remove my garage, that would certainly be a plan, but it wouldn't solve my problem. I would tell him "no", emphatically.

The other metaphor would be that your garage has no structural defects but the repairman suggests Gothic flying buttresses to hold it up.