Liberals - Practice Conservative Argument Techniques

Or more simply put, the "L" group doesn't have a clue what will or will not work but rejects group "C"'s plan to develop a plan while advertising that group C's plan won't work.

Or more simply put, the "L" group doesn't have a clue what will or will not work but rejects group "C"'s plan to develop a plan while advertising that group C's plan won't work.

Let's recap this argument.

A conservative asks what is your plan for Social Security?

Yep, Lola - cool tricks they be.

So OK, we're supposed to learn in this thread, so lessee if we can do something like that too.

Choose topic. Global warming! I'm sorry, climate change (how did they get away with that one, eh?). Big problem! Might not affect us in thirty years (actually it will, but lets keep the SS analogy up) - but we wont let those reckless wait-and-seeers gamble with the future of our children! If it looks like its gonna be a problem in 30 years time, we need to tackle it now. And heres how we suggest doing it. Restrict co2 emissions. Make economical cars less expensive for the consumer to buy and use, and finance it by making gas-slurping cars more expensive. Limit dependence on foreign oil, develop -

No, wait <stops himself>. Heed lesson 23a): only propose one, simple solution. Dont confuse the discussion by proposing a network of solutions. Choose one catchphrase.

OK: the one solution - make buying/driving fuel-economical cars cheaper, and gas-gulpers more expensive. Now for the catchphrase, you need to ignore the part that may sound bad (increasing taxes on gas-gulping cars) and highlight the part thats positive and advantageous to the consumer's wallet. We want to make a fuel-economy car affordable for everyone! Promote research & development, provide tax incentives (you hear: tax cuts!) - whatever it takes to be a responsible government.

It needs one more spin. The reversal trick. Classic Rove: make the attack you're about to launch on a current institution sound like you're defending it. The attack is of course on the ridiculous fuel habits of Americans. One way or another, those need to be tackled. Many Americans know that, really, but push the thought away because they're afraid tackling it would mean giving up driving (as much as they want or the car they want). So to get them behind your idea, you need to make the attack on those habits sound like a defence of them.

Eg: "We want to make sure than in thirty years time, you'll still be driving!". Cause if we do nothing now, you see, about global warming, then in thirty years there may be some sudden clampdown on cars. We want to prevent that and thus safeguard your right to drive wherever and whenever you want.

OK, thats the sales pitch covered. Now back to the lesson about arguments. Your typical conservative wont like the idea about investing into stuff like electric cars and such hippie stuff. They'll even less like the idea of taxing gas-gulpers or pushing the car industry. So they'll try to stop you - after all, they disagree with you on the problem and the solution. So the cue here is to not let them "change the subject" (ie, propose their own take).

The way to do so: label every attempt they make to say that they dont think the problem is real or that big as irresponsible recklessness, and every attempt they'll make to reject our proposals and propose their own as shameless negativity and obstructionism.

Lets try.

- "To stop our children from facing the costs of climate change, we need to act now. Fuel-economy cars should be affordable for everyone!"

- "But climate change hasn't been proven at all, according to some scientists .."

- "Doing nothing is not an option! We simply will not have you gamble with our children's future, just kinda betting that perhaps it wont be so bad. You may be willing to lean back and take the risk, but we will not sit by and let our children pay the price because we thought it might still last our time. Its our responsibility, when we see a big problem emerging in the future, to tackle it now. We want to make sure that in thirty years time, Americans will still be driving!".

- "But you're being deceptive about what you're setting out to do. You say, "we want to make sure that in thirty years time, Americans will still be driving", but you're decieving us about the costs of your proposal, which will put us into an irresponsable extra debt, plus what you're really on about with this proposal is something wholly different, namely regulating industry."

- "Look, we have an obligation towards the future. We govern not just for ourselves, but also for our children. And we have a vision on how to do so. The conservatives are saying, "no", this is unpractical, "no", that we won't stand for - just no, no, no. But do they have a plan of their own about the issue? They're just putting roadblocks in the way."

- "But thats just because you're proposing the wrong solution! I mean, you're asking the wrong question! Fuel-economy cars won't help - even if everyone would drive one, emissions would still increase over tribleteen point etine percent. And it would harm the tax base and in any case, you shouldn't mess with the workings of the free market. And it isnt even clear that the problem you would create such a risky mess about is even real! No, what we would propose is .."

- "See, they wont even talk about the solutions we put forward! All they say is "no". Folks - we Democrats are for making a fuel-economy car affordable for everyone. Its not that difficult. We simply think it's right - something we need to do. We have a solution - and it may be imperfect still, and we're willing to talk with them about how to go about making fuel-economy cars affordable for everyone. But they dont even want to talk about it! They just try to change the subject..."

Something like that? I'm still kinda awkward at this ... but might I be getting it?

OK, enough play for tonight ... I gotta gets myself to bed ...

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.

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.

Privatizers are even having a hard time pretending that they want to strengthen Social Security, not dismantle it. At one of Senator Rick Santorum's recent town-hall meetings promoting privatization, college Republicans began chanting, "Hey hey, ho ho, Social Security's got to go."

The plan has been well voiced by republicans in just the last week...
"hey ho, hey ho
social security has got to go"
At least that's honest.

So what number do you assign to the flat out lie?

Conservatives understand that there can be a difference between a lie and an untruth.

Boy you sure read a lot into what isn't said, Joe, and manage to ignore most of what is said. But then that probably merits a number too.