Liberals - Practice Conservative Argument Techniques

We can't afford to wait for wind and solar. "Nuclear energy is not considered the cleanest energy source available - solar and wind are. Nor it is considered the most reliable or affordable -- hydro-electric is. But what nuclear has that these power sources lack is the ability to help us meet the energy problems of today and in the future. Everybody likely believes that someday, we will be able to cheaply power our homes and businesses with any one of these other alternative sources. But we cannot do it today. You must highlight this fact. It makes nuclear stand out as the only emission-free, efficient, affordable and reliable source of energy that is available TODAY."

Never say:

1. Government............say Washington

2. Privatization/Private Accounts.........say Personalization/Personal Accounts

3. Tax Reform..............................say Tax Simplification (there's that word again <said with a sing song tone in my voice>)

4. Inheritance/Estate Tax........................The Death Tax

5. A Global Economy/Globalization/Capitalism......say Free Market Economy

6. Outsourcing....say Taxation, Regulation, Litigation, Innovation, Education

(OK, I'm on a roll, but I just can't stop, this is amazing, but not really)

"When you use the words of your opposition, you are basically accepting their definition and therefore their conclusion. We should NEVER (there he goes yelling again. What? Does he think they're deaf or just stupid?) NEVER use the word outsourcing because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas. Rather, we should talk about the "root cause" (can't you just see that silly condescending smirk on GW's face when you read that phrase "root cause?" Why.....when he says that, it makes his whole face light up like a direct mail appeal letter. How many times have we heard it now? root cause root cause root cause...........But apparently those guys who want it simple, easy and NOW don't notice that the word is being used over and over again.) Rather we should talk about the "root cause" why any company would not want to hire "the best workers in the world." (Just look at all that bold face. How could anyone miss the point here?) And the answer: "over-taxation, over-regulation, too much litigation, and not enough innovation or quality education." (Apparently we're supposed to have it all, the sky's the limit.......has anyone read the story of Icarus?) And now here's the best line: Because it rhymes, it will be remembered." (That's IT. We shouldn't have our spokesmen give speeches, we should have them sing their little catch phrases......if rhyming works, some music and a little tape dance step will really stay with em.)

From now on, I think we should all adopt the direct mail format when we write. It's makes it easier for someone to speed read what we've written and just get the high points. It's the most immediately gratifying and it makes it even more simple still.)

7. Undocumented Workers.....say Illegal Aliens

". . . Instead of addressing "immigration reform," which polarizes Americans, you should be talking about "border security" issues."

8. Foreign Trade...............say International Trade

9. Drilling for oil.................Exploring for energy (choke) This one is dedicated to Bunker Hunt and his brother.

10. Tort Reform......................say Lawsuit Abuse Reform

11. Trial Lawyer............................Personal Injury Lawyer

Oh, god, I can't resist this one either.

"It is hard to distrust a trial lawyer because we see them portrayed so favorably on L.A. Law and Order. But personal injury lawyers, also known as ambulance chasers, remind people of those annoying, harassing commercials we see at 1:00 am cajoling us to sue someone. If you want to get the full bang for the buck, call them "predatory personal injury lawyers." (oooooooouuuu, a little bit of alliteration......makes it easier to remember too.)

12. Corporate Transparency...........say Corporate Accountability

13. School Choice....say Parental Choice/Equal Opportunity in Education

14. Healthcare "Choice"................."The Right to Choose"

For this, nimh I'm giving you a A+ with extra credit. I'm going to copy it and frame it and put it on the bulletin board so everyone can see. It's an example of fine work and is to be emulated.

So a conservative is not likely to say "liar" to that misguided gullible person who has been fooled into believing an untruth.
quote]

No, c's think it's much better to just reelect him.

Political issues are far more complex than a system of classification which merely makes analogies with the parties of the french revolution.

Yeah, that's what we think too, except for the parties of the French Revolution part,

so what Foxfyre calls the L group is trying to figure out is how they, the C group, is running this con job. It's like watching the video of a bunch of pickpockets. Look, now the blocker moves into position while the pick makes the grab and the pass to the holder.

Nothing is simple, Antibuddha, but they are making it look simple. If the voters were consumers ordering food I think there would be a few calling for the manager, but the silence is deafening.

They want understanding and benefit of the doubt. That would be nice.

And maybe we should be nice to them as they dismantle the social and political structures built over the past sixty years while claiming they are defending them,

The left-wing/right-wing terms describe the seating of the gerondins and jacobites. The two parties in the revolutionary parliament of early France.

Jacobins and Jacobites

Pro-revolutionary members of France's National Constituent Assembly had formed a group which became known as the Society of the Friends of the Constitution. After the Assembly moved to Paris, this group met there in a hall leased from the Jacobins' convent of Catholic Dominican Friars. These revolutionaries, sworn to protect the revolution from the aristocrats, soon were known as the Jacobin Club. Since that time, all revolutionaries have been called Jacobins.

At least that is the official story of the Jacobins. As usual, the Jacobins are tied to earlier secret societies, in this case a movement to restore a kingship in Britain.

In 1688 England's unpopular and pro-Catholic Stuart king, James II, was deposed by his Dutch son-in-law, the Protestant William of Orange. James - whose name in Latin was Jacobus, hence the name Jacobites - fled to France. There he continued to be supported by Freemasons in Scotland and Wales who sought to restore him to the English throne. They were accused by French Freemasons of converting Masonic rituals and titles into political support for this restoration.

According to some versions of Masonic history, James was ensconced in the Chateau of Saint-Germain by his friend, French King Louis XIV where he established a system of Masonry that became known as the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.

After a series of failed rebellions, the Jacobites in Scotland were finally crushed at the battle of Culloden Moor near Inverness in 1746. Their leader, Charles Edward Stuart, "Bonnie Prince Charlie, the young pretender," escaped to France, taking with him Jacobites imbued with "Freemasonic ideals". A year later in Arras, France, Charles chartered a Masonic Sovereign Primordial Chapter of Rose Croix known as "Scottish Jacobite"...

And maybe we should be nice to them as they dismantle the social and political structures built over the past sixty years while claiming they are defending them,

Sorry not partig in this debate

Girondins, not gerondins.

I look at AB's post and wonder if 'nice' is possible when speaking separate languages?

Merci, parfois mon ecriture est terrible, je dois recommence parler en francais plus souvent ou je vais oublier tous que je sais. Il y a longtemps que je n'ai pas eu la chance parler avec quelqu'en francais.

And I'm sure that I made errors there but I trust the general point gets across.cipatin

This is why I try to avoid involvement in politics. Everyone wants me to pick a side when to me I wouldn't want to be assosciated with either.

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

Lash wrote:

Let's recap this argument.

A conservative asks what is your plan for Social Security?

wrong. i posted what the existing dem plan was. you ignored it and deflected to the "clintin is a private citizen" position. but if you noticed the dates of the things i posted, he was still the president of the united states.
he even brought it up in the 1999 sotu.

conservatives don't have to like the plan. they can say no to the plan. but they cannot say that there was no democratic plan as i've just shown that there was. previous to the republican plan, by the way.

getting an answer that you don't like is not the same as getting no answer. which is perhaps a new tactic # ? guys ?

But a non-plan, i.e. Clinton's plan, presented as a plan has to have a number somewhere.

Hope you can stay above it, AB. It would be fabulous to have access to what may actually be an unbiased opinion.

Only, I guess you are biased against Buddha...

I would very much prefer a world where people of differing opinions could pour a cup of coffee and sit down together to work out compromises that would meet the most important needs of both.

This is why I try to avoid involvement in politics.

President Bill Clinton is considering a plan to use the budget surplus to fund new retirement savings accounts to supplement Social Security. Although the President's plan has some good points, Congress would need to correct several weaknesses for it to become the basis for serious long-term reform.

Details are vague, but the plan appears to use the federal budget surplus--estimated at $76 billion this year--to create the new retirement savings accounts. It is not clear whether every American would qualify for these accounts, or only those who fall below a certain income level. The surplus probably would be used to start the accounts, but future payments to them might be made as either an annual lump sum or a federal match of what the owner had saved. How to administer the accounts and invest their funds is still being discussed. One version would make the accounts voluntary

For the record, in what minimal debate occurred on this issue, the GOP never said no to privatization, but rather said no to establishing a policy based on something as temporal and transitional as a budget surplus and creating still another potentially huge and unmanageable entitlement. That is a huge difference to saying no to even a discussion of privatizing a small portion of social security now.

creating still another potentially huge and unmanageable entitlement.