Liberals - Practice Conservative Argument Techniques

Foxfyre wrote:

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

well, clinton's plan did utilize the number of 62% of the surplus to get the thing rolling. that would have been taxpayer money returned to the tax payers.

but rather than help with the plan, the republicans chose to be obstructionists

rather than help democrats finish details of the plan, the republicans, led by the obstructionist, newt gingrich, chose instead to play partisan politics with the retirement of hard working americans and mounted a smear campaign to hurt the president.

clearly, the partisan republicans were out of touch with the values of the average american on this core issue.

republicans hate people of faith, support gay marriage and do not support the troops. it has nothing to with the topic, but best to mention it as often as possible...[/B]

does this count, lola ?
Laughing

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

*Ahem*

People.

Remember the Contract with America? The Republicans (minority, relatively powerless) got together and came up with a PLAN for several contending issues on the forefront of US politics. People knew what the GOP intended for many issues.

To point to a by-gone plan of Clinton's is not addressing the present.

I'm not going to say he didn't have a plan. I'm not going to say he didn't have (eventually) a surplus.

All I'm going to say is--

Can anyone show a SS, or education plan espoused by Democrats in the year 2005?

Have they agreed on any plan--stamped DEM on it, and forwarded it to anyone? DO THEY HAVE A PLAN?

if you consider the five year old republican republican plan current, then you must consider the clinton plan in the same light lash. that's only being fair about it. and balanced, too !!! :wink:

0 Replies

Duke of Lancaster wrote:

Hey Liberals, Why do you people get so offended by christianity?.....

for myself, i am offended not by christianity, but by the so called christians that are bound and determined to shove it in my face and down my throat every time i turn around.

here's my question to you; "who are you trying to convince that your beliefs are true ? me ? or yourselves? when you guys come to my front door, uninvited, and start telling me all about christianity, why do you get so offended when i begin to tell you about mine ??

Duke of Lancaster wrote:

again the US was founded on Christian ideals.

rewriting history, are we ? show me one place in either the doi or the constitution where the words "jesus", "bible", "ten commandments" or "christianity" appear.

to address the usual use of "liberals" in any statement such as yours; i know an awful lot of very good christians that are quite liberal and do the good works that the lord has charged them with.

they just don't seem to have a need to brag about it or yammer on about their faith all the time. good for them !

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

well then spendius I can only assume you are not a liberal as we all know liberals detest everything american, only true conservatives have the depth of heart and soul to truely love america.

amen, brother !

hi-ho...

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

One could go along with antibuddha if he wasn't so utopian. It is a big mistake not to take into account the imbecility of human behaviour.

Ummm... yeah. I toggle between utopian and deep misanthropic cynicism. You caught me on a good day, the kind where I think that maybe people are worth something and capable of thinking with logic.

The cynical side of me refuses to become involved because it knows that democracy is a farce because it is based upon the imbecility of human behaviour made law.

You know, come to think of it this pretty much makes either side of me fairly useless in a political discussion. Still wondering why I try to avoid them?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

because not only do we detest christains we also detest america and all it stands for after all we are liberals! personally I'm offended by your question.

Well, this country was built of christian ideals and christian shall it stay....so if you "detest" christians so much, you're just gonna have to deal with it....or you also have the option of moving to the Mid-east, mmmm that's a great idea, don't you concur?

0 Replies

Duke of Lancaster wrote:

or you also have the option of moving to the Mid-east, mmmm that's a great idea, don't you concur?

Sheesh, I'm sick of people acting like christian countries are the heart of civilisation and morality by comparing them to other religious extremist countries (e.g. the middle east).

It completely ignores the possibility of moving to far more atheistic first world countries such as places in Western Europe, Australia or New Zealand. Even England is less fundamentalist christian than America.

0 Replies

dwolan:-

It's the same here but we just have to make allowances for American usage.
There's a couple of big league footballer's with names that provide English commentators with opportunities for witticisms.One is called Kaka and the other is Kuntz.As in-
No.I better not.

0 Replies

Lola:-

No.I don't see.I was connecting untrammeled greed with imbecility.

I'm not wholly convinced that "we" do too much "observing and following political arguments".
You might have to define "political arguments" just to begin.You might,like Foxy,only follow those arguments you wish to follow which is fair enough but it is a limiting case.
That's nice-that "inclined".Your rhetoric is improving.That's how to do it.Flattery.Never point out to your audience how much you hold them in contempt.
The star of the 20th century at the skill of delivering a message that is "simple,repetitive,direct and clear" is,of course, Adolf Hitler the biggest nuisance of all time.

Basically,you seem to be saying,we had better get as good as Mr Bush's team which is a type of admiration.

Hitler wasn't engaged in genocide at first.He was elected in 1933.By the time the genocide got going he had dispensed,more or less,with rhetoric.Naked power sufficed.

Surely "word smithing" is at the least trickery.

"Enlightenment" is a nice word for a particular position which not everybody thinks is enlightened.

I have a bit of a post lined up about advertising techniques but I'm waiting for the right signal.

I don't remember referring to dys as a "bear".I thought I used "cutie".

Hemingway committed suicide I heard.Mailer said something about that.There's packing a wallop and then there's PACKING A WALLOP!!!!!.

0 Replies

Duke of Lancaster wrote:

Well, this country was built of christian ideals and christian shall it stay....so if you "detest" christians so much, you're just gonna have to deal with it....or you also have the option of moving to the Mid-east, mmmm that's a great idea, don't you concur?

Here's a dandy example of your christian principles, duke.

-------------------------------------------
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2005/02/27/vietnamese_seeking_redress_from_us_in_agent_orange_suit/

Vietnamese seeking redress from US in Agent Orange suit
By Matt Steinglass, Globe Correspondent | February 27, 2005

HANOI -- Thirty-five years after US forces stopped spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam, Vietnamese who were exposed to the defoliant are about to have their day in court.

The plaintiffs also argue that spraying Agent Orange was a war crime, since international law prohibits the use of chemical weapons.

No one knows how many Vietnamese have been exposed to dioxin from American-sprayed herbicides. A recent government-commissioned study by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Science, found that at least 2.1 million Vietnamese had been directly sprayed.

---------------------------

Not to mention the thousands upon thousands who were carpet bombed.

"Oh, but we don't target civilians, but how can we help it when they get in the way of our bombs".

0 Replies

JTT: Here's an idea ... why not post a list of all the things about the US, or things it has done in the past, which you detest. Sort of a, "Why I Hate the United States" list. That would be real helpful, don't you think? You know you want to ......

0 Replies

well, we could start off with elevator music.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

" You get a kiss on the cheek and a pat on the fanny for that one. Everyone follow Dys's lead."

Dear oh deary me.

You can have no concept of how that reads in Oz!!!!!

Oh dear.....so I've committed an uh-oh in my attempt to reward Dys for his fine efforts. Sorry. How embarrassing. Should I apologize to Dys as well? I am a dumb American, sometimes I don't know how to be otherwise. Embarrassed

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

well, we could start off with elevator music.

That's very funny, Dys. And if we were to make such a list I think People Magazine might be next. But we're here to learn how to say these things as if we're being nice. Rather than making a list, maybe we should talk about learning from our mistakes. Righting past wrongs and combatting those who want to turn their backs on those we have injured. Our injured troops need our help and it's no time to turn our backs on them.

Spendius,

I'll get to you in a minute.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

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

well, clinton's plan did utilize the number of 62% of the surplus to get the thing rolling. that would have been taxpayer money returned to the tax payers.

but rather than help with the plan, the republicans chose to be obstructionists

rather than help democrats finish details of the plan, the republicans, led by the obstructionist, newt gingrich, chose instead to play partisan politics with the retirement of hard working americans and mounted a smear campaign to hurt the president.

clearly, the partisan republicans were out of touch with the values of the average american on this core issue.

republicans hate people of faith, support gay marriage and do not support the troops. it has nothing to with the topic, but best to mention it as often as possible...[/B]

does this count, lola ?

This is brilliant DTOM. You're really getting a feeling for the task. We've been yelling obscenities at each other long enough. Let's refine our arguments and go for a win. Injuring those who oppose our values is fun, when we feel frustrated or hurt, I admit, but winning is far better.

Let's join together to make the world a better place. We want a safe world where we can focus on raising our children. A world where our children can get a fine education, free of the imposition of one religion over another. A country that shows respect for our elderly and disabled, caring for them when they need us as they took care of us when we needed them. A country in which we can maintain a strong and potent armed force which has to be rarely used. Let's strive to allow our young people to grow up and live their lives rather than having to die in unnecessary wars.

0 Replies

Ooh!Aahhhh!Wheeehee!! Oh I can't wait.OooohhhhH

0 Replies

To get back to the idea on which this thread was formed.

Language does seem to be a key to the Conservative argument. If you control the language you do control how people think. Give a word new meaning and people will be repulsed by those that use it in its original form. Make a phrase mean something and then don't let anyone else co-opt it.

"patriotism" - following anything the president says as long as the president is RW. otherwise it means opposing the president.

Its time for the left to use the right's tactics on language. "santorum" was given new meaning a year or so ago in a column of "Savage Love". I am sure the meaning can be found in the forums here. I won't go into it. But suffice it to say when Bush is done with SS and us the voters, we all will have "santorum" leaking out.

Since Rick Santorum is associated with Bush's SS plan, it is the perfect time to use the alternative meaning of "santorum" to show what Bush's plan will mean for the average person. Pound that meaning home every chance you get. (OMG, did I just say that?) Every time Rick Santorum speaks out for SS reform it would make people flinch and worry about being bent over.

So which would you rather have? A Clinton or a Santorum?

0 Replies

Quote:

So which would you rather have? A Clinton or a Santorum?

A Monica.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Ooh!Aahhhh!Wheeehee!! Oh I can't wait.OooohhhhH

You!

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:
So which would you rather have? A Clinton or a Santorum?

A Monica.

Great choice, Tico. It's the same one Clinton made.

0 Replies

Liberals - Practice Conservative Argument Techniques

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know