Liberals - Practice Conservative Argument Techniques

Let's see Parados, that one would be whatever number is assigned to 'let's don't deal with what is said but pretend the discussion is still about whaever burr I have under my saddle."

0 Replies

My comments are blue and true, Joe (True Blue) Nation

Foxfyre wrote:

Well would the number assigned to Joe's offering here apply to:

1) Conservatives - Let's help make Iraq a democracy. (Liberals - no.)
No, that would be the one I wrote about saying you were doing one thing, (removing the immediate threat posed by the mythical WMD's) while your object is something else.( Plunking down a American influence in the Middle East.) See naive dreams. What you've done thus far by every rational measurment is promote the Islamic Revolutionary Movement. Thank you very mush.

2) Conservatives - Let's reform the education system by giving parents more opportunity to send their kids to better schools. (Liberals - no.)
Ditto, apologies to Rush, say one thing (reform the schools) by (getting out and having the government pay for your private school.)

3) Conservatives - Let's reform social security by letting people have more control over their government confiscated retirement funds. (Liberals - no.) Ooh, three in a row. President Bush defines the problem, the system is going broke and offers a solution that doesn't solve the problem because the real object is the elimination of Social Security not reform. Want more money for investments? Okay. Raise the 401k/IRA limits on tax free contributions. Still dosen't solve the purported problem because ta ta da dah there isn't one.

4) Conservatives - Let's reform health care by giving people medical savings accounts and therefore more control over medical costs. (Liberals - no.) This is another example of conservatives helping the people who don't need help. What they want to do is allow people who can already afford good health care to get more (and save a few tax free dollars at the same time. ) It does nothing for the couple with two kids and no health insurance. It does nothing but try to fix the wrong problem (costs) with the wrong solution, but it sure sounds good as a sound bite.

5) Conservatives - Let's fix a lot of things with some much needed tort reform and reining in of the kinds of litigation that benefits only the trial lawyers. (Liberals - no.) There you go again, apolgies this time to Ronald Reagan, if there was such a thing as the kind of litigation that benefits only trial lawyers you might have something here, but once again conservatives are saying one things while doing another. They are protecting business while saying to injured people "Yeah, that industry acted without regard to your health and safety and right to life but we don't think your health and safety and right to life is worth as much you think you it does, therefore, before you even get started proving your case, here's what you can get for your sorry ass."

I think the numbering system is excellent. But we may have to redefine conservative and liberal.

I think conservatives were better when they saw their role as temperers of the liberal fever (William Buckley maybe said that.) but they are a bust when they try to put their big ideas for little government into action. They end up benefiting those who don't need benefiting, hoping against hope (they are good hearted people) that everyone will have a better life. Liberals may be scolds and nags and pokers but we know that a sold democratic republic has to have a government which is of the people, by the people and for the people. Apologies to Abe Lincoln, no Apologies for being on the side of politics which treats people square.

Joe(Thanks Foxy, that was fun.)Nation

0 Replies

LOL. So at what point didn't you say "No" Joe? Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
3) Conservatives - Let's reform social security by letting people have more control over their government confiscated retirement funds. (Liberals - no.)

Ooh, three in a row. President Bush defines the problem, the system is going broke and offers a solution that doesn't solve the problem because the real object is the elimination of Social Security not reform. Want more money for investments? Okay. Raise the 401k/IRA limits on tax free contributions. Still dosen't solve the purported problem because ta ta da dah there isn't one.

Joe, are you suggesting that there is no problem with Social Security the way that it is right now? Shocked

0 Replies

He might be, but mostly he is changing the statement to be what he thinks conservatives are really saying and then using a whole lot of words to say "no". So there needs to be a number assigned for that if there isn't one already. Smile

Note to Joe: I was intrigued by your last paragraph and at some point (probably in a different thread) would like to really explore some of that.

0 Replies

Actually, Fox has given us a new type of conservative argument. I forget what number we're on now. It's the "use careful words and simplistic language to make your idea sound like something that nobody could possible be against and then mock the liberals for saying no to it". Sort of how people who were against the war in Iraq were suddenly for Saddam Hussein. Let's call it the "Maize Gilliam is FOR cancer" argument.

0 Replies

Well yes, that one needs a number Freeduck as also we need a number for Let's don't start with the issue we need to solve, but let's wrap it in as much obfusication, diversions, and extraneous content as possible so that all lose sight of the original problem and can focus instead on the way the question is phrased.

0 Replies

Yes. They are their opposites. But one cannot be without the other.

0 Replies

Just really good examples of bait and switch, Foxy, I think most people would say no to bait and switch. Oh and don't say what we really say which usually contains the word AND. I was just pointing out the errors of your ways. When have you ever known a liberal to stop at the word "no"????

And that, of course, is the conservative tack, they say vouchers, we say no and could we please talk about real reform for the school system. They say, see? all those liberals say is no. So we look bad but they are still not talking about school reform just their own interest in getting out of the system. If they wanted to talk about real reform they would start by amending the tax basis for school support, but that would mean moving dollars away from affluent schools and into poorer districts, they won't do that because that will actually reform the system but won't allow them to bail out.

On Social Security: Surely there is a thread around here on the debate, isn't there? The facts are these: Newsweek two weeks ago, I'll look it up.
If we do NOTHING, nobody loses anything for thirty years, at thirty years from now there will have to be either a reduction in benefits or a percentage raise in worker taxes. If we raise the limit on the SS tax to those making over 95,000 in a year to 125,000, we push the thirty years from now difficulty back another thirty years. Betcha didn't hear that on Fox.

Joe (cotta go, there's a couple of wingnuts beating up my lawyer) Nation

0 Replies

Joe writes

Quote:

And that, of course, is the conservative tack, they say vouchers, we say no and could we please talk about real reform for the school system. They say, see? all those liberals say is no.

"No" is "no" no matter how you choose to phrase it. If vouchers are proposed, there needs to be a discussion about vouchers. If the liberals come up with a diferent approach there needs to be a discussion about that. When the liberals say "no" and could we please talk about real reform for the school system, that's just another way of saying "no" and no, we don't have anything better to offer so we'll accuse you of not wanting to deal with real reform. assign a number for the long-winded no couched in accusation.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

On Social Security: Surely there is a thread around here on the debate, isn't there? The facts are these: Newsweek two weeks ago, I'll look it up.
If we do NOTHING, nobody loses anything for thirty years, at thirty years from now there will have to be either a reduction in benefits or a percentage raise in worker taxes. If we raise the limit on the SS tax to those making over 95,000 in a year to 125,000, we push the thirty years from now difficulty back another thirty years. Betcha didn't hear that on Fox.

Joe (cotta go, there's a couple of wingnuts beating up my lawyer) Nation

So, the answer is do nothing? Let our kids figure it out in 30 years?! UN-*******-ACCEPTABLE. If we know there is a problem, we should deal with it now. MY generation will be the ones retiring in 30 years and I'd much rather have it taken care of long before then, thank you very much.

0 Replies

liberal=I'd like to say
conservative=shut up!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
On Social Security: Surely there is a thread around here on the debate, isn't there? The facts are these: Newsweek two weeks ago, I'll look it up.
If we do NOTHING, nobody loses anything for thirty years, at thirty years from now there will have to be either a reduction in benefits or a percentage raise in worker taxes. If we raise the limit on the SS tax to those making over 95,000 in a year to 125,000, we push the thirty years from now difficulty back another thirty years. Betcha didn't hear that on Fox.

Joe (cotta go, there's a couple of wingnuts beating up my lawyer) Nation

So, the answer is do nothing? Let our kids figure it out in 30 years?! UN-*******-ACCEPTABLE. If we know there is a problem, we should deal with it now. MY generation will be the ones retiring in 30 years and I'd much rather have it taken care of long before then, thank you very much.

Okay. Let's raise the income ceiling for ss taxes now.

0 Replies

Quote:

Let's see Parados, that one would be whatever number is assigned to 'let's don't deal with what is said but pretend the discussion is still about whaever burr I have under my saddle."

Is this under the "we don't like the way someone else DEALT with what we said so accuse them of changing the subject?" I'll never get this number system down. Is that 7?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:
On Social Security: Surely there is a thread around here on the debate, isn't there? The facts are these: Newsweek two weeks ago, I'll look it up.
If we do NOTHING, nobody loses anything for thirty years, at thirty years from now there will have to be either a reduction in benefits or a percentage raise in worker taxes. If we raise the limit on the SS tax to those making over 95,000 in a year to 125,000, we push the thirty years from now difficulty back another thirty years. Betcha didn't hear that on Fox.

Joe (cotta go, there's a couple of wingnuts beating up my lawyer) Nation

So, the answer is do nothing? Let our kids figure it out in 30 years?! UN-*******-ACCEPTABLE. If we know there is a problem, we should deal with it now. MY generation will be the ones retiring in 30 years and I'd much rather have it taken care of long before then, thank you very much.

Okay. Let's raise the income ceiling for ss taxes now.

Yeah, I thought I impiled that, but MC thought I said do nothing. Conservative myopia may be to blame.

Joe(I can see it sixty years from now..) Nation

0 Replies

Conservative - let's don't just keep doing what isn't working anymore - let's look for a different and better way to get it done.

Liberal - No. (If that is too short an answer, then add, 'let's keep it the way it is and, if necessary, raise taxes and throw more money at it.'

Yeah, we definitely need to come up with new definitions for conservative and liberal.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:
On Social Security: Surely there is a thread around here on the debate, isn't there? The facts are these: Newsweek two weeks ago, I'll look it up.
If we do NOTHING, nobody loses anything for thirty years, at thirty years from now there will have to be either a reduction in benefits or a percentage raise in worker taxes. If we raise the limit on the SS tax to those making over 95,000 in a year to 125,000, we push the thirty years from now difficulty back another thirty years. Betcha didn't hear that on Fox.

Joe (cotta go, there's a couple of wingnuts beating up my lawyer) Nation

So, the answer is do nothing? Let our kids figure it out in 30 years?! UN-*******-ACCEPTABLE. If we know there is a problem, we should deal with it now. MY generation will be the ones retiring in 30 years and I'd much rather have it taken care of long before then, thank you very much.

Okay. Let's raise the income ceiling for ss taxes now.

Yeah, I thought I impiled that, but MC thought I said do nothing. Conservative myopia may be to blame.

Joe(I can see it sixty years from now..) Nation

Ok, I didn't see that last part. I was wrong in what I said in the tone I said it. I was busy with work and just read the first part. I retract what I said, but I do not see raising the cap to be much more than a band-aid on an injury that requires a tourniquet.

0 Replies

Now we're using too many words here. We have to keep it simple, so everyone can say we're staying on message and they can understand. So forget discussing the issues. It won't happen.

To Foxy's #1.

Quote:

1) Conservatives - Let's help make Iraq a democracy.

I say this:

I think you're just a warmongering facist! I'll hear no more of your nationalistic grandiosity!

And so on............

Practice folks, that's what we're supposed to be doing here. If you want to try to make sense, be productive or have a reasonable discussion talk only to liberals. Conservatives understand only one language. Keep it simple.

0 Replies

Thank you Foxy, you're offering excellent practice material.

Quote:

Conservative - let's don't just keep doing what isn't working anymore - let's look for a different and better way to get it done.

Liberal:

1. I think you're just naive. Get onto the streets and learn a few things before you try to have a discussion with me.

2. Anyway, no one is trying to continue to do unworkable things. I haven't seen any of this from liberals.

3. You've a cold hearted person, trying to take food out of poor elderly people's mouths. Heartless, that what you are.

4. Forget about this anyway. I want to know what is going to be done about Rove's machiavellian tricks!

5. You conservatives must really hate old people. Don't you have any parents? You should be ashamed of yourselves, trying to rob them in their old age, just when they deserve a reward for all their hard work. Why they have worked all their lives and now you want to give all the money to the wealthy Wall Street fat cats. The rich get richer and you condone it. Disgusting.

0 Replies

That was very big of you, McG. Fox, the president has as much as acknowledged that his proposal won't solve the problem either.

0 Replies

Liberals - Practice Conservative Argument Techniques

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know