What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[IndependntLogic]

And amazingly I have found exactly the opposite to be true. It is like pulling teeth for me at times to get a liberal to address my point.

Conservatives call me "Liberal" or "Obamabot" (Love that with all the posts I've made in which I've declared simply "Obama sucks") the moment I disagree with them. As if "liberal" means I couldn't possibly ever have a valid point. Laughable. Both Conservs and Libs have many valid views but the whackjobs won't ever acknowledge that.

For example, I just started a thread called "Why Obama will win in 2012". In it, I declare Obamas' biggest weaknesses (ObamaCare, The Catholic Thing, NDAA etc..) but then describe the very real challenges the GOP faces this year.
What is the response? Well of course the LibDems like my prediction but don't like my criticisms of Obama. BUT several Libs acknowledge these as vaild weaknesses.
Also Libs have OFTEN criticized Obama for not closing Git-Mo, Staying in Iraq & Afghanistan (well until lately) etc... That shows objectivity. Do Conservs ever acknowledge when Obama does something right? Or something THEY Complained about him not doing? Oh hell no. That shows a lack of objectivity.
Then along comes one of my favorite whackjobs into the Why Obama wil Win thread. The guy comes into the thread and as always, addresses zero issues. And of course since I have criticized Obama but not declared my blind following of all things ConservaRepubLitarian, he labels me an "Obama Lover" (Oh the horrors! ).
Four posts later? Ol' Dan still addresses nothing on issues. Just the puerile labels insults etc... (to be honest, it's okay with that guy because he's so bad, he's entertaining).

But seriously, coming from Houston I have a LOT of Conservative friends who are reasonable, intelligent and capable of having civil discussions - even with those of differing opinions. If Obama did something they liked, they would say "Hey I like that he did that. That's a good thing." I don't see that in the Conservs on the net.

I would say most of that is true. But for every conservative on this board that does that I promise I can name you a lib that does the same. What you are describing is not a personality trait confined to one side or the other. Making personal attacks and not addressing points is slightly different than the ideology of policy and whether or not it actually helps society.

No. You can't. Look through my threads on unions, Christianity, Global Warming, gun rights, ObamaCare, Obama's Mistake with Catholics (which predicted exactly what would ahppen as of today, tyvm) etc....

Liberals argue the issues with me. Some of the extreme left moonbats even call me names. That's normal. Liberals always call Republicans silly names wingnuts etc.. But they don't call Independents "Conservative" the moment someone agrees with them.
But the extreme right whackjobs on the right instantly label anyone disagreeing with them on any subject Liberal. It's the Rush Limbaugh mentality. Agree with me on everythig or you're one of them.

 

[koshergrl]

No, we describe liberals as liberals.

Liberals don't like that because they prefer lying about who they are, and what they stand for.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, there are. I can go and incorporate myself as a business tomorrow, and that would make 23 million and 1 "corporations".

Of course, you know very well that's not what the poster was referring to.

The poster is referring to a bogyman created by the leftist media. The left has been programmed to think "corporations are evil." Sorry, most businesses are corporations. Shit, the lunch truck outside is incorporated. Why? Because the owner doesn't want to lose his house if someone drops a bottle and cuts themselves. (I ask him at break, in regard to this thread.)

Corporations are the scapegoat of the left. In order to keep focus off of the ineptitude and corruption of government, the party press created a myth of "evil corporations." Well, very few corporations are evil. 99.9999% are just trying to eek out a living.

Yeah, there are a few GE's and Apple Computers out there that are legitimately evil, but they are the rare exception - not the rule.

The democrats used to blame all the woes of the nation on the "*******," now they say "corporations." All that changed is the scapegoat used. It's still the blind and bigoted stereotyping of all based on the misdeeds of a tiny minority.

Tell me, if I go out and start hooking up telephones for people tomorrow, and call myself a "corporation", do you really think I have a chance in hell of competing with Verizon?

Ask Vonage.

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservatives call me "Liberal" or "Obamabot" (Love that with all the posts I've made in which I've declared simply "Obama sucks") the moment I disagree with them. As if "liberal" means I couldn't possibly ever have a valid point. Laughable. Both Conservs and Libs have many valid views but the whackjobs won't ever acknowledge that.

For example, I just started a thread called "Why Obama will win in 2012". In it, I declare Obamas' biggest weaknesses (ObamaCare, The Catholic Thing, NDAA etc..) but then describe the very real challenges the GOP faces this year.
What is the response? Well of course the LibDems like my prediction but don't like my criticisms of Obama. BUT several Libs acknowledge these as vaild weaknesses.
Also Libs have OFTEN criticized Obama for not closing Git-Mo, Staying in Iraq & Afghanistan (well until lately) etc... That shows objectivity. Do Conservs ever acknowledge when Obama does something right? Or something THEY Complained about him not doing? Oh hell no. That shows a lack of objectivity.
Then along comes one of my favorite whackjobs into the Why Obama wil Win thread. The guy comes into the thread and as always, addresses zero issues. And of course since I have criticized Obama but not declared my blind following of all things ConservaRepubLitarian, he labels me an "Obama Lover" (Oh the horrors! ).
Four posts later? Ol' Dan still addresses nothing on issues. Just the puerile labels insults etc... (to be honest, it's okay with that guy because he's so bad, he's entertaining).

But seriously, coming from Houston I have a LOT of Conservative friends who are reasonable, intelligent and capable of having civil discussions - even with those of differing opinions. If Obama did something they liked, they would say "Hey I like that he did that. That's a good thing." I don't see that in the Conservs on the net.

I would say most of that is true. But for every conservative on this board that does that I promise I can name you a lib that does the same. What you are describing is not a personality trait confined to one side or the other. Making personal attacks and not addressing points is slightly different than the ideology of policy and whether or not it actually helps society.

No. You can't. Look through my threads on unions, Christianity, Global Warming, gun rights, ObamaCare, Obama's Mistake with Catholics (which predicted exactly what would ahppen as of today, tyvm) etc....

Liberals argue the issues with me. Some of the extreme left moonbats even call me names. That's normal. Liberals always call Republicans silly names wingnuts etc.. But they don't call Independents "Conservative" the moment someone agrees with them.
But the extreme right whackjobs on the right instantly label anyone disagreeing with them on any subject Liberal. It's the Rush Limbaugh mentality. Agree with me on everythig or you're one of them.

Unless you are describing all conservatives as 'extreme right whackjobs' which would be disingenuous given the many fine debates many of us conservatives have had with other conservatives when we disagree on this or that issue. Also your totally wrong assessment of what the "Rush Limbaugh mentality" is should be called into question re how much you actually understand of what you write about. Anybody who has spent ANY time listening to the Limbaugh show has heard him debating issues with other conservatives on essentially EVERY show without him concluding the person disagreeing to be a liberal.

He calls those who are liberal liberals.
I call those who are liberal liberals.
That does not translate into everybody who disagrees with him or me being a liberal.

And it is that kind of hyperbole that makes it so frustrating to debate with many if not most liberals. They tend to do that a lot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, they do. Because people go out and incorporate their consultant businesses, etc, for the tax write-offs. Happens all the time.

The don't do it for a tax write off, taxes go WAY up when you incorporate. They do it to protect their personal assets. It's a limitation of liability.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

Progressives believe their opinions and emotions trump the Constitution...

That's why arguing with them is so difficult - at least for me.

Of course that's why when they get cornered they refer to the document as "old fashioned" in an attempt to legitimatize their opinion - that or just call you a racist.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, they do. Because people go out and incorporate their consultant businesses, etc, for the tax write-offs. Happens all the time.

The don't do it for a tax write off, taxes go WAY up when you incorporate. They do it to protect their personal assets. It's a limitation of liability.

Exactly. And when you are essentially your own corportation you can pay more in taxes than you would if you did not incorporate. That is because the corporation is taxed and whatever wages or cash draws you take from the business is also taxed unless you zero out the profit by buying stuff whether you need it or not or pay it all out in salaries. And you still have to show a profit every five years (I think) and incur the double taxation, or the business is deemed a hobby and you can't write off anything.

Sole Proprietors/partners are taxed only on what they earn over and above expenses.

 

[rightwinger]

Why don't you share one of my many lies with the group, hmmm?

We can start with post 350

 

[Bfgrn]

The SCOTUS did NOT declare corporations to be legal entities, persons, in 1878, under Chief Justice Harlan.

Yep, never happened.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Here is your name for the day: Court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis. Educate yourself.

Here's your concept for the day, "established fact."

I never said the case didn't happen. I SAID:

The SCOTUS did NOT declare corporations to be legal entities, persons, in 1878, under Chief Justice Harlan.

So you can easily prove me wrong now that you have a copy of the ruling. Provide the sentence and/or paragraph from the ruling that declares corporations to be legal entities, persons.

I will be waiting..................................................................................................

 

[IndependntLogic]

No, we describe liberals as liberals.

Liberals don't like that because they prefer lying about who they are, and what they stand for.

Thank you for proving my point!!!!

So would you call someone "Liberal" if they agreed with the following:

Global Warming is not definitely proven.
Unions have too much power and have contributed to our UnEmployment Problems.
ObamaCare Sucks.
Christians are often treated unfairly - especially compared to other faiths.
Gun laws don't reduce gun crime.
Oh and yes, we do have a right to bear arms, tyvm.
It's not all Bush's fault.
8.5% is not a "Good" number folks!
We should eliminate about two dozen government agencies altogether.


I could go on but let's just start there. Is the above the description of a Liberal? No. But whackjobs instantly label anyone disagreeing with them on anything as being Liberal.
And no, I don't know any Liberals who want to pretend to be otherwise. That's a whackjob ego fantasy.

Like I said, I've had my opinions influenced by reasonable Conservatives. The idiots who think that there are "Super Secret Agent Liberals from Force Delta" out there, influence no one but themselves.
But I've never seen a Liberal here, call me or any of the other Moderates or Independents (aka "Liberals" to the whackjobs) a "Conservative" just for disagreeing with them or acknowleding that FOX shows valid counterpoints.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We can start with post 350

I don't see anything in that post about you being intelligent....

 

[Uncensored2008]

I never said the case didn't happen. I SAID:

The SCOTUS did NOT declare corporations to be legal entities, persons, in 1878, under Chief Justice Harlan.

So you can easily prove me wrong now that you have a copy of the ruling. Provide the sentence and/or paragraph from the ruling that declares corporations to be legal entities, persons.

I will be waiting..................................................................................................

Oh, you built a straw man.

How clever.

Say sparky, should it be legal to make a movie criticizing Mitt Romney?

 

[koshergrl]

No, we describe liberals as liberals.

Liberals don't like that because they prefer lying about who they are, and what they stand for.

Thank you for proving my point!!!!

So would you call someone "Liberal" if they agreed with the following:

Global Warming is not definitely proven.
Unions have too much power and have contributed to our UnEmployment Problems.
ObamaCare Sucks.
Christians are often treated unfairly - especially compared to other faiths.
Gun laws don't reduce gun crime.
Oh and yes, we do have a right to bear arms, tyvm.
It's not all Bush's fault.
8.5% is not a "Good" number folks!
We should eliminate about two dozen government agencies altogether.


I could go on but let's just start there. Is the above the description of a Liberal? No. But whackjobs instantly label anyone disagreeing with them on anything as being Liberal.
And no, I don't know any Liberals who want to pretend to be otherwise. That's a whackjob ego fantasy.

Like I said, I've had my opinions influenced by reasonable Conservatives. The idiots who think that there are "Super Secret Agent Liberals from Force Delta" out there, influence no one but themselves.
But I've never seen a Liberal here, call me or any of the other Moderates or Independents (aka "Liberals" to the whackjobs) a "Conservative" just for disagreeing with them or acknowleding that FOX shows valid counterpoints.

There aren't many old time liberals left.

I've taken to using the term "progressive" to the far left. For the most part, progressives call themselves liberals, and liberals call themselves moderates.

Again, it's a matter of wanting to be perceived as more mainstream as they are.

 

[Bfgrn]

"The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

By adding this comment to the headnotes of the printed case summary, court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis established the legal personhood of corporations within the United States.

Even if your bit of mythology held water, it in no way alters the falsehood you floated regarding Citizens United.

BTW, you never answered about whether it should be legal to make a movie critical of Mitt Romney?

Sure it should and would be legal. AND, it was legal to make Hillary: The Movie.

 

[Bfgrn]

I never said the case didn't happen. I SAID:

The SCOTUS did NOT declare corporations to be legal entities, persons, in 1878, under Chief Justice Harlan.

So you can easily prove me wrong now that you have a copy of the ruling. Provide the sentence and/or paragraph from the ruling that declares corporations to be legal entities, persons.

I will be waiting..................................................................................................

Oh, you built a straw man.

How clever.

Say sparky, should it be legal to make a movie criticizing Mitt Romney?

Straw man? No. Clever? Of course it is. YOU provided the actual ruling, SO, if what you say is true, it shouldn't be difficult to provide the sentence and/or paragraph from the ruling that declares corporations to be legal entities, persons.

So you are saying you can't. Now THAT is a straw man.

 

[koshergrl]

What is clever about a straw man? They are used to support arguments that have no validity on their own.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sure it should and would be legal.

Because he is an enemy of the party. Of course, making movies about party members was illegal.

AND, it was legal to make Hillary: The Movie.

AFTER the ruling, not before.

The Anti-Liberty left didn't mind movies by "Fatty fatty two by Moore, always such a fucking whore," but when Citizens United made "Hillary, the Movie," the party moved in.

{Bossie intended his film for viewing last year, and possibly for broadcast on TV, in anticipation that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. But the film got tied up in a legal battle over whether the federal laws regulating corporate-funded "electioneering communications" applied to new types of campaign videos produced by nonprofit corporations.

The FEC decided that "Hillary: The Movie" was covered by the law. This limited how it could be shown, and it meant Citizens United had to disclose its donors. A lower court upheld that determination, but the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal.}

In 'Hillary: The Movie' case, Supreme Court considers major shift in election law - Los Angeles Times

That which exposes the party shall be silenced, or at least that was the idea.

Again, no problem with Moore propaganda, it's only illegal if it targets party members.

Bummer for you, the SCOTUS ruled that infidels have the same rights as party members.

That sure chafes your ass.

 

[Mr.Nick]

No, we describe liberals as liberals.

Liberals don't like that because they prefer lying about who they are, and what they stand for.

They're anything BUT liberal....

Portraying those psycho authoritarians as "liberal" is insulting to me and the word itself..

 

[Foxfyre]

No, we describe liberals as liberals.

Liberals don't like that because they prefer lying about who they are, and what they stand for.

Thank you for proving my point!!!!

So would you call someone "Liberal" if they agreed with the following:

Global Warming is not definitely proven.
Unions have too much power and have contributed to our UnEmployment Problems.
ObamaCare Sucks.
Christians are often treated unfairly - especially compared to other faiths.
Gun laws don't reduce gun crime.
Oh and yes, we do have a right to bear arms, tyvm.
It's not all Bush's fault.
8.5% is not a "Good" number folks!
We should eliminate about two dozen government agencies altogether.


I could go on but let's just start there. Is the above the description of a Liberal? No. But whackjobs instantly label anyone disagreeing with them on anything as being Liberal.
And no, I don't know any Liberals who want to pretend to be otherwise. That's a whackjob ego fantasy.

Like I said, I've had my opinions influenced by reasonable Conservatives. The idiots who think that there are "Super Secret Agent Liberals from Force Delta" out there, influence no one but themselves.
But I've never seen a Liberal here, call me or any of the other Moderates or Independents (aka "Liberals" to the whackjobs) a "Conservative" just for disagreeing with them or acknowleding that FOX shows valid counterpoints.

You're lucky. I am frequently labeled 'rightwing wacko conservative' by liberals who don't know me at all and have read few, if any, of my posts purely because I post something in opposition to a liberal point of view. I don't recall ever being branded a liberal, however, by saying something critical of a Bush policy or a whole string of Bush policies however.

So you may wish to check your logic or at least your perception here. I don't think either side is more guilty than the other of using 'liberal' and 'conservative' as perjorative labels or drawing assumptions about people based on a single point of view.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What is clever about a straw man? They are used to support arguments that have no validity on their own.

Without logical fallacy, Bgfrn would have no logic at all....