What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[JoeB131]

If you think union thugs should be allowed to beat up their employers with baseball bats because they laid them off - as you do - you clearly believe that you have a right to a job. And if you believe to a job, you believe the world owes you a living.

If you believe the right to "fight back" and inflict violence against business owners who lay you off, you clearly believe the world owes you a job.

If I want to close my factory and move it to Mexico, I am taking my money and my property and doing so. You do not have the right to the job I provide you. But you think I owe you a living because you think you have a right over what I do with my business and my savings.

That makes you a parasite.

NO, it makes me a patriot.

I wonder about the people who put their personal greed above the good of the country, and then act like they are virtuous.

What you want is a one-sided game, where those with wealth can beat on those without wealth. It's only "Class Warfare" when the peasents fight back.

My preference would be the business people having the good sense to realize what their responsiblities are to the good of the country and society. When they don't then we break out the ass beatings.

I mean, I know, what a concept, right? Are you like totally ignorant of the labor movement and it's contribution to this country and why we have a holiday called "Labor Day"?

 

[Toro]

How about the whole fucking banking fiasco, meathead? The one where they took toxic loans, bundled them with bad loans, sold them off as derivitives to unsuspecting investors.

You really are clueless. You have no idea what happened.

I know exactly what happened. The question is, why aren't the people responsible in prison enjoying repeated sodomy right now...

You haven't got a clue what happened, you idiotic moron.

The reason why these firms got bailed out wasn't because they sold bad loans to "unsuspecting" investors. It's because they kept the toxic parts on their balance sheets, then held similar loans sold to them by banks doing the same thing they were.

FFS.

 

[Toro]

If you think union thugs should be allowed to beat up their employers with baseball bats because they laid them off - as you do - you clearly believe that you have a right to a job. And if you believe to a job, you believe the world owes you a living.

If you believe the right to "fight back" and inflict violence against business owners who lay you off, you clearly believe the world owes you a job.

If I want to close my factory and move it to Mexico, I am taking my money and my property and doing so. You do not have the right to the job I provide you. But you think I owe you a living because you think you have a right over what I do with my business and my savings.

That makes you a parasite.

NO, it makes me a patriot.

I wonder about the people who put their personal greed above the good of the country, and then act like they are virtuous.

What you want is a one-sided game, where those with wealth can beat on those without wealth. It's only "Class Warfare" when the peasents fight back.

My preference would be the business people having the good sense to realize what their responsiblities are to the good of the country and society. When they don't then we break out the ass beatings.

I mean, I know, what a concept, right? Are you like totally ignorant of the labor movement and it's contribution to this country and why we have a holiday called "Labor Day"?

Expropriating the wealth of others because you think you have the right to other people's wealth makes you a parasite, not a patriot. I hardly think the Founding Fathers believed you should be able to beat the shit out business owners who fire workers and hang business owners who decide what they want to do with their money.

 

[JoeB131]

Expropriating the wealth of others because you think you have the right to other people's wealth makes you a parasite, not a patriot. I hardly think the Founding Fathers believed you should be able to beat the shit out business owners who fire workers and hang business owners who decide what they want to do with their money.

The Founding Fathers were a bunch of slave-holders who didn't want to pay for a war they started and benefited from. Please don't feed me that horseshit. We've evolved beyond them, thankfully.

The point was, the Labor movement did exactly those things, and then those business owners looked at what was going on in Russia and said, "Sheeet, we'd better get right with our workers, or we can end up like THOSE guys." And oddly, we had our greatest properity as a country when we gave the working man a fair shake.


“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”- Abraham Lincoln...

Wow. What a concept, Abe!

Toto would probably call him a communist... Wait, I'm sure we can find a REAL Republican who shares your hatred of working folks...

"You of organized labor and those who have gone before you in the union movement have helped make a unique contribution to the general welfare of the Republic–the development of the American philosophy of labor. This philosophy, if adopted globally, could bring about a world, prosperous, at peace, sharing the fruits of the earth with justice to all men. ...Moreover, we cannot be satisfied with welfare in the aggregate; if any group or section of citizens is denied its fair place in the common prosperity, all others among us are thereby endangered.

The second principle of this American labor philosophy is this: the economic interest of employer and employee is a mutual prosperity." _ Dwight D. Eisenhower to the AFL-CIO.


So honestly, how did the GOP get from these very smart guys to people like you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

just to interject for a moment. i think it's really important to point out that foxy's supposition is a fabrication. if it weren't, red states would be paying more into the federal system than they take and blue states would be taking more than they put in. instead, the truth is the opposite.

it's like willow railing against entitlements while she collects social security.

Oh look! Jillian, Queen Mother of the Useful Idiots, unashamed liar and my -favorite- fraud, wants to "interject" what passes for quick and witty in her circle.

I'm sure Big Bird and the Suffleupagus are impressed - now, go back to cleaning the courthouse restrooms, stop hijacking taxpayer-funded wi-fi and come back only when asked.

poor wackjob...
seems someone's cranky.
have another shot of rotgut...
and thank you for more of your useless input.

Irony so thick you can't cut it with a chainsaw.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah, well just to add to the confusion, in Australia the Labor party is our version of the Dems, and the Liberal party is our version of the GoP.

I disagree. I believe in a safety net at the bottom of a cliff not a hammock. There is nothing wrong with a safety net. Countries that don't have them include the likes of India, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Mexico...so that is the end game if you don't have some social programmes in place.

There needs to be a fine line. I find US conservatives basically believe people should live off the bones of their arse if they don't have a job. That would never work. You have to give people hope. I know people who have been unemployed and gotten the dole (unemployment) and they hated every minute of it. They were both Labor and Liberal voters.

Foxfyre is also assuming that anybody who benefits from a social programme is a liberal, to which I say, 'prove it'.

Is there generational unemployment and sense of entitlement amongst some families? Sure. Are they liberals? Who the fuck knows. I don't, and neither does FF...

I'm not arguing whether or not there should be a safety net. I'm trying to describe why an American conservative would say an American liberal has an entitlement mentality. To an American conservative (or most of them anyways), arguing for a safety net is to argue for entitlements. Thus, to American conservatives, liberals have an entitlement mentality because they argue for entitlements.

In Commonwealth countries, socialists often argue that people have a right to entitlements, no different than a right to life or whatever. Some American liberals argue that but its not as ubiquitous in American political discourse as it is elsewhere.

Yeah, well, down here even the conservatives 'get' 'entitlements'.....

Now, what they are supposed to be etc.. is another story...

You are right. Some do. And both Republicans and Democrats have voted for entitlements over the years, and entitlements have been pushed in most administrations since Teddy Roosevelt regardless of which party held power in Congress, The two most egregious examples in recent years are the Senior Prescription bill that George W. Bush pushed through a Republican controlled Congress and Obamacare which Obama pushed through a Democrat controlled Congress.

And all this becomes part of the entitlement mentality.

For purposes of this illustration, I ask you and Jillian and JoeB and anybody else to focus on one specific principle, not red states or blue states, not a political party, not various entitles, not personalities. not economic classes.

The principle is as I have presented it:

I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

What say you?

 

[edthecynic]

I'm not arguing whether or not there should be a safety net. I'm trying to describe why an American conservative would say an American liberal has an entitlement mentality. To an American conservative (or most of them anyways), arguing for a safety net is to argue for entitlements. Thus, to American conservatives, liberals have an entitlement mentality because they argue for entitlements.

In Commonwealth countries, socialists often argue that people have a right to entitlements, no different than a right to life or whatever. Some American liberals argue that but its not as ubiquitous in American political discourse as it is elsewhere.

Yeah, well, down here even the conservatives 'get' 'entitlements'.....

Now, what they are supposed to be etc.. is another story...

You are right. Some do. And both Republicans and Democrats have voted for entitlements over the years, and entitlements have been pushed in most administrations since Teddy Roosevelt regardless of which party held power in Congress, The two most egregious examples in recent years are the Senior Prescription bill that George W. Bush pushed through a Republican controlled Congress and Obamacare which Obama pushed through a Democrat controlled Congress.

And all this becomes part of the entitlement mentality.

For purposes of this illustration, I ask you and Jillian and JoeB and anybody else to focus on one specific principle, not red states or blue states, not a political party, not various entitles, not personalities. not economic classes.

The principle is as I have presented it:

I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

What say you?

I say that is the programmed CON$erviNutzi rationalization to justify their selfish greed.

What say you?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah, well, down here even the conservatives 'get' 'entitlements'.....

Now, what they are supposed to be etc.. is another story...

You are right. Some do. And both Republicans and Democrats have voted for entitlements over the years, and entitlements have been pushed in most administrations since Teddy Roosevelt regardless of which party held power in Congress, The two most egregious examples in recent years are the Senior Prescription bill that George W. Bush pushed through a Republican controlled Congress and Obamacare which Obama pushed through a Democrat controlled Congress.

And all this becomes part of the entitlement mentality.

For purposes of this illustration, I ask you and Jillian and JoeB and anybody else to focus on one specific principle, not red states or blue states, not a political party, not various entitles, not personalities. not economic classes.

The principle is as I have presented it:

I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

What say you?

I say that is the programmed CON$erviNutzi rationalization to justify their selfish greed.

What say you?

I say that can be taken under advisement as a separate issue.

Right now I wish to see if it is possible for a liberal to address one specific principle at face value:

I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

What say you?

 

[Katiegrrl0]

The opposite could be said as well. This question goes nowhere beyond ridiculing the opposite side. It adds nothing. The two sides have opposing views so debating would be frustrating in either direction.

 

[edthecynic]

You are right. Some do. And both Republicans and Democrats have voted for entitlements over the years, and entitlements have been pushed in most administrations since Teddy Roosevelt regardless of which party held power in Congress, The two most egregious examples in recent years are the Senior Prescription bill that George W. Bush pushed through a Republican controlled Congress and Obamacare which Obama pushed through a Democrat controlled Congress.

And all this becomes part of the entitlement mentality.

For purposes of this illustration, I ask you and Jillian and JoeB and anybody else to focus on one specific principle, not red states or blue states, not a political party, not various entitles, not personalities. not economic classes.

The principle is as I have presented it:

I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

What say you?

I say that is the programmed CON$erviNutzi rationalization to justify their selfish greed.

What say you?

I say that can be taken under advisement as a separate issue.

Right now I wish to see if it is possible for a liberal to address one specific principle at face value:

I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

What say you?

You are just projecting the CON$erviNutzi philosophy, of abusing anything helpful, on honest people. Just because CON$ are too lazy to improve themselves when offered a helping hand does not mean normal people will behave the same.

 

[Bfgrn]

JoeB thinks that capitalists owe him a job.

Of course, he claims to be a Republican ...

Please point out where I ever said that.

Thank you.

Oh, wait, you can't. Becasue you're a lying sack of Wall Street Manure.

I don't think ANYONE owes anyone a job. But I think that when someone does a job, his employer shouldn't lie to them and should give them a fair share of the profit.

What a concept.

And the funny thing is, Republicans USED to understand this was a good idea. Until the Bush's anyway. They used to understand that a guy taking home a good wage was the best insulation against European style socialism.

20 years ago, someone as far to the left as Obama (who lets not forget, you admitted you voted for in 2008) never, ever could have gotten elected. He won easily in 2008 and will win bigger in 2012.

I don't much relish the thought of the GOP being the party of the very rich and dumb white southerners too stupid to realize they are being punked.

If you think union thugs should be allowed to beat up their employers with baseball bats because they laid them off - as you do - you clearly believe that you have a right to a job. And if you believe to a job, you believe the world owes you a living.

If you believe the right to "fight back" and inflict violence against business owners who lay you off, you clearly believe the world owes you a job.

If I want to close my factory and move it to Mexico, I am taking my money and my property and doing so. You do not have the right to the job I provide you. But you think I owe you a living because you think you have a right over what I do with my business and my savings.

That makes you a parasite.

What species is the business owner who outsources jobs that pay squalor wages, but gains all the benefits and privileges of living in this country?

Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.
President John F. Kennedy - Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963

 

[Foxfyre]

The opposite could be said as well. This question goes nowhere beyond ridiculing the opposite side. It adds nothing. The two sides have opposing views so debating would be frustrating in either direction.

It doesn't have to be though. All it requires is each side to articulate a rationale for their opinion about it, pro or con.

Conservatives can usually do that easily. They don't always do it without adding some sideswipes/insulting comments--which is frustrating to me--but they all mostly CAN do it.

This is an experiment to see if there are any liberals who can and will do that. My opinion has been that very very few are even capable of doing that, much less will. And so far nobody on this thread has proved me wrong.

And it is that single phenomenon that makes arguing an issue with a liberal so frustrating. It is not, as Jillian suggested, that people disagree with me. I thoroughly enjoy a good workout to defend a principle or concept or action. It sure doesn't provide that when everybody agrees with you. And I can completely respect somebody who can competently argue against my position on anything and really admire those who can produce an argument superior to mine. And yes, there are a lot of people who can.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Plenty of name-calling, insults and generalizing here, of course, but I do think that it's reasonable to wonder if making millions of Americans, generations of Americans, more and more dependent on the federal bureaucracy in the name of compassion is in fact the opposite of compassion in the long run.

I really don't that's a crazy or bigoted or greedy question to ask.

.

 

[copsnrobbers]

The opposite could be said as well. This question goes nowhere beyond ridiculing the opposite side. It adds nothing. The two sides have opposing views so debating would be frustrating in either direction.

It doesn't have to be though. All it requires is each side to articulate a rationale for their opinion about it, pro or con.

Conservatives can usually do that easily. They don't always do it without adding some sideswipes/insulting comments--which is frustrating to me--but they all mostly CAN do it.

This is an experiment to see if there are any liberals who can and will do that. My opinion has been that very very few are even capable of doing that, much less will. And so far nobody on this thread has proved me wrong.

And it is that single phenomenon that makes arguing an issue with a liberal so frustrating. It is not, as Jillian suggested, that people disagree with me. I thoroughly enjoy a good workout to defend a principle or concept or action. It sure doesn't provide that when everybody agrees with you. And I can completely respect somebody who can competently argue against my position on anything and really admire those who can produce an argument superior to mine. And yes, there are a lot of people who can.

Well said foxy. My debate experience results with Liberals always end the same way.
They always yell scream and insult, then run.
I think Barney Frank is a great example of a liberal. Look at his persona and record for a complete description.

 

[edthecynic]

The opposite could be said as well. This question goes nowhere beyond ridiculing the opposite side. It adds nothing. The two sides have opposing views so debating would be frustrating in either direction.

It doesn't have to be though. All it requires is each side to articulate a rationale for their opinion about it, pro or con.

Conservatives can usually do that easily. They don't always do it without adding some sideswipes/insulting comments--which is frustrating to me--but they all mostly CAN do it.

This is an experiment to see if there are any liberals who can and will do that. My opinion has been that very very few are even capable of doing that, much less will. And so far nobody on this thread has proved me wrong.

And it is that single phenomenon that makes arguing an issue with a liberal so frustrating. It is not, as Jillian suggested, that people disagree with me. I thoroughly enjoy a good workout to defend a principle or concept or action. It sure doesn't provide that when everybody agrees with you. And I can completely respect somebody who can competently argue against my position on anything and really admire those who can produce an argument superior to mine. And yes, there are a lot of people who can.

Pontificating that poor people who receive aid are too lazy to improve themselves and just become more dependent is merely a worthless opinion. Pontification is not a rationale, it is a rationalization!

 

[Bfgrn]

The opposite could be said as well. This question goes nowhere beyond ridiculing the opposite side. It adds nothing. The two sides have opposing views so debating would be frustrating in either direction.

It doesn't have to be though. All it requires is each side to articulate a rationale for their opinion about it, pro or con.

Conservatives can usually do that easily. They don't always do it without adding some sideswipes/insulting comments--which is frustrating to me--but they all mostly CAN do it.

This is an experiment to see if there are any liberals who can and will do that. My opinion has been that very very few are even capable of doing that, much less will. And so far nobody on this thread has proved me wrong.

And it is that single phenomenon that makes arguing an issue with a liberal so frustrating. It is not, as Jillian suggested, that people disagree with me. I thoroughly enjoy a good workout to defend a principle or concept or action. It sure doesn't provide that when everybody agrees with you. And I can completely respect somebody who can competently argue against my position on anything and really admire those who can produce an argument superior to mine. And yes, there are a lot of people who can.

You ignore articulated rationale when it is presented to you, as if it doesn't exist. That tells me your argument is solely based on emotions. I have presented a mountain of FACTS on numerous threads that dismantle your dogma and false conclusions about social programs, what our nation was like before those programs and how they have helped to lift millions out of poverty. You constantly ignore those facts and keep on chanting your social Darwinism.

 

[Foxfyre]

The opposite could be said as well. This question goes nowhere beyond ridiculing the opposite side. It adds nothing. The two sides have opposing views so debating would be frustrating in either direction.

It doesn't have to be though. All it requires is each side to articulate a rationale for their opinion about it, pro or con.

Conservatives can usually do that easily. They don't always do it without adding some sideswipes/insulting comments--which is frustrating to me--but they all mostly CAN do it.

This is an experiment to see if there are any liberals who can and will do that. My opinion has been that very very few are even capable of doing that, much less will. And so far nobody on this thread has proved me wrong.

And it is that single phenomenon that makes arguing an issue with a liberal so frustrating. It is not, as Jillian suggested, that people disagree with me. I thoroughly enjoy a good workout to defend a principle or concept or action. It sure doesn't provide that when everybody agrees with you. And I can completely respect somebody who can competently argue against my position on anything and really admire those who can produce an argument superior to mine. And yes, there are a lot of people who can.

You ignore articulated rationale when it is presented to you, as if it doesn't exist. That tells me your argument is solely based on emotions. I have presented a mountain of FACTS on numerous threads that dismantle your dogma and false conclusions about social programs, what our nation was like before those programs and how they have helped to lift millions out of poverty. You constantly ignore those facts and keep on chanting your social Darwinism.

No. Accusing people of malfeasance or misconduct or otherwise insulting, accusing, or deferrring to their actions that have nothing to do with the stated principle is NOT an articulated rationale. It is a deflection or sidetrack or obfusication that seems to be rather typical of the argument most liberals present.

For instance this morning, there was a discussion between Bill Hemmer and Jan Schakowsky re the recently present GOP House budget. She declared it unacceptable and a violation of American values.

Three times Bill Hemmer asked her what American values included trillion dollar deficits for most of the next twenty years as the Democrats are proposing.

Three times she refused to answer that question and kept changing the subject to something or somebody she could attack. Why? In my opinion it is because those trillion dollar deficits are indefensible and are a damning issue for Democrats.

Just as all of you liberals on this thread so far are refusing to address this simple principle:

I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

What say you?

The liberals have been doing everything but stand on their heads--maybe they're doing that too?--to avoid addressing that specific statement. All it would require the liberal who disagrees with it to say is:

Entitlements encourage productivity, do not create or encourage dependencies, and do mostly good.

Once that is said, you have the basis for a debate.

So why aren't liberals willing to say that? Because either they know it cannot be defended or they cannot articulate a defense for it. Or they know that this is a damning issue for liberalism.

Prove me wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The principle is as I have presented it:
I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

Cannot agree more. The more government money you make available to people. the more they come to expect it -- indeed, as we see today, the more likely it is for that entitlement to be considered a right , rather than a privilege, by its recipients.

Before you know it, >60% of federal outlays will go towards entitlements, we'll run > $1000B + deficits, and the liberals will say its because the rich don't pay enough.

 

[Foxfyre]

The principle is as I have presented it:
I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

Cannot agree more. The more government money you make available to people. the more they come to expect it -- indeed, as we see today, the more likely it is for that entitlement to be considered a right , rather than a privilege, by its recipients.

Before you know it, >60% of federal outlays will go towards entitlements, we'll run > $1000B + deficits, and the liberals will say its because the rich don't pay enough.

Yup. During that same program segment this morning, it was ponted out that the markup for taxing the rich as the President is proposing amounts to something like 47 billion dollars in treasury revenues over the next 11 years. That averages out to a little over 4 billion dollars a year which is a huge amount of money to you and me, but is viewed as mere pocket change to those in Washington who want to spend it.

Meanwhile that 4 billion in revenues is point 4 percent of that 1 trillion dollar deficit IF the additional taxes on the rich do not force more of them to shelter their assets off shore or otherwise change behavior that reduces income received from the rest of the economy. And history informs us that the wrong kind of tax on the wealthy WILL reduce the income received from the rest of the economy.

But as President Obama once said not all that long ago. It isn't an issue of revenues. It is an issue of fairness. It isn't fair that some have more wealth than others.

Just as most liberals do not want to discuss the cost in dollars and negatives of all those entitlements but would rather focus on the righteousness of helping the less fortunate and/or the "greed and selfishness and hard heartedness" of those who believe a balanced budget that would require rolling back all or most of those entitlements would help the poor far more than will all the entitlements combined.

And a huge chunk, if not all of all those trillion dollar deficits we have accrued and/or that are projected will be in entitlements and other government giveaways to special interests.

It is frustrating not to be able to have that debate because most liberals simply won't engage in it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The principle is as I have presented it:
I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

Cannot agree more. The more government money you make available to people. the more they come to expect it -- indeed, as we see today, the more likely it is for that entitlement to be considered a right , rather than a privilege, by its recipients.

Before you know it, >60% of federal outlays will go towards entitlements, we'll run > $1000B + deficits, and the liberals will say its because the rich don't pay enough.

Yup. During that same program segment this morning, it was ponted out that the markup for taxing the rich as the President is proposing amounts to something like 47 billion dollars in treasury revenues over the next 11 years. That averages out to a little over 4 billion dollars a year which is a huge amount of money to you and me, but is viewed as mere pocket change to those in Washington who want to spend it.

Meanwhile that 4 billion in revenues is point 4 percent of that 1 trillion dollar deficit IF the additional taxes on the rich do not force more of them to shelter their assets off shore or otherwise change behavior that reduces income received from the rest of the economy. And history informs us that the wrong kind of tax on the wealthy WILL reduce the income received from the rest of the economy.

But as President Obama once said not all that long ago. It isn't an issue of revenues. It is an issue of fairness. It isn't fair that some have more wealth than others.

Just as most liberals do not want to discuss the cost in dollars and negatives of all those entitlements but would rather focus on the righteousness of helping the less fortunate and/or the "greed and selfishness and hard heartedness" of those who believe a balanced budget that would require rolling back all or most of those entitlements would help the poor far more than will all the entitlements combined.

And a huge chunk, if not all of all those trillion dollar deficits we have accrued and/or that are projected will be in entitlements and other government giveaways to special interests.

It is frustrating not to be able to have that debate because most liberals simply won't engage in it.

As I have said before:
Those that live in and contribute to a free society almost always have more, and better, stuff than those that do not.
Liberals look to fix this.

For the record:
The national debt has now increased more under The Obama than under GWB.