What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[The T]

Since it's a fact, it figures Grump wouldn't want to be within 5 miles of it, I suppose/

Grump is Continents away from the fray...

 

[Dr Grump]

Since it's a fact, it figures Grump wouldn't want to be within 5 miles of it, I suppose/

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the arse.....

 

[Foxfyre]

No you don't if you start with the principle that all federal entitlements are destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do more harm than good

But that's kind of a silly place to start, no?

Not silly to me. I can defend my statement.

So far you continue to dodge and weave and attempt to change the topic rather than answer my question, what say you? I even typed out one response you could easily have made to answer that question to show you how easy it is to answer it.

And so far not one liberal and/or leftist (better Jillian?) on the thread has presumed to do so. Which only strengthens my original opinion that most liberals and/or leftists cannot or will not articulate a rationale for what they believe.

Instead they will either cut and run and not respond at all, or they will more often dodge, weave, divert, and obfusicate as you and Jillian have been doing, and too often do that with ad hominem, personal insult, or attack of a constructed straw man or red herring thrown into the mix. And then accuse ME of not understanding what is being said to me when I do not allow a concept to be derailed in that way.

 

[koshergrl]

That's because they're dishonest that way.

 

[jillian]

You are wrong. But your opinion is noted...

We have answered the question...several times. The interesting part is that you do not like the answers we have given...

You saying our answers are not being articulated, is again, your opinion...but that's all it is - an opinion.

In fact, I have even answered your question to your specfications too, even though the way it was framed was disingenuous because it your opinion of what I think (entitlement mentality) and what an entitlement is, are wrong..

foxy has this idea that she is somehow singularly able to articulate and anyone who disagrees with her is 'deflecting' or 'inarticulate'. but note the use of the words liberals/leftists interchangeably. for someone who ostensibly works with words, that is her first mistake.

but then again, when someone creates her "adversaries" out of whole cloth, without consideration of differences, worldview and actual belief system, it's not surprising that she would totally miss the mark and be resistant to actually understanding what is being said to her.

frankly, the title alone of this thread is pretty sad.

but as i said... her frustration is that we don't see the "wisdom" of her opinion. (thanks for the suggestion about the quotemarks, btw).

Jillian seems to have illusions of super powers to discern what my unexpressed ideas are and doesn't seem to realize that leftists/liberals is an either and/or characterization rather than necessarily being interchangeable.

When people misunderstand what I am saying to them, I make an effort to help them understand. I don't presume the self righteous obligation to judge them.

And when I find the tone of a thread rather sad, I find other threads to post in.

However, I'll give you points for creativity for one of the more creative diversions, sidetacks, derails, and/or obfusications of the day.

No one has misunderstood what you're saying. You simply don't like the responses you're getting. You started with a false basic premise. As a result, your conclusions are false since they are based upon that initial false premise.

No deflection. But you might find the conversation more interesting if you didn't start the way you did.

As for the implication that if i find your tone sad, i should post elsewhere, i'd much rather point out the silliness of your purported point.

I know it's frustrating for you.

 

[JoeB131]

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 I already answered it and you ignored it...

But let's try again.


I think the democrats who think that we should all go on welfare is a bad idea. so is the liberal/socialist notion that the world owes you a living.

But so is the Republican/Plutocrat who think that we should all be happy working for a pittance so a few rich assholes can own polo ponies, and that those who cheat people out of fair compensation for a days work are somehow "virtuous".

The problem is, which I think you fail to understand is your kind of "Conservatism" is making their kind of "Liberalism" inevitable.

When I grew up, my Dad worked a Union job. He made a good wage, was able to raise five kids, own a two-flat in Chicago and a fishing cabin in Wisconsin. My mom was able to stay at home and work part time. Now, keep in mind, this was back in the 1960-70's (although things got really dicy in the late 1970's both because his health declined do to his exposre to Asbestos that some Corporate Asshole told him was totally safe to work with, and because the Carter economy). In short, not because he had an entitlement mentality, but because a union got him a fair wage.

Somewhere along the line, we lost that. So every recession become an excuse to cut working people's pay. Let's put in At-Will employment and right to work and offshoring and all the other things that Toro thinks are wonderful... and the few union dudes who are left, we're going to vilify as the problem.

And that's kind of the problem. You whine about entitlements, but the fact is, when you cheat the people who want to work at every turn, use every excuse to let people go, you make them have the kind of government dependence you are hear whining about. When you are getting more out of government than you are getting out of busting your ass for someone for 40 hours a week, eventually, you just want more government.

You take away a good paying Union Job at a place like AmPad and replace it with a shitty no-benefits, minimum wage job at Staples (and seriously, this is what Mitt Romney considers his great accomplishment in life), that person is going to want food stamps to put food on the table and section 8 housing to put a roof over his head and MedicAid to see a doctor when his kids get sick.

 

[Dr Grump]

No you don't if you start with the principle that all federal entitlements are destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do more harm than good

But that's kind of a silly place to start, no?

Not silly to me. I can defend my statement.

So far you continue to dodge and weave and attempt to change the topic rather than answer my question, what say you? I even typed out one response you could easily have made to answer that question to show you how easy it is to answer it.

And so far not one liberal and/or leftist (better Jillian?) on the thread has presumed to do so. Which only strengthens my original opinion that most liberals and/or leftists cannot or will not articulate a rationale for what they believe.

Instead they will either cut and run and not respond at all, or they will more often dodge, weave, divert, and obfusicate as you and Jillian have been doing, and too often do that with ad hominem, personal insult, or attack of a constructed straw man or red herring thrown into the mix. And then accuse ME of not understanding what is being said to me when I do not allow a concept to be derailed in that way.

I have answered the premise...

I have not insulted you. I will say though, see my second sig - you almost fall into that category.

You have staged a question, with limited parameters and want an answer within those narrow parameters. When not happy with the answers given - and you have been given plenty - you then fall back on the asinine 'liberals don't answer questions'.

For a start I ain't a liberal or a leftist, more a centrist. And your question has more than fairly being answered.

Don't mistake you not hearing the answers you want as your question not being answered. I have not only answered, but offered up a more reasonable articulation of your question.

You have asked a generalised, over-simplistic question that will never have a simplistic answer....that's on you...

 

[jillian]

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'd say that's another false premise.

50% of senior citizens lived below the poverty line prior to social security.
medicare/medicaid are also positive.
you can't let people starve, so food stamps are an important supplement.
things like headstart end up paying for themselves
the GI Bill raised the level of college grads from 6% to 20%
VA hospitals take care of people who put their lives on the line for their country

i'm not quite sure what you consider an "entitlement" besides those things,

 

[Foxfyre]

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'd say that's another false premise.

50% of senior citizens lived below the poverty line prior to social security.
medicare/medicaid are also positive.
you can't let people starve, so food stamps are an important supplement.
things like headstart end up paying for themselves
the GI Bill raised the level of college grads from 6% to 20%
VA hospitals take care of people who put their lives on the line for their country

i'm not quite sure what you consider an "entitlement" besides those things,

An entitlement is any ongoing program in which the government takes tax money from one citizen and gives it to another on an on going basis. It must be an ongoing program with an implied permance to it; otherwise it is a grant or subsidy which is a different thing and does not tend to make people dependent on receiving it. The GI bill was not an entitlement for instance. It was a program built into the compensation given to our men and women serving in the military. It was not based on need but on the service rendered. Ditto the VA program.

So you are saying that if the federal government did not administer a food stamp program, people would starve and that justifies the federal government taking tax money to pay for it rather than allowing the states and/or private organizations take care of that? And that Head Start pays for itself? I seem to recall reading lately that it not only does not pay for itself but it is too often largely ineffective.

If there are more effective ways to ensure people don't starve than by a federal food stamp program, would you agree the food stamp program should end?

If there are more effective ways to educate children than through Head Start, would you support choosing that more effective way?

 

[Foxfyre]

But that's kind of a silly place to start, no?

Not silly to me. I can defend my statement.

So far you continue to dodge and weave and attempt to change the topic rather than answer my question, what say you? I even typed out one response you could easily have made to answer that question to show you how easy it is to answer it.

And so far not one liberal and/or leftist (better Jillian?) on the thread has presumed to do so. Which only strengthens my original opinion that most liberals and/or leftists cannot or will not articulate a rationale for what they believe.

Instead they will either cut and run and not respond at all, or they will more often dodge, weave, divert, and obfusicate as you and Jillian have been doing, and too often do that with ad hominem, personal insult, or attack of a constructed straw man or red herring thrown into the mix. And then accuse ME of not understanding what is being said to me when I do not allow a concept to be derailed in that way.

I have answered the premise...

I have not insulted you. I will say though, see my second sig - you almost fall into that category.

You have staged a question, with limited parameters and want an answer within those narrow parameters. When not happy with the answers given - and you have been given plenty - you then fall back on the asinine 'liberals don't answer questions'.

For a start I ain't a liberal or a leftist, more a centrist. And your question has more than fairly being answered.

Don't mistake you not hearing the answers you want as your question not being answered. I have not only answered, but offered up a more reasonable articulation of your question.

You have asked a generalised, over-simplistic question that will never have a simplistic answer....that's on you...

Please point me to where you specifically answered the question.

 

[JoeB131]

I answered the question- twice- and you still ignore it.... I wonder why...

 

[Foxfyre]

I answered the question- twice- and you still ignore it.... I wonder why...

I apologize if I missed it. Please point me to the specific posts and I will read them.

 

[Dr Grump]

Not silly to me. I can defend my statement.

So far you continue to dodge and weave and attempt to change the topic rather than answer my question, what say you? I even typed out one response you could easily have made to answer that question to show you how easy it is to answer it.

And so far not one liberal and/or leftist (better Jillian?) on the thread has presumed to do so. Which only strengthens my original opinion that most liberals and/or leftists cannot or will not articulate a rationale for what they believe.

Instead they will either cut and run and not respond at all, or they will more often dodge, weave, divert, and obfusicate as you and Jillian have been doing, and too often do that with ad hominem, personal insult, or attack of a constructed straw man or red herring thrown into the mix. And then accuse ME of not understanding what is being said to me when I do not allow a concept to be derailed in that way.

I have answered the premise...

I have not insulted you. I will say though, see my second sig - you almost fall into that category.

You have staged a question, with limited parameters and want an answer within those narrow parameters. When not happy with the answers given - and you have been given plenty - you then fall back on the asinine 'liberals don't answer questions'.

For a start I ain't a liberal or a leftist, more a centrist. And your question has more than fairly being answered.

Don't mistake you not hearing the answers you want as your question not being answered. I have not only answered, but offered up a more reasonable articulation of your question.

You have asked a generalised, over-simplistic question that will never have a simplistic answer....that's on you...

Please point me to where you specifically answered the question.

I have answered the question - either directly or in parts - in posts 930, 932, 936 and 1004...

 

[koshergrl]

Sure you have. That's why you would rather look up the post numbers than just say "I answered it and this is what I said".

When people do that, without quoting the actual info, they're always lying about what they said. Always.

 

[JoeB131]

I answered the question- twice- and you still ignore it.... I wonder why...

I apologize if I missed it. Please point me to the specific posts and I will read them.

Post #1026.... Although I have expressed similar sentitments many times elsewhere.

 

[Dr Grump]

Sure you have. That's why you would rather look up the post numbers than just say "I answered it and this is what I said".

When people do that, without quoting the actual info, they're always lying about what they said. Always.

???

 

[Foxfyre]

actually, it does have to do with red states and blue states in part. you make claims about what "liberals" believe and what "liberals" want all the while not acknowledging the use of entitlements by self-styled "conservatives". That isn't deflection... or shifting the focus. It is simply not permitting you to falsely portray a reality that doesn't exist.

Grump hasn't missed a single thing you've said. He's simply pointed out his disagreement with you and set forth reasons why. Not allowing you to frame the debate isn't deflection.

Your "frustration" is that everyone doesn't see the great wisdom in your pov. You neglect the fact that others believe in their own pov as fervently and see yours as being as misguided as you see theirs, if not moreso.

Grump has not disagreed with me. Nor have you. You both have changed the subject. I haven't asked anybody to agree with me, I have asked and asked and asked for any of you on the left to articulate an argument that is something more coherant than 'corporations are evil and suck" or "Republicans just want to invade women's uteruses' or some such that which in no way relates to anything I have said.

You simply cannot have a discussion in which one person expresses an opinion about rocks and the other person responds with something about trees.

I have stated my point of view. I am perfectly willing to defend it with anybody. My contention is that most of the liberals/leftists cannot articulate a defensible rationale for their opinion.

And so far not one of you has chosen to prove me wrong about that.

You are wrong. But your opinion is noted...

We have answered the question...several times. The interesting part is that you do not like the answers we have given...

You saying our answers are not being articulated, is again, your opinion...but that's all it is - an opinion.

In fact, I have even answered your question to your specfications too, even though the way it was framed was disingenuous because it your opinion of what I think (entitlement mentality) and what an entitlement is, are wrong..

Okay here's your response from your Post 1004.

Jillian had gone off on a rant about red states getting more federal money than blue states which has absolutely nothing to do with the basic principle which did not distinguish between left or right, red or blue states, or political parties or any other criteria other than the specific issue of entitlements at face value.

As I recall in your other posts you did much the same thing though you took it in different directions. JoeB did the same.

An entitlement is a government program that transfers money from those who earned it and gives it to those who did not earn it on an ongoing basis. And I have made the point several times now that one time grants or periodic subsidies are not the same thing.

An entitlement mentality is the perception that one is entitled to receive that government money and an expectation that it will keep coming.

Can we agree on the bolded concept?

 

[Dr Grump]

Grump has not disagreed with me. Nor have you. You both have changed the subject. I haven't asked anybody to agree with me, I have asked and asked and asked for any of you on the left to articulate an argument that is something more coherant than 'corporations are evil and suck" or "Republicans just want to invade women's uteruses' or some such that which in no way relates to anything I have said.

You simply cannot have a discussion in which one person expresses an opinion about rocks and the other person responds with something about trees.

I have stated my point of view. I am perfectly willing to defend it with anybody. My contention is that most of the liberals/leftists cannot articulate a defensible rationale for their opinion.

And so far not one of you has chosen to prove me wrong about that.

You are wrong. But your opinion is noted...

We have answered the question...several times. The interesting part is that you do not like the answers we have given...

You saying our answers are not being articulated, is again, your opinion...but that's all it is - an opinion.

In fact, I have even answered your question to your specfications too, even though the way it was framed was disingenuous because it your opinion of what I think (entitlement mentality) and what an entitlement is, are wrong..

Okay here's your response from your Post 1004.

Jillian had gone off on a rant about red states getting more federal money than blue states which has absolutely nothing to do with the basic principle which did not distinguish between left or right, red or blue states, or political parties or any other criteria other than the specific issue of entitlements at face value.

As I recall in your other posts you did much the same thing though you took it in different directions. JoeB did the same.

An entitlement is a government program that transfers money from those who earned it and gives it to those who did not earn it on an ongoing basis. And I have made the point several times now that one time grants or periodic subsidies are not the same thing.

An entitlement mentality is the perception that one is entitled to receive that government money and an expectation that it will keep coming.

Can we agree on the bolded concept?

No, I disagree with the bolded part. Once again, you are putting simplistic spin on a vexing question.

For example, I have issue with this part: An entitlement is a government program that transfers money from those who earned it and gives it to those who did not earn it on an ongoing basis.

Is that an entitlement? I mean the definition? You would have to know who was receiving the 'entitlement' in the first place. Don't get me wrong, there are probably people who meet your definition - who have never worked and are getting something for nothing, but what about a 50 year old who has worked for 30 years and paid taxes, but is say, now on food stamps due to being made redundant because their call centre job was outsourced to India. Are they getting food stamps that others have paid for, or is it them just getting back something that their taxes have paid for over the past 30 years?

 

[Dr Grump]

An entitlement mentality is the perception that one is entitled to receive that government money and an expectation that it will keep coming.

As for this part - I don't know of any hard working person - liberal, conservative, libertarian - whatever - that likes any lazy arsed person who doesn't want to contribute to society through their own choice.

Remember, you phrased the question as "I, a conservative", so while in your last post to me you talk about Jillian's points and that "leftist etc" doesn't matter, you are being disingenuous....

 

[syrenn]

This is why.... .. Sorry jillian... i could not resist!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/truthmatters.html