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.
