Five Ft. Three

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” ― Milton Friedman

Why you cannot debate with a liberal

on October 20, 2011

I have finally had it with Saty, she thinks the Almighty Government is the ONLY way of helping people, she cannot even fathom the idea that individuals can take care of themselves or each other. How the hell do you get through to people like that? You can’t.


40 responses to “Why you cannot debate with a liberal

  1. Welcome to the club. Good for you.You finally figured that out, it's a waste of time to argue with liberals and leftists. They invented the word "hypocrisy"

  2. BB-Idaho says:

    Works both ways, dontcha know?

  3. Dave Miller says:

    Perhaps you are correct Beth in that you cannot debate, if the objective is to win, and convince the other side to adopt your viewpoint.However if your objective is to learn from that person, then I think people of different viewpoints can definitively "win" in a debate.I have learned some of my biggest lessons from people I completely disagree with, even in politics.

  4. Z-man says:

    Big gov't has been tried since FDR and LBJ and we still got the Problems. You'd think folks would go with something else.

  5. Beth says:

    How so, BB? Conservatives are on the side of liberty and personal responsibility, how can that be wrong?Dave – always the attempt at smoothing things over, well it doesn't work this time. Leftists want to control everything, and I am tired of it. They cannot be reasoned with. It appears that their way has to go forward until it sucks so bad that the rest of us will have to clean up their mess.Z-man – exactly, it never has worked and never will.

  6. soapster says:

    Libertarians are on the side of liberty and personal responsibility. Conservatives are on the side of something far different.By most accounts, congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is a conservative. Yet, she along with (I believe) all the other Republican presidential candidates (save for the unmentionable congressman from Texas) are in support of foreign aid to Israel.Such a position doesn't comport with liberty for either American taxpayers or Israel's citizens. What's more, it most certainly doesn't comport with personal responsibility with respect to Israel.

  7. soapster says:

    Computer malfunction. My apologies for the triple post.

  8. BB-Idaho says:

    "How so, BB? Conservatives are on the side of liberty and personal responsibility, how can that be wrong?" Nothing wrong with that.I tend liberal because I care about my fellow humans. For example: your blog, Fall 2010:"People with cancer like Emily suffered for 3 years, my Mom continues to suffer after her stroke, why give people hope thinking they might be better someday, and meanwhile they suffer along the way? It's all pretty shitty if you ask me, and I don't like that God made us to suffer so much." Not sure if the got any gov't aid, and I donate to St. Judes..but I have no problem withmy taxes going to help people who are suffering. you?

  9. Beth says:

    OK, so you donate to St. Judes and have no problem having the government take money from you and help whomever they think needs help, but in MY world view, you can decide where ALL of your money goes and to whom it helps, without the stupid government as the damn middleman. Really BB, how in the hell can that be wrong where YOU decide where your money goes instead of Obama or Bush or whomever happens to be in Congress or the White House? That is why the conservative way is the only proper way, because everyone has the freedom to do as they see fit, and we aren't in servitude to the government for them to direct my hard earned dollars their way.

  10. Doug says:

    Beth, you are still free to give to whomever you want even when the government takes money away in the form of taxes.It does not limit where you give. Perhaps how much, but not to whom. In fact, I might argue that because of the government , you just might have more choices available to you because more organizations exist to obtain that money.I think the both ways argument could be directed towards the rights just say no policy, don't compromise to actually do something and let the economy suffer so that we can win at all cost approach. That is not a debate either. From my perspective, I see guilt on both sides of the fence.

  11. Beth says:

    Are you being serious, Doug? Oh my God, I hope you aren't! Do you read what you write? Does it actually make sense to you?

  12. soapster says:

    So can we assume you are in support of ending ALL foreign aid (even foreign aid to Israel)??

  13. Dave Miller says:

    Now that's good question Soap, and one the GOP partisans will not even approach.Somehow, Israel is seen as us, and always worthy of aid, even if that aid is the cause of much of the wrath directed at us from the Middle East.Beth, I am not trying to smooth anything over. I am just choosing to live my life a little differently. The Apostle Paul is pretty clear in his admonition "to consider other better than ourselves."If we take that seriously, and I try to, sometimes even successfully, then I better look to what I can learn from people rather than calling them names and demonizing them, even when I disagree with them.Life is too short to live it angry at those with whom I do not agree.

  14. soapster says:

    Well stated Dave.Some people just can't seem to break themselves from the divisive left/right paradigm.They don't realize it is a tool to divide the masses and conquer them.

  15. Z-man says:

    Beth's position is the most logical. Let's say I have $500 in my pocket and I want to help a friend or other person in need because I feel bad for him or her. So far so good so someone comes along, grabs my wallet, takes out a hundred-dollar bill and hands it to the person in need. That's a metaphor for gov't, got a problem with it.

  16. soapster says:

    Let's say I have $500 in my pocket and government comes along and takes $100 of it and gives it to Israel.What do we call it then?So far I think we've called it avoidance.

  17. Kind of like this story isn't it? With the approval of the Obama administration, an electric car company that received a $529 million federal government loan guarantee is assembling its first line of cars in Finland. At first this was meant to create jobs here in the USA, but somehow the Thug-in Chief changed plans.And why the Israeli analogy America (Hillary Clinton) just gave $30 Billion to the Libyan Rebels who assassinated Gaddafi and who also killed U.S. Troops in Iraq?

  18. soapster says:

    Why the Israeli analogy?Because, one of two things will happen.You will either concede my point that ALL foreign aid should be stopped and that in so doing each country will have to be personaly responsible for themselves; orYou will make an acception to the rule and futily attempt to justify why foreign aid to Israel is okay while other forms of aid are not okay and in the process compromise yourself and your credibility with respect to the relative subject of liberty and personal responsibility.We might call it culling the herd, separating the men from the boys, weeding out the bad seeds…

  19. Beth says:

    Well it would only make sense that if we expect aid to be given not through the government but through charity, then it would also be true for foreign countries. However, sometimes aid is for national security purposes.Thanks, Z-man, for the good illustration of my point.

  20. dmarks says:

    Ending aid to Israel is the antisemite's wet dream.This aid is the only thing preventing a new Holocaust: an annihilation of a nation of 5.5 million Jewish people.

  21. Ending aid to Israel is the dream of the Iranian's also.

  22. soapster says:

    Big shock the anti-semite card gets played. And you have the gaul to chastise the left when they play the race card. What a crock.

  23. BB-Idaho says:

    RE: "This aid is the only thing preventing a new Holocaust: an annihilation of a nation of 5.5 million Jewish people."..they also are the sole nuclearpower in the mideast: 60-80 nuclear weapons.

  24. soapster says:

    Most estimates suggest 300+ BB. But we mustn't let that stop the war hawks nor the conservatives from making a mockery of themselves.

  25. soapster said… Most estimates suggest 300+ BB. But we mustn't let that stop the war hawks nor the conservatives from making a mockery of themselves.WE ought to get you a part on the Bill Maher show, You'd fit right in.

  26. soapster says:

    Is that supposed to be an attempt at humor or an attempt to distract from intellectual inconsistency?

  27. soapster said… Is that supposed to be an attempt at humor or an attempt to distract from intellectual inconsistency?No attempt. I just thought that I'd play the same game as you do….

  28. Beth says:

    How does dmarks opinion that an anti-semite would like ending aid to Isreal be playing the anti-semite card? You think they wouldn't like it? And how is expressing one's opinion be playing some card?

  29. Beth says:

    BB, as if Iran isn't desperately trying to build nukes.

  30. Beth says:

    I should add that a liberal is impossible to debate with, but a Ron Paul supporter ain't a walk in the park, either.

  31. soapster says:

    The fact that an anti-semite would be supportive of ending foreiegn aid to Israel is as glaringly obvious as is the sky being blue that mentioning it most certainly an attempt to guilt those who wish to end it for other reasons. Further, dmarks played it without himself responding to whether he supports aid to Israel or not. My guess is that he does. As such, his mentioning of it is as I stated; an attempt to categorize me as an anti-semite.

  32. soapster says:

    Debating with a Ron Paul supporter supporter is a walk in the park if you understand the basic concept of individual liberty. Even Zman has stated, and I appreciate his comments very much, that I have always been one of the most ideologically consistent people he's known. It's not that difficult to know where I am coming from. It is not likely to ever be on the side of the state.

  33. Debating with a Ron Paul supporter,is like Debating with Forrest Gump

  34. soapster says:

    Don't quit your day job Mal. You'll never make it as a comedian. Whenever you're ready to debate in an adult and civilized manner let me know. I'll even let you pick the topic.

  35. soapster says:

    Looks like you're going to have plenty of them to debate with too Beth.Texas Congressman Ron Paul wins Ohio Swing State Straw Poll

  36. soapster said…. Whenever you're ready to debate in an adult and civilized manner let me know. I'll even let you pick the topic.Anytime at all.But right now I'm having lots of fun reading what that Progressive Clown and you are saying to each other.

  37. soapster says:

    Is it as much fun as watching conservatives compromise their principles and lose their credibility with respect to personal responsibility and cutting spending?To the suggestion that it is for "national security purposes" [that we give foreign aid] I don't think I should have to point out not only how absurd a foreign policy this is but also how unsuccessful it has been.

  38. That I can't help or control, but right now reading you and that Clown is great entertainment.

  39. Dave Miller says:

    Soap, while I do not agree with all you have, I do indeed like your consistency.It can be very hard to maintain that consistency when the issues at hand are difficult to navigate.I can also respect those who are not consistent, if they are able to at least admit their inconsistency and that life does not so easily fit into neat little boxes.The issue brought up here about aid to Israel is a good example.It is totally inconsistent to argue from a financial standpoint that we cannot afford foreign aid, but then find a way to afford it for Israel, without acknowledging that inconsistency.Or to say you want no government intrusion into our private lives, and then argue for that government intrusion on issues you personally find important.And as you have brought up before, to the chagrin of some, is not demonizing any of these positions, it is just pointing out reality.Something some take joy at attacking…

  40. soapster says:

    Often times is it far easier, satisfying, and even gratifying for some to critique others than it is to come to terms with their own failures and shortcomings."It can be very hard to maintain that consistency when the issues at hand are difficult to navigate."I attend a few weekly meetups one of which where we discuss at great length how such difficult issues and circumstances can be resolved and navigated in a free-market system without the aid of government.

Thanks for joining in on the discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s