Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I don't deal in the "what if" smc nor do I assume about alot of things. I deal with "what is most likely to occur".

You do realize that dealing with "what is most likely to occur" is a form of dealing with "what if," right?

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

If I assume that there are funds available, it also ignores the possibility that I might be well off by the time I retire and won't even have to bother drawing SSN. What is most likely to occur is that there will be nothing for me in the future and I will work until I die. Anyone who thinks that they will be able to retire anytime soon is blind to reality. What is the point of drawing something that I cannot fully collect on? If I could draw all my money out from Social Security, then yes, I would. But getting a measly check that is barely enough to live on back from the fed when I am old and feeble and close to death is just a horrible fallback plan for someone who was too stupid to invest wisely for the past 40+ years. I have 40+ years to invest and save right, so no, I would not.

All of the above, of course, has nothing to do with my question.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Why do you put so much faith in programs that are obvious wealth redistribution and have not provided much in return compared to the amount that is put into them? Social Security, welfare and all these other programs do not induce economic productivity. All they create is dependance on someone (namely the Fed) and punish the people who actually work and put into the system by forcing them to cover the costs. So why are you so adamant about programs that spend your money once it is taken away from you and then promise some of it back when you are near death?

Why do you put words in my mouth? Where did I write that I have faith in any of these programs? I have written about a concept of "social solidarity" but not defended a single U.S. program. I asked YOU what federal spending YOU would cut, since YOU advocate for the federal government to only have its 17 responsibilities related to defense and regulation of currency.

You are more than welcome to make your arguments, but I would appreciate it if you didn't ascribe to me things I did not write. When I express my specific opinion about U.S. government programs, there will be no mistaking it.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

You do realize that dealing with "what is most likely to occur" is a form of dealing with "what if," right?

Yes. But is is a more solidly and probablility based "what if". What if an asteroid San Diego? What if zombies invaded? What if this happened? What if that happened? You can think of all the what if's all you want and deal with those. I just deal with the most likely ones to happen.

Originally Posted by smc

All of the above, of course, has nothing to do with my question.

Yes it does. You just don't like that answer I gave you. If you read the last part of the paragraph, you have my answer.

Originally Posted by smc

Why do you put words in my mouth? Where did I write that I have faith in any of these programs? I have written about a concept of "social solidarity" but not defended a single U.S. program. I asked YOU what federal spending YOU would cut, since YOU advocate for the federal government to only have its 17 responsibilities related to defense and regulation of currency.

You are more than welcome to make your arguments, but I would appreciate it if you didn't ascribe to me things I did not write. When I express my specific opinion about U.S. government programs, there will be no mistaking it.

I answered that:

I answered your question. If you don't like the answers I give you, don't take the conversation in a different tangent and then complain about me not "answering" your question.

And yes, obviously you do support these programs to some degree, otherwise you would not have been pestering me about what I would do and trying to turn it into what I think about this or that. I have made myself pretty clear in my past posts in other threads about my stance on such things. If you are curious, I advise you to reread my previous posts.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Yes it does. You just don't like that answer I gave you. If you read the last part of the paragraph, you have my answer.

I meant to leave out all but the last part, which did answer my question. The rest is what I meant by irrelevant. I introduced the confusion with my error in quoting.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I answered your question. If you don't like the answers I give you, don't take the conversation in a different tangent and then complain about me not "answering" your question.

This is insulting. You ascribed to me things I never stated. It has nothing to do with whether I like your answer. Quote where I said what you ascribe to me, or acknowledge that you put words in my mouth.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

This is insulting. You ascribed to me things I never stated. It has nothing to do with whether I like your answer. Quote where I said what you ascribe to me, or acknowledge that you put words in my mouth.

I already explained my reasons for my response. If you were truly interested in what programs I would cut, we would not be having this discussion right now as it would have sufficed. By turning the direction of the discussion into whether or not I personally would draw Social Security (which has nothing to do with me wanting to cut the program), you invited the response that you got.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I already explained my reasons for my response. If you were truly interested in what programs I would cut, we would not be having this discussion right now. By turning the direction of the discussion into whether or not I personally would draw Social Security (which has nothing to do with me wanting to cut the program), you invited the response that you got.

You wrote: "I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely."

Since Social Security is the only one you mentioned that I could safely assume has a direct impact on you (i.e., I assume you're not on welfare, and you mention no others by name), I legitimately asked you about your personal relationship with drawing said Social Security -- based on your principled position in opposition to its existence. It was a completely legitimate question in the context of this discussion. By the way, no one has answered my specific question about which programs to cut.

Now you reserve for yourself the right to attribute to me statements I did not make because you don't like that I asked you the question.

The bottom line here, Postman, is that you put words in my mouth. I did not do that to you. You have now written more than one post trying to evade your fundamental violation of one of the tenets of legitimate and fair discourse, which is that everyone gets to state his or her opinion, not have it stated by someone else.

You owe me an apology, but more important you owe it to the Forum to have this discussion without putting words in ANYONE'S mouth.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

You wrote: "I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely."

Since Social Security is the only one you mentioned that I could safely assume has a direct impact on you (i.e., I assume you're not on welfare, and you mention no others by name), I legitimately asked you about your personal relationship with drawing said Social Security -- based on your principled position in opposition to its existence. It was a completely legitimate question in the context of this discussion. By the way, no one has answered my specific question about which programs to cut.

Now you reserve for yourself the right to attribute to me statements I did not make because you don't like that I asked you the question.

The bottom line here, Postman, is that you put words in my mouth. I did not do that to you. You have now written more than one post trying to evade your fundamental violation of one of the tenets of legitimate and fair discourse, which is that everyone gets to state his or her opinion, not have it stated by someone else.

You owe me an apology, but more important you owe it to the Forum to have this discussion without putting words in ANYONE'S mouth.

If I oppose Social Security and push for its dissolution, do you really think I would be worried about drawing from it?

And yes, I have answered your questions about which programs to cut. You never asked why or anything else, you just asked what programs we would cut.

And no, I did not put words in your mouth. If you you are as indifferent to such programs as you have stated or oppose them like I do, my feelings about the subject would have been implied and it would have unnecessary to ask such questions. You came across with an aire of defensiveness and preference towards such welfare programs and I took it as such. You have said before that it is up to the writer to be understood and had you made the effort to get across to me that you were purely interested in my opinion and said something like "I do not understand Angry Postman. Could you please clarify?" or something to the effect, rather than saying things like "Answer now!", perhaps I may have obliged you in a kinder manner.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

If I oppose Social Security and push for its dissolution, do you really think I would be worried about drawing from it?

You hide behind the sophistic method of constantly trying to shift the foundation upon which discourse takes place. There are plenty of people in the world who argue for the dissolution of something and still benefit from it.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

And yes, I have answered your questions about which programs to cut. You never asked why or anything else, you just asked what programs we would cut.

I presumed your reasoning was what you quoted from the Constitution and the 17 things you say the federal government has responsibility for, all related to defense and regulation of the currency.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

And no, I did not put words in your mouth. If you you are as indifferent to such programs as you have stated or oppose them like I do, my feelings about the subject would have been implied and it would have unnecessary to ask such questions. You came across with an aire of defensiveness and preference towards such welfare programs and I took it as such. You have said before that it is up to the writer to be understood and had you made the effort to get across to me that you were purely interested in my opinion and said something like "I do not understand Angry Postman. Could you please clarify?" or something to the effect, rather than saying things like "Answer now!", perhaps I may have obliged you in a kinder manner.

I am purely interested in your opinion about Social Security and whether one who is on principle opposed to it should ever draw from it. This is abundantly clear from my questions. The only clarification that has been requested is of your method of arguing, which is to ascribe to me things I did not write.

Again, I defy you to prove your point, with quotes, that I expressed "defensiveness and preference" regarding welfare programs. I wrote about the notion of "social solidarity" and used such programs as an example. I've quote you again and again in this discourse, but thus far you have failed to provide a single quote to back up your characterizations of HOW I have engaged in the discourse.

I don't know how else to explain this, so I apologize in advance for the analogy I am about to use. It is used only because I am at a loss for any other way to make my point.

I teach at a university. All of my students are PhD students. We have seminars in which there is very heated discourse.

Let's imagine that the interaction you and I have been having on this site took place at my university in a classroom. Further assume, as is the case, that there is an accepted rule that professors and students are equals in seminars -- that is, there is no formal hierarchy, and any informal hierarchy is seriously frowned upon. I have absolutely not doubt that if the full record of our interactions were put before an independent body of students and professors serving as a commission of inquiry, that you would be found to have violated the standards for legitimate discourse. I am so certain of this that I would bet my career on it.

Now, before you dismiss this with some vitriol about liberal academia, I should point out that I am referring to my principal appointment at the university, which happens to be in the Management school -- hardly a bastion of liberalism, no matter what else the rest of my institution, or any other one for that matter, might be.