« I Don’t Care About Kobe Bryant | Home | New Category »
The Futility of Debating With Liberals
By Matt Margolis | July 20, 2003
I never back down from a debate with a liberal. As futile as they may be, I find even the most pointless debate with a liberal to have entertaining and educational value.
Entertaining because they rarely make sense or base their arguments on truth. Educational because I continually learn about how liberals formulate their arguments, I recognize their flaws, and, each time, they get frustrated with my continual abundance of knowledge, which they can’t counter because a) they rarely use sources for their information, and b) if they actually used sources or researched an issue, they’d discover the flaws of their own arguments.
One of the key indicators of liberals’ lack of concern for sources is their actual citation of sources. As strange as that sounds, I’ll attempt to explain this to clarify my words.
A simple lurking on my website will show various arguments made by both liberals and conservatives. Liberals are quick to judge any source that counters their delicate liberal values to be biased, nonobjective, and propaganda. However, they consider their sources to be unbiased and objective.
I once used the example that if a conservative reads a book titled Democrats Are Bad, a liberal will say that you’re reading ultra right-wing propagandist lies, and then they’ll tell you read Republicans Are Bad, as if to suggest that the latter title is a bastion of objectivity and void of any bias.
To liberals, conservatives are the only ones with an axe to grind, and liberals are the ones who are flawless in their messages.
In my experiences debating with liberals, they contend victory in an argument the moment they find a source (or perhaps sources) that happen to concur with their original point in the argument. However, the rebuttal to their source is ultimately not applicable to them, for whatever reasons they choose to conjure up in the heat of the moment of the debate.
Generally speaking, liberals’ arguments are emotionally driven, while conservatives’ arguments are founded more in logic or facts.
This is not the exception or the rule, but the common trend.
“Get your laws off my body! Freedom of Choice”
“End racism – support affirmative action!”
“Hate-Free Zone!”
“No Blood For Oil!”
“Your civil liberties are in jeopardy!”
“Save Main Street, stop corporate giants!”
“No more school lunches for the children!”
“Bush is a Nazi!”
These are emotionally charged arguments and slogans meant to induce an emotional response to an issue – not a clear-headed logical response based on truth.
Conservatives don’t suggest telling a woman what to do with her body. Hey, if she wants to be a slut – she can. If she wants to get tattoos all over her body, she can. If she wants to dye her hair orange, she can. If she wants to kill a child, she can’t. The main difference between her body and a fetus is the fact that a fetus has different DNA than her own. The ultimate intent of the “Get your laws off my body” argument is to dehumanize an unborn child and regard it as an extension of a woman’s body. Biologically speaking, this is far from the truth.
Liberals who support affirmative action are by clear-headed and logical standards doubly supporting racism. Judging anyone by the color of their skin as opposed to the content of their character is without doubt racism. Assuming a minority cannot make it on their own merit, or assuming another person is racist and will discriminate is also racist. How can racism be obliterated by the use of racism? Is it not hypocritical to use racism as a means to the end of racism?
Do people have the right to hate? Yes, ultimately they do. I can hate anyone I choose to hate, as anyone can choose to hate me. However, when someone chooses to infringe on my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because of their hate, that is not okay.
You get my point.
Emotions certainly have their place in political debate. I do not question that. However, informed decisions are not the result of one’s gut emotional response to an issue.
The so-called “anti-war” movement often used “the Iraqi civilians” and “the Iraqi children” in their arguments against the war in Iraq – suggesting our government’s intent was to actually kill civilians deliberately, or, at the very least, be careless in their attempts to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime and kill extraordinarily large numbers of civilians.
However, they are the ones more likely to suggest America was to blame for the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. They are the “progressives” telling Americans to not “become the hate they oppose” and defend ourselves from terrorism. Yet, they don’t ever point a finger at the group responsible for the attacks, and cry foul when the government targets individuals who fall into that same category of people in the quest to fight terrorism.
Liberals will criticize our government for not being more humanitarian by offering more aide to countries in need or liberating countries with brutal dictators, but they will organize protests against a Republican administration when it chooses to save a country from a brutal dictator, while simultaneously taking preemptive action to defend America from terrorism.
Liberals will wage a political war against a Republican administration for not doing anything about “the homeless problem” in the United States, but never make a peep during the administration of a Democrat.
Liberals’ arguments are faulty for the same reasons they claim their arguments are superior. They are biased, nonobjective and propagandist. To them, a fellow liberal’s opinion is more valid than a conservative’s verified factual source.
A liberal will suggest to me that I read one of their celebrated book titles, but never consider reading one of my own. I, they say, am a victim of right-wing propaganda.
Certainly, this piece will prompt a liberal to say that I am guilty of the same things I am suggesting they are guilty of. At first glance, it may appear so. However, the key difference is that liberal ideals have become part of the mainstream. They infiltrate the media, public education, Hollywood, and colleges and universities, amongst others. The image and perception of conservatives is blasphemed long before most people even have a real understanding of politics. With that in mind, conservative authors and such are more offering an alternative to the vast amounts of liberal propaganda that have infested the institutions previously mentioned. Because of this fact, liberal sources are not accountable for anything, even the truth.
Think I don’t know what I am talking about? Well, I do. I was a victim of this.
I use to be what some would call a “liberal.” I never really understood or followed politics in my youth, but I was once conditioned to believe such things like Republicans are for the rich, and Democrats are for the poor. I used to buy into the idea that cops are inherently racist and corrupt. Many years ago, I once signed an online petition to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, because a friend of mine told me he was innocent. I didn’t know anything about the case, but my immediate emotional reaction was to defend the rights of a falsely accused black man and condemn the evil white police force.
I was so dead wrong I am ashamed of my previous actions. I fell for the liberal trap. The moment I learned about the actual case, I was so completely transformed by this that this was one of the contributing factors that led me on the path of conservatism.
That’s how liberals think. They see someone like Mumia Abu-Jamal and see “White Cop” and “Black Man” and their liberal emotional response makes them see “Racist White Cop” and “Innocent Black Man.”
I fell for it. Lots of people fall for it. Liberalism scams your heart; it does not educate your brain.
My instinctual, uninformed, gut reactions pushed me to liberalism. My desire for knowledge and truth led me to conservatism. Emotional responses never equal objective responses.
My journey along the political spectrum included some stops along the way to the level of conservatism today. Generally, I started off as an uninformed moderate liberal. Upon my greater understanding of the issues, I became much more centrist. My complete political reawakening happened while in college – while in the belly of the liberal beast. It wasn’t because I was suddenly surrounded by conservatives and they changed my views… Contrary to that, it was the previously mentioned flaws of the liberals and their positions and arguments which solidified my position on the political spectrum.
My opinions are determined on an issue-by-issue basis. My previous political history gives me a perspective whereby I am able to understand how liberals reach their conclusions on an issue. Hence, the reason why I’ve successfully converted a number of liberals to conservatism.*
The tactics of liberals are virtually the same whether it’s your typical everyday uninformed liberal, to the lefty blogger on the Web, to a paid activist, and even an elected official.
They attack the person rather than address the issue. It can be in the form of a labeling game, to just an outright personal attack. Sometimes they resort to criticizing a conservative for things they do themselves, or for causes they don’t truly believe in.
Think about it. I’ve heard lefties call George W. Bush a drunk, or fault him for his daughters’ drinking and/or smoking pot. However, these are the same people who drink underage, get drunk, smoke pot, and push for the legalization of marijuana nonetheless. It’s things like these that show you that it’s not about right and wrong, it’s about left and right.
I’ve delved into some of the liberal tactics in debate that I have personally encountered. My question and challenge to my readers is the following: How have you seen liberals debate in ways that contribute to the overall futility of even arguing with them?
[size=1]*I am sure that this statement is bound to prompt some desperate liberal to make a claim they have converted a conservative to become a liberal similarly to how I did the opposite. Though they can make the claim, wouldn’t it be a rather typical and obvious response to try and counter this piece? If such a claim is made, it will only have been made in response to my own and will most likely be a false rebuttal committed by a liberal desperate to try to make a point in his/her favor.[/size]
Topics: The Right Idea |
Related Posts:
July 20th, 2003 at 2:06 pm
Well, they bone up on paranoid conspiracy theories, like those from Marx, Lenin, Mao, Derrida, and Chomsky.
The message they hear is that the world consists of a struggle between the intelligent, worthy, humane, and oppressed underclass, versus the evil, banal, stupid oppressors who steal from the poor.
Unfortunately, a paranoid conspiracy theory is all it is, but they believe it with all their heart.
July 20th, 2003 at 2:08 pm
I dont smoke pot, but I think Marijuana should be decrimialized.
July 20th, 2003 at 4:14 pm
Having just reading the first 50-60 pages of Ann Coulter’s “Treason”, I can certianly provide you with a little blurb about how providing cold hard evidence into the guilt of a liberal doesn’t mean shit. What may be heartbreaking to some, that endeared Democratic President, FDR, when told former communist Whittaker Chambers that Alger Hiss (a government official) was a Soviet spy, FDR basically laughed and told Chambers to fuck himself (I don’t have the book infront of me, but rest assured it went something like that). Even Truman did similar. When they were told that someone was suspected of being a soviet spy, the accused were often promoted, or even eventually advised the president in prominent foreign affairs.
When the Soviet code was broken, revealing the identities of high ranking officials who were Soviet spys or sympathizers, that information was never made public. To this day, with all the proof that Sen. McCarthy’s accusations were infact correct, many media outlets and high-level democrats still deny it. It’s an endless game.
July 20th, 2003 at 4:40 pm
Pot decriminalized?? Then Clinton could inhale, or claim he inhaled.
July 20th, 2003 at 9:23 pm
Thats great. If they legalized Drunk Driving maybe Shrub could actually be considered less of a scum bag.
July 20th, 2003 at 10:22 pm
It seems largely unfair to say that liberals (thus implying the entire group, as you didn’t say ’some liberals’) don’t debate based on resources or they use only emotion, rather than fact or logic. This is hardly true of all liberals. I don’t place myself on either side of the political spectrum because on some issues, I tend toward the conservative side and on others toward liberal. However, there’s the occasion where I believe both sides are wrong. After all, the world is hardly black and white.
Your argument that liberals based on emotions seems to be a statement that it is rare for conservatives to do the same. A few examples if you will…
Nancy Reagan is for stem-cell research, traditionally something conservatives are against. Why? Because of her husband. Is this not emotional?
Dick Cheney will hardly say a word about gay rights. Why? His daughter is a lesbian. See above comment regarding emotion.
Also… one peculiar thing I noted about your post… You say ‘my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ Perhaps you could..enlighten me, but where are those rights given to you?
July 21st, 2003 at 1:13 am
inherint, and inalienable, Court. Check the declaration of independance. Not doled out by the government, which implies that the government has no right to arbitrarily abridge them because they were not given out by the government to begin with.
Not all liberals, but those that do not tend to be the exception, as opposed to the rule.
For instance- If I say that I am against affirmative action, the usual response is that either I am a racist, or I support racism.
There is no logic presented to support that charge, and in fact, I would argue that the opposite is true. The difference is that I do not resort to saying “If you are for AA, you are a racist.” Some liberals support AA with intelligent arguments, but usually it is just name calling.
There ARE conservatives who are all about emotion (usually tied to religious fervor) but we don’t appreciate that, either.
July 21st, 2003 at 1:31 am
Court,
As mentioned in my entry, I am referring not to the exception or the rule, but rather the trend that applies to liberals.
Your examples are ones showing how politics can be personal issues. However, your examples are not applicable to the actual point I made.
I essentially stated that liberals will use arguments in a debate to trigger emotional responses, not logical ones.
July 21st, 2003 at 8:41 am
On the same token, that you can’t generalize all liberals as using emotions, etc. for their arguments, most of the time I’ve dealt with liberals, and I literally mean most of the time, they all say, without fail, that ALL republicans are evil.
Case in point–blog poster “Shaggy”. Having known him for years, he has been programmed (likely by his parents) that ALL republicans are evil, bad, and not worth, yet, while not once conceding there is a bad democrat. I have on several occassions, told him that people need to accept that there are bad democrats and good democrats, and there are bad republicans and good republicans. Once people realize this, it will be a huge step towards higher bipartisanship.
When anyone, democrat or republican, assumes all people of the opposite side of the spectrum are bad, or evil, that person has become a pawn, and would likely have joined the Nazis in their quest to annihilate the non-Aryans in the 30s and 40s.
It’s quite sickening how more often than not, it’s the democrats that behave with this superiority complex and denounce all republicans. I rarely come across republicans/conservatives that act like this…..but I’m not saying there are not republicans that feel this way..I too am noting a trend.
There is a blog out there that has a whole section called, “right wing hate cube.” The amount of hate and bigotry in that forum is insane. Compared to Matt’s “liberal Idiots” forum, atleast he is not saying “all liberals are idiots.”
July 21st, 2003 at 8:44 am
Only liberal media with liberal writers and staff would ever publish the cartoon in question in this Drudge article.
http://www.drudgereport.com/mr.htm
July 21st, 2003 at 12:26 pm
Where to start where to start… There are plenty on both sides whom take the extremist view. Why is it when a cartoonist takes creative license to make a point he is a threat, yet when a right winger who’s name rhymes with Doberson, suggests jihad against Supreme Court justices, is just being religious. The fact is that the middle has the truth. Extremists at either end of the spectrum have twisted the facts etc…
Bush misled us into war. I have no time to site all the evidence that has been in every newspaper for the last week, and wether intentional or not, it merits at least an investigation.
Got to get back to work. I will be back for more fun. Too many things to argue in this post to go into right now.
Oh and in case you are wondering who our next president will be, go to google, type in “Who will be president in 2004?” and click “I feel lucky”
July 21st, 2003 at 12:58 pm
Hey… you gotta listen to the facts….
1) mainly the economy is on the rebound.
2) misled into war or not, if you think buying the uranium from Africa is the only reason we went into Iraq, you are dilusional. Outside of that, if Bush had decided that Saddam and his regime was violating human rights and that would be the reason to go to war, that would be enough. Have you heard or read about what his regime did to the iraqi women? the children? and you call Bush a warmonger, or hitler??? Get real.
July 21st, 2003 at 1:01 pm
It goes without saying that there are extremists on both sides. Hence why I specify that my assesment of liberals is based on a trend.
Further, the evidence you claim to be plastered in the newspapers is only your interpretation of the news, or what you perceive of the news stories via the reporters own bias. The fact is you cannot rely on one media source, or even just media. So, feel free to share your interpretation of the news.
Oh and by the way, as cute are your little google thing is. I know it gives you and other liberals that warm wet feeling below the belt, however, does it mean anything? No.
Try typing in “Who Will Be Elected President in 2004?” and clicking “I Feel Lucky”
Different result all together…
Yes, I know it’s just a fun little thing, but seriously, was it worth bringing up?
July 21st, 2003 at 1:12 pm
Drawing a cartoon depicting the assassination of President Bush, or any president for that matter, is absolutely wrong. Whether or not it is 100% illegal depends on the way the law is written.
July 21st, 2003 at 2:46 pm
That cartoon was penned by a far-righist cartoonist. It’s about honest bush being assinated by politics. The fact that you and Drudge are too stupid to figure that out is telling of something.
July 21st, 2003 at 3:36 pm
a far rightist cartoonist??? prove it.
Still doesn’t mean the guy is in serious trouble…. regardless of political affiliation
July 21st, 2003 at 3:38 pm
I was considering search-and-replacing conservative and liberal in your post, but decided against it when I realized it was perfectly valid.
At no point when I said your reading list was poor did I tell you to go read Blinded by the Right, which was just as polemic as the crap you had listed. You should read something with redeeming value. One should not soley live life for politics.
Conservatives (”Life begins at Conception!” “Mission Accomplished” “Axis of Evil!”) use arguments just as emotionaly charged. You don’t see them that way because you can’t take a step back and look.
You’re entire debasement of Liberal Arguments (children are seperate entities, AA is racist), takes the disputed premise and states it as fact. That’s not a fair argument, and I hope you know that.
Converting people is not something to be proud of - the thing to be proud of is informing people and letting them make their own decisions - something I don’t see you doing very much of.
July 21st, 2003 at 3:43 pm
Look at his past work:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-include-ramirez.ssipage
He’s perhaps the most well known right-wing cartoonist.
July 21st, 2003 at 3:44 pm
http://today.uci.edu/profiles/profile_detail.asp?key=42
Ramirez is a Republican and a conservative, both rarities among political cartoonists.
July 21st, 2003 at 3:47 pm
Additionally, you counter concerns about innocent Iraqi deaths by EMOTIONALLY linking Iraq to 9-11. There is no link, whatsoever, as even Bush’s intelligence indicates. Sorry, Matthew, that dog don’t hunt.
July 21st, 2003 at 4:18 pm
Here are my most recent thoughts… And yes truth in media the artists lists as a conservative in his bio.
Ok just because he is on my side of the fence does not excuse the behavior. The cartoon is in bad taste. This is not some, “Oh now that I know he is a conservative it is just a case of poor judgement.” Again it goes back to the difference between conservatives and leftist (rapidly becoming a theme over here at Cannon’s Canon). We are willing to call out our own when they do something monumentally stupid. This is such a case.
July 21st, 2003 at 5:15 pm
I don’t think any of us left-leaners had a problem calling out Al Sharpton when he screwed up with the whole Tawana Brawley mess… When someone does something stupid, honorable people, regardless of their political affiliations, will call that person out. Its easy to say “we conservatives step up to the plate and liberals don’t” but in reality, there are numerous examples of people from both wings acting honorably, and dishonorably when a one of their own has overstepped acceptable boundaries.
July 21st, 2003 at 5:17 pm
OK First off, the google thing was a futile attempt at humor that you seem to be over analyzing. I bring it up as my man Dean now has a very good chance of facing and beating your man Bush. I like to bring him up every opportunity I get.
Second, like the other poster said, you could exchange the words “liberal” and “conservative” in your post and it would be just as accurate.
My “interpretation” of the news, as you see it, is just a recesitation of facts involving the current scandal. The media is actually getting the opportunity to report something about Bush and have it stick like it should. Bush misled the American Public into war, fluffing up the good juicy evidence and subtly pushing the other evidence aside. If you look at the reporting from when this story broke up until now, you’ll notice the Bush Administration shifting the blame daily. They started with blaming the British, then they said it was the CIA, then they said it was Tenet specifically, then at one point they blamed the French, then they said it was a NSC guy, then went back to Tenet, and then finally said that Condi and Dubya just didn’t read that part of the 90 page document that was partially their justification for STARTING A WAR. I’ll repeat that as it is extremely important. He justified it by saying that he didn’t read the complete evidence of a NUCLEAR threat before sending off our young men and women to war. Now I don’t know about you, but if it were me, I’d read the whole thing cover to cover if I was sending my boys over into a battle with an enemy with WMD’s. Call me crazy.
The bigger issue however is how Bush isn’t taking responsibility for an action he apparently knew was wrong. Wether he knew pre- or post speech, he had a responsibility to correct the information after the fact. He never did though. He knew it was incorrect afterwords and didn’t come out about it until forced to by the media. That reeks of dishonesty, if not cover-up. It merits an investigation if there is a possibility that we were misled.
The argument that we got rid of a tyrant, and that nukes were not the only reason we went, doesn’t justify the end run. Using propaganda is misleading the people. I guaruntee that when people hear “biological or chemical” they become a little concerned, however when you mention nuclear it stacks the deck in favor of going to war. Manipulation of the people is wrong, and in the end, makes our whole country look bad.
July 21st, 2003 at 5:32 pm
And (as I have mentioned before) when asked last week, Bush indicated that the REAL reason we went to war was that “…we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power[.]” I don’t remember that one from before the war.
Also– for those who argue that weapons of mass destruction were but a small part of the reasoning behind the war, please read the president’s now famous 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam where he said “The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other[.]”
They didn’t play that up all, did they?
July 21st, 2003 at 5:36 pm
PS. Not all liberals are peaceniks. If Bush had actually gone after the real threats to begin with, like say the country that did actually have nukes, North Korea, or say, the country with most of the 9-11 terrorists, and the schools where they teach american hatred, Saudia Arabia, about half of the anti-war people wouldn’t have been screaming, myself included.
Bush argued that we had to go to war as Iraq is an imminent threat to US…which we now know is false. Bush’s own reports said he MIGHT possibly have nukes within 10 years. Now go look up imminent in the dictionary.
The real threats are still out there and now we have our boys stuck in a quagmire where they can’t do much good and their morale is slowly being crushed. Bush screwed up and its gonna cost him come 2004.
July 21st, 2003 at 7:32 pm
you actually still believe that Bush knew of any exaggerations that MAY have occurred?? If anything, he would know the least of anyone in the administration about such exaggerations. A little thing I learned in American Foreign Relations class, called, PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY. This is something to protect the president. It is so that when he stands up infront of the press and says he was not aware of this, or that, he is not lying, because he is not aware. This is the way government works.
If you knew anything about the kind of man George W. Bush is, you’d know that he is a very honest man, who doesn’t take crap from no one, and despises anyone who lies to him. I suggest you read, “The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush” by David Frum. A great insight into the administration and man.
July 21st, 2003 at 8:06 pm
I try not to spend too much time in the comments of my blog, I prefer to simply moderate and clarify my points when necessary, because I have lots to write about and I can’t spend too much time futzing over one issue, but I’ll try to address some of these comments quickly.
LiesInMedia:
While certainly conservatives may use emotionally charged arguments at time, it is not their trend. And secondly the examples you provided to not qualify regardless. As a point of clarification (POC), I stated that liberals use arguments to trigger emotional responses, not logical ones. “Life begins at conception” is an ideological argument, just as “Life begins at birth” would be an ideological argument as well. The other examples you gave would qualify more as politically tailored phrases - not arguments meant to trigger emotional responses.
Your “disputed argument” claim is largely irrelevant, because politics is all about “disputed arguments.” Also, children being separate entities from the mother is a biological fact, and using race as a means to judge someone is racist no matter how you slice it.
Calling the Iraq/Al-qaeda connection emotionally driven, is quite a stretch. The facts are that documents have been recovered in Iraq do show compelling evidence that there is/was a connection between them. To say with certainly, as Nathan does, that there was no connection, is a politically driven statement from a liberal who doesn’t want there to be any chance of further justification for going into Iraq. At the very least, the Iraq/Al-qaeda connection is a “disputed argument” yet to be determined with 100% certainty either way.
As far as the Al Sharpton example made, both the left and the right have extremists. Al Sharpton is an extremist one-issue Democrat. Both the left and the right need these extremists to help make themselves appear more towards the center, in an effort to appeal to moderates and independent voters. Nathan is correct, but of course, he stated nothing different than what I had written, for as I said, I want not suggesting my assessment of liberals was the rule.
I give Dean credit for utilizing the internet the way he has, however, I am not sure if he’ll receive the nomination, and if he does, I question his ability to appeal to moderates and independents. We shall see.
To suggest that the 16 words of the State of The Union, this is just a ploy of the Democrats who are running scared since November 2002, when they realized that the country was showing signs of leaning conservative. The words in question, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Is this technically a lie? No. The British government did learn this information. Regardless of it’s potential accuracy, is it not intelligence that was brought to our attention that could very well be true?
Let’s not forget that these are only 16 words, and if any liberal suggests that the decision to go to war was weighted solely on these 16 words, they are either fools, or just so blinded by partisan politics, that they only care about discrediting Bush, even at the expense of truth and fairness.
The real truth is, the 16 words mean absolutely nothing compared to the big picture. The real truth is, liberals wouldn’t even remember those 16 words if this issue wasn’t hyped up in the media and by power hungry Democrats.
All said in done, the futile tactics of the Democrats and their lack of having an real handle on the issues is going to keep them out of the White House in 2004.
I’m done. I’ve other things to write about tonight.
July 21st, 2003 at 9:05 pm
Matt- I have to disagree with your column because I have come to believe that categorical abolutes are always flawed.
July 21st, 2003 at 9:24 pm
Matt, why do you continue to entertain comments from cowards who will not leave a valid e-mail address?
As for your premise that it is impossible to “argue with liberals,” I can say from experience that this does have a strong tendency to be true. My step daughter, being a case in point, when faced with any cogent argument contrary to her “core beliefs” will generally disolve in tears and slam down the phone. Even during a generally mild discussion, hardly worthy of being called a debate, she becomes incredibly sensitive and believes that each argument against her position is a personal attack against her.
Sadly, this behavior is not isolated to her. I generally find this in the younger liberals. I believe that it comes from not being exposed to rational, thoughtful debate. They are taught to accept the statements of their “authority figures” as absolute truth, and that to question them is to threaten all that they stand for. Debate and question simply is not tolerated from within, only when directed toward those who disagree with their “leaders,” whomever they may be.
This tends not to be the case with younger conservatives, although I have seen more and more polarization within the conservative movement. Ultimately the premise should be that it is impossible to argue with members of those polarized factions, and not with the general populace of the more mainstream populations of either side.
July 21st, 2003 at 10:34 pm
If you knew anything about the kind of man George W. Bush is, you’d know that he is a very honest man.
I would know? I should know? Shrub is a serial liar. No better and a lot worse than a lot of politiicans.
And about the economy, I bet its a short jump and the back to a double dip recession. Even if that doesnt happen we will still have A Huge Enormous National Debt piling up.
About the cartoon its a rip off of a fairly famous Vietnam Era photo (Im pretty sure its a police captain executing a VC/Suspected VC.) I dont know exactly what the message is supposed to be.
Let’s not forget that these are only 16 words
Thats BS and still WMDs and how Saddam was going to use them on the U.S. was the main issue a “Pre-Emptive” War and all.
July 21st, 2003 at 10:53 pm
Um Yeah, the only reason why you say the things you say is because you hate Bush.
You’re not even trying to make an objective argument. You can say one million times that Bush is a liar, and he’s worse than any other politician… you may even believe it, but does mean anything to anyone? No… because you’re not motivated by truth, you’re motivated by hate and bigotry of George W. Bush and conservatives in general.
July 21st, 2003 at 11:10 pm
Lets just say im a lot more objective about Bush than almost any Republican is with Clinton. I didnt say he is worse than every other politician, I said he is worse than a lot of others.
And Bush is a liar that is the truth.
July 21st, 2003 at 11:20 pm
Um Yeah–
Don’t forget, most politicians are liars….
July 21st, 2003 at 11:27 pm
Many many many are full of shit, not all are out and out liars. Howard Dean for example is basically clean as a whistle.
July 21st, 2003 at 11:44 pm
That line in the State of the Union was by no stretch a keystone point. If the naysayers had only focused on the validity of that single point as a reason not to go to war, then it would be a different story. Since that was never really addressed in the debate of whether to go to war before we crossed the line of departure, reason dictates that it was not important by itself, and was nothing more than a single case in a litany of reasons to go to war.
damn! gotta ggo… to be continued
July 21st, 2003 at 11:48 pm
Actually, Um, there is a flaw in your logic. I do not hate JFK, nor do I hate LBJ. Both advanced social agendas I do not agree with, and both were flawed men. The difference being that their flaws were kept out of the public eye. And I have no real love for Bush I, as I feel he succumbed to political pressures that he should have resisted.
That established, my thoughts regarding BJClinton are established in facts, not fantasy. There is an infinite difference between making false statements under oath, and making what is later determined to be a false statement based on flawed information.
July 22nd, 2003 at 12:06 am
Amazing Um Yeah, you cracked the code! Radical left wingers are the angels! Mazel tov Um Yeah. Wow, you are so smart!
More objective than most Republicans? Please.
Dean has only sparked interest in the ultra left of the Democratic party. This may give him a favorable appearance in the quest for the Democratic nomination, but it’s not going win him the Presidency.
July 22nd, 2003 at 12:09 am
Lets just say im a lot more objective about Bush than almost any Republican is with Clinton
LOL!!!!!!
July 22nd, 2003 at 12:19 am
Didn’t you get that memo, ms heather? Liberals are always objective, and conservatives are always biased.
Isn’t it funny how Um Yeah has managed to turn himself into a living example of how truthful that this blog entry is - just with his comments in this thread alone!!!
July 22nd, 2003 at 12:31 am
Dumb? Yeah!,
I’m going to try to pretend you’re an adult and reason with you, Howard Dean is “clean as a whistle” for the sole reason that he is an ideological candidate., The Libertarians run them all the time, as do the Communists. Everyone knows that they don’t stand a snowball’s chance, but they run them in the name of ideological purity anyway. Are you going to claim, with a straight face that Howard Dean isn’t the candidate Karl Rove has wet dreams of running against?!?!
July 22nd, 2003 at 12:45 am
A couple points/thoughts, and sorry about the jumping from topic to topic:
“By assuming a minority cannot make it on their own merit, or by assuming another person is racist and will discriminate is also racist” - Actually “assuming another person is racist and will discriminate” isn’t racist, unless they believe you are racist and will disciminate due to your race…which would be racist on their part.
I think a large part of the current problem is that liberal believe they are (or were) ‘main stream’, that liberalism is the norm. Reality is that they are left of center, as I am right of center. The fear is that we’ve swung politically right, instead of being a nice centrist government! Much like the liberals needing representation in the media. After all, the conservatives have Fox, and the rest are ‘neutral’.
I refer to this as “disconnect from reality.” It seems to be a very common problem with liberals. But then, many of them are very big fans of relativism.
“Emotional responses never equal objective responses.” False! But when they do it is merely happenstance. (nit picker)
I have to disagree somewhat with the second to last paragraph. Just because they drink and smoke pot wouldn’t negate wrong doing on Bush’s part. Arguing otherwise is not valid logic (fallacy: “Tu Quoque” or “You too!”, a version of ad hominem http://www.wtv-zone.com/moe/moestipsonessaywriting/page5.html). Of course, there’s a significant difference between being drunk and being a drunk. The second is a clear appeal to emotions.
To the rest of you, several of our commenter are prime examples of whom the article was written. I can tell you right now: unless it is for pure entertainment purposes, you are wasting your time with Um Yeah.
Ok. I’ve used enough bandwidth for several posts. Great article, and very accurate in my experience!
July 22nd, 2003 at 1:51 am
I hope either Dean or Kerry get the nomination, No more of this Republican Lite BS. Dean is pretty Centrist except for his stance on some social issues.
Amazing Um Yeah, you cracked the code! Radical left wingers are the angels! Mazel tov Um Yeah. Wow, you are so smart!
WTF is your fucking point. Dean has almost no trace of scandal attached to his name neither does Kerry. In two specific instances the Democratic canidates have a lot less skeletons then Shrub.
Oh and Bill Fellatio I really dont care what Rove dreams about, Bush is going to go down hard.
July 22nd, 2003 at 2:06 am
Bushed, if we had gone after NK your side would be screaming “WE CAN’T GO AFTER THEM, THEY HAVE THE BOMB!!!” And thanks to that sweetheart deal Clinton gave them in the 90s they were able to get further along than they would have otherwise been able to.
As for Dean, he advocates going into a country that has civilians dying in droves with atrocities flying fast and furious…
Oh that’s right, it is only ok to go in when there are no natural resources. I am sorry I always forget the double standard of the left. Liberia is ok, but Iraq isn’t.
July 22nd, 2003 at 6:02 am
Howard Dean clean as a whistle? Bush going down hard? BWAHAHAHAHA! Um Yeah, with you the comedy never ends.
July 22nd, 2003 at 6:09 am
Um Yeah, yer speling is atrochus. yer puting owr grate publk scool sistum to chame syned Teechur
July 22nd, 2003 at 7:51 am
Also, children being separate entities from the mother is a biological fact, and using race as a [factor for things] is racist no matter how you slice it.
No. Children are not seperate entities then their mother, nor is using race as a factor in various decisions racist. I challegenge your assertions.
July 22nd, 2003 at 9:22 am
Didn’t you get that memo, ms heather? Liberals are always objective, and conservatives are always biased.
Isn’t it funny how Um Yeah has managed to turn himself into a living example of how truthful that this blog entry is - just with his comments in this thread alone!!!
Maybe you misunderstood me, I am not objective. I however am not pretending that I am. Matt you really shouldnt urge people to be more objective when you mention Clintons Penis every chance you get.
July 22nd, 2003 at 10:35 am
My experience in debating liberals has been the same as yours. The main problem is that liberals are generally well-educated (or they are the dupes of the well-educated) but they lack any degree of common sense or moral fiber.
Liberals hide behind emotional attacks. Liberals avoid discussing facts, except when they find an exception to the general rule. Liberals have a playbook of phony phrases they rely upon to convey a set of ideas without having to actually use any facts; the best example being “pro-choice”. All of these factors make debating a liberal about as much fun as stomping ants - it’s easy to do, but utterly pointless.
July 22nd, 2003 at 12:40 pm
Finally someone with a brain has spoken….
July 22nd, 2003 at 1:14 pm
Um Yeah,
not logical. That “Aha! George Bush lied about uranium from Niger.” when he didn’t. He correctly stated that British intelligence had evidence. Not all evidence pans out. There might be some evidence that you are intelligent, which I could cite, but that evidence would likewise prove to be similiarly flawed.
The threat wasn’t that there’s anything special about Nigerian yellow cake uranium in particular. The key is the threat of his aquiring enough yellow cake uranium (along with the centerfuges, one of which was found in a rose garden). Another potential source of yellow cake uranium might’ve been all those fucking barrels of it that the Iraqi villagers dumped so they could re-use the drums for cooking. Nope. No uranium in Iraq….
One of the problems with liberals is that their philosphy is based on discredited views of human nature and the perfectibility of people by society. It was laughable 250 years ago, and it’s laughable now. Evolutionary biology and new research into the makeup of the brain is vindicating John Locke and the founding fathers, not Karl Marx or any of his moonbat socialist followers.
Only leftists would look at a system based on the concept of “the more stuff you make, the more stuff you got!” and see a banality of evil, while they ignore the 170 million corpses their “enlightened” “progressive” philosophy made.
If you base your political outlook on emotion appeals, without realizing that a whole lot of human emotions lead to bad things, you’ll end like a Rawandan maniac, getting on government run radio and exhorting the “good” people to “Keep killing! The graves are not yet full!”
July 22nd, 2003 at 1:24 pm
An Education on Howard Dean:
He is first in the polls in California, Tied in New Hampshire, and barely second in Iowa. Dean is not a leftist. He is a MODERATE.
What do you consider to be the stereotypical Democrat? I always thought it to be someone who spends money on things they can’t afford and creates huge deficits and creates huge government control. Ladies and Gentlemen, have you looked at Dubya lately? Biggest deficit in our history, spending outrageous amounts on things we can not afford (thanks to his gigantic tax cuts to the upper tier of our democracy who in 2001 paid on average 23% taxes), and created the Homeland Defense department which has yet to protect our ports, has cut funding to police and fire, and has violated the rights of our citizens. A protester in SC is currently standing trial for holding up an anti-bush sign out side if a free speech zone.
Dean is actually someone many of you could take a liking to if you believe in what the GOP is supposed to stand for. He is firmly for states rights, has an A+ from the NRA (he believes in closing the gunshow loop hole and leaving the rest up to each state, as Vermont has five murders a year and NY way more), believes firmly in a balanced budget above all else, and believes that security of our nation must come above all else. Cannon, if you knew anything about Howard Dean, you’d know that he wasn’t against the Iraq War becuase he is a peacenik, he was against the war becuase Shrub’s justifications were based on manipulation and lies. Bush’s primary justification from day 1 was that Saddam was an IMMEDIATE THREAT TO US. He failed to prove that. If Bush had said from the beginning, we need to protect the Iraqi people from further torture, we need to stabalize the reason, and went to the UN and actually convinced them of that cause, Dean would have been first in line to support him. Bush, however, let his Hubris get the best of him and went charging in, ego full throttle, alienating us from the world.
North Korea was a real threat from day one of the Iraq invasion, and they are the ones we should have been dealing with since day one. The same goes for Saudia Arabia. But NK has no valuable resources, and SA is best buddies with the Bush family so we didn’t touch them.
Dean is social democrat and fiscal republican. I just convinced three Republicans the other day who were tired of Bush’s macho rhetoric to join the Dean campaign. There is an actual group called Republicans for Dean. He ain’t no hippy. He just doesn’t like people who “technically” tell the truth, but in reality mislead the American people.
Yes, Dean believes in equal rights for all, even the gays whom many in the GOP are scared of. Yes he believes in Universal Health Care. (We’re lagging behind even COSTA RICA in that regard. France, Germany, Canada, England, Spain, Japan, pretty much every first world country in the free world has it except for us. Since when are we to be last place in anything.) Yes he believes in bringing taxes back to to pre-Shrub levels. But in the end he is not some leftist wacko as you want to portray him. Check him out and decide if you are better off than you were four years ago.
July 22nd, 2003 at 3:01 pm
Howard Dean as a “moderate”? Give me a break. First, anyone who designates him/herself as a “moderate” is simply someone who refuses to take a principled stand on an issue. “Moderates” are cop-outs.
Still, Dean is not a “moderate” any way you cut it, despite how he tries to manipulate his media image. Kooky Kucinich is closer to the middle than he is. Dean would still not garner my vote, but at least I would say he’s being honest, if he would admit to being the tree-hugging pro-abortionist liberal radical that he is. Lieberman is the only guy in your party even approaching a reasonable level of honesty.
Time to stop hiding behind “moderate” labels. Be brave - put your radical liberalness up for sale and see how many people want to but it. Methinks the Democrats will be having a bankruptcy sale in December ‘04.
July 22nd, 2003 at 3:02 pm
Bushed,
I wouldn’t piss on Dean if his heart was on fire. He’s from New Hampshire, the only state that’s recently voted to cecede from the union, in an unofficial tally. He’s a flake from a flaky state. Maybe he should get married to Kerry and move to Quebec.
The odds that France wouldn’t have vetoed any move against Iraq were about 0%. Elf Fina had incredible contracts with Iraq, and maintained a $100 million slush fund to provide kickbacks to politicians, like Chirac. The same Chirac who was just named by Serbian Gen. Mladic, genocidal maniac that he is, of striking a deal to block Mladic’s own extradition to the world court in Belgium. France’s strategic goal, as always, is to try to undercut and counteract US power. In Iraq they wanted to keep us tied up and hated in the Middle East, forced to spend our resources to create starving Iraqi children, so Al-Jazeera would have something to report every day. As an added bonus, they got to trade overpriced French food for underpriced Iraqi oil. Maybe we’re isolated from just Germany and France, who lost their shirts on our Iraq invasion. If alienating people who support Muslims who slaughter Muslims (Saddam, protected by Chirac), or Muslims who slaughter Jews (Arafat, protected by Chirac), or Christians who slaughter Muslims (Mladic, protected by Chirac), or blacks who slaughter whites and blacks (Mugabe, protected by Chirac) is your idea of who we should kiss up too, then I’d rather be alienated. One of the tragedies of having a moral compass is that it’s hard to be friends with those who don’t.
North Korea hasn’t moved an inch since 1953. Last time they did we lost tens of thousands of soldiers. By eliminating any possibility of an Iraqi nuclear bomb program, we’ve isolated the North Koreans as the only likely ultimate suspect if any terrorist nuke goes off in a US city. So maybe they’ll be a bit more careful about giving out any bombs. Or do you just want to go out and protest against an illegal invasion of a socialist utopia? Maybe you want us to bomb Mecca so you can run around screaming about the Arab street again. Don’t you miss those heady days of protest? I miss the naked chicks spelling words with their bodies. Of course, as Mark Twain observed, “Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society.” Maybe those girls should read more psychology.
Oh, so now you define lying as saying things that are “technically” true. But then I suppose you think Clinton was telling the truth when he was “technically” lying under oath.
That’s why the Canadian’s come here for surgery, and why England has finally passed the one million mark for people waiting for surgery. Maybe that’s why every first world country depends on us for drugs and new medical procedures, to a very large degree. Like I really want my hospital to be as worthless as my public high school. Women in England are being charged with having babies outside the hospital, without even a midwife, because they’d been told that that month’s quota for home deliveries had already been filled. It must be nice to live in a country where your life is based on a quota system. Monte Python would be proud.
Since socialism was advertised as “the future”. At its worst, it produced 170 million dead bodies. At its best it produced Euroschlerosis and public school students who think Lincoln fought Hitler, and don’t know that the National Socialist Workers Party was, um, socialist.
A party that continues to espouse ideas that only appeal to stupid people will eventually corner the market both on stupid people and the stupid ideas they believe in. Demographics in action, as it were. When you tailor a message so it doesn’t appeal to successful people you’re selecting for a message that appeals to failures. Matt’s trolls are a case in point. They continue to believe their ideas are smart, despite all the evidence, because it fits their world-view. To think otherwise would cause some cognitive dissonance, as they juggle with the concept that they are in fact blithering idiots. The brain rejects that message, which is why they think they can keep tweaking a discredited and dissasterous philosophy and somehow make it work, despite the fact that everyone who created the socialist disasters were also trying to avoid those same pitfalls, and fell right in. It’s the nature of the beast. Socialism only succeeds to the extent that it’s avoided, since most of it is contrary to both human nature and economics.
If Dean is a moderate, why are you, pushing socialized medicine like you are, giving him your whole-hearted support?
July 22nd, 2003 at 3:34 pm
Ok, I checked out his website and his stances on the issues.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_home
In my opinion, his domestic policy is as lousy as Bush’s, and his foreign and national security policy is far worse. If you want a full breakdown of my analysis and opinion (and that is all it would be: my opinion), feel free to email me, and I’ll type it up.
Ok, he’ll be my third choice. Bush is my second choice. I’m still waiting for my first choice to show up after witnessing Bush’s domestic policy…aka “put it in front of me and I’ll sign it.”
“If Dean is a moderate, why are you, pushing socialized medicine like you are, giving him your whole-hearted support?”
Read his website. Dean is indeed for national health care coverage with the caveat that if you are employed, he’ll make the employer pay for it.
1. If you are under 25, the government covers you.
2. If you can’t afford insurance, the government covers you.
3 & 4. If you are employed, we’ll make your employer pay for you.
July 22nd, 2003 at 4:59 pm
“There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Adam Smith said it, what, a hundred years ago? It’s still true today.
1. If you are under 25, the government covers you.
That means I pay for it in higher taxes.
2. If you can’t afford insurance, the government covers you.
That means I pay for it in higher taxes.
3 & 4. If you are employed, we’ll make your employer pay for you.
That means I pay for it, since that’s less salary the employer can pay me.
It’s all about the redistribution of wealth. That’s socialism. Dean is a socialist posing as a “moderate.” Why not split the difference and call him a liberal?
July 22nd, 2003 at 5:29 pm
hey you liberals.. Qusay and Uday…dead… how do you like THAT?!?!?!? SADDAM IS NEXT!!!
July 22nd, 2003 at 6:50 pm
“Aha! George Bush lied about uranium from Niger.
George Turner, he said the Brits thought that, but our own intelligence was telling him it was crap. So which is it?
That means I pay for it, since that’s less salary the employer can pay me.
People (Especially people who have a spouse who works) often take jobs not so much for the salary but for the health insurance.
July 22nd, 2003 at 7:01 pm
Hey Um,
Our intel said the Brit’s intel was bad, but the Brit’s wouldn’t reveal all their sources to us, and insisted their intel was sound. In Bush’s speech, he said that the Brit’s said that they had the intelligence. It turns out that the French lied. So go figure.
Did you know that you can buy your own health insurance. People used to do that back in the days when they were actually paid money for working.
This changed during WW-II when the democrats decided it should be illegal to raise people’s salaries, as part of
the war effort and all. So to retain good workers the companies cheated by paying for their health care insurance. The money spent literally comes out of what you could have otherwise been paid.
Fortunately, the younger workers, who make less money, have far fewer health care needs, overall, but often get the same cut out of their paycheck. So maybe I support making the companies pay for health care because it exploits the poorest, youngest workers, who would otherwise take the money and buy a house and raise a family or something.
July 22nd, 2003 at 10:31 pm
So maybe I support making the companies pay for health care because it exploits the poorest, youngest workers, who would otherwise take the money and buy a house and raise a family or something.
God forbid Junior gets sick or a family might lose aforementioned house.
July 22nd, 2003 at 10:46 pm
How about paying them enough so that they can get their own lower cost, lower risk health care coverage? Oh, that’s right. Workers can’t be trusted with money.
July 22nd, 2003 at 10:47 pm
God forbid a business is forced to pay for all of their workers healthcare more so than they did previously, causing them to lay off more workers, making more people lose health insurance. Especially for small businesses…
Good plan.
July 23rd, 2003 at 2:17 am
Well well well… It seems that the ethical bankrupt leftist/democrats are at it again in a state which has the largest state deficit in history.
Democrats Discussed Extending Budget Crisis
Members of the Democratic Study Group, a caucus that defines itself as progressive, were unaware that a microphone in Committee Room 127 was on as they discussed slowing progress in an attempt to increase pressure on Republicans to accept tax increases as part of a deal to resolve the state’s $38-billion budget gap.
You mean self described progressive will sink to such lows… I thought they always wanted to hold the moral high ground.
July 23rd, 2003 at 12:19 pm
“No one is running” for re-election, she said, according to a transcript made by Republicans.
July 23rd, 2003 at 12:41 pm
“No one is running” for re-election, she said, according to a transcript made by Republicans.
A perfect example of why it is impossible to debate with liberals. Um Yeah’s argument is that because none of the dweebs who are conspiring to drag this country down into an economic quagmire are running for reelection, the fact that the have conspired to do so is somehow irrelevent.
In other words, the fact that they aren’t running for reelection removes this issue from debate. Gee, are there NO Democrats running for office in California?
July 23rd, 2003 at 12:53 pm
she said, according to a transcript made by Republicans
Let me make myself clearer.
July 23rd, 2003 at 3:24 pm
Notionalized health care is nothing more than a less offensive term for Socialized health care.
Government provided health care is paid for via taxes. I would much rather have the choice of finding my own healthcare (providing competition between providers) with a bigger paycheck, than be forced by the government to take the healthcare an employer provides because I have a smaller paycheck. Providers may like such an arrangement, because the employees have no choice over who is paid for the healthcare they receive, which means that they are very free to provide crappy care without the fear of the patient telling them to fock off, and taking their money elsewhere.
hmmm… No ability to choose your provider? Paid for by your higher taxes? Sounds like socialized healthcare to me.
If Dean is so pro-2nd ammendment, then that could work against Bush, because bush did not stand up against the gun-grabbers to the satisfaction of us “gun nuts.” Which would attract “gun nuts” to having less qualms about either voting for Dean, or just not voting for Bush. (this is assuming that what has been stated is true). Of course, the NRA has fallen out of favor with many of us “gun nuts,” so an A+ rating by the NRA does not carry all that much weight.
July 23rd, 2003 at 4:57 pm
If you want to see “debating with liberals,” then go check out the fun at Subversity. Look at the comments under “Dead men tell no tales,” “resist the fear factor,” “George W Bush: Empire of Crime” and “It’s Your War, You Fight It.”
Conservatism clearly holds the moral high ground, if I do say so myself. Please feel free to join in if you have something to add.
July 23rd, 2003 at 5:29 pm
that subversity blog is nothing but a bunch a bigots and hate-mongers… all with nazi-like behavior… not worth visiting.
July 24th, 2003 at 9:18 am
Good luck on your new blog, Java. Great name! Let me know if you want a “guest commentary” some time.
October 1st, 2003 at 12:43 am
Does anyone know of a good database that has alot of journal documents. I need it for evidence on a paper I’m writing for class.
October 1st, 2003 at 2:37 pm
Not sure what your real question is, Beau, but please don’t use this blog to post comments unrelated to the subject matter.
March 3rd, 2004 at 5:18 pm
Hey, just read this entire site. i agree 100% with you on everything. keep up the good work man. LIBERALS SUCK!!!
March 23rd, 2004 at 3:48 pm
Very nice post. I keep nodding in agreement.
Regarding Mumia, take solace in the fact that liberals take the side of a murderer (along with dictators) while you (and I) now know better.
April 17th, 2004 at 2:36 am
“…dehumanize an unborn child and regard it as an extension of a woman’s body. Biologically speaking, this is far from the truth.”
A fetus can not live detached or removed from the mother’s womb. Forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is certainly putting your “hands on” her body, as pregnancy involves major physical changes.
April 17th, 2004 at 7:34 am
A newly born baby cannot live outside it’s mother’s womb without being care for. So are new born children expendible up until they are able to care for themselves?
April 19th, 2004 at 8:38 pm
Out of the womb, a baby can be cared for by people other than the mother.
April 19th, 2004 at 9:53 pm
So you admit that abortion primarily absolves the mother of responsibility?
June 25th, 2004 at 1:20 am
The problem here is the same problem that most people in America have. You think there are teams. Two teams. Excessive generalizations over a miriad of individual issues and experiences make it easy to hate pretty much anything. My biggest problem with America right now is that people like you seem to think that they have to follow what their team is promoting rather than objectively viewing each issue individually. This goes for right wing, left wing, and your mamas wing. We need to lose the teams, lose the competition, lose the crybaby animosity and focus on improving and adapting government and policy one issue at a time.
July 2nd, 2004 at 5:13 am
[…] re, but I’ve never read or heard the argument presented as clear and well as he does here. It is required reading. Stop readin […]
July 5th, 2004 at 6:36 am
Had to chuckle upon finally reading your ad hominem post as it, too, is “biased, nonobjective and propagandist”, no matter how you try to justify it. - just the flip side of the same coin.
The claim that liberalism is “mainstream” is pure bunk otherwise Bush (for whom I voted) would not be in office, nor would have Reagan (for whom I voted twice). Of course I voted twice against Clinton, but that damn “mainstream” of yours did happen to show up then. I and my fellow conservatives grew up watching the same shows and news broadcasts, attending the same classes, and participating in the same debates, some liberal others conservative. It is a convenient myth, but where are your facts? I guess you never watch Fox News, read the Wall Street Journal, New York Post (or in my case, Denver Post) or heard of William Safire of the NY Times?
The arguments in support of your position regarding liberals are just as misguided and ill informed as the liberal claptrap I run across from time to time. There are positions of merit on both sides, just as there are positions which should be condemned by party members.
While true some liberals make personal attacks, it is equally true that conservative do the same. It is just a flip of the coin.
Obviously I decided to ignore your attempt to stifle any opinion or argument in opposition to your position (however “liberal” minded the attempt may have been). You fall in the category of “I believe, therefore what I believe is true.”
July 6th, 2004 at 2:49 am
[…] : Politics — Beel @ 8:25 pm Had to chuckle upon finally reading this
October 25th, 2004 at 7:52 pm
You can also visit the pages about phentermine
… Thanks!!!
November 30th, 2004 at 2:37 pm
“They attack the person rather than address the issue. It can be in the form of a labeling game, to just an outright personal attack.”
Sorta like labeling people “Liberal” rather than addressing the issues they embrace, isn’t it?
…and when some liberals attack Bush for being a drunk, or Bennett for being a gambler, it’s not because they don’t believe in boozing and betting, nor is it because they are lefties, it’s because they despise hypocrisy.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:12 am
It is amazing to me that Liberals cannot even see their own bias.
Notice where ‘court’ states;
“Nancy Reagan is for stem-cell research, traditionally something conservatives are against. Why? Because of her husband. Is this not emotional?”
or
“Dick Cheney will hardly say a word about gay rights. Why? His daughter is a lesbian.”
What utter sophistry.
First of all, most conservatives I know are not for ‘EMBRYONIC’ stem cell research which requires the destruction of fertilized embryos and has produced NOTHING USEFUL.
We are however, for adult stem cell research which has thus far given more than 70 useful treatments to date.
And second of all, where does anyone get the idea that we are not for individual rights? We just don’t believe in assigning some separate status to someone who wants to force the whole world to accept their sexual choice. We conservatives hate it when you libs are constantly throwing this crap in our faces. Just be gay and stop trying to get in people’s faces and force them to accept you. They don’t have to. It’s when you try to force the issue on us that you get the push back, which gives you your idiotic talking points.
If you keep lying, you completely prove Matt’s point that you cannot be trusted to ever tell the truth.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Shouldn’t we call them leftists not liberals and certainly not “progressives.” They hardly deserve either title. Insightful article. Although I am afraid I don’t share the author’s high tolerance for frustration.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:11 am
John M., I liked your answers. However I wouldn’t even concede (if only by implication) that “liberals” care about individual rights. This is an outrage after the left has supported every collectivist totalitarian nightmare nation of the last century, and still tries to brain wash us about totalitarian collectivist Cuba. Although as a reformed liberal I soon personally learned how little pompous deluded leftists cared about the individual my first semester of grad. school.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:16 am
Kidomaha,
I think Ann Coulter has a good rebuttal of what you’re trying to do with the word liberal. Kind of a pathetic evasive argument you have there, if I can call it that.
The point of the author’s article is to analyze a tendency that he and so many others have noticed in poilitical discussions with individuals that call themselves liberals.