Skip to comments.6 Arguments Only A Liberal Could Believe
Posted on 03/18/2014 2:35:33 AM PDT by servo1969
"Arguing with liberals...it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious." -- Anonymous
"If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what youve said unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. Its like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder." -- Ann Coulter
It's almost impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion with a liberal because while you're trying to come up with logical points to support your position, hes trying to come up with new ways to convince people you're Hitler. Modern liberalism has turned into a willful embrace of stupidity. It's all about setting reason and intellect aside in order to take an emotionally-satisfying position that makes a liberal feel better about himself. This is how people who are undeniably intelligent can feel good about taking brainless positions that hurt a lot of people. While liberals have emotionally blinded themselves so totally that they believe they're taking compassionate, intellectual, well-crafted stands, this is how they sound to everyone who's not a liberal.
1) Everyone who disagrees with a liberal is racist! The Tea Party? Racist! Republicans? Racist! Fox News? Racist? Black conservatives? Racist! Barack Obama's grandma? Racist! Do I think Social Security is solvent? My position on that is that "You're a racist!" What do I think about flattening the tax code? Sarah Palin is a racist! Do I like potatoes? Well, Republicans eat potatoes sometimes; so potatoes are racist! Racist, racist, racist!
2) We're all going to die because man is causing global warming! Proof? It's science! Granted, no one can explain the science that proves global warming. But, science isn't about science, it's about repeating the word science over and over again like a magic incantation. Science, science, sciencey, sciencey science! See? It's science and scientists agree that it's science! Why do you hate science so much? Why do you want polar bears to die? Oh, and science!
3) (Before Obamacare was passed) Everyone should support Obamacare because it will cover all of the uninsured, it'll save you money on health care, you'll get to keep your doctor and it'll be super convenient! It's going to be the greatest thing ever! (Now) Sure, Obamacare mostly insures people it knocked off of their existing insurance, it costs a lot more, you can't keep your doctor and the website is insanely difficult to deal with, but it's the greatest thing ever!
4) Guns cause crime and if we take guns away from people who haven't broken the law yet, then criminals will also not have guns somehow. Gun-free zones also protect people from criminals, who we're sure won't enter "gun-free zones" for some reason. Unless they do . Which proves the problem is actually law abiding gun owners somehow or another. And that's why we need more and more gun laws until all the people who obey gun laws can't have guns any more, which will save us from criminals and crazy people who don't care about the law.
5) You can't expect black people to get voter ID. I mean, white guys? Sure. Hispanics? No problem. Asians and Jews? Obviously. But, have you met any black people in your life? You really think they're capable of going to a government office with the proper paperwork and coming out with identification with their name on it? These guys? Seriously? Seriously? Okay, well, right after you run across a black American who can figure out how to get his own ID, why don't we set up classrooms to teach cats how to do Algebra. Hey, Mr. Kitty, 3x + 10 + 2x = 12 + 4x? Black people getting IDs? Geeze....
6) Republicans are waging a war on women! You can tell because they oppose killing female babies and think women should buy their own birth control, just like men! Also, they're so mean to women! For example, they oppose Hillary Clinton becoming President -- obviously because she's a woman. All criticism of women from conservatives is based on gender. Not like criticism of that @%$#^ Sarah Palin, who is so incredibly, unbelievably stupid that she only managed to become a mayor, a governor, a VP candidate, put out best selling books, had a successful TV show and became a wealthy, sought-after speaker while getting married and having 5 kids. She's almost as bad as those @#$%!*$ -- Michelle Malkin, S.E. Cupp, and Dana Loesch, although a little more evil than Ann Coulter and Megyn Kelly and more of a @#%@^$%^ #@$%^&(*^ @#$%^ than Laura Ingraham and Jan Brewer! Also, conservatives call women names!
x = 2
You know? This only scratches the surface of what it’s like to try and have an honest debate with batty, batshit crazy, stupid, big govt loving, fascist liberals.
I’ve totally given up on them.
Another one liberals like to use when they cannot debate substantively is to tell you you've been brainwashed or watch too much FOX, which would be hard for me since I don't have DISH or cable
> x = 2
The dirty little secret of liberalism is that it is the dark side of femininity.
Which only makes sense as most voters, like most of the population, are female.
Read any treatment on “girl bullying” and you will quickly discover the liberal play book.
I had a conversation the other day with a neighbor who claims to be “middle-of-the-road” but who gets all of his information from the liberal media. He watches tv news on the networks and CNN, subscribes to the NY Times and the New Yorker, and thinks that Bill Maher is perceptive and funny.
We were discussing Obamacare and he used that worn-out line: “Don’t you think that in the wealthiest country in the world, we should be able to provide healthcare for all of our citizens?” When I responded that Obamacare would not come close to accomplishing that noble sentiment, he replied with another lib talking point, that the jury is still out and in the future, Obamacare might actually be viewed, like social security, as a wonderful program.
Well, this potentially wondeeful program has been gutted and delayed dozens of times by its sponsor, in an effort to keep the reality of its intrusive, expensive stupidity from the minds of voters. The jury will be in come November.
There is, I think, much overlap between the groups
There is a self-feeding, self-eating psychosis called liberalism that runs itself out once the grave is reached. Much like all other typically irreversible psychosis such as pedo.
I was surprised that it was a legitimate equation and had a rational solution. Journalists frequently have only a passing acquaintance with reasonable, logical and truthful numbers.
“Liberals come in 2 groups: low-IQ and certifiably insane.
There is, I think, much overlap between the groups.”
Low IQ and certifiably evil, with less overlap than one might think. The Soviet Union and Nazism originated with a small number of people manipulating low-IQ masses, many of whom never saw the folly of it until they saw the death camps/gulags years later.
Isn’t social security running out of money to provide retirement benefits to retirees? So does your neighbor mean that some day ACA will be viewed to be as unsustainable as social security has been viewed for last 30 or so years, or at least viewed this way since congress raided the fund to use elsewhere.
Last I understood, Social Security several years ago started and paying out more money than it was receiving. This continues.
Supposedly, that money is coming out of the trust fund. But the trust fund is not actual money. It is just a bunch of fancy IOU notes from the federal government.
The actual money was put in the general fund long ago by the Democrats and spent as fast as it was received. This was truly a case of "no trust, no fund".
So my answer to your question is; "No. It ran out of money years ago and is paying benefits out of the general fund."
I do not believe I will receive any Social Security income. Will probably receive something called Social Security. But it will be part of a con game where the money comes out of one of my pockets and part of it goes into the other.
If these programs are so wonderful, why aren't they voluntary?
If something is a good idea there will be waiting lists to join. There will be behaviors to enhance the chances of getting on the list and higher on the list.
Richest country in the world? 17 trill budget deficit . .now spending more than we take in? 100 trill or more in unfunded liabilities . . .rich?. . that’s being “rich”?!! THAT IS RICH!
Show off!! LOL
Be sure never to buy into the little canard that somebody "raided the trust fund."
That was the way Social Security was designed to operate by FDR. It was a ponzi scheme by its very design...and is operating exactly the way it was supposed to.
(The above is not Pollyanna...the above simply states that it was government-sponsored theft of assets from the beginning)
When I read that, all I could think of was this.
I disagree on one point: they don’t want Latinos to have to get ID cards either, far as I can tell. They want Mexicans voting here, because they reliably vote Democrat.
The liberal activist may not even believe any of the stuff he's spouting, but that is irrelevant. The positions he takes are those which would result in increased government, and that government being under control of the Left. THAT is the real objective. The Leftist desires power, and will say anything he needs to say to obtain power.
This may be true but my advise is still;
Never underestimate the power of ignorant people in large groups.
Given that FDR and Carlo Ponzi were contemporaries, your remark may be far truer than most realize...
#2 is hilarious. I have a libinlaw that “invokes” science as a support of her viewpoints, and when I ask her to explain how “science” supports her viewpoint, she is suddenly interested in another topic.
“Low IQ and certifiably evil, with less overlap than one might think.”
Highly concur. In the low IQ group I’d lump the
“I’m smart because I support smart people” (in group 2)
“I’m a good person because I support good people who want to help people” (again group 2 liars).
My benchmark lib stated the other night “you need to force people to do the right thing”.
And my kids laughed at her. And they’re in the 9 and 7 range.
“The Soviet Union and Nazism originated with a small number of people manipulating low-IQ masses, many of whom never saw the folly of it until they saw the death camps/gulags years later.”
Alexander Solzenitzen documented that even after many of the lower Party members were unjustly sent to the camps, and were starving to death, they still supported Stalin and Communism, saying that “Well, I am sure that it is all serving a greater purpose of the government somehow.”
It is a blind faith in government as god.
Heed the wise advice offered in Proverbs 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Advice not to argue with an idiot is sound advice. Only take the decision to argue with an idiot after accepting that someone watching will not be able to tell whom the idiot is.
More wise advice: Proverbs 14:7
Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.
Was your liberal "friend" aware of this?
He is aware of the problems with Obamacare, but like most of his ilk, the good intentions are what matters. (As in the “war on poverty.”)
I asked him if he thought it was okay that Obama lied repeatedly to get this thing passed, (”If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”) His response, again, was the typical liberal knee-jerk, end justifies the means excuse: “Well, he had to do that in order to get it passed.” In other words, the good intentions of getting insurance, and therefore healthcare services for the millions of under-served poor are reason enough to lie in order to accomplish this. The fact that it wasn’t accomplished, and, based on even a cursory study of the plan, can never be accomplished by Obamacare is irrelevant. He WANTED to get healthcare for everyone. Liberals WANT to end poverty. Unfortunately, the policies they use to achieve their desired ends have all been utter failures.
And you choose to associate with such a person? Aren’t you afraid that some of those jibes of irrationality will rub off on you? :)
Agreed. Very feminine. No wonder they are all about feminine behaviors like abortion and homosexuality.
The high IQ certifiably willfully stupid are the worst. They remind me of a comment that “Maude” made to “Archie Bunker” once on the old All In The Family show. Maude was the liberal but her retort to Archie was priceless, following some comment made by Archie she looked at him with total contempt and replied, “Still fighting mental HEALTH, I see.”
Most liberals actually seem to fight against mental health with a tenacity that would make a Marine proud. Of course, in their view, they are the only ones who understand reality, the rest of us are Archie Bunker.
The way I know I’ve won an argument with a liberal is when he screams “F*ck You!” And almost every one of them does that. One of the things I miss about AOL was when we “gun chat” people would wander into Rosie O’Donnell’s chat room and start discussing guns. They’d start whining, “But we don’t WANT to talk about guns in here!”
Liberals think social security is a wonderful program because their idea of a thought process is, “Imagine what would happen if social security checks stopped going out, it would be catastrophic.” They are incapable of understanding that the proper question is, “What would things be like if social security had never been enacted?” I am not going to answer the question but my point is that the two questions are entirely different and no doubt have vastly different answers. Liberals think the two questions are the same thing.
Wow! That is a really good point.
“Alexander Solzenitzen documented that even after many of the lower Party members were unjustly sent to the camps, and were starving to death, they still supported Stalin and Communism, saying that Well, I am sure that it is all serving a greater purpose of the government somehow.
What a creepy sentiment; his “Gulag Archipelago” is a must-read. Some of the SA executed on the Night of Long Knives in Germany shouted “Heil Hitler” as they were shot...
“What a creepy sentiment; his Gulag Archipelago is a must-read. Some of the SA executed on the Night of Long Knives in Germany shouted Heil Hitler as they were shot...”
A superb companion book to “Gulag Archipelago” is “Coming out of the Ice” by Victor Herman.
It is a great look from an individual perspective to complement the overview of “Gulag”.
And therein lies the root of Democrats’ liberalism, they believe that you can get something for nothing.
Conservatives know that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch!
Thanks; I’d like to take a look at that when I get a chance.