« Superb Commentary On The Mainstream Media | Main | S.S.D.D. In Leftsville »
February 19, 2006
Liberals Don't Know It, And Don't Wanna Hear It
Liberals, so-called tolerant intellectual types, are forever saying they are open to debate, yet in my experience on the web, their debating style seems to be constant repetition of the same bumper sticker dreck. A prime example of this would be a lengthy debate I had here in my comments section a few months ago with a pacifist who claimed we could have removed Saddam Hussein from power through peaceful means, yet throughout our discourse over a period of several days, he never once provided a "how" to his statement. Why? Because there was no "how".
To him, there had to be, though he apparently had no clue as to what it was, because he lived(and probably still does) in the Utopian land of the liberal, where "in a perfect world" ideals trump reality.
When you get into face-to-face arguments with liberals, you learn where their real debating skills come into play. Their technique is almost uniform: They shout you down or, if they are more civilized, simply interrupt you three words into every sentence so they don't have to hear your point of view. This is because they actually don't have any real world ammunition to fuel their sides of the respective debates, only the usual repetitive diatribes and anti-Bush/anti-God/anti-America/anti-conservative rhetoric. Naturally, despite all the verbal evidence to the contrary, they'll be the first to deny that they're anything other than sterling, Constitution-respecting, believing-in-God American patriots of the highest order.
Right. Sure. Yeah.
I got to watch a good sampling when I tried getting through Bill Maher's show a little while ago, the first time I'd watched him since his Politically Incorrect days and probably the last.
The guests were liberal wingnut columnist Helen Thomas, liberal actor/comedian(not necessarily in that order) Eddie Griffin and former Bush Administration spokesman Daniel Senor.
The topic of discussion was, of course, the eighteen hours that elapsed between Cheney's accidental shooting of Whittington and his making a statement about it to the media.
Senor tried several times to point out that the MSM, during a press conference, had asked nearly two hundred questions about the incident and only four in reference to the ongoing and profoundly more momentous issues of Iran's enriched uranium/ nuclear weapons program and Bush's meeting with Annan on Dharfur; and while Senor listened respectfully to the liberal participants when they registered their opinions, his responses were continuously stomped on by the lefties with statements to the effect that the priority issue was that the Vice President had shot someone, as though he had done so maliciously, with the intent to commit murder.
Griffin actually said that he believed Iran should have nuclear weapons, his stated opinion being that a country needs to have "the bomb" in order to participate with any credibility in global commerce. Helen Thomas agreed with him wholeheartedly, commenting on his "great" logic.
This kind of hogwash is what dominates the entire liberal-dominated Democratic Party political spectrum. They are so far "out there" that this is the best they have to offer America, and this in lieu of any realistic contributions to the governing of the United States or to U.S. foreign policy.
The fact that there are Americans, or facsimiles thereof who have access to our polling places who actually take the far out blatherings of the left seriously leads me to only one possible recommendation:
Let us pray...
Posted by Seth at February 19, 2006 11:01 PM
Comments
Griffin actually said that he believed Iran should have nuclear weapons, his stated opinion being that a country needs to have "the bomb" in order to participate with any credibility in global commerce. Helen Thomas agreed with him wholeheartedly, commenting on his "great" logic.
I've heard apologists for Iran make the claim that Iran needs nuclear weapons to defend themselves against an American attack. This argument at least has a fig leaf of plausibility, even though it is refuted (for starters) by the observation that allowing countries who threaten first-strike annihilation of other countries in their neighborhoods are not good candidates for acquiring nuclear weapons (especially when they have apocalyptic religious convictions).
But nuclear weapons as a prerequisite for having credibility in global commerce? Well...I suppose that the ability to destroy your business competitor's commerce with a nuclear weapon would make them take you more seriously, just as a gun pointed at your head would add credibility to a robber's version of commerce with you.
Sounds like Eddie and Helen are good candidates for the 2006 Darwin awards.
Posted by: civil truth at February 21, 2006 11:48 AM
Yeah, C.T., there should be a place reserved for those two at the Darwin Awards, there should be a section for living candidates.
Of course, neither Griffin nor Thomas(nor of course Maher, for that matter) made any mention of the Ayatollahs' willingness to nuke Israel nor of their likelyhood of using WMD against any other country with which they were at "theological" odds.
They also managed to convey, along the way, the same message liberals always deliver without actually stating so, that the only country that's ever wrong in any situation is the U.S.
Makes me think of an old Jefferson Airplane album title, "Bless Their Pointed Little Heads".
Posted by: Seth at February 22, 2006 05:33 AM
