- Liberals don't debate. They attack. This is important to remember. Don't attempt to engage in any debate with a liberal unless you're willing to fight back, because the Liberals' goal isn't to prove you wrong; it's to shut you up. If they can scare you into silence, they will.
- Liberals don't refute your points. They sneer and condescend. If scaring you doesn't work, expect them to immediately dismiss your arguments as the ravings of a total loon. "No one with half a brain could possibly believe that!" they'll sneer. Phrases like "Riiight..." or "Oh, come on" will be used frequently. At no point will the Liberal feel the need to actually cite where you're wrong, or what made you wrong. You are wrong simply for disagreeing with them. It's a classic Alinsky tactic; ridicule is a powerful weapon. They hope to make you feel stupid or part of a fringe element because of your views. Failing that, they hope anyone listening to you will feel that way about you.
- Liberals are generally the first to resort to personal attacks. Don't even think of debating a Liberal unless you are prepared to hear personal remarks about your intelligence, gender, weight, age, alleged promiscuity, education and, yes, even your sexuality.
- Despite supposedly being race-friendly, gay-friendly and feministic, Liberals nearly always accuse their black opponents of being "house slaves", and accuse others of being gay, and attack the womanhood of female conservatives. This goes back to personal attacks, but deserves its own point because Liberals trumpet their tolerance loudly, but always--ALWAYS--attack their opponents with smears against their gender, race and sexuality.
- Liberals do not appeal to facts or precedent, despite a constant claim to be the side with the "facts". They appeal to emotion and "fairness". Their claims to be the side that has all the "facts" falls apart the minute you begin debating them, as they always fall back to claims that your position is "cruel", "fascist", "angry", "heartless", "unconscionable" or "unfair". This is because they don't actually have any "facts", and they know it, so sticking purely to facts would force them to admit defeat. Instead, they declare anything they want to think is true to be a "fact".
- "Tolerant" Liberals who claim to be open to a wide range of views will attack anyone they feel is too religious (other than Muslims). They will question the rationality, sanity and brain power of any person who concedes anything remotely like a belief in God, or support of any faith-based organization.
- Even after a Liberal has failed to prove you wrong on any point, they will always behave as if they have won. That's because to a Liberal, they are right by virtue of being Liberal. If they say racist or sexist things, well, they know they aren't really racist or sexist because they're Liberal, and nothing a Liberal does is racist or sexist, including saying racist and sexist things. By contrast, ANYTHING a Conservative says is racist or sexist, probably both. You lose because you are Conservative.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Rules for Debating Liberals
Monday, August 29, 2011
Seven Things Liberals Do and Conservatives Don't
Liberals and Conservatives are just opposite sides of the same coin, aren't they? When it comes right down to it, there's no real difference between them other than which side of the political pole they're on, right?
Not so fast.
There are many things Liberals do all the time, and see as perfectly acceptable, that Conservatives just don't do.
Oh, they're accused of doing them all the time, and that's due to projection (more on that later). How do you know what Liberals are up to? Look at what they're accusing their competition of doing.
All the same, here's a list of things Liberals do habitually, that Conservatives just plain don't do.
7. Engage in misogeny, racism and religious intolerance while claiming to be against such things. Conservatives are routinely accused of racism, sexism, etc., but at this point the argument is essentially "They have to be racist/sexist! They're Conservatives/Republicans! Everybody knows they're racist/sexist!"
Of course, can there be anything more sexist than the way leftists routinely talk about Sarah Palin, and of late, Michelle Bachman? Look at the Newsweek cover calling Bachman "The Queen of Rage", and how purposefully they made her look crazy and frail. The left HATES women who don't fall under their definition of "feminism" which is basically "treats men badly, has promiscuous sex, is pro-choice, and puts their careers ahead of their family, assuming they have a family." In other words, a true "woman" tries to be as macho and pig-headed as the way they see men. Nothing could be more mysogenistic. And despite the way Maureen Dowd, Gloria Steinem, etc. repeatedly tear down Conservative women, you never see Conservatives of either gender going after left-leaning women this way. You just don't. Find me the article where a Conservative calls Maxine Waters a "c#nt" or Hilary Clinton a bitch. Many people were calling Hilary a bitch while she was Obama's competitor for the Democratic Nomination, but guess who was doing that? Not Republicans, Conservative or otherwise.
And you just don't get more racist than the sort of bile the left spews at Black Conservatives. I've already discussed this at length, so I won't bother going over it again, but you know what I'm talking about. You just don't see this kind of vitriole from Conservatives against Black liberals. We hope they change their minds, and we hope they'll understand that just because Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, etc. share skin color with them doesn't mean they share ideals or have their best interest at heart. But we don't hate them and we don't use racist language against them. Liberals use that kind of language against black Conservatives all the time.
6. Approve of literally everything, even illegal things, if it means they win. See Journolist. See the fact that there is no Conservative equivilant. See the Democratic efforts to pass Obamacare. They made it clear they would pass it no matter what. The fact that so many Democratic Senators suddenly changed their minds is highly suspect, or would be if they were Republicans, whose every act is suspect.
Conservatives are strongly law-bound. When a conservative gets caught in a scandal or breaking the law, their career is over. Liberals can be guilty of murder, or at least manslaughter (Ted Kennedy) and go on to have long careers. Consider that nobody connected with Journolist lost their jobs. Consider that East Anglia University's Climate Dept. is still the research centre of record for Global Warming BS despite the leaked emails. This would be unacceptable to Conservatives.
5. See opposing viewpoints as "the enemy". Obama literally told Latino Americans that Republicans were their "enemy". In fact, read any article by any left-winger talking about any right-winger. To them, we're not simply "wrong" or "arrogant" or "misguided" or "stupid" (we're all those things, too), but we're also "evil". The way they always talk about us is the way you talk about an opposing force to be wiped out. Liberals don't want to change conservative minds; they want conservatives DESTROYED. How else do you interpret their literally calling for our deaths, and rejoicing when we do die?
Conservatives often make fun of liberals, often suggest that their stupid policies are what got us headed on the wrong track in the first place, etc. but I've rarely if ever seen a conservative wish death on a liberal, or rejoice at a liberal's death. We see them as the opposition, but not a literal "enemy". Maybe we should.
4. Change the meaning of words like "tolerance" or "hate". To a liberal, "hate" means "you disagree with me". How else to explain liberals' constant complaint that the Tea Party "hates" Obama, and by extension all black people? But before the recent race-baiting spate began, liberals were already using "hate" to describe anyone opposed to gay marriage, regardless of what grounds they disagreed with it on. Strongly held religious convictions? No, it must be HAAAATE! Of course, the opposite of "hate" is "tolerance", and "tolerance" is a virtue that all liberals claim to hold dearly, despite proving over and over again that they are only willing to tolerate what they find tolerable, which is pretty much nothing outside the umbrella of liberalism.
Conservatives may not claim to be tolerant, but they at least use the word correctly, and don't claim to be something they're not.
3. Accuse others of doing things they do themselves. Projection is one of the watch-words of modern liberalism. Remember what I said above? The best way to find out what liberals are up to is look at what they accuse conservatives of doing. Bush "stole" the election? Sure. The far more likely scenario is that Gore was trying to win at any cost, including voter fraud, and failed. Why do you think Democrats hate the idea of needing ID to vote? Because it makes voter fraud harder! Why else?
But nowhere is liberal projection more obvious than the recent "new tone" of "civility" the Democrats are all insisting we go by now. Remember when President "Punch Back Twice as Hard" demanded that we all begin "using words that heal rather than hurt" in the wake of his own comments getting Kenneth Gladney a beatdown from SEIU thugs? Oh, wait, I'm sorry. This was in the wake of the Jared Loughner shootings that happened to hit Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The way the media tried to spin it, Loughner was a right-wing extremist who was inspired by Sarah Palin, who had put a map on her facebook page with cross-hairs over electoral districts "targeted" as potential Republican victories. The map was obviously a call for violence in these regions, so Loughner was not to blame for the shootings. Sarah Palin was.
Never mind that Loughner was described by all who knew him not only as "a-political" but as "creepy" and "unbalanced", and he had once made a joke in a college classroom about strapping aborted fetuses to bombs. Never mind that at no point could anyone on the Left provide any direct link between Palin's map and Loughner's decision to get a gun and start shooting up Tuscon.
This meant that a "new tone" of civility was called for, so that the "violent rhetoric" of people like Palin, and Glen Beck, et al, would never inspire another crazed right-winger to violence like that again.
Of course, liberals have violated the new tone all over the place. And they don't care at all that Obama's encouragement to his followers to "bring a gun to a knife fight", "get in their faces" and "punch back twice as hard" were made THE DAY BEFORE the Gladney incident.
Got that? Sarah Palin makes a map with cross-hairs on it, targeting electoral districts, and months later a lone nutcase with a history of mental issues shoots several in Tuscon and hits a Democratic congresswoman = Sarah Palin is DIRECTLY at fault.
While Obama in a speech uses violent words to encourage his followers to beat down conservatives, and the NEXT DAY his own followers do exactly that = nothing to see here.
2. Name-call, accuse, and use "yeah right" or "oh, come on" instead of refute. I have no doubt that by this point any liberal reading this has made several comments like "Oh, whatever" or "Can you believe this idiot?" or "He probably pleasures himself to a picture of Mitt Romney" or "I bet he's a racist" or any number of things. In fact, I would imagine that if anyone leaves a comment (assuming anyone is reading this), I can probably tell whether you're liberal or conservative just by how dismissive your tone is. I mocked liberal's "debate" style in my first post. This attitude is deliberate; it's a classic Alinsky tactic. That way they put us on the defensive, or make it look like what we say is so "obviously" ridiculous that no smart person would dare pay it any heed. Think all those "ethics violations" Sarah Palin was sued for had anything to do with actual ethics violations on her part? No, but she wasted time, money and effort fighting them to the point where she could no longer successfully govern, so she resigned. Which was the entire point.
1. Evade the slightest possibility of debate. Of course all of the above lead to this one. Liberals know that if they actually debate the issues, and not engage in any of the former, they'll lose. Everything liberals do is designed to stop a debate with conservatives before it even starts. Anthropogenic global warming is "settled science". Obamacare will fix everyone's problems and we don't need to know what's in the bill. Period. Our economy sucks because of Bush, the Tea Party, the Republican Congress not "compromising" (ie: just doing what the Democrats want), etc. and that's all there is to it. Don't debate us, just agree with us. If you don't, you're an idiot, probably racist, uncivil, etc.
Liberals, I welcome your response. I guarantee you will prove me right.
Not so fast.
There are many things Liberals do all the time, and see as perfectly acceptable, that Conservatives just don't do.
Oh, they're accused of doing them all the time, and that's due to projection (more on that later). How do you know what Liberals are up to? Look at what they're accusing their competition of doing.
All the same, here's a list of things Liberals do habitually, that Conservatives just plain don't do.
7. Engage in misogeny, racism and religious intolerance while claiming to be against such things. Conservatives are routinely accused of racism, sexism, etc., but at this point the argument is essentially "They have to be racist/sexist! They're Conservatives/Republicans! Everybody knows they're racist/sexist!"
Of course, can there be anything more sexist than the way leftists routinely talk about Sarah Palin, and of late, Michelle Bachman? Look at the Newsweek cover calling Bachman "The Queen of Rage", and how purposefully they made her look crazy and frail. The left HATES women who don't fall under their definition of "feminism" which is basically "treats men badly, has promiscuous sex, is pro-choice, and puts their careers ahead of their family, assuming they have a family." In other words, a true "woman" tries to be as macho and pig-headed as the way they see men. Nothing could be more mysogenistic. And despite the way Maureen Dowd, Gloria Steinem, etc. repeatedly tear down Conservative women, you never see Conservatives of either gender going after left-leaning women this way. You just don't. Find me the article where a Conservative calls Maxine Waters a "c#nt" or Hilary Clinton a bitch. Many people were calling Hilary a bitch while she was Obama's competitor for the Democratic Nomination, but guess who was doing that? Not Republicans, Conservative or otherwise.
And you just don't get more racist than the sort of bile the left spews at Black Conservatives. I've already discussed this at length, so I won't bother going over it again, but you know what I'm talking about. You just don't see this kind of vitriole from Conservatives against Black liberals. We hope they change their minds, and we hope they'll understand that just because Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, etc. share skin color with them doesn't mean they share ideals or have their best interest at heart. But we don't hate them and we don't use racist language against them. Liberals use that kind of language against black Conservatives all the time.
6. Approve of literally everything, even illegal things, if it means they win. See Journolist. See the fact that there is no Conservative equivilant. See the Democratic efforts to pass Obamacare. They made it clear they would pass it no matter what. The fact that so many Democratic Senators suddenly changed their minds is highly suspect, or would be if they were Republicans, whose every act is suspect.
Conservatives are strongly law-bound. When a conservative gets caught in a scandal or breaking the law, their career is over. Liberals can be guilty of murder, or at least manslaughter (Ted Kennedy) and go on to have long careers. Consider that nobody connected with Journolist lost their jobs. Consider that East Anglia University's Climate Dept. is still the research centre of record for Global Warming BS despite the leaked emails. This would be unacceptable to Conservatives.
5. See opposing viewpoints as "the enemy". Obama literally told Latino Americans that Republicans were their "enemy". In fact, read any article by any left-winger talking about any right-winger. To them, we're not simply "wrong" or "arrogant" or "misguided" or "stupid" (we're all those things, too), but we're also "evil". The way they always talk about us is the way you talk about an opposing force to be wiped out. Liberals don't want to change conservative minds; they want conservatives DESTROYED. How else do you interpret their literally calling for our deaths, and rejoicing when we do die?
Conservatives often make fun of liberals, often suggest that their stupid policies are what got us headed on the wrong track in the first place, etc. but I've rarely if ever seen a conservative wish death on a liberal, or rejoice at a liberal's death. We see them as the opposition, but not a literal "enemy". Maybe we should.
4. Change the meaning of words like "tolerance" or "hate". To a liberal, "hate" means "you disagree with me". How else to explain liberals' constant complaint that the Tea Party "hates" Obama, and by extension all black people? But before the recent race-baiting spate began, liberals were already using "hate" to describe anyone opposed to gay marriage, regardless of what grounds they disagreed with it on. Strongly held religious convictions? No, it must be HAAAATE! Of course, the opposite of "hate" is "tolerance", and "tolerance" is a virtue that all liberals claim to hold dearly, despite proving over and over again that they are only willing to tolerate what they find tolerable, which is pretty much nothing outside the umbrella of liberalism.
Conservatives may not claim to be tolerant, but they at least use the word correctly, and don't claim to be something they're not.
3. Accuse others of doing things they do themselves. Projection is one of the watch-words of modern liberalism. Remember what I said above? The best way to find out what liberals are up to is look at what they accuse conservatives of doing. Bush "stole" the election? Sure. The far more likely scenario is that Gore was trying to win at any cost, including voter fraud, and failed. Why do you think Democrats hate the idea of needing ID to vote? Because it makes voter fraud harder! Why else?
But nowhere is liberal projection more obvious than the recent "new tone" of "civility" the Democrats are all insisting we go by now. Remember when President "Punch Back Twice as Hard" demanded that we all begin "using words that heal rather than hurt" in the wake of his own comments getting Kenneth Gladney a beatdown from SEIU thugs? Oh, wait, I'm sorry. This was in the wake of the Jared Loughner shootings that happened to hit Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The way the media tried to spin it, Loughner was a right-wing extremist who was inspired by Sarah Palin, who had put a map on her facebook page with cross-hairs over electoral districts "targeted" as potential Republican victories. The map was obviously a call for violence in these regions, so Loughner was not to blame for the shootings. Sarah Palin was.
Never mind that Loughner was described by all who knew him not only as "a-political" but as "creepy" and "unbalanced", and he had once made a joke in a college classroom about strapping aborted fetuses to bombs. Never mind that at no point could anyone on the Left provide any direct link between Palin's map and Loughner's decision to get a gun and start shooting up Tuscon.
This meant that a "new tone" of civility was called for, so that the "violent rhetoric" of people like Palin, and Glen Beck, et al, would never inspire another crazed right-winger to violence like that again.
Of course, liberals have violated the new tone all over the place. And they don't care at all that Obama's encouragement to his followers to "bring a gun to a knife fight", "get in their faces" and "punch back twice as hard" were made THE DAY BEFORE the Gladney incident.
Got that? Sarah Palin makes a map with cross-hairs on it, targeting electoral districts, and months later a lone nutcase with a history of mental issues shoots several in Tuscon and hits a Democratic congresswoman = Sarah Palin is DIRECTLY at fault.
While Obama in a speech uses violent words to encourage his followers to beat down conservatives, and the NEXT DAY his own followers do exactly that = nothing to see here.
2. Name-call, accuse, and use "yeah right" or "oh, come on" instead of refute. I have no doubt that by this point any liberal reading this has made several comments like "Oh, whatever" or "Can you believe this idiot?" or "He probably pleasures himself to a picture of Mitt Romney" or "I bet he's a racist" or any number of things. In fact, I would imagine that if anyone leaves a comment (assuming anyone is reading this), I can probably tell whether you're liberal or conservative just by how dismissive your tone is. I mocked liberal's "debate" style in my first post. This attitude is deliberate; it's a classic Alinsky tactic. That way they put us on the defensive, or make it look like what we say is so "obviously" ridiculous that no smart person would dare pay it any heed. Think all those "ethics violations" Sarah Palin was sued for had anything to do with actual ethics violations on her part? No, but she wasted time, money and effort fighting them to the point where she could no longer successfully govern, so she resigned. Which was the entire point.
1. Evade the slightest possibility of debate. Of course all of the above lead to this one. Liberals know that if they actually debate the issues, and not engage in any of the former, they'll lose. Everything liberals do is designed to stop a debate with conservatives before it even starts. Anthropogenic global warming is "settled science". Obamacare will fix everyone's problems and we don't need to know what's in the bill. Period. Our economy sucks because of Bush, the Tea Party, the Republican Congress not "compromising" (ie: just doing what the Democrats want), etc. and that's all there is to it. Don't debate us, just agree with us. If you don't, you're an idiot, probably racist, uncivil, etc.
Liberals, I welcome your response. I guarantee you will prove me right.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
"Tax cuts: How they Really Work"; A lesson all liberals should learn
I found this, and it's just so, so true. Recently the villifying of "the rich" from liberals has been ratcheted up a notch (again), so it's time for a refresher, courtesy of the brilliant Dr. Kamerschen:
Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help. Please share this with your friends as you see fit.
Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics
This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall
University of Georgia
The Three Types of Liberals
In my day-to-day life living where I do, in a sea of liberalism, I have noted that there tend to be only three types of liberals.
Liberals are all around me, and like any group, they tend to come in many shapes and sizes, and while no two are exactly alike, they tend to fall into these three groups.
Type 1 liberals are probably the most common. They don't really think about politics much, but they know enough to know they are certainly not conservative. Why? Because conservatives are mean, and they wanna take away our rights, and they hate black people and gay people, and they're sexist, and stuff. "Like, whenever I watch the first few minutes of The Daily Show if I accidentally leave the TV on after watching South Park, I see all these stories about how mean and evil conservatives are. Most of my friends hate conservatives and just...ew, Sarah Palin is ick!" Type 1 liberals are only liberal because...that's all they know. They've never had their opinions challenged, and in fact may not even have an opinion on most issues. They don't usually like talking about politics and most of them will probably tell you they don't care about politics at all. But get them talking, and watch liberal talking points they overheard from their friends, or news soundbites they heard on the radio at work spew forth, and you will quickly discover that's all they know. They don't know the how or why of anything; all they know is what they've been told, and in today's environment, that means regurgitating liberalism on cue. There is "the news" and then there is "Fox News", which they've been told is stupid and evil, so when they hear the news at all, they get it from one of the "mainstream" news networks. What you'll discover is, if you get them thinking about the positions they think they should take, that when forced to think about it, they realize it doesn't make much sense. Not that it matters because they hate thinking about politics, and they'll likely just keep thinking the way their friends do.
Type 2 liberals are the second most common. They know liberal positions and they are liberal on purpose. They hate prominent conservatives and absolutely would never vote for one, or even listen to what the conservative side has to say. And the reason is not that they've done their homework and know conservatives have nothing of value to add to the national discourse. It's because they absolutely cannot abide having their viewpoints challenged. They made up their mind a long time ago, and they usually have specific reasons for doing so, and they are loathe to think too much about it lest they either have to change their viewpoint or continue living illogically. Many of them might have had someone in their family who had an abortion, or maybe they had one themselves, and because of this they could never side with a (mostly) pro-life party. Perhaps they have a gay relative and would never dream of listening to the viewpoint of a side that is (mostly) against gay marriage. Or maybe they just like to party, have indiscriminate sex, or live with their significant other outside of marriage, or whatever, and they think conservatives would all be against that. Maybe they're militant atheists and hate that most conservatives believe in God. And here's a shock; many are actually conservatives, but don't know it. Get them talking and you'll discover that many of them are against big government, higher taxes, limits on free speech, gun control, even abortion. "But that doesn't mean I'm conservative! Conservatives are racist, like Rush Limbaugh, or crazy/stupid like Ann Coulter!" In this, they are a lot like Type 1 liberals. They honestly believe, mostly because they only ever hear the liberal take on conservatism, that all conservatives are evil/racist, or stupid, or crazy, or all of the above. They believe that in order to consider themselves "good people", they simply must be liberal. And they really don't want to think differently.
Type 3 liberals are the kind I talk the most about on this blog. They are the Capital-L Liberals. They are liberal to the core, and proud of it. They are proudly pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-big government, anti-"rich", ready to pronounce anything to do with race "racist" if it doesn't line up sharply with their views, on the lookout for "sexism", while being as mysogenistic against female conservatives as they want, etc. This is the least common type, because you'll find so few of them among the "rank and file" (even though their attitude and activism CREATE the other two types). Most of them are activists, journalists, novelists, screenwriters, actors, directors, college professors, teachers, and, of course, politicians. To them, there is nothing that is wrong, nothing that is unforgivable, nothing that is impure, with the sole exception of being insufficiently liberal. You might--MIGHT--convince a Type 1 or Type 2 of the error of their ways. Not this type. They are wrapped in a blanket of cold certainty that liberalism is the only right, and non-liberals are therefore not only wrong but evil. They may be compared to religious fundamentalists in their devotion to their cause, their conviction that no one could possibly disagree with them and be good, moral people and their inability to see that the rest of the world does not fit into their worldview, and never will. To a Type 3 liberal (and this attitude filters down into the others to varying degrees) as long as you feel good about yourself, or if other liberals see what you're doing as "good", you're okay. Even if what you're doing is very, very harmful.
Now, you may notice one thing all these types have in common, and that is, everyone they know is a liberal. How did it get like this? Why have we allowed liberalism to dominate the news, entertainment and education systems in America? And why, when you're in a public place and you hear someone spouting off a liberal talking point or two (and you will), do you keep silent? It's the reason why, even though liberals make up not even a third of American society, they continue to have the loudest voice in public discourse. Type 1 and 2 liberals likely DO know conservatives, possibly several. But their conservative friends never speak out like their liberal friends do.
So let's cull the herd; the next time you hear a liberal spouting off in public, don't stay quiet. Let your voice be heard. You may find that in doing so, you make your Type 1 and Type 2 liberal friends think, and even maybe, just maybe, become conservative.
And as for Type 3's? Well, the more we can succeed in changing the minds of Type 1 and 2's, the sillier and less consequential this group will be, and the less utterly stupid policies and practices of liberals in power we'll have to deal with.
Liberals are all around me, and like any group, they tend to come in many shapes and sizes, and while no two are exactly alike, they tend to fall into these three groups.
Type 1 liberals are probably the most common. They don't really think about politics much, but they know enough to know they are certainly not conservative. Why? Because conservatives are mean, and they wanna take away our rights, and they hate black people and gay people, and they're sexist, and stuff. "Like, whenever I watch the first few minutes of The Daily Show if I accidentally leave the TV on after watching South Park, I see all these stories about how mean and evil conservatives are. Most of my friends hate conservatives and just...ew, Sarah Palin is ick!" Type 1 liberals are only liberal because...that's all they know. They've never had their opinions challenged, and in fact may not even have an opinion on most issues. They don't usually like talking about politics and most of them will probably tell you they don't care about politics at all. But get them talking, and watch liberal talking points they overheard from their friends, or news soundbites they heard on the radio at work spew forth, and you will quickly discover that's all they know. They don't know the how or why of anything; all they know is what they've been told, and in today's environment, that means regurgitating liberalism on cue. There is "the news" and then there is "Fox News", which they've been told is stupid and evil, so when they hear the news at all, they get it from one of the "mainstream" news networks. What you'll discover is, if you get them thinking about the positions they think they should take, that when forced to think about it, they realize it doesn't make much sense. Not that it matters because they hate thinking about politics, and they'll likely just keep thinking the way their friends do.
Type 2 liberals are the second most common. They know liberal positions and they are liberal on purpose. They hate prominent conservatives and absolutely would never vote for one, or even listen to what the conservative side has to say. And the reason is not that they've done their homework and know conservatives have nothing of value to add to the national discourse. It's because they absolutely cannot abide having their viewpoints challenged. They made up their mind a long time ago, and they usually have specific reasons for doing so, and they are loathe to think too much about it lest they either have to change their viewpoint or continue living illogically. Many of them might have had someone in their family who had an abortion, or maybe they had one themselves, and because of this they could never side with a (mostly) pro-life party. Perhaps they have a gay relative and would never dream of listening to the viewpoint of a side that is (mostly) against gay marriage. Or maybe they just like to party, have indiscriminate sex, or live with their significant other outside of marriage, or whatever, and they think conservatives would all be against that. Maybe they're militant atheists and hate that most conservatives believe in God. And here's a shock; many are actually conservatives, but don't know it. Get them talking and you'll discover that many of them are against big government, higher taxes, limits on free speech, gun control, even abortion. "But that doesn't mean I'm conservative! Conservatives are racist, like Rush Limbaugh, or crazy/stupid like Ann Coulter!" In this, they are a lot like Type 1 liberals. They honestly believe, mostly because they only ever hear the liberal take on conservatism, that all conservatives are evil/racist, or stupid, or crazy, or all of the above. They believe that in order to consider themselves "good people", they simply must be liberal. And they really don't want to think differently.
Type 3 liberals are the kind I talk the most about on this blog. They are the Capital-L Liberals. They are liberal to the core, and proud of it. They are proudly pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-big government, anti-"rich", ready to pronounce anything to do with race "racist" if it doesn't line up sharply with their views, on the lookout for "sexism", while being as mysogenistic against female conservatives as they want, etc. This is the least common type, because you'll find so few of them among the "rank and file" (even though their attitude and activism CREATE the other two types). Most of them are activists, journalists, novelists, screenwriters, actors, directors, college professors, teachers, and, of course, politicians. To them, there is nothing that is wrong, nothing that is unforgivable, nothing that is impure, with the sole exception of being insufficiently liberal. You might--MIGHT--convince a Type 1 or Type 2 of the error of their ways. Not this type. They are wrapped in a blanket of cold certainty that liberalism is the only right, and non-liberals are therefore not only wrong but evil. They may be compared to religious fundamentalists in their devotion to their cause, their conviction that no one could possibly disagree with them and be good, moral people and their inability to see that the rest of the world does not fit into their worldview, and never will. To a Type 3 liberal (and this attitude filters down into the others to varying degrees) as long as you feel good about yourself, or if other liberals see what you're doing as "good", you're okay. Even if what you're doing is very, very harmful.
Now, you may notice one thing all these types have in common, and that is, everyone they know is a liberal. How did it get like this? Why have we allowed liberalism to dominate the news, entertainment and education systems in America? And why, when you're in a public place and you hear someone spouting off a liberal talking point or two (and you will), do you keep silent? It's the reason why, even though liberals make up not even a third of American society, they continue to have the loudest voice in public discourse. Type 1 and 2 liberals likely DO know conservatives, possibly several. But their conservative friends never speak out like their liberal friends do.
So let's cull the herd; the next time you hear a liberal spouting off in public, don't stay quiet. Let your voice be heard. You may find that in doing so, you make your Type 1 and Type 2 liberal friends think, and even maybe, just maybe, become conservative.
And as for Type 3's? Well, the more we can succeed in changing the minds of Type 1 and 2's, the sillier and less consequential this group will be, and the less utterly stupid policies and practices of liberals in power we'll have to deal with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)