Debating Leftists is Like Debating Charles Manson
by Leigh ScottKeith Olbermann’s recent hour-long commentary was quite revealing. Like Michael Moore’s “capitalism hasn’t done anything for me” comment, the outpouring of support and sympathy for serial pedophile and admitted rapist Roman Polanski, and President Obama’s shenanigans at the U.N. and G-20, it drove home a simple, powerful point…
These people don’t know what they are talking about.
They do not know their kiesters from a hole in the ground. They are a few fries short of a happy meal and a few cards short of a full deck. Their phasers are permanently set on “clueless.”
Once you come to this realization, as many of us have, you are forced to approach their ideas and spokespeople from a position of reality. Not from some sanctimonious position of civility and “debate.”
For an actual debate, two things are needed. One, there must be a logical and factual distinction between two separate positions. Two, there must be equally matched participants, each one prepared and versed enough to intelligently present their side of the issue.
We don’t have that. We have one group of people who live in a fantasy world, full of twisted facts, backwards logic and wishful thinking. You can’t debate that. There is no factual, honest, or logical way to support their positions. It’s like arguing the best way to take a cross-country trip with a delusional Dungeons and Dragons geek. You want to reroute to avoid traffic on the I-10. He wants to “avoid the realm of the Bugbears.”
The other side of the “debate” isn’t operating in the same reality. They do not operate in reality at all.
Michael Moore has no business lecturing anybody or making any film about “capitalism” because he can’t even define the word. He doesn’t understand what capitalism is!
Moore grew up middle class in Flint, Michigan. He wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Under a Socialist system, the young Moore would never have been able to grow (and I mean really grow) into the ultra-rich toast of Hollywood who has a net worth in excess of $50 million. The jarring juxtaposition of the bloated, classless Moore, with his mustard stained T-shirt, Midwestern droll, and soiled baseball cap, noshing in swanky Manhattan eateries is a snapshot of Capitalism in action.
There should be no irony in Michael Moore making a film called “Capitalism: A Love Story.” Michael Moore should love Capitalism as much as he loves White Castle slyders.
Similarly, Olbermann’s diatribe was a brave stand against…death? You know, that inevitable thing that happens to all of us. Somehow, he managed to make the leap in logic that government-run health care is some sort of magical insulator protecting us from the Grim Reaper. It doesn’t make sense.
They stopped making sense awhile ago.
Imagine, if you will, a group of people who state that clouds are made of cotton candy. Children love cotton candy. In the sky, there is an unending supply of the sticky treat. To harvest the cotton candy, we must spend billions of taxpayer dollars to create machines that pluck the confection from the heavens. We must do this for the children.
“Ludicrous” states half of the population. Clearly, clouds are not made of cotton candy. In fact, we know exactly what clouds are made of. We also know the exact ingredients in cotton candy. The two are completely unrelated. Recipes and scientific data are presented to prove the case. To build a machine to collect non-existent cotton candy is a waste of money and resources.
The cotton candy cloud advocates respond. Anybody who claims that clouds are made of water vapor must want to hoard the cotton candy. They must benefit from the sales of cotton candy. Having free cotton candy would destroy their merciless pursuit of profits.
Oh, and obviously, they hate children and are probably racist.
This is what we are dealing with.
By acknowledging and accepting these laughable, false and dangerous ideas as simply “the other side” of a logical debate we bestow a validity to them that is unwarranted and ultimately unfair. I scoff at people like David Frum who call for civility and intellectual debate.
Who do we debate? Where are the other intellectuals?
Debating leftists is like debating Charles Manson. It’s crazy talk. When you debate a leftist you never get to debate the policy. You debate their intended outcomes and their perception of who you are. That’s a serious lapse in logical and critical thought.
World peace? An end to poverty? Proper medical care for all? Equal opportunity for all men and women? I agree. Great. Fine. We all want that. Appeasement? Wealth redistribution? Government controlled economy? Pre-occupation with race and gender? Whoa. Wait a second, how does that work? How do those policies equal those results? When has that ever worked?
President Obama is fond of saying “the debate is over.” My question is, when did it really start?
Many on the right are concerned with the “fringe.” They worry that people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck turn the discourse into a circus. Have they not been paying attention? Was the decision to elect Obama based on his experience, policy ideas or general grasp of the issues? Or was it based on entertainment and feelings?.
Those who call for the reincarnation of William F. Buckley to do battle with intellectual lightweights like David Shuster and Paul Krugman do not understand the Twitterverse in which we live. They ignore decades of indoctrination through public schools, universities, and Hollywood. Presenting entertaining, emotional, and “relatable” personalities is the only way to convert a populace conditioned to think that conservatives are cold, greedy, and uncreative.
James O’Keefe dressed like Superfly and Hanna Giles in that skirt are more effective than hundreds of Heritage foundation studies.
So I say crank up the Rush Limbaugh, stick Glenn Beck in a cage with some lions and put Sarah Palin on the trapeze. Let the circus begin. I’ll be first in line to buy a ticket.
I know Joe Biden already owns clown shoes.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
770 Comments
Excellent post, Leigh!
>>>>Similarly, Olbermann’s diatribe was a brave stand against…death? You know, that inevitable thing that happens to all of us. Somehow, he managed to make the leap in logic that government-run health care is some sort of magical insulator protecting us from the Grim Reaper. It doesn’t make sense.>>>>>
Except that's not what he argued, Mr. Scott. So maybe the reason you think all those folks are crazy and stupid is that you're not taking the time to listen. And while we're on the subject of government-run heath care — what is there about the deal Congress gets (and which we all PAY FOR) that makes them believe it's bad for the rest of us? Make sense out of THAT, and you will have performed the impossible!
You must be reading my mind! These people are in arrested development, unable to extend logic past rainbows and unicorns. How can anyone in their right mind, with even a low double digit IQ fail to see the complete lack of logic in Michael Moore's position on capitalism?It defies logic.For the life of me, I can't understand how SO MANY seemingly "intelligent" people can take moronic positions and argue them till the bitter end despite all evidence to the contrary. I am convinced that they are using the old adage"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t.
I once attempted to have an intelligent debate with a far leftist. I kid you not, I felt like I was standing on the edge of an abyss, and something was fervently trying to pull me in. It was at that moment, I understood what it must feel like to be completely insane.
I avoid conversations like this at all costs now…there is as you say, absolutely no point
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Michael Chavez and Michael Ozman. Michael Ozman said: Big Hollywood: Debating Leftists is Like Debating Charles Manson http://bit.ly/d4UqF #BC [...]
Instead of debate, Socratic dialogue sometimes works. At least, you might get them to actually define their terms to themselves before lapsing into the ad hominems.
This one's a keeper. Excelent job. Mr. Scott.
"It’s like arguing the best way to take a cross-country trip with a delusional Dungeons and Dragons geek. You want to reroute to avoid traffic on the I-10. He wants to “avoid the realm of the Bugbears.”"
I've heard San Bernardino called many things, but this one is new…
When I try to discuss with (and understand) leftists–some in my own family–I try to narrow down our differences until I reach some commonality that we both agree with. For example, I start with the supposition that, "we both love our country and want the best possible outcome for it" but they usually start with, "I want all you conservatives to die." Well, it makes discourse difficult.
Oh, and I misread the title as "Debating Leftists is Like DATING Charles Manson,"
which actually makes sense, kind of.
As Moore proved on the Hannity Show, reasoning is not one of the leftists useful arguments. It's like arguing with idiots.
Liberals assume everyone is modeled after the shoeless Kenyan ….
Quite simply, it is the cost. The Congressional health plan is one of these gold-plated deals you hear so much about, and that seem to need a-taxin', as long as they are not gub plans. But that is not all, of course. Bigwigs can also get world-class exotic treatment at gub research and veteran's hospitals like Walter Reed. And sure, you can do that for 600-odd folks, even those in such atrocious condition as our policritters, but you can't extend it to 360 million mouthbreathers without crushing quantity and quality. So it is not that the Congressional system is bad for the pop at large but that it is bad indeed for the status quo from which they benefit so mightily.
Very powerful argument against wasting time with a leftist. I am currently involved with such a friend, which is why I have bothered, but it is futile and I must get back to a more constructive use of my valuable spare time-so I sent him this post because you said it better then I could ever hope to do. Thank you!
I learned early on that you can't reason with unreasonable people. It seems that logic, reason and common sense are no match for emotion. It is like explaining to a child why they can't have a toy (i.e. we don't have the money right now; it is a piece of junk & will break in no time, you already have something just like it) and having them say, "But I want it!"
Devastating piece and spot on. When does the serious debate start indeed? But remember there is a big difference in opinion and truth and conservatives are the ones who understand the truth end of the equation. Yo prove this point all you have to do is compare op-eds from say, Thomas Sowell to Paul Krugman, nuff said.
This sort of thing needs to be said frequently, publicly and in as many fora and media as possible. It is even worse when these witless children in their forties wield the usurped credibility of universities and intellectualism generally. Frum is exemplary. He has internalized stipulations to the point of capitulation. It is the education, finally, of the Frum's (and Bushes) of this world that is the most delish and the most vital of our current needs. Who doubts that McCain would have done 65% of what Obama has done domestically? I used to say 85% but while the trend is favorable the underlying principle is still lacking. Did or does McCain EVER object to Obamism on principle? Has he ever heard of Limited Gub? Yes, he has and he didn't think much of it. McCain-Feingold is treason plain and simple, a sortie by those DOMESTIC enemies of the Constitution you sometimes hear mentioned. But it is the same with nearly all the bigs. Romney is no better. Huckabee adds cornpone hucksterism to the usual collapse of principle on spending and taxes. The more time goes by, the more I understand the Paulians and yes, I know Dr Ron is OTL generally.
Many on the right are concerned with the “fringe.” They worry that people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck turn the discourse into a circus. Have they not been paying attention? Was the decision to elect Obama based on his experience, policy ideas or general grasp of the issues? Or was it based on entertainment and feelings?.
Absolutely accurate. As an Independent, who has voted Dem many times, these past two years have been an eye-opener. Not getting on the Hopey-Changey train put me at odds with lifelong friends and family. To me, Obama's arrogance, and glaring lack of in-depth knowledge and experience (not to mention his relentless dishonesty and dubious associations) was obvious from the first debate. I have had completely "insane debates" with people who scream identical random talking points and cry racism if they get cornered. I can't wait until this round of delusion is over, so I'm with you. I cheer anyone who has the guts to expose the Emperor with no clothes.
The Socratic method does reap rewards. And it is not quite thankless. After Barack's recent flubs of gay rights issues some of your generally Obot aquaintances will be asking themselves some hard questions and may be prepared to entertain some from an unlikely source. Yeah, that's you.
Well as a moderate leftist let me make this distinction. The quote
— "We have one group of people who live in a fantasy world, full of twisted facts, backwards logic and wishful thinking. You can’t debate that. There is no factual, honest, or logical way to support their positions." —
can be just as easily applied to Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. Condiser Moore and Olbermann their equivalent for the left.
In addition when the author states that under a "Socialist system" Moore would not be able to be as successful the author is incorrect. All states in the G20, predominately Western Europe are classified in various degress as a socialist systems. These states also practice captialism; and there are quite a few people who build business in business (Branson, Murdock), art/entertainment (Bono), etc. Socialism is not command and control in which the state own all resources and business; that would be Soviet style Communism.
I learned early on that you can't reason with unreasonable people. It seems that logic, reason and common sense are no match for emotion. It is like explaining to a child why they can't have a toy (i.e. we don't have the money right now; it is a piece of junk & will break in no time, you already have something just like it) and having them scream, "But I want it!"
I gave up the debate with fuzzy-thinking leftists long ago when I realized what it was we had so much of in common. Nothing. I hope there are enough intelligent, mature minds waiting in the wings with a clear plan to restore order and equanimity after this administration finishes destroying all things that made our country strong.
Excellent, excellent work Mr. Scott. Particularly this paragraph: "Those who call for the reincarnation of William F. Buckley to do battle with intellectual lightweights like David Shuster and Paul Krugman do not understand the Twitterverse in which we live. They ignore decades of indoctrination through public schools, universities, and Hollywood. Presenting entertaining, emotional, and “relatable” personalities is the only way to convert a populace conditioned to think that conservatives are cold, greedy, and uncreative."
If conservatives think they can reach voters when they are in their twenties or beyond with well-structured arguments made with civility and respect, then they're sorely mistaken. Young people today are indoctrinated from childhood to believe that Republicans/conservatives are evil. Not just wrong. Evil. We, and our opinions, are not worth tolerating, much less debating. The sooner conservative leaders understand this and take the gloves off, the better. Academia, the MSM, unions – they need to be treated like the enemy, because that's how they think of us.
I reached that same conclusion a few years back. I lump liberals into this goup of people that cannot be argued with: Drug addicts, alcoholics, insane people, and liberals. It does no good at all to state facts to these groups because they only have one thing on their mind. Drug addicts and alcoholics only think about their next fix, insane people don't think at all, and liberals only think about power. I think laughter is the best weapon against them. When they say something truly stupid, just laugh at them. They can't take that. Or, maybe it's time we started using their favorite ploy against them. We should just start saying, "Well there's no debate that liberals are insane."
I learned early on that you can't reason with unreasonable people. It seems that logic, reason and common sense are no match for emotion. It is like explaining to a child why they can't have a toy (i.e. we don't have the money right now; it is a piece of junk & will break in no time; you already have something just like it) and having them scream, "But I want it!"
The only way to debate a liberal is to laugh at them. When enough people are laughing at the liberals (see ACORN fiasco with the undercover videos of the pimp and ho) they back down.
It's easier to have a debate with a deaf dog. You know he's not listening, but at least he'll let you finish your point and at least look interested.
I know of what I speak.
Sal, you're 100% correct. They can't define the terms. Their heads are full of that cotton candy up in the sky. Feelings are what count, feelings trump facts. Even normal conversation is impossible, never mind debate. If you disagree with any of their nonsensical ideas, you're a racist, want children to die … Explaining cause and effect? They don't care. For debate they intone, Nixon, Agnew, Watergate, Katrina without having a single fact other than the images conjured up for them in the media.
The answer???? Start with the schools. Get the ultra left wing teachers unions out. Force high ed who get federal money to get some real diversity. Hire and tenure conservative faculty.
Unless we do that, we are truly and completely scr*wed.
There's a site that has great insight into Leftism.. This is what he says the Left is (note, he writes so much here that I pretty much just picked a few paragraphs at random)
http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/2006/06/what-app...
By John Ray / Australia
"The first thing to say is that Leftism is emotional. The second is to say that the emotion is negative and the third thing to say is that the negative emotion (anger/hate/rage) is directed at the world about the Leftist, the status quo if you like. The Leftist is nothing if he is not a critic, though usually a very poorly-informed critic. And the criticisms are both pervasive and deeply felt."
..
And for Leftists, politics is NOTHING BUT power. They have no principles and openly ridicule (particularly via postmodernism) the idea that anything could be right or wrong. Policies that were once popular but which have become unpopular (such as eugenics) are abandoned so completely by Leftists that only historians know that such policies once had large-scale Leftist support. And with the way antisemitism is surging on the Left, the time will come when people will have forgotten that Leftists were for a time anti-racist. So for Leftists it is only party that matters and conservative thinkers such as myself and many others who take ideas, principles and ideology seriously are simply incomprehensible and fit only for ridicule. Leftist thinkers do very often work their way carefully through an argument or set of ideas but do so only if the conclusion of the argument is suitable for propaganda purposes. They want to persuade others that something which suits them is "right" but they themselves do not believe in "rightness" at all. And for many conservatives too, of course, their conservatism is more of an instinct than a systematic philosophy — as R.J. White in The Conservative Tradition notes (see here).
But the appeal of Leftism to the average person is simple: The preacher of Leftism offers something for nothing. And that is always hard to resist — fraudulent though it usually is. If the Leftist offers to redistribute somebody else's wealth into your pocket, that is one hell of an appealing scam. The Leftist's constant hypocritical preaching of equality does sometimes succeed in creating the impression that the Leftists will manage to give poorer or working class people a bigger slice of the national cake — and poorer people must obviously find that at least initially appealing. This is of course why labour unions have always had strong affinities with the Left. Leftists appear to want a better deal for union members.
I mentioned the fact that Reverend Wright was a bit soft on Screwy Looie Farrakhan, to a liberal client of mine, and he responded, "I'd hate to know someone was holding me responsible for everything my minister ever said."
First off, my client hasn't been to church in more than 20 years. Secondly, no one would ever question my client's associations, since he's not asking for the job of Commander-in-Chief. So, yay him, he gets to make a snotty remark (a non sequitur, actually), but only after twisting his own mind into a pretzel shape.
We'll see how happy the dumb mass is when I tell him I've replaced him in my client list.
I mentioned the fact that Reverend Wright was a bit soft on Screwy Looie Farrakhan, to a liberal client of mine, and he responded, "I'd hate to know someone was holding me responsible for everything my minister ever said."
First off, my client hasn't been to church in more than 20 years. Secondly, no one would ever question my client's associations, since he's not asking for the job of Commander-in-Chief. So, yay him, he gets to make a snotty remark (a non sequitur, actually), but only after twisting his own mind into a pretzel shape.
We'll see how happy the dumb mass is when I tell him I've replaced him in my client list.
Oh, and this article shows a superior concept, well executed. Thanks for the great read!
You really need to read Glenn Becks Book "Arguing with Idiots" It lends a huge assist in dealing in these types of conversations we get caught in.. Although I beleive glen is a little over the edge in the opposite direction on ocassions, with logic and basic anylitical skills you can extract the good from the hype..
You had me until I noticed you link to Schlussel. She's as bat-shit crazy as any liberal I ever met.
so true so true…. isn't it ironic how the left always goes on how EDUCATION is theirs, and how dumb conservatives are, lol. IRONY is the key to all this. we all need to use a little socratic irony on their asses…. that is essentially what was done to ACORN.
Exactly. That would also be why when "debating" with our leftest friends, we will often agree when they make a valid point – even if it is one we don't agree with, but they never do. They turn to name calling at that point. They cannot admit that someone with an opposing view has a valid point.
Good ole San Berdo.
Now I'm never going to be able to think about the area I grew up in as anything other than "the realm of the Bugbears"
I wonder what that makes Rialto? The realm of the Kobolds?
Evan Sayet opened my eyes to this. It's not just that liberals are insane and can't be reasoned with, it's how they are insane… they are firmly committed to being completely indiscriminate in any manner. And anyone who does discriminate (decides the better of multiple options based on logical criteria) must be evil (and wrong). The perfect example of this in this discussion is MModerationInAll (above) who carefully states that the same "state of denial" can be found in Hannity as can , say, Olbermann.
No, it can't. That's the point.
Being a conservative means that you take each side to task and rigorously check its facts and premises… and then side with the truth.
But ModerationInAll, being a good liberal, is devoted to not seeing the difference. In his mind, opinion=truth. Either side can be just as much true or false, so who cares? And since there's no difference… then, the truly enlightened man realizes that and sits out the discussion – and simultaneously hates anyone else who decides to take a side. The best example of this to me was before the election, when an ObamaBot shrieked at me that it "wasn't fair" and that we tried the Republican's idea for a while, and couldn't we try Obama's for now? This person had no concept of the differences between the ideas; as far as they were concerned, both socialism and capitalism are the same thing and we can just try one or the other given our mood. And in the interest of fairness, we should give Obama "his turn".
To them there are no facts, or theories, or truths to test or discover… there are only noisy noises from people's noise holes. And some are noisier than others. (To quote Greg Guttfeld). And the ones that make noises that complicate their lives – either by being loud or by demanding intelligent thought – are always wrong.
Great read Leigh! “Never argue with a sick mind.” By arguing with crazy people as you stated, you’re accepting the basic premise of the discussion no matter how silly. I recommend, metaphorically, just pointing and laughing. You end up in the same place, and you get the satisfaction of pissing them off.
Great read Leigh! “Never argue with a sick mind.” By arguing with crazy people as you stated, you’re accepting the basic premise of the discussion no matter how silly. I recommend, metaphorically of coarse, just pointing and laughing. You end up in the same place, and you get the satisfaction of pissing them off.
This is true. The other night I was trying to debate healthcare with my mom on a few various points, and shes nuts to the point that if I just say ok see how if A, B, and C are true, than D will be true, and they are all are so… and she just screams NO NO!!! I JUST DONT BELIEVE IT! So I've learned to move the points in slower, stealth like and ask questions that cant be disagreed with, without being completly insane. And one leads to another, to another etc… and right when I get close to closing my point where she'd either have to A) agree with me or B) disagree with what shes already agreed with, she shuts me up and wont stop interrupting me.
Sal is absolutely, positively correct.
When a liberal or or moderate or democrat or fascist or socialist or RINO says "healthcare reform", the proper response is "Define 'reform'!"
When 'we' say "reform" we mean individual-controlled which means cheaper, better, faster.
When 'they' say "reform" they mean government-controlled which also means expensive, bad, slow — and over-regulated and limited and restricted and rationed and lethal.
"That's the kind of reform we can live without."
I think this goes back to the Clintons' "politics of meaning" ("…what the meaning of 'is' is…").
P.S. I used to advocate tort reform. Now, I'm not so sure. What do politicians mean when they say they support tort reform? Will there be end of life legal counseling and death panels in tort reform, too? Judge, prosecutor, defense, jury, and executioner — with a very low statistical limit on "find for the plaintiff" — all rolled into one?
In my experience, it IS possible to make some headway debating a liberal, if you first take the step of establishing the groundrules upon which the rest of the argument is to proceed. Unfortunately, this often requires the application of a two-by-four between the ears, metaphorically speaking.
Don't know any Hollywood liberals; most of the ones I know are generally sensible, decent individuals until you differ with their political assumptions. Their first response to discovering my conservative outlook is on the lines of, "But you seem like a reasonable person. How could you possibly be against (insert liberal shibboleth here)?
At this point, I take pains to explain that if they want to have a discussion with me, they must proceed on the assumption that I am an intelligent, well-intentioned human being like themselves. On that basis we can have a discussion. On any other basis we will have a fight.
Olberman and Moore are paid a great deal of money to spout liberal BS, so I don't think those groundrules would apply; you'd probably need a REAL two-by-four.
No matter how you dress it up, socialism is 'communism lite.' I lived in both. You cannot compare european style socialism like for example in Sweden, because it cannot succeed in the US. We have too many people who are sponging off the system and not willing to do anything resembling work.
One thing libs never do is a REAL cost analysis of the programs they want to implement. If they did, they would realize that, for various factors (inefficiency, lack of dedication, lack of motivation, etc.), virtually ANY government-run program is going to be much more costly than private industry working on a profit motive.
When these people hear that "we won't have to contend with a profit", they automatically assume that means the government plan will be cheaper. They don't understand that striving for profits (i.e., competition) is what makes things both cheaper and better; it is the lackadaisical government system that results in more expense and incompetence.
And I say this as someone who has over 30 years experience as both a government employee and a government contractor.
But as far as debating the lefties, I learned an expression decades ago that addresses that issue:
"A wise man never argues with a fool, because passers-by can't tell the difference".
I invite all to read Dr. Pat Sanity, here:
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/
It'd be worth your while to read previous posts…from the last couple of years. Make a cup of tea, pull up a muffin, and it'll be the best six or seven hours you've spent in a long time. I'll start you off with this, from 2004
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2004/08/psychiatry-1...
Take a look in the left-hand margin of the blog, focusing on "Strategies for….Denial I / II / II". Enjoy.
Excellent post. In the age of sound bites and very short attention spans, a well reasoned arguement gets passed over for the witty meaningless Olbermann utterance. The sympathetic media gives short shrift to the Buckley's and Walter William's of the world and confers honors upon the Krugman's, Garofoloe's and the detestable Olbermann.
You are correct that to engage in debate with such an idealistic lot is a waste of time. There is no interest in facts as is evidenced by hearing over and over "the debate is over". There is always hope that once most people feel the effects that these liberal clowns have on their wallets and on lost freedoms, that they then will be revealed for what they are.
Actually he grew up in upper-middle-class Davison, a suburb of Flint, and his dad was white collar. Don't take anything the guy says at face value, even his story of his early life is full of crap.
First off, Michael Moore isn't from Flint, he's from a middle-class suburb of Flint called Davison that's 96% white.
The debate is over with a lib as soon they say "Faux News" or "racist". Also, who's the bringing the power from the left? Michael Moore? Bill Maher? Olbermann? Matt Taibbi? I'll take my chances plucking a random BH reader to debate and hold their own against these nitwits.
Bono and U2 have been embroiled in a controversey for 3 years over their decision to move a great portion of their business to the Netherlands to avoid punative Irish taxation. Branson and Murdock are diversified worldwide and are paying accountants hundreds of thousands for tax protection. Their biggest critics come from the Left. This bolsters Leigh's argument even further. Leftists whine that U2 are "hypocrites" because they don't wish to turn a majority of their earnings over to the State. Frankly, this probably allows U2 to do MORE for their causes than any government run program could dream of accomplishing. Lefties don't get that – which is the crux of this argument.
Carly, do you really, REALLY think that with government-run health care you are going to get what Congress gets? Really?
That's like saying that Charley Rangel obeys the tax laws that he writes for us – mwhaaaa-haaaa-haaaa-ha – that's a good one.
I have a bridge I will sell you at a very reasonable rate.
Ivan
"I wonder what that makes Rialto? The realm of the Kobolds? "
I suspected as much.
First off, Michael Moore isn't from Flint, he's from a middle-class suburb of Flint called Davison.
The debate is over with a lib as soon they say "Faux News" or "racist". Also, who's the bringing the power from the left? Michael Moore? Bill Maher? Olbermann? Matt Taibbi? I'll take my chances plucking a random BH reader to debate and hold their own against these nitwits.
First off, Michael Moore isn't from Flint, he's from a middle-class suburb of Flint called Davison.
The debate is over with a lib as soon they say "Faux News" or "racist". Also, who's the bringing the power now from the left? Michael Moore? Bill Maher? Olbermann? Matt Taibbi? I'll take my chances plucking a random BH reader to debate and hold their own against these nitwits.
Savage says they it's a mental disorder, and I agree. Depression, very often accompanied by schizophrenia.
It's sad to think nearly half our population is so disturbed. If it were purely genetic we could call it inevitable, but it is partly environmental – sort of transmissible – and if we can stop the transmission from sad sacks to children (and child-like adults) we might reduce that percentage considerably. But we have to sort of shout down the voices of the insane to do it. And Scott is right, being civil won't do it, especially since those with the liberal disease only respond to passion, not reason.
I not only agree with you about Buckley not being the answer, I think Buckley was largely the problem. Buckley made it okay for third-generation money with fourth-tier intellects to admit to their old money friends that they were conservative. People from New England like Peggy Noonan love him for that. But he did nothing to get votes from Middle America. Following his example just made conservatism look elitist which plays right into leftist hands. Charles Murray, my favorite intellectual, seems to think we need another Buckley too. I think America's intellectual class on both sides is simply far too detached from reality on the ground. Beck isn't. Beck is the kind of guy who can reach Middle America and make the case for conservative principles. And frankly I think Beck et al are winning this war, bigtime, in a way Buckley never could in a million years.
Now enter Carly to prove the author's point.
When someone's belief system has a weak foundation, and it's attacked with reason, truth, and logic, that person 9 times out of 10 will defend their shaky ideology like a rabid maniac instead of accepting that what they hold to be true just isn't.
The "debate" inevitably spirals into a shouting match. The person defending a flawed ideology changes the discussion from being about an actual issue to a contest to see who can throw insults the fastest and loudest. I was at a dinner party a few yeaars ago and someone called Bill O'Reilly a fascist. Now I neither love nor hate O'Reilly but I asked this person to clarify. The look I was given was as if I just strangled a puppy in front of orphans. Instead of explaining why he thought O'Reilly was a fascist, I was attacked for NOT believing him to be a fascist.
All I could do was shake my head and smile as if I were speaking to a small, dull child…
One method of engaging libtards is to outdo them at their own game i.e. agree with what they're saying and then add something slightly more ludicrous to the mix. After about 5-10mins of this covert fun the pauses get longer as they slowly recognize what a wacko you are and are left mightily perplexed because they agreed with you the whole way. It scares the crap out of them to know how stupid they really do sound. Unfortunately there are many who no matter how insane you sound will never click that you're taking the mickey out of them.
In an unrelated experience, I once asked some college educated libs who they thought wrote Beethoven's 5th symphony, to my astonishment the replies I got were "Nietzsche", "Britney Spears" and "Spielberg". It's just too hard to top that kind of stupidity and usually means it's time for another drink.
[...] You can read the entire editorial HERE. [...]
As has been said, familiarity with Plato's (Socratic) Dialogues helps. Why these are not drummed into school chidren's heads is beyond me. If you have never read them, please do; none of them are beyond you – they are not the exclusive domain of the intellectual cognoscenti, they are common property. Get them from your local lending library (if they have anything beyond The Republic or Symposium would be amazing though), look on Amazon for used copies, or go to any on-line book-seller and look for them (all of them). At the very least you will laugh (I kid ye not), and, hopefully, laugh at yourself (humility). I try to avoid discussing anything with leftists these days, but, when I do, I always begin by asking them to define their terms, and refuse to proceed unless and until they do. Here is a website with some Dialogues, so you can read them on-line / print them off if you like:
http://www.plato-dialogues.org/tetralog.htm
Start with Tetrologies 6 and 7.
List of on-line sources for all Dialogues: http://www.plato-dialogues.org/links.htm
Another site: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plato/index.htm
As has been said, familiarity with Plato's (Socratic) Dialogues helps. Why these are not drummed into school chidren's heads is beyond me. If you have never read them, please do; none of them are beyond you – they are not the exclusive domain of the intellectual cognoscenti, they are common property. Get them from your local lending library (if they have anything beyond The Republic or Symposium would be amazing though), look on Amazon for used copies, or go to any on-line book-seller and look for them (all of them). At the very least you will laugh (I kid ye not), and, hopefully, laugh at yourself (humility). I try to avoid discussing anything with leftists these days, but, when I do, I always begin by asking them to define their terms, and refuse to proceed unless and until they do. Here is a website with some Dialogues, so you can read them on-line / print them off if you like:
http://www.plato-dialogues.org/tetralog.htm
Start with Tetrologies 6 and 7.
List of on-line sources for all Dialogues: http://www.plato-dialogues.org/links.htm
Another site: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plato/index.htm
Well said, except I just got back from Ireland and U2 "doesn't do shyte for Ireland". And boy could the Irish use some help….
Africa is the cause du joir, and unfortunately the crusaders for Africa often neglect to help their own first.
Talking to a leftist is like an alien talking to a fungo.
Thank you Bull Durham
Leigh Scott, once again creating informative electrons from thin air. Thank you!
We have some pretty good tort reform in Texas. In fact, approximately 8.5% of our economic growth since 1995 has been a direct result of tort reform. And it allowed for the creation of half a million permanent jobs. Many of those, it should be noted were doctors who came from other states because moving to Texas lowered their insurance rates and allowed them to practice at more affordable levels.
Of course my cong. rep., Charlie Gonzalez (aka Nancy Pelosi's lap dog), is either stupid or just flat out lied when he recently said at our last town hall "Texas has the mother of all tort reform and it's done nothing!" Even though the economic tort reform report came out last year stating the opposite. What a tool.
It was just a matter of time.
"They do not know their kiesters from a hole in the ground. They are a few fries short of a happy meal and a few cards short of a full deck. Their phasers are permanently set on “clueless.”
They are so lost on most issues that they couldn't find their arse with both hands AND a flashlight.
Oh absolutely – I don't necessarily defend U2's steadfast ignoring of Irish well-being which is legendary. They should be ashamed of themselves, however I guess I'm saying that they have a fundamental right to spend or donate their money how they choose as opposed to having it taken away by force (taxation). I only utilized the U2 example to deconstuct "Moderationinall's" argument. Even Lefty heros like U2 and Branson..or the Beatles before them…look for tax relief from their native nanny-states.
Terrific post. I've given up arguing. It's a waste of time. As firm as I am in my convictions, and as goofy and certifiably "space-cadetish" as I find some of these morons, nobody's going to change anybody's mind – or lack thereof. Might as well do something constructive and defeat their agenda or support wholeheartedly those who really make a difference.
This is what drives me nuts when I watch interviews on nearly every channel. The host asks a question. The guest goes into a 3 minute campaign speech and never even comes close to answering the original question. The host then asks another question…on and on.
One of the better interviewers is Greta van Susteren on FOX. She does a pretty good job of getting the question answered. O'Reilly does OK, but he is not consistent and he loves to pontificate.
[...] post: Debating Leftists is Like Debating Charles Manson This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
The Democrats have been in control of Congress for almost 3 years now.
How do you like what they've done with the economy?
Don't sell young people so short. There are tons of them who would rather spend their hard-earned money on an iphone than handing it over in taxes they'll be paying for the rest of their lives. They just need to have it put to them in terms they understand. Then explain the Constitution to them and how the government is violating their rights and they'll turn.
But it starts with their toys.
Yup, you're right they certainly do. I don't blame anyone for trying hold onto their earnings. And U2 certainly has a right to do whatever they like with their money.
I just remember all the expletives I heard whenever anyone mentioned U2…..LOL
I've long thought that these people need to be defeated not debated for the reasons you mention.
Liberalism is truly an illness, a mental condition that doesn't allow them to think rationally.
I've wondered also about the ivy league education. What do they actually learn,as they surely don't learn logical thinking.
You really believe that the health care provided to congress, completely free of charge to them, is what is being foisted on the rest of the country? *cue Wizard of Oz tunes* Then answer this:
1. If this is such a gold plated deal for the unwashed masses, why insert a provision that fines people for not being insured?
2. It's not free. We have to pay. They, do not. Why. I spent 25 years in the military for a system that was completely free to me when I originally enlisted. Clinton changed that. We now have Tricare admittedly, a good deal for the military who are hell and gone from a Military Hospital or a VA Center, but we have to pay now, why? That seems to me like a broken contract, Think that won't hgappen to you? Just watch and wait.
3. You won't see congress put under the health care they are, so benevolently, providing for us, Why?
4. In what way, shape or form should I be required to pay taxes for the coverage of illegal aliens? Is it my responsibility to ensure that everyone who braves the trek across the Mexican desert is covered?
You really believe that the health care provided to congress, completely free of charge to them, is what is being foisted on the rest of the country? *cue Wizard of Oz tunes* Then answer this:
1. If this is such a gold plated deal for the unwashed masses, why insert a provision that fines people for not being insured?
2. It's not free. We have to pay. They, do not. Why. I spent 25 years in the military for a system that was completely free to me when I originally enlisted. Clinton changed that. We now have Tricare admittedly, a good deal for the military who are hell and gone from a Military Hospital or a VA Center, but we have to pay now, why? That seems to me like a broken contract. Think that won't happen to you? Just watch and wait.
3. You won't see congress put under the health care they are, so benevolently, providing for us, Why?
4. In what way, shape or form should I be required to pay taxes for the coverage of illegal aliens? Is it my responsibility to ensure that everyone who braves the trek across the Mexican desert is covered?
If this article is representative of the best logic that the right has to offer, President Obama has nothing to worry about. Leigh completely misrepresents what Olbermann said. (Hint: Don't link to what someone said if you don't want to look stupid.)
People are in support of universal healthcare because they see that every other first world nation supplies quality care to all their citizen and they do it for less then the United States. Olbermann was not protesting death. Only the United State feels that if you are poor you should be punished and die to make way for the more productive members of society.
If Paul Krugman is a light weight comparable to Charles Manson, a mass murder, than all I can say is wow. Yeah Leigh that was one hell of an article.
After seeing that picture of Moore I now know why the Royals have been losing.
Good article (it's "whom" in "Who do we debate?" by the way), but am I the only one here who likes what Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have to say?
I'll be able to tell by all the thumbs down, I guess.
Of course a conservative can't debate a liberal because the bottom line in liberal debate is"I don't need facts,because you're stupid",end of discussion.
That is how I perfected my patented "Patrick's inevitable eyeroll". Works great at work, too!
Tsk, tsk, tsk. You are such a racist for bringing up illegal immigrants.
And does anyone understand why they counted "uno, dos, tres, catorce," in that one song? Which is a song I like, but why would you suddenly jump to fourteen? That had absolutely nothing to do with the socialism argument, but I'm feeling slightly loopy this morning.
I still say Olbermann looks like beaker from the Muppets on meth….
Those states are not true practitioners of capitalism. Any time you have a situation where the state is directing the actions of the economy, even if capitalism is allowed a certain role, that economy is by definition a collectivist one. If the state doesn't outright own the businesses and such, it's not socialism, it's fascism. But both are forms of a state-run system. And some of the worst of these, such as Sweden, to take everyone's favorite example, have suffered a significant decline in the standard of living in recent years. Not really working out for them there.
Bravo mg24. Exactly. Find someone who hails from the Baltics, from Czechoslovakia or the Ukraine who lived there prior to 1991. You will get an earful along with them telling you that you are stupid. I have a friend that is from Hungary originally, emigrated here in 1996. Watching him tear a socialist loving lib to shreds is worth the free beers I buy him the rest of the night. Expensive ones, too!
Nope, you're not alone. Those 2 people have done more to stand against this administration of insanity than anyone else.
And all I can say is "Wow! You really did miss the point."
If you weren't such an obvious example of what is being described in the article, I might try to dispute your statements and give arguments containing actual facts to dissuade you from what is an incorrect assessment of health care both here and in other countries. Given that the effort would be futile, I won't waste my time.
Bravo mg24. Exactly. Find someone who hails from the Baltics, from Czechoslovakia or the Ukraine who lived there prior to 1991. You will get an earful along with them telling you that you are stupid. I have a friend that is from Hungary originally, emigrated here in 1996. Watching him tear a socialist loving lib to shreds is worth the beers I buy him the rest of the night. Damn Corona's are getting expensive.
Are we related? Cause it sounds like you're talking about my family. Although I'm a Constitutionalist. But my family thinks that's a conservative/republican/non-democrat/racist/george bush/satan. It's all the same to them.
Angela,
Not sure what link you are referring to? I am a middle of the road , independent workaholic All American just trying to keep one step ahead of the curve.. I beleive half of what I see and nobe of what I hear until I have the opportunity to validate it
Your premise that both sides of the debate love our country is wrong. To understand why, read Charles Krauthammer's powerful speech he deliverd to the Manhattan Institute last week, entitled "Decline is a Choice". The text of the speech is available for free at the Weekly Standard website, and the video of the speech is available for free at the Manhattan Institute website. IMO, it's one of the most important speeches anybody has given in the past 20 years. I am trying to get everyone I know to either read it or watch the video.
Thank you for that link! I bookmarked it.
Wow Leigh, I wasn't expecting you to bust out the "Cotton Candy Cloud Argument." You're right, there's no way I could debate with someone who wields the CCCA the way you do!
Oh, you have no idea. I grew up with two very liberal parents and the "baffle them with bull" was literally my dad's motto. He thought that winning an argument meant that you stated your point loudly and often. Opposing arguments need not be acknowledged. Is it any wonder that none of the 4 kids in the family ended up Democrats? Which, when you think about it, is a good thing. It's a net gain for conservatism.
[...] Live’ ridicules Barack Obama , Rush Limbaugh Orlando Sentinel all 336 news articles » Debating Leftists is Like Debating Charles Manson – bighollywood.breitbart.com 10/12/2009 Keith Olbermann’s recent hour-long commentary was [...]
Thanks for making me laugh out loud. Most of us have been there!
Try me.
1. Olbermann rants against death. Lie
2. Moore hates Capitalism. Misinformation – Moore rails against corporatism not capitalism.
3. The left is comparable to Charles Manson. Lie, Despicable journalism
4. Krugman and Shuster are lighweights journalist unworthy of response. Lie.
Did Leigh read Krugmans New York Times Magazine on the economic policies that caused the crisis? Brilliant. BTW about a year before his death Buckley wrote an article chastising the pay of CEOs. Krugman and Buckley were friends and respected each others writing. Unlike this poor writer.
So what did I miss. Hmmmmmmmmm!
Yeah. I consider myself to be more of a libertarian/conservative. But most of my family just thinks I'm nuts.
After Chicago came in fourth (out of four places), I texted an uberliberal friend of mine a little "tweak", "I guess the good people in Copenhagen haven't gotten on board with that 'hopey-changey' thang." His response, "Rush Limbaugh is a druggy, Glen Beck is an alchy." How I ask do you possibly argue with logic like that?
no no no, you gotta engage. i have been insulted & called a racist but i come back with HARDCORE. i flubbed a guy easily by saying, the Democrats have run the inner cities for 40 years, how's that going for you?
and on and on… educate, stay informed, speak out. and go right past their accusations and promises.
You must be logged in to post a comment.