>>>>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!

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

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.

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.

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 ….

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!

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.

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.

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 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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Now enter Carly to prove the author's point.

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.

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.

Leigh Scott, once again creating informative electrons from thin air. Thank you!

It was just a matter of time.

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.

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.

The Democrats have been in control of Congress for almost 3 years now.

How do you like what they've done with the economy?

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

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?

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.

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.

That is how I perfected my patented "Patrick's inevitable eyeroll". Works great at work, too!

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.

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.

Nope, you're not alone. Those 2 people have done more to stand against this administration of insanity than anyone else.

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.

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

Thank you for that link! I bookmarked it.

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.

Thanks for making me laugh out loud. Most of us have been there!

Yeah. I consider myself to be more of a libertarian/conservative. But most of my family just thinks I'm nuts.

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.

For anyone who wants to check out what Evan Sayet has to say on this subject, I highly recommend watching this.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1...

There is a different one on Youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

I think it would be appropriate to change the name of the 60s generation from the Woodstock Generation to the Manson Followers.

The right hates Obama more than it loves America.

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that most hardcore leftists are emtionally stunted babies who are projecting their own self loathing and hatred of their parents onto the rest of us.

It is important to remember that Western Europe, with thier Socialist sytems, can not defend themselves. In trying to be all things to all people — while consolidating power in the hands of a central government — they have 16% unemployment (reported, actual is higher); lack the military capacity to forestall a conflict in their front yard (Yugoslavia), the incubator of WW I, until the US came in and fixed it; have been dependent on the US to defend them from the Eastern block since the close of WW II; and finally, are held hostage by Putin and Russia who turned off the gas last winter and likely will do so again.

They are morally, financially and intellectually bankrupt. The US, and even more Asia, is bypassing them in the global economy. They despise us and condescend to the US simply because they are so dependent on us, and hated the fact that Bush recognized it. Now by turns they are laughing at the naivete of Obama (President Sarkozy) while growing increasingly concerned we won't be there to back them up economically or militarily. We would be well advised NOT to follow their lead.

Actually I can't remember the left ever "loving" America….

Liberals are impossible to reason with….until they become conservative–which for many happens right around the time the have mouths to feed, taxes to pay and payrolls to meet.

You're kidding, right? Chicago is one of the most corrupt cities in this country. Our president puts everything else we have going on hold so he can make a pitch for the Olympics to come to Chicago??

And so what if people applauded that he failed to get the political thug machines in Chicago another avenue to steal money. people applauded Bill Maher when he wished death upon Dick Cheney.

The comments from the left wing idiots were far more telling. Bigots all of them….

You gotta do better than this silliness…..

Okay. Let me get this straight. Your idea of "proving" your point is to post an irrelevant link. Sorry. You are going to have to do much better than that.

The Republican Party has to wake up and realize that we are in a battle for the spiritual and intellectual future of our country. It is a political and cultural brawl, not some milk-toast college debating society. Instead of providing leadship, these chumps, want to police their own and stigmatize anyone who gets too rowdy. They define rowdy as anyone who raises his voice, questions our dear leader, or dare to speak the truth. Meanwhile, the enemy can play every dirty trick in the book and the Republicans simply smile and nod like a bunch of buffoons.

The survival of our country as we know it is at stake. Unlike a debate club, success and failure have consequences. If we lose the debate then people die, the political process continues to be corrupted, and we slide further from robust individual liberty to soft tyranny. How dare they not be passionate about this!

The main difference between socialists and communists is that communists have no patience. Socialism uses rules, regulations, faceless committees, state handouts and taxes to achieve what the communists just jump in and use bayonets and guns for.

Not to split hairs or defend the Dems, Mr. Scott, but if they really are as egregious and idiotic as you say, then, considering their overwhelming majority in congress right now, what does that say about the ineptitude of the Republican party?

No, we did not have a conservative President for 8 years. Bush was conservative on some issues but he was not an ideological conservative on most issues – immigration / amnesty, first Supreme Court nominee, No Child Left Behind Act, bailouts, etc.

Your use of the slogan "right wing echo chamber" actually proves that you are part of the leftist echo chamber because that is one of their main talking points. Way to think for yourself there!

So applauding America's loss is okay with you. Gotcha. Read you loud and clear.

I agree with the article and many of the comments here. Everytime I get into a discussion with a liberal, they immediately go off the deep end, shouting things like "free health care is everyone's right" or "Sarah Palin can't speak in complete sentences." They cannot seem to focus on the actual issues. But these are the educated liberals. In my most recent job, I was dealing with the ones at the bottom of the food chain, the ones like those at Cobo Hall trying to collect their "Obama money." It is truly sad to see these people that are being taken advantage of by the Dems and the Unions. They can only see what's directly in front of their faces and never contemplate the consequences of their actions, especially years down the road. Look what has happened to California's economy. This is the path our government is putting us on.

As if there is anything you would accept as proof that contradicts your worldview…

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.

Thank god they're out of office.

Wow, could you have proved the point more?

Soros, just how much documentation do you want? OSI, CAP, media matters, MoveOn, plus a dozen others. His own books call for a one world government financed through a CO2 tax scheme. I can provide links, or go to a library and read for yourself.

Ayers really is an actual convicted terriorist.

Acorn, the videos, and multi-state indictments speak for themselves.

Beck classifies himself as an entertainer, and as such does go overboard at times, but guess what? Turned out his info on Jordan was spot on. How about Holdren? Have you READ his eugenics ****. here are go: http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/ Care to actually debunk any of Becks charges?

And Bush? No, we did not have a conservative president for 8 years.. We had a moderate in the guise of a "compassionate conservative" for president. And Rush and many others complained at length that there is no such thing as a "big government" conservative.

I can provide documentation for everything I have stated. What can you offer to disprove it?

Ha! Well-played, sir.

Liberals remind me of G.K. Chesterton's definition of insanity: A madman is not one who has lost his reason, but one who has lost everything but his reason.

Insane people, paranoiacs in particular, are often very logical about building up their own private conspiracy theories. Insanity is rational thought divorced from the facts of reality.

You make the typical mistake of believing everything Obama does is best for the country. You never answered any of my questions regarding the sad state of our country and the things that need to be done to correct them. Instead you think bu shirking his duties for a couple days to try and get the Olympics in his city it would save our country.

And you repeat the left wing nonsense that Limbaugh and Beck want the country to fail. I guess you only hear what you want to hear. They stated they want Obama's policies to fail because they are bad for the country. So in essence, you favor Obama over America. You should be ashamed….

"And when we got home every night, our dad would kill us!"

What is a "Midwestern droll?" Is that anything like a Texas drawl?

I know what you mean Laura about the bottom of the food chain. I work with Obama's core voting bloc, if you know what I mean. I keep my mouth shut 99 percent of the time, and just listen. I hear things that are flabbergastingly stupid, but they are educational none the less. We work the overnight shift inside a facility that is locked up, so we have to eat lunch on the grounds. Just last night, the topic was how to avoid having to get auto insurance and driving without it without getting caught. This was an older woman counseling a 20 year old male on how to scam the system. Reminded me of the ACORN film. Pathetic.

I thought he meant Sacramento!

Ivan, it's been my experience that is exactly what many people think–they will get the same great health care as Congress if this bill passes, and no amount of arguing will convince them otherwise. Part of me would like them to learn the hard way that they are wrong, but the stakes are too high for everyone on this to let that happen.

I'm still trying to figure out how to have a conversation with left-leaning members of the family that don't lead to me wanting to drink heavily. This conversation sticks in my mind: Me: I don't understand why you've shifted your support–from your comments and the way you live your life, you are a conservative. Sister-in-law: Yeah, I know, but emotionally, I"m a Democrat." What the hell does that even mean?

LOLOLOL – once again another pseudo intellectual conservative thinkis that throwing out a list of (wrong) conclusions is the same as providing the facts that support those conclusions. yup, crank up the circus and don't forget to add a pinch of McCaughey either, she's always good for some conclusional delusions.

Ayers was a terrorist.
Soros is a very rich guy who supports liberal causes.
Acorn is a group whose problems have been blown all out of proportion.
The thing is , these are not such important things to focus on. There is a lot going on in the world , and you guys have some frankly odd obsessions. Do you know how loony it is to claim that Ayers wrote Obamas book?
Bush wasn't a conservative? Give me a break. He wasn't a libertarian , that's true , but he was supported by and represented the right wing in this country. If you were disappointed by him , well I'm right there with you. Republicans had the power and they ran this country into a ditch. If they hadn't , then Obama never would have been elected.

The only point Olbermann has is on top of his empty head. Anyone that thinks that left-wing nutbag has any credibility needs meds STAT….

If you want to play word games with "conservative" , then I'll put it this way. Bush is a Republican.
The last Republican president did a lousy job. Can we agree on that much?
If you want to prove your intellectual credibility by defending the "Ayers wrote Obamas book" thesis, I won't stand in your way. I'll just offer my 2 cents that a lot of these issues are being promoted by folks who hope to make a buck off the controversy, just like the crazy 9-11 video folks.
As far as the above question about Glenn Beck , the first thing that came to mind is when he thought those step dancers were some kind of militia. Here's a link about it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-osborne/glenn-...

Plans like Congress works great when you have lots of people on the outside – We The People – and few people on the inside – Congress.

If that coverage were applied across the country, it would go bankrupt in months, if even that long.

I agree, when they start with the insults, I come right back and nail them between the eyes. I know how they operate, I used to be one. Come back fast and furious and don't let them get a word in edge wise.

Fortunately most of their brains can't keep up with the rapid fire response, and soon they'll be stuttering "but, but, but…."

It's a waste of time trying to reach most of these people. I remember a caller to Rush years ago, a college guys who asked for advice about debating liberals on campus. He asked Rush how can he tell the difference between some hopelessly liberal, and someone who can be reached.

Rush said next time some one on campus tells him Iraq was a war over oil, look them straight in the eye and say 'what the hell is wrong with cheap oil.' He said if they go nuts, just walk away.

My experience has been that only works on semi-liberals who aren't completely nuts. It's my preferred method of debate too. And when I explain what I'm doing, they call it twisted republican logic.

They are so dense, they really aren't sure who Socrates is.

How about start with offering statistics, quotes, historical argument that supports your claim that the Right hates Obama more than they Love America. Why don't you at least make an effort to actually address the question.

Chicago has NOTHING to do with the Right Hating Obama More than it Loves America. For one thing first you would have to prove that believing that having the Olympics in Chicago at this point in time means you love America.

Go ahead. Prove that first and we'll move this debate along.

It means you're being baffled by bullsh*t.

It is arguing with idiots. Do not give these types of people more intellectual credit than they deserve.

To me it's the worse possible human frailty, being so undereducated, they can't even fathom what they don't know.

You can not debate with some one who is absolutely 100% sure they know everything.

Well played? Not really. Well played would have been to offer facts and logic to counter the claim. Instead, a smarky reply was offered with the intent to diminish the opposing viewpoint. To try and end the debate by clouding the issue and take a cheap shot at Republicans. Talk about falling right in line with the theory of the original article! Thanks for proving it was spot on!

You can call it a hit piece, but Beck took a video of some step dancers and tried to portray it as some kind of Obama army. It was sleazy and dumb. I notice you are not arguing the facts, but just denying the source.
I take it you agree that there should be more financial regulation to keep an eye on people like Soros?
Blaming Bush is not the cowards way , but a simple statement of fact. He was a disaster.
Did you vote for Bush? I think most conservatives did , didn't they?

Been there. So often.

. It is really scary when you see the bus headed for the cliff and all you can do is scream, "Look out". You know it won't help but it really all you can do.

We sat back and watched them indoctrinate our kids and when the kids turn out to lean to the left in Politics, Hate any mention of God and when they own newspapers, TV stations and most of the media, we ask what happened?. It happened right in front of our eyes. We let them make abortion the law of the land, take God out of our schools and take over every aspect of our lives while we sat on the sidelines, being the good guys. It is time the Conservatives in this country stood up and fought for our rights istead of not rocking the boat. Rock the Boat.

Christians need to get involved and Moms need to say, "No, I don't want my child told this in school". I hope it is not too late. We have let the left make the rules for all the rest of us for way too long and it is time we realized what dopes we have been. They have bullied us into this corner we find ourselves in. The bully in the school yard is winning and we are not breave enough to fight back?

Hank, I think this guy proves the point of the entire article. Both of us are willing to admit that Bush had flaws but palmtree has blinders on when it comes to Mr. Obama. Everything is bogus or a hit piece and all he has is an ad hominum attack on everybody else.

Been there.

"Blaming Bush is not the cowards way , but a simple statement of fact"

So Obama is never going to be responsible for anything, whenever he eff's something up he can just come out with "It's Bush's fault" and you'll just accept that….weak dude, weak…

What's sleazy and dumb is pushing that crap on kids, making them sing about Obama and such. But you're ok with a politician brainwashing people, maybe you're a product of this practice? Kinda sounds like it….

he does. When you start using Blogs written by extreme liberals as "evidence" or "proof" of anything then we go back to my earlier post regarding fanatics that defend shaky ideology to the end.

I think our friend palmtree is suffering from this disorder. Instead of thinking and saying "Hey, maybe I should take a step back and look at what I think is true" he throws words around like "disaster". Notice how he doesn't say in what specific area Bush was a disaster? That's because he was told that Bush was a disaster and thats what he should believe without question.

It means she is mentally weak and doesn't dare face the criticism she would by taking a conservative stance. Does she live in the Los Angeles area? I see that kind of unapologetic ignorance daily.

I have on several occasions argued with lefties, gotten them to define their terms, and argued all the way to the end of a topic. Inevitably, their position ends in "well, if the people won't do it my way by choice then the government will have to force them to." When I point it out to them, they will deny the logic to which they have agreed because they don't agree with the conclusion and instead maintain that they are all about individual liberty.

All lefty arguments end in the use of force.

I apologize for a not-so-well written opinion.

Common Man, we're in the DC area, but I think you're right. Many people just can't take the criticism heaped on conservatives, even to the point of caving on their beliefs. What I struggle with is do we just accept that or do we keep on trying to get them stand up for what they truly believe?

You make the author's point perfectly.
Rather than present any facts, you cloud the debate with irrelevant pseudo-definitions and pointless trivia.
Try arguing this point: When did giving anyone endless supplies of something for nothing ever make the receiver a better person?

I like that concept, but with some family members, we may only get to commonalities as basic as "Today is Monday" before all hell breaks loose.

We can't afford the Olympics right now, is one answer. Do you have any idea how much money goes through the City that gets the Olympics? Much of that will be federal dollars.

There are way more important things to be concentrating on right now. A mature, responsible leader would never have gone to Copenhagen last week. Not while the economy is so bad and Afghanistan is in trouble.

Perhaps send a word of praise to the American Olympic committee, but go over with a whole entourage? I don't think so.

"I think he should close Gitmo and get out of Afghanistan" – Based on what? This is a typical left-wing talking point. No understanding of the world and reality.

"I think he should have been more aggressive in pushing for universal health care" – You have no understanding of what that would do to our country.

Ayers\\Obama is of their own doing. And I do believe Obama is narcisistic enough to have written 2 books about himself, absolutely…

I did answer about Soros, there's currency speculation, and there collapsing economies. If you don't know the difference, or more likely, refuse to see the difference then there are your blinders.

Again, the sleazy part was forcing children to sing the praises of a politician. If you can't see a problem with that, then you'd do well in North Korea. And the final delusion is that you actually believe you are the majority. Take a look at some poll numbers. Approval ratings for all things democrat are sliding downward, and things aren't looking very good for them.

I've seen that one before, I meant a link to the Krathamer speech text.

Donahue debating Friedman is like me debating astrophysics with my dog. Donahue is a complete tool, and this proves it beyond a doubt. Why leftists think that because some one believes in big government, their heart must be pure, is beyond me.

I campaigned for President Bush on the 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica and I learned this one rule of thumb…"Never chase liberals down their rabbit hole." They will hit you with so many ridiculous talking points (Halliburton, etc.) that you are not even arguing on principle. They are just seeing if you can identify their grievances. Yes, there were great people who really wanted to discuss or be persuaded, their were leftists you could see were losing their way and wanted help but mostly it was about them shutting you up.

The best way to argue with the average leftist is to say "you're wrong" and state your case. Leftists are about having everyone…the President, the world…think like they do and if you don't it robs them of their feeling of power and may be the one seed that sets them off to becoming a conservative. It may be the first time their ideas have been opposed and that shock can cause soul searching. As a former liberal I was swayed by firm conservatives like Limbaugh and not those who entertained my nonsense. But DO argue with friends…it's the only way we'll show them we have power and it may grow our ranks.

When has a leftist EVER cheered FOR America, well except when the towers fell (e.g. Ward Churchill, Norman Mailer, etc)? America's loss is your gain…you know One World Order, a weaker America like the Euroweenies want, etc…You're set now your boy is in. Don't shy away from your disdain for America, celebrate it like you did before Obama was president – Proclaim it from the Mountain Tops! Oh and always remember – the leftists teaches us that disagreeing with ANYTHING the President wants to do is patriotism at its best. Thanks for playing, run along now..oh and for old time's sake BUSHITLERBURTON!!

To the comedy skits on anybody except their leaders is correct.You see all those clips making fun of conservatives on SNL,that is exactly what they think of you.I have this cousin of mine who just mouthes off and thinks he`s smart.I shoot down every one of his crazy points and he is always waving his hands, shouting,going off topic,with statements that have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion,even outright lies he just made up.

I`ll give you an example;

We were talking about Islam a few months back.I remember him telling me that Saudi Arabia is 'multicultural' and there are 'thousands of churches ' there and that 'my girlfriend told me that,she once lived there'.I refused to accept that,I showed him a transcript of King Abdullah`s interview with Barbara Walters in which he made it clear that anything that is not a Mosque is unacceptable in his country and then my cousin said it was all 'doctored' and a 'lie'.I asked him to get on the phone and I wanted to ask his girlfriend myself,then he refuses,gets mad and starts shouting on top his voice how Bush is puppet of Cheney,How I am a puppet of Hannity and Rush,I am insane,conservatism is outdated.I just collapsed rolling on the floor when he told that 'Muammar Gadhafi is the King of Saudi Arabia,not some Abdullah that I made up in my head'.He never brings up politics when he`s around me anymore,I never let him get away with it.Turns out that his girlfriend and her family have never been anywhere near Saudi Arabia,imagine arguing with that.

Took a class on them in college for computer science.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

My father-in-law also says "Obama is an excellent speaker." We keep countering with "But, Dad, what do you think about what he is actually saying?" Sigh, it's been an especially long year.

I like glenn beck. good article

Moore is such an idiot that on Hannity, he couldn't even cop to the fact that he is a multi-millionaire. He said he owned some valuable property, and yes he's done very well, but he would not even say that his worth was "in the millions".

What about moon bat liberal men? We've even come up with conversation changers (How about those Redskins?) before parties when we know we'll likely encounter this, but some folks are determined to keep at it.

I'm sorry. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/video/wriston/

"Decline is a choice"

You mean the interview where Hannity lied about attending mass every Sunday? Moore owned him.

Evolved1 (?) you are proving my point.

Moore made a documentary bashing capitalism, but clearly doesn't understand what capitalism is or what he was talking about.

He "owned" Hannity by attacking Hannity's religious credentials. He had to do that because he can not debate the issues at hand.

By calling this an epic win for Moore, you too are proving my point. Thanks!

>>You make the typical mistake of believing everything Obama does is best for the country.<<

I said nothing of the sort. I happen to believe that having the Olympics in America is a good thing for the country. The fact that Obama pushed for it didn't change my mind about wanting to see them here. I would have liked to attend them. Who claimed the Olympics were "going to save the country"? I've never heard such a thing.

But let me try to get something clarified; you believe Obama's policies are bad for the country, yet you complain that he takes a trip and "shirks his duties" during an economic crisis and war? Which is it? Are his policies bad and deserving of failure, or do you want him to buckle down, stop taking trips and get them enacted?

You can't debate leftists because inevitably (sp?) they call you a racist, sexist, homophobe, or some other derogatory to make anyone in attendance think you are automatically wrong due to bigotry. They do this also because they know they are losing and want to put you on the defensive. Don't let them do this! Keep them on topic and dismiss out of hand any charges of bigotry by not responding to them. Keep pressing your case. The fact that they have resorted to name calling means they have run out of coherent arguments. Expose them for the rabid animals that they are.

This sentence here: "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." reminded me of that comedian that has since passed (darn it, his name is escaping me). He cleverly made fun of both liberals and conservatives, but then also made fun of the "middle of the road" people for the same reason you state.

I used to be "middle of the road" (but leaned slightly to the left). And then my eyes were opened to the hypocrisy of the Left and I realized I was really a conservative all along. A "born again Conservative" if you will.

That ObamaBot sadly kind of sounds like my mom – she thinks they are all idiots, but we should still give Obama a chance since "Bush's way didn't work." **FACEPALM** But she was European/U.K. raised, so maybe that's also part of the problem. I do love her though. She's misguided more than an Obamabot.

Yep. Taking civility to a discussion with leftists is like taking a crumpet to a gunfight. Conservatives tie themselves up in knots with a civility that is returned with a bullet in the head.

Conservatives don't have to lower themselves to leftists' level (not easy to imitate the shameless) but they need to keep pointing out the left's hypocrisy instead of wasting their time defending themselves from mud flung by people wallowing in it up to their filthy mouths.

Conservative pundits instead of criticizing others on their side should direct their fire at Dems and other leftists. Have these highbrow sniffers not noticed that there is no equivalent to themselves on the left side? Absolutely NO INTERNAL CRITICS and NO LIMITS on the left's tactics? That's part of the reason they are successful in the war of words.

Every single leftist is on message all the time, against the common foe. They are united in their lunacy.

Conservatives need to get over their aversion to repetition (the belief that facts should speak for themselves) and slogans and use these simple but effective tactics to blast the Left with truths.

Hannity couldn't even acknowledge that the FBI cites 80% (or somewhere around that) of the financial fraud is carried on by banking and industry insiders. He wants to blame it on people who are trying to buy a roof to put over their heads. He doesn't believe that the real greed has come from people who hijacked capitalism and used the system to their personal benefit and our peril. Moore acknowledged that there were homeowners who lied about their income and took on more than they could handle, but that is a small fraction of the fraud when compared with the predatory lending tactics of unscrupulous mortgage brokers and banks that took advantage of people.

As for "attacking his religious credentials", all he did was ask him what the sermon he saw two days ago was about. He couldn't do it. I thought it was a shrewd tactic by Moore. And funny!

Hannity couldn't even acknowledge that the FBI cites 80% (or somewhere around that) of the financial fraud is carried on by banking and industry insiders. He wants to blame it on people who are trying to buy a roof to put over their heads. He doesn't believe that the real greed has come from people who hijacked capitalism and used the system to their personal benefit and our peril. Moore acknowledged that there were homeowners who lied about their income and took on more than they could handle, but that is a small fraction of the fraud when compared with the predatory lending tactics of unscrupulous mortgage brokers and banks that took advantage of people.

As for "attacking his religious credentials", all he did was ask him what the sermon he saw two days ago was about. He couldn't do it. I thought it was a shrewd tactic by Moore. And funny!

Heck, as my history professor used to say, "No one ever got shot trying to cross the Wall into EAST Berlin."

I just stopped debating anything important – period, especially religion and/or politics. There is no point to it. Those who's views differ than mine and, especially if they are passionate about them, don't want to hear my views nor do they care what they are. This President has been the most divisive leader we have ever had and few of us are in the middle. We are either for or against. Personally, I am a well educated rational realist and believe in logic. Obama's policies defy reality and logic. They have already been tried and failed in other countries. That does not convince those who are either socialists, see him as the second coming, or just clueless and in denial that his policies will badly affect the economy of our country and possibly even our safety. It is pointless and futile to even discuss it unless it is with those who are like minded.

Excellent post! You expressed what many of us have been thinking for years but which came to a head this last election cycle and continues to this day. There is no debating with a lefty. End of story. That is why they always say "the time for debate is over" before it's even begun.

They have NO facts only irrational talking points given to them by the Olbermanns and CNNs of this world. If you don't agree with a lefty they get "hurt" and some have been known to cry like little babies for not getting their way. One of the most uttered phrases by a lefty during a debate is:

"You don't understand."

As if by saying "you don't understand" makes their point anymore understandable. If you want to keep your sanity, please, please,please do not try to have a reasonable discussion with the great "brainwashed"–it simply will not happen.

You will note that the article's theme is "THOSE GUYS ARE NUTS!" with nearly nothing in the way of backup.

Yep, peer pressure.

At least she acknowledges that her political preference is based on emotion rather than rationality… it's a start.

Leigh refers to that, not me.

Uh, no….Obama has bigger fish to fry than getting his political cronies more money via the Olympics. Think he would've gone over there if it had been Philadelphia in the running for the Olympics? Are you that naive??

So tell me, since you're reading me loud and clear. How's that unemployment rate? How's our economy doing? Ready for another "stimulus"? How about the soldiers the generals are begging for in Afghanistan? You remember that place, right?

But let's put all that on hold while Obama goes overseas to beg for something we really don't need. Maybe he could squeeze in some more visits to his favorite adulterer David Letterman or something. Anything to get out of doing his job. I see where your priorities are…..

We also make the mistake too often of debating as if the left is being truthful about their real motives. GOP politicians always echo the paradigm that the Dems put out to the public. Health care, for instance. Stop arguing dollars with them. They don't care how much it costs. It isn't about COST. It's about control. They WANT TO bankrupt the nation and remake it in their image. They want to socialize the medical profession for a variety of reasons; access to private records, control over your children, blending schools and health care together into a control mechanism. People had better start waking up to what's going on. We have brave congresspersons already speaking up and noone helps them. Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul, etc. They are calling out the BS. Get behind them.

Imagine your children being able to obtain contraceptives at school without your knowledge or consent. It's coming folks. You better get ready. Think about health care in terms of psychological and psychiatric intervention for your child, at school, without your knowledge or consent. Think of your child being put on medications without your consent.

IF MY DOG FARTS ON OLBERMAN'S HEAD IN THE FOREST AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE AROUND TO HEAR IT, DOES THE SOUND OF FLATULENCE BOUNCING OFF THAT EMPTY CRANIUM ACTUALLY OCCUR?

There really is no debate. I find just repeating the facts will put leftists and most liberals into a brain meltdown. That's a daily source of entertainment for me as I live in Liberal LA and the supplies of loony leftists is almost endless. I never participate in their ad homenum discussions in the relavist universe. I just crush lefties with facts lthey can't refute without appearing to be insane. It's delightfully funny amd I love the way it causes an anurism in their little minds.

YESSSSSS!!!

The election of Obama was a repudiation of the Bush Administration's policies. It wasn't based on 'entertainment' or 'feelings', it was based on the sound judgment that the neo-conservative war ventures and the deregulation of the banks and insurance companies was a disaster tfor the country. Labels belong in the super market and not in a biased political column – stick that in your corncob and smoke it.

Don't forget to read the comments section since someone inevitably shows up to provide examples of what she's writing about.

Strange method of logical debate. Make a charge with no evidence, then point to some one else's emotional diatribe as evidence, then attack the messenger.

….which is pretty much what Leigh Scott's article is about. Thank "Evolved1" for stepping up to provide a great example!

"I know you are but what am I" is you're idea of well-played?

As I noted earlier, this article has a secondary effect of drawing out examples of what it was speaking of.

It was the perfect example of how most lefty arguments fail.

I just felt a tingle up my leg…

2. Moore hates Capitalism. Misinformation – Moore rails against corporatism not capitalism.

-Yeah that's why the movie is called "Corporatism" Look, everybody knows Moore skews and heavily edits his footage to his advantage. This is like trusting Oliver Stone to revise public school textbooks to reflect his own fiction views. Moore is a hack, and you are a true beLIEver.

Better shift your leg. You might have cut off circulation and that can lead to bad things. Or at least a few minutes of limping until blood flow is restored.

I love what passes for "critical thinking" nowadays.

There is a group of people who look at the government as some kind of Santa Claus bestowing goodness on all types of people. This "Santa" uses a sliding scale of "justice" because the "rich" have stolen from the "poor" and this needs to be evened out. These people take what the benevolent government gives, with the shackles of slavery attached and being applied one link at a time. It is sort of like training a wild dog to wear a collar and lead.

I didn't say she didn't sound like a Democrat, democrat not liberal, just that she doesn't sound like a leftist. And more to the point, Obama's actions and support of certain laws make it clear that he does not support the second amendment, however you want to spin it. Most Democrats don't. You seem to want to make it difficult for a law-abiding citizen to get a gun legally, give them loads of obstacles, all while ignoring the fact that a criminal won't follow the restrictions set into place. And as a constitutionally devoted libertarian, mostly non-partisan, I must say that I am completely flabbergasted by people like you, my grandmother, and others I know (Republican as well) who are simply devoted to their party. The Bush years were mostly quite awful for me, I thought No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, etc., were just terrible. It annoys me to no end, those that fight amongst themselves about whose party is better or worse, when to me, they're both lousy. I won't be made to choose the lesser of two evils. Evil is evil, and I won't side with it. I say those who are devoted to the constitution and don't want to see it trampled stand up to those who trample it, and stop being blindly devoted to a politician's party.

Wow , you actually know the exact writing process Ayers and Obama used?
How exactly did you come by this groundbreaking information?
In the Beck video I'm not talking about the Black Panthers in front of the polling place, but the next section of the video about the step dancers.
I have explained this several times, and I get the impression that you guys just change the subject if something you don't like is pointed out.
As I already said , if you have a problem with Soros , then I assume you agree with me that there needs to be much tougher financial oversight and regulations . I don't know what the "shadow government" is , sorry.

Does manipulation-free capitalism exist anymore? I think that's the fundamental question. Has capitalism become a "neo-capitalism" where manipulation, speculation and what is essentially gambling are the central driving forces? Moore is equating this new form of capitalism with the mechanisms that caused the fallout. It appears that you may be equating the old with the new form of capitalism that is dominant today. If so, then you, Moore and myself are all in agreement that we need to get back to the old form of capitalism where profit was the result of achievement, production and efficiency; not simply moving money around and finding loopholes or exploiting the system for personal enrichment.

Soros is not a financial problem, he is a high profile believer in the wave of Fascism that is engulfing the world. And yes, you can make the case it really got going under Bush, and now Obama is carrying the torch.
The topics presented here are not off subject, they examples of relatively documented problems (from an internet standpoint) from a conserv perspective. The responsives provided have not provided counter proof, but instead consist of opinions and attempts to undermine the credibility of those responding. That is the essence of the story.

Thats one of your I'm sure many problems – lack of patience.

You're getting there. So, if you are correct, and I think you are, why does Moore not make this distinction? Why does he, and so many on the left rail against capitalism instead of joining the free market libertarians like myself in calling for a return to a true free market?

And if that is the case, why the push for government controlled health care? Isn't a "public option" the gateway into screwing up the health care industry in the same way that the financial industry is?

And this lapse in logic is exactly what I am talking about.

Satis, since you're asking, I believe we make our points and maybe we will bring them around to logical thinking. If it will cost you your sanity then back down (not from your beliefs but from the conversation).

I believe the pendulum swings both ways. I have to admit that I'm enjoying watching the mess that's being made because I feel confident that all of this current nonsense (Big Government) will have a backlash. Maybe it will be the impetus that returns our country to the condition in which our Founding Fathers left it. Let's just hope it doesn't take another bloody revolution to get us there.

With a few minor edits, the whole article could be applied to "debating rightists". The extremists on either end of the spectrum have no interest in the facts.

–A moderate

Hi Hollywoodron,
Can you feel the insanity creeping up on you yet? Teetering over the abyss?
Staggers the imagination doesn't it.

What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common? Democrat "leadership

1) Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
2) Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;
3) Cincinnati, OH (3rd)… …………………..since 1984;
4) Cleveland, OH (4th)… …………………..since 1989;
5) Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;
6) St. Louis, MO (6th)…. ……………………since 1949;
7) El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor; Milwaukee, WI (8th)… ……………………since 1908;
9) Philadelphia, PA (9th)…………………….since 1952;
10) Newark, NJ (10th)… ……………………..since 1907.

modelcitz… ummm, could you look these up for me and make sure their legit! mmmkay?

…keith… yah, man… sheeze… but you gotta keep fightin the good fight.

theres no correlation. you actually think that if you looked into why these cities had such poverty stricken populations that the sole reason would be democratic leadership? you want to talk about poor leadership, how about bush starting a war that killed 100,000 INNOCENT people and several thousand of our own troops FOR NO REASON AT ALL!!

"he is a high profile believer in the wave of Fascism "
This is the type of odd nonsensical statement that makes it hard to have these debates. What wave of fascism are you talking about?
If you said wave of Socialism then it least it would make sense, although I would still disagree. Are you saying that Obama and people on the left are fascists? Can you offer some proof of this statement ( and please don't use the bailout of the auto industry as proof )
Also I'm still waiting to hear how you know about Obama and Ayers writing process.

Free market does not mean more regulation. You toss out this term "deregulation" as if it is a carte blanche for people to do evil things. It isn't. I also take issue with your notion of "greed". Greed and fraud are not sister concepts. Fraud is an illegal activity. It is punished through criminal courts and not through additional government regulation. Greed is not a tangible thing. I can sit here and say that I want to be greedy and nothing will happen. If I work my ass off, make a bunch of money and keep it to myself, is that, by definition "greedy"? Who defines this? And if I amassed my fortune through completely legal and ethical methods, why should I be denied my success? Isn't that what makes this country so great?

Until you can wrap your mind around the idea that the rising costs of health care is the direct result of government intervention and regulation, you will forever be stuck in the trap that we need more of it. Becoming a vet isn't cheap. It's actually more expensive to become a vet than it is to be a general practitioner. There are far fewer pets than there are people. Are we to assume that the entire veterinary economy operates at a loss because we don't have the unholy marriage of unions, insurance companies and government? Or is it because it is an open, competitive market? Without the restrictions of the FDA for example? Why does a check up for my dog cost about the same as a typical co-pay but without the huge monthly insurance cost for me or my employer?

And if you say that pets aren't as important as people, then clearly, you've never owned a dog!

I think that IS what he's calling for. Deregulation has led the system away from the true free market to one where greed and fraud are allowed to run rampant. That has to change. People who run companies into the ground and ruin thousands of lives due to irresponsible and unscrupulous business practices have to be held accountable, which means ending deregulation.

As for health care, in the Hannity interview, don't you recall him pointing out the fact that the #1 reason people lose their homes is due to medical bills? People tend to be more productive (and pay taxes) when they have a home. It's in the government's and the ecomony's interests to see that people aren't losing their livelihoods to medical costs. A system where this happens is already screwed up. Even Republicans who oppose a public option agree that the status quo won't do on health care. I think their can be common ground found on it, but doing nothing has to be off the table.

I believe the pendulum swings as well and that people will learn that this headlong rush toward bigger government is a mistake.

[...] Having coffee with the biggest bunch of crybabies Baldilocks: Poor Baby Leigh Scott, Big Hollywood: Debating Leftists is Like Debating Charles Manson The Daily Danet: Crybaby: WH comm. director whines about FNC “bias” on the network that fact [...]

A "secret army"? I don't mean to be rude but honestly that is really crazy paranoid nonsense.
The "shadow party" seems to be a bunch of unions , enviromental groups , and other left wing types. So what? The fact that those groups lean to the left is not a secret, that's just politics. This is a perfect example of making something sound sinister when it's just normal. There are plenty of rich right wingers who give tons of money to conservative causes, and who influence politicians as well. That's just America 2009.
As far as the Ayers thing , what makes you think that a guy who can get into Harvard , become president of the law review ,beat Hilary Clinton , and become president can't write a book? But you believe Bill Ayers could? Why do you think Bill ayers is so much more intelligent than Obama? And why Bill ayers? There are any number of people who could have ghost-written that book , based on the non-existent evidence you are offering. Maybe Studs Terkel wrote it.

Allow me to recap, as I think you're trying to answer too many blogs. You're opening statement contained:…."talking to yourself in your right wing echo chamber ," Soros…Acorn…Ayers " .
I have addressed each of the topics that you yourself introduced, with miscellanious facts and links, we have since ventured into additional topics.

I've already answered you with my opinion on the book mechanics. You seem to spend a lot of typing on the whole book thing. Yes, I'm reasonable sure Obama can write. Of course he refuses to release his school transcripts, so why are you so sure he can? The book is just a footnote on the Obama/Ayers link. Its potential importance is, if true, that Obama lied when trying to distance himself from Ayers. If you lie with dogs, you're bound to get fleas. Obama seems to have an awful lot of dogs for friends. You asked about Ayers, and the bloggies responded with links of unverifiable accuracy.

I do not use the word Fascist lightly. I automatically assume that you are informed enough to know the distinction between Fascist and Nazi. The world is NOT undergoing a Socialist revolution. I understand the documentation on fascism is not not as evolved as Marxism, and they are similar in many aspects, however, please do some research. A Socialist agenda coupled with privately owned industry operated under government private/public partnerships is Facsism. That is what is occurring worldwide, right now.

As for my timeliness in answering you, some of us have jobs you know.

Yeah, right, now when you can start lining up facts and show yourself capable of some sort of thought process, then I will take a second look at your rambling sequence of name calling. Before a judge can determine someone is incapable of making their own decisions, thereby infringing their personal liberty and putting someone else in charge of their affairs, he or she must find some factual basis for that finding. Social workers don't have to do that to bring a commitment or conservator petition, but judges have to find some facts that meet legal criteria. Before you write off half of your fellow citizens as subhuman, you ought to meet some similar standards. Right now, you sound like a nursery school kid telling off whoever they hate today with a string of names and bad words.

[...] Uniforms? HuffingtonPost Cartoone Smears Rush Limbaugh As a NFL Owner Leigh Scott, Big Hollywood: Debating Leftists is Like Debating Charles Manson Flames of Freedom: The Trouble with Liberals Is… Diary of a Mad Conservative: Hot Air » Blog [...]

Why do I spend so much time on the Obama/Ayers book issue? Because I find this theory to be on a level with searching for bigfoot. It's ridiculous and frankly it makes me take everything else you say with a grain of salt.
Why do I believe Obama can write? Because that is the obvious, common sense interpretation of reality. To believe otherwise is to twist yourself into conspiracy theories and search for hidden truths and masterminds.
I do appreciate your taking time to debate these issues , and I would say again that I think this conversation we are having disproves the thesis of the article, namely that liberals cannot debate and are insane. Although we disagree, I am not clearly not crazy.

If you take one thing from this discourse, let it be an understanding of the extreme threat to this great nation posed by the Soros network. Open Society is just an umbrella coordination group- the tip of the iceberg. I'm not asking you to listen to hearsay from me. I'm not asking you to listen to Fox or Beck. I'm not asking you to convert to the RIGHT. I'm asking and urging you in the strongest terms to READ HIS BOOKS. Hear it from his own mouth. If you are moderate in any measure, you will be appalled at what this group he represents is doing. He is not just wishing for it, he's not just talking about it, he is doing it. His books lay out his agenda. The worldwide network he is building is highly documented. His vast outlays to the Dem party as bought him tremendous influence. They aim to subvert the US Constitution and crush the sovereign nation-state as a form of government. Take back your party from these people. We can sort out the GOP/Dem issues as American citizens later.

Of course, if you agree with him, you really are a radical lefty of exactly the type discussed in the article.

[...] Uniforms? HuffingtonPost Cartoon Smears Rush Limbaugh As a NFL Owner Leigh Scott, Big Hollywood: Debating Leftists is Like Debating Charles Manson The Black Sphere Blog: Limbaugh Said to Want Slaves The Hill: Limbaugh fires back at [...]

You must be logged in to post a comment.