Posted on 12/27/2010 6:58:07 AM PST by Kaslin
I got myself on several lefty email lists just to keep tabs on them.
Its amazing how much time they spend trying to indoctrinate their members to be open minded while telling them to ignore opposing opinions.
Pose that as a question and it would fit right in with this post. In fact, there's at least one question of like content...
The last question is especially telling.
These are EXCELLENT questions. I plan to copy them to a Word document and use them! ;-)
It is indeed
I'm doing the same. I also had one or two I used over Christmas with the one democrat we were with: If capitalism is bad because people are inherently dishonest, then why is turning economic control over to the government good, since the government is made up of the most self-centered people alive?
Look at the way they’ve run screaming from Glenn Beck. He’s offered them entire shows to explain themselves and to prove their points but they won’t be able to control the questions he asks.
Honest people would jump at the chance but they won’t. Instead they lie and claim Beck has said this or that and offer zero proof.
I tire of trying to have meaningful conversations with Soviet minions.
Same thing with Rush. Oh, he has his seminar caller at times, but they’re easily done with. But in both cases, the left uses disinformation and lies instead of debate. Of course that’s easily answered. They never win in any honest debate.
Try what this author recommends. Instead of attempting to converse, ask simple questions such as these. Whatever they say, don't respond, just ask another simple question. After all, that's what they're doing...
Ditto.
ping
Yeah Rush is good in his own way. That’s why I don’t get into the arguments about which host is best. They’re all effective in their own ways.
This video of an interview Glenn Beck did with Richard Blumenthal is a perfect example of how the marxists react to simple questions. Blumenthal looked like he was going to cry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxVi1EzUmMI
Thanks for the post. This reminds me of back in the seventies when I was going to school there were socialist and communist groups on many campuses. I love to discuss anything so I would talk to them and they didn’t like questions that didn’t agree with their viewpoints. My father was a factory worker and they really didn’t like it when I pointed out how different their image of the oppressed worker was from reality. It was talking to these folks that pushed me toward being more conservative as I grew up.
One of my faves - name one traditional liberal value.
“If G. W. Bush is, as liberals claim, the stupidest and most incompetent president in history (and liberals are the most intelligent of people), why was it so easy for Bush to convince so many liberals that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was a danger to the entire world?”
Excellent questions. Will save for future forwarding.
I sympathize with the author. His first mistake was even engaging them, given their approach.
Speaking with liberals is possible, but only with liberals who are in the middle 30%.
The upper 30% are people who will vote liberal no matter what, and are too stupid to be able to engage in any kind of discussion. Most of the time they aren’t interested in any kind of discussion anyway.
The Bottom 30% are moonbats who are all too happy to engage in discussion, and will regurgite reams and reams of “data” they have harvested from the media. These are the ones who maintain it was Sarah Palin who said she could see Russia from her house, Bush stole the election, etc. etc. etc. These two persons who engaged the author were in this group. (I also lump in hard-core Aslinskyites in this group as well, even though they may not swallow all the liberal propaganda hook line and sinker. They know what their goals are, and they know how they want to get there. In both cases, it is utterly worthless to engage them. They have neither the patience or inclination to listen, the inability to apply reason or logic to an argument, and the inability to feel shame or cognitive misgivings when they are proven wrong. They lack introspection, and are incapable of evaluating their own stance dispassionately from a distance.
The middle 30% of liberals are usually thoughtful, intelligent,insightful and, generally decent people who allow their emotions to rule their intellect, and unthinkingly and unhesitatingly accept many tenents of liberal dogma, because “Who doesn’t want to help people in need?” You can talk to these folks, they will often listen, and sometimes, even change their views.
This author was from the Soviet Union, I would think he had them scoped out pretty quickly, even though he sounded surprised they existed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.