Skip to comments.
Why I've Stopped Arguing With Liberals
Human Events ^
| March 28, 2005
| Pat Sajak
Posted on 03/28/2005 8:39:13 AM PST by srm913
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-164 next last
"And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because theyre idiots, its time to talk about the weather."
Maybe, Pat, you should just tell them to buy a vowel.
1
posted on
03/28/2005 8:39:13 AM PST
by
srm913
To: srm913
I gave up "arguing" with liberals a long time ago. No sense in it.
2
posted on
03/28/2005 8:42:18 AM PST
by
RushCrush
(The FReeper formerly known as Alias. "Crime does not pay...as well as politics." A. E. Newman)
To: srm913
You know you`ve won the debate when the socialist/neo-marxist left descend to name calling within the context of a debate with you,you know you`ve just won.Hands down,the debates over.
To: srm913
In liberals eyes standing up for the original intent of the Constitution is worse than killing 6 million Jews. Can't argue when there is no basis in reality. Liberals have become too delusional.
To: srm913
those red state voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, Well, dont you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices? It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.
Obviously these people are woefully ignorant and live in a world of cliches. Ignorance of history,facts and just how much their livelihood depends on the rubes in the red states.
5
posted on
03/28/2005 8:45:36 AM PST
by
marty60
To: srm913
This article is hilarious! And so true.
The only thing I think he left out - or did I miss it - that when the liberal runs out of ideas, which is usually pretty quickly, they resort to name-calling.
To: srm913
By definition, logical argumentation requires reasoned and intelligent discussion by all parties involved in order to arrive at a solution.
As all liberal arguments are void of logic and intelligence, it is misleading to say that one can effectively "argue" with a liberal. Its more like shouting at a wall to get it to move.
7
posted on
03/28/2005 8:45:49 AM PST
by
mike182d
("Let fly the white flag of war." - Zapp Brannigan)
To: srm913
My own personal rule is that I only argue with liberals if there is a third-party "moderate" listening to the exchange, who may be enlightened by watching the liberal morph into a wild-eyed emotional lunatic when confronted with a rational argument (or pointed question).
8
posted on
03/28/2005 8:45:58 AM PST
by
Maceman
(Getting the US out of the UN -- It isn't just for right-wing kooks anymore)
To: RushCrush
Hard to "reason" with hysterical children
9
posted on
03/28/2005 8:46:00 AM PST
by
NRA1995
("Yew jes' go and lay yore hand on a Pittsburgh Steelers fan & Ah think yer gonna fin'lly understand")
To: Serenissima Venezia
Trying to sway a liberal with logic and facts is like Wrasslin' with a pig in the mud. You just get frustrated and dirty, but the pig enjoys it.
10
posted on
03/28/2005 8:46:57 AM PST
by
boofus
To: srm913
Liberals also are fond of starting out with absolute statements from which they will refuse to budge. So they will say something like "It's wrong to kill civilians in war" and point to the civilian death toll in Iraq as proof of that campaign's miserable failure. Even if you spot them 10,000 civilian dead, you can then point out that Saddam killed at least that many of his own people each year for political reasons - and the liberals also claimed before the war that sanctions were killing at least 50,000 kids a year. So when you do the math and point out that 120,000 saved over the last two years minus 10,000 equals 110,000 more civilans that are alive because we took out Saddam, the liberal will then go, "yes, but we killed 10,000 civilians, and that's wrong!" And you cannot reason them from that position.
Of course, as a freeper once noted, you cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not use reason to get into in the first place.
11
posted on
03/28/2005 8:47:35 AM PST
by
dirtboy
(Drooling moron since 1998...)
To: srm913
Insults from the left are mere confessions, Pat.
By the way, the word, liberal, when used as a noun, is only properly used with a negative modifier, such as scum, or idiot.
As an adjective, liberal can not properly be used in conjunction with nouns such as friend.
Liberal friend, is therefore, is improper English. Idiot liberal scum, is quite proper usage.
See, it's simple.
To: srm913
Apparently, he has two too many liberal friends now.
13
posted on
03/28/2005 8:48:36 AM PST
by
SouthWall
(People believe President Bush will kill the terrorist, and Kerry will talk to them.)
To: srm913
This op-ed made my day. Liberals think they're the smartest people alive, and yet PAT SAJAK doesn't think they're worth the intellectual effort it takes to talk to them.
This isn't a dig on Pat Sajak. Just realize that he's had at least 10,000 conversations with people about CERAMIC DOGS. Now consider that nothing the left has to say right now can possibly compete with that for intellectual stimulation.
To: dirtboy
That's one of my favorite quotes on earth. It was originally penned by Alexander Pope, BTW.
15
posted on
03/28/2005 8:50:01 AM PST
by
srm913
To: srm913
It's not just liberals that are dense. Some "conservatives" let their emotions rule rather than knowledge and common sense. Liberals don't have a monopoly on being ridiculous and easily manipulated. All you need to do is look around on FR. I've been shocked at what I see people willingly believing when it suits their agenda. So, liberal or conservative there are nut cases on both sides. The common ground is their extreme emotional state ruling their thinking.
16
posted on
03/28/2005 8:51:31 AM PST
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
To: RushCrush
My brother is a flaming lib,havn't spoken to him since before the election.I have nothing to discuss with him we don't agree on anything.Our parents are dead so no reason to talk to him
17
posted on
03/28/2005 8:51:56 AM PST
by
Antique Gal
(Antique Gal)
To: boofus
Trying to sway a liberal with logic and facts is like Wrasslin' with a pig in the mud. You just get frustrated and dirty, but the pig enjoys it. That depends. There are those of us who enjoy the argument, and deeply enjoy seeing a liberal reduced to a spitting, screeching, "Hitler!"-throwing lunatic for all to see. :-)
18
posted on
03/28/2005 8:52:08 AM PST
by
TChris
(Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. - Ann C)
To: srm913
The reason I've pretty much stopped is that liberals can't argue concepts without feeling personally attacked. IMHO, this comes from the mistaken belief that right and wrong are personal, relative decisions.
To: boofus
LOL!
thanks for putting it in perspective.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-164 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson