[srm913]

"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 they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather."

Maybe, Pat, you should just tell them to buy a vowel.

[RushCrush]

I gave up "arguing" with liberals a long time ago. No sense in it.

[Para-Ord.45]

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.

[Always Right]

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.

[marty60]

those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t 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.

[Serenissima Venezia]

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.

[mike182d]

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.

[Maceman]

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).

[dirtboy]

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.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

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.

[SouthWall]

Apparently, he has two too many liberal friends now.

[Question Liberal Authority]

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.

[nmh]

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.

[Jack of all Trades]

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.

[Morgan's Raider]

Arguing with a liberal is like teaching a pig to sing. It's a great waste of your time, and it annoys the hell out of the pig.

[StoneGiant]

Pat,

There may not be much point in arguing with 'em.... you probably won't be successful in changing their closed minds.

But the entertainment value is extremely high!

[hosepipe]

Pat;
Your a little late to the party...
Just fall a turnip truck or something..
Its always been that way.. always...

[Paulus Invictus]

“Well, don’t 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?”

This is a supremely stupid allegation! The liberals might be truly surprised to learn that a very large percentage of folks in our state and several other Red States actually travel, learn to speak other languages and have excellent, advanced educations. Not only that, we are also smart enough to understand and reject the idiocies of the liberals. Based upon all of that, we make truly informed choices and do so at the ballot boxes. May it ever be so!

[JoeV1]

Perhaps Mr. P.J. O'Rourke said it best.

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

[DustyMoment]

I was having a discusion with a liberal friend about the Clintons and hsi rejoinder to me was "Well, yeah, but I don't believe that they are evil deep down inside."

That pretty much ended the discusion. How do you argue with that type of "logic"?

[sydbas]

I find that when liberals no they have lost the debate they resort to one word: Halliburton. At that point I just laugh.