1. Don’t avoid the arguments. I used to, but the times in which we live, the malignant character of American governmental leadership and the irresponsibility of the American media demands confrontation with liberal ideologues who may be “friends” , coworkers or relatives etc. No longer will I be an agreeable conversationalist and consensus-seeker on matters political, but a forceful advocate of conservative fact and opinion who has absolutely no problem denigrating and ridiculing the point of view of others when I know it to false, ill-informed or indicative of liberal group think (i.e. Bush Derangement Syndrome or BDS).
2. In framing your arguments, don’t bother to defend conservatism with arguments of smaller government, low taxation and the like; instead, spend your energy attacking liberalism using sarcasm, ridicule and parody to the fullest extent possible. In response, liberals will usually emote. For example, my adversary last night told me he didn’t need know things, because --in all seriousness-- his heart told him what to think . Emotional rationales often self-embarrass liberals with silly counterpoints.
3. Likewise, lead liberals into the world of fact and they will try to follow…very unsuccessfully. Learn some (not all) relevant facts (and their origins) and use them judiciously and only when they substantiate a point that you have raised. Contrawise, always ask a liberal for facts and they will generally be embarrassed by their incapacity to do so in a precise and convincing manner.
4. Bush Derrangement Syndrome should be aggressively faced with moral equivalency and the apt comparison is not the incompetent Jimmy Carter, but Lyndon Johnson, the big-spending liberal Democrat who knowingly took us into a war he manufactured and that resulted in the deaths of 59,000 American soldiers. This is a very credible approach if you are a veteran,-- particularly of the Vietnam era variety --who can speak eloquently to an experience most do not have and with which any detrimental effects of Iraq and Afghanistan pale by comparison. I find bringing up LBJ mutes liberals with BDS as any retort that LBJ is not longer president is obviated by the fact that neither is Bush.
5. Do not be apprehensive that a liberal knows more about politics that you do. This is a mistaken artifact of American education that presupposes liberalism’s intellectual superiority. If you are not familiar with the incidence of Marxist class theory in the social science disciplines of American higher education, you should become so in order to argue eloquently (1) the group-think intellectual poverty of liberalism and (2) an explanation of American voting behavior amongst so the so-called educational class of America.
6. Never accept the argument of Republican “wealth” and by inference greed. Never say, “well I know some wealthy Democrats, too.” Point out big names…Soros, Spielberg, Buffett etc. that have aligned themselves with liberal causes. And the notion that conservatives give more to charity that liberals can also be worked in here as well.
7. Lastly, always conclude with this question of something like it: What circumstance, condition or consequence would have to develop in the United States that might cause you to consider that the election of Obama was one big--- mistake? I find this question compelling on two counts. One, the question will sometimes provoke a response that is part of the conservative narrative. Second Amendment issues come to mind. Secondly, the question may not provoke any response, a situation which makes self-evident the narrow intellectual, conceptual and behavioral parameters of liberal ideology.
Get mean, show your teeth…just don’t get them knocked out.
Most liberals are not. To that end I am reminded about the warning about wrestling pigs in the mud...
The best way to argue with a liberal is to ask them questions with answers already known and grounded in facts. Don’t tip your hand of your position, just ask more questions. They will expose themselves and you’ve saved yourself energy and strife.
“Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.”
David Mamet converted to conservatism and writes about in an article called “Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal’”:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/news/why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal/
Though this quote may be kind of hard on Bush and open for disagreement, the liberals will sympathize. Mamet also makes some excellent points about the psychology behind the fairly tale land of liberalism.
That's a good time to accuse him of not caring because if you do away with electricity for refrigeration and gas for trucks food is just not going to get to the poor.
“the big-spending liberal Democrat who knowingly took us into a war he manufactured and that resulted in the deaths of 59,000 American soldiers”
History, dog, history.
We had people in Viet Nam under both Eisenhower and Kennedy. The reason we were there was to oppose the spread of communism.
Back then, things looked a lot different than they do now. It was widely presumed that the USSR would win Cold War I. They were doing this through “low level conflicts” around the globe.
Those with prescience saw that if Viet Nam fell all of Indochina would fall (the Domino Theory), which indeed came to pass. (When some libtard starts laughing scornfully at the Domino Theory, just ask him if he is totally ignorant of the fate of Cambodia and Laos, and if he never heard of boat people.)
Opposing evil is always a good thing to do, and that is why we were in Viet Nam. What Johnson is guilty of is cowardice: he was afraid to try and win the war. He was afraid that the Chinese and Soviets would come in, as the Chinese did in Korea.
Nixon was elected on a promise to get us out of Viet Nam with honor. He delivered. Vietnamization was a success. The South Viet Namese defeated the communists in two major battles. Then, after Watergate weakened the forces of good, evil slimebuckets in our legislature reneged on our promises to supply the South. That is why the North was finally able to take the South and launch its bloody reign of terror.
We had the war won until Teddy Kennedy and other servants of Satan handed victory to the communists.
And speaking of Watergate, all that crapola about it being some huge constitutional crisis is buncombe.
The dims were treating potential donors to the services of whores, and paying for it out of Democrat Party funds. Some of Nixon’s staff thought it would be a good thing if the electorate became aware of that. However, not being criminals, they didn’t know how to do it. This led them to hire some incompetents, who got caught.
Nixon’s staff, of course, kept him in the dark until the last minute. Until after the last minute, actually: they waited until he had denied it on TV before they told him.
At that point he decided to cover it up, which was not so unreasonable, considering that it was a minor matter compared to the crimes that FDR, Truman, and Kennedy had covered up. Working together, the forces of evil (dims in the legislature, judiciary, academia, and media) were able to exaggerate it out of all proportion.
Rather than put the country through the turmoil of an impeachment (and he would certainly have been acquitted by the Senate), Nixon resigned—unlike Klintoon. This resignation allowed the dims to throw South Viet Nam to the wolves. This, of course, did incalculable harm to the US, and continues to harm us today, which pleases the dims to no end.
How is that any different than folks from our side quoting Limbaugh?
Those are all good points, but at my age I don’t have the time to deal with lame brains,,,I usually laugh and walk away...its getting easier as I get older (read old) to have the attitude of I don’t entertain fools easily. They are stealing what few years I have left if I join in their stupidity...But when I was younger, I would do it, and usually could slap them around with words....it was fun...
Whenever they start their holier-than-thou moralizing with me I say things like ‘that’s religion’, ‘that’s dogma not policy’, ‘don’t push your morality on me’, you have no right to say what’s right or wrong’, ‘go build a church already’, ‘that’s your religion not mine’, ‘violation of separation of church and state’.
Liberalism is a religion, pure and simple. Attack it as such.
I like to use the analogy of a tree where the roots are the fundamental principles or basic concepts and the branches are the 1001 concretes. Most people argue out on the ends of the branches where its difficult sometimes to see the concept underlying the concrete. Stick to the root. Every time they saw on one of your branches take a big chunk out of one of their roots. They won’t like it very much because they avoid basic concepts because those are absolutes and they don’t like
absolutes. It’s like sunlight to a vampire.
I will not have a Democrat/liberal/Marxist-fascist for a friend! They are too evil or too stupid.
The 2000 election recount in Florida opened my eyes. Democrats ( who are liberal/Marxist-fascists) are either too stupid or too evil to be my friends. The former friends have been totally eliminated. The relatives are given as minimal contact as possible.
I don’t hang out with liberals at all.
If one shows up at a family gathering, I leave before the blood flows.