I Need Argument Fodder For Peacenik Liberals Tomorrow Night

vanity | Yaelle

[Yaelle]

Please help me. I will be spending the evening tomorrow surrounded by old friends who are well-read (NYT, WP, LAT, NPR, CNN) and educated, yet as liberal as can be. One is even a Hollywood liberal, smart though as misguided as you can imagine.

He argued with me today that anyone who would feel uneasy getting on a plane with a group of Arab men IS A RACIST. That any fear one would have in such a situation, even so soon after the atrocities, would be irrational. I tried to hold my own on this point, saying that the time elapsed since the tragedy was so short that the fear is still rational at this point. I think we merely agreed to disagree, because he thought that any Arab currently asked to leave a plane should win a lawsuit against the airline. I am no racist, and I think it is very sad that any innocent should be so humiliated, but I feel that the innocent Arabs so accused are simply more victims of the terrorists and their attacks.

I am expecting mild anti-Bush sentiment, anti-protracted war opinions, perhaps the "America may have asked for this with all their horrible activities in the world" stuff, and an inordinate focus on "hate crimes" tomorrow. I am a poor arguer contrasted with the man mentioned above, but not for lack of passion.

I need nice, neat, friendly but firm arguments to counter any of the above positions. To whom could I turn but my eloquent Freepers? Anyone want to help? Give me your best. I will be grateful!

[Saintt]

No person is ever obligated to take more than a prudent risk in life. That goes for investing, marriage, everything. Stayng away from mass gatherings, air travel and the like right now shows discernment. 400 people have been arrested, am I correct? Who knows how many more are still "sleepers", still lurking out there? The facts have also told us that we CANNOT tell the good guys from the bad guys right now. Listen to the interviews of those who knew the terrorists. There were all SHOCKED. You are doing what any normal person would; sizing up a situation and discerning what to do. You have every right to do that, and if "Arabian" is in your profile right now, well, why wouldn't it be? Ask you friends how they would size up the situation. Look, more people are going to die in this country before we get a handle on this. Eventually, more people will be free. That is war. In the meantime, you don't have to be one of the people who goes out of their way to tempt fate. And you don't have to defend that position. It is natural to be very discerning right now.

[Mustang]

Mega retired U.S. Navy "Bravo Zulu's" to your above #86!

That's exactly how I piss-off the leftist nitwits. They can't handle the "in their face with facts" approach.

Liberal/Socialist/Anti-American "logic" is an oxymoron. They're despicable cowards. They must be shunned and shamed at every moment.

Best FReegards...Mustang sends.

[freedom_forge]

I wrote this as a letter to the editor....

outSTANDing!

[prov1813man]

There really is only one rational answer. You need some new friends. When a positive meets a negative one of three things happens: the positive lifts the negative, the negative drags down the positive, or they separate. If you have idiot liberals for friends who, even after their fellow citizens were murdered, are sticking to the party line, chances are nothing will change them."you are either with us or you are with the terrorists".

[prov1813man]

Further, the fact that they read the publications you listed doesn't make them well read, it makes them well programmed. If the education you are impressed with occurred in the past two decades, they aren't educated, they are re-educated by one of the socialist training camps that were once the great American Universities.

"...by their fruits ye shall know them"

[Barnacle]

Even some of my most liberal friends are beginning to see the light as a result of this attack on our country. Remember, Pearl Harbor 1941 pales in comparison to WTC 2001. However, if challenged, I suggest you return the challenge with questions and let them turn blue in the face trying to defend their counteractions. Questions such as "Is there anything worth fighting for? Your wife, your child, would you fight to save one of them? Do you support the people who are going off to fight for your wife, your child and you? What do you think the state of our country would be if we had your attitude in W.W.II? What do you think would happen to you if expressed such an opinion in a country without free speech? Who earned your right to free speech? You? Or was it given to you as a gift? We are the defenders. The Talaban are the aggressors. Have you asked them to be peaceful? What do you think their reply would be? Do you deserve be rescued if directly threatened by terrorist activity? Who would rescue you? What would you do to rescue someone threatened? What is the difference between a patriot and a coward? Where do you lie on that line?"

[Boxsford]

It's been fun reading this thread. Thanks for starting it. So far, I've gotten half way through. What incredibly great answers you got--none that I can top or add to. They're right on and perfect! Please let us know how your weekend turns out. I especially like the 'neat little trap' suggestion. Hope you try that one out. Good luck and God bless you. Hey, wait, I can add something.....pray. Ask the Lord to give you His words to say what needs to be said. Keep us posted.

[4Liberty]

Hi there, Here's my advice: It's almost impossible to convince Liberals (egalitarians) that their policies are infantile & idiotic - unless they've first had a couple economics courses. To Liberals, "wealthy" (U.S./European/Asian) people don't deserve "protection" or "self defense." To dems, wealthy, successful citizens are "part of The Problem" -- and 'deserve' what they get, for being insensitive, overly rich, selfish and blahblahblah. If I could get them in my economics classes for two weeks, I could very quickly provide evidence convincing them that U.S. wealth isn't "the problem." -- The "problem" is an ongoing lack of productivity and the difficult harsh environments (droughts, etc.) that makes people in most 3rd world countries poor, and triggers fairly regular bouts of regional violence, crime rates and corruption - including terrorism (as a usual by-product). The "Rich" don't cause the droughts in Africa; Droughts just happen, and with a regular, horrifying frequency. They (the dems) like to cling to the class-conflict model of world problems, because that finger-pointing 'explanation' is much easier -- than getting a degree in hydrology or engineering and - going over and helping install irrigations systems in poor countries, using World Bank money or private investment funds. Democrats are very immature and pathetic. They are 'part of the problem' -- but refuse to see this. They need to eventually decide to put away the soap box and GET BUSY - like responsible, mature adults. You can to ahead and try to argue with the Soccer-mom socialists if you want. But they have never been educated about the particular causes behind poverty (natural disasters, for example) and really have no conception of the origins of poverty, wealth and global problems. Until they are, they will probably tend to blindly gun-grab and redistribute income, thinking this will fix the Droughts, floods, new crop diseases etc. (Wealth redistribution does nothing but help a few corrupt dictators get rich with few of the local problems being adequately fixed.) If Dems REALLY "cared," they would roll up their sleeves and WORK HARD - to be productive, and make the world a better place. Instead, they are sad, immature, and pathetic. A few more mechanical engineering majors and a few less "conflict resolution" majors -- that's what the rest of the World needs over the long term. In the face of a drought, a country like Afghanistan or Chad doesn't need "Anger-management" lectures or Grief counselors. They KNOW how to be Angry, just fine. What condescending nonsense 'Peace Studies' and Conflict-Resolution courses are. Pure drivel, and a pathetic waste of taxpayer money. But, that's the direction our colleges are taking today. It's really sad. What the people in these developing counties NEED, is water-resource managers and new, drought-resistant rice crops from students who studied hard as plant-genetics majors. Most people in poor countries aren interested in religious bigotry or a cultural war with the West, they just want to eat every day. Tell the Democrats to leave successful, wealthy countries alone - tell them to stop being part of the problem -- and get themselves into a solid, productive professional field. Too hard, though. Much more fun to piously boohoohoo, whine, burn candles, and etc., for some of them. Hope this approach helps. Don't be nasty about what you say to Liberals. Just express your concern about problems in other areas of the world, and point out REAL solutions, not bogus juvenile ones. Say "We are in agreement -- things need to change." Then show them the way to the nearest Agricultural Engineering department. Good luck!, Pam, in LA :)

[driftless]

Seven-fotters are pretty dangerous also. One of them fotted at me the other day. But then again a moose once bit me.

[driftless]

I'm thinking about forgoing holidays with my sisters and in-laws. They're all Dems and invariably one of them starts a tirade against Republicans and/or Bush. I've actually been in ten on one situations (I'm the one) arguing my side. The saving grace is that I always have the facts on my side because yes, my sister and in-laws are emotion driven and have a paucity of facts at their disposal. My male in-laws do at least shut up when I'm slamming radical feminists. The ugly little secret is that even most male Dems intensely dislike feminists. At least in my little world they do.

[P-Marlowe]

"...well-read (NYT, WP, LAT, NPR, CNN) and educated,"

Well read? Well brainwashed. You don't need to say anything to impress these bozos. If they think anyone who would be afraid to fly with 5 Arab men in first class is a racist, then they must think everyone on Earth, including Arabs are racists.

Even Jesse Jackson has said when he's walkng down a lonely street at night and he sees a gruop of young men approaching he is glad when he finds out they are white.

It is NOT racism, it is pure unadulterated rationalism.

These bozos would never survive in the REAL world. It is easy to be a liberal when sitting in the back of a limosine.

[driftless]

Hey pal, ditto! I'll never forget the look on the faces of my Dem friends when after I broke ranks and left their party, I stated that I could not believe a single word any Dem or liberal says about anything. I realize that no group has a lock on the truth, and I don't agree with every single tenet of conservatives or Republicans. But Dems and liberals have proven to be unbelievably wrong on so many issues that to be one takes a leap of faith greater than any religious fundamentalist. The truth is most Dems are single-issue oriented. If you could get them off their selfish obsession with the particular issue that affects them, you might gain some headway. If the Republicans and Dems swapped positions on abortion, I have no doubt that many women curently voting for Dems would switch affiliations. It's very tough. I know very few Dems who are liberals if any at all. But this is Wisconsin, and outside of Madison and university towns, 100% liberals are in short supply.

[antivenom]

Liberals believe we live in a democracy...explain to them that the captain took a vote...more hands went up to kick off the Arabs then for the ones to allow them to stay...funny how a democracy works. (heeheehee)

[poet]

Just tell them my favorite definition of a liberal:
A liberal is a person with their two feet firmly planted in the air.
By the way, I'm curious, why would you want to keep these people as friends?

They are, in the final analysis, totalitarians in view of the fact the brook no disension, they will not defend themselves and will bad mouth their own country. appease!, appease! is their rallying cry. Remember, it is next to impossible for an honest man or woman to change a group of dishonest people, in fact, it is more than likely that the honest person will be turned because of the material comforts the dishonest people can offer unless the honest person is extremely strong.

[Balding_Eagle]

"My "old friends", as you have labled yours, have thru no malice or intentional means become my enemies..... "

I 'got into it' about the same time as you did, the early 90's. Unfortunately it was with my sister and brother in law. Things have never been the same.

It's hard to be close to someone who is doing what they can to destroy These United States.

[wattsup]

I would say to them. If a group of 5 Nuns in religious clothes were shown to have committed the same crimes do you think that if you were a passenger in another plane and 5 nuns walked on that you should not suspect them? Would it be discrimination or profiling? I would think you would be smart to question. Why turn your back to a more than average situation because of "possible hurt feelings?" Political correctness has run it course.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

NYT, WP, LAT, NPR, CNN

I would not call this "well-read". I would call anyone who gets news from these sources alone "brainwashed tools of the Left".

In fact, commercially profitable "News" is a form of nonfiction entertainment and as such in and of itself is inherently superficial and negative.

Superficial, because written to a deadline rather than to the satisfaction of the writer. The best-written journalism is inevitably superficial compared to the most hastily written book. If "there's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper," then how much can today's newspaper really be worth?

And we are or ought to be so alert to the negativity of journalism as to see through the joke. The whole point of it is to scare you into not ignoring the paper.

The combination of superficiality and negativity is anticonservative, inherently. Tending, in fact, strongly toward cynicism. Journalists protest their independence of liberal politics, but what if the liberal politicians simply parrot the journalistic line? If so, journalists would have to work to seperate themselves from the liberal politicians. And journalists are far too lazy and cowardly for that. If a group of blind men find an elephant, one is supposed to touch the trunk and find it resembles a snake, others to touch legs and find resemblance to trees, and so on. But in fact if the first blind man declares "snake", the others will trim their report to avoid contradicting the first report--especially since "snake!" is an alarming report that gets everyone's attention. So the liberal politicians propose snake control programs into perpetuity because journalists run in packs.

Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate.

[PoisedWoman]

The libs are all chanting the "innocent lives" mantra. You will hear that we shouldn't fight back because "innocent lives will be lost." You then say, "No, guilty lives will be lost when we strike back."

Go on to remind them of the 6000 innocent lives lost 9/ll, innocent men, women, and children whose body parts are still smoldering in the ruins. Lower Manhattan smells like a giant barbecue. The scent of burning flesh is still wafting through the air. Cadaver dogs cannot work because every square inch of rubble has the sickly sweet aroma of decaying human flesh.

I was outnumbered 11 - 1 by liberals and stopped them all in their tracks with the giant barbecue line. There's something about even describing an aroma that penetrates the center of the emotions. Your lib friends will have nightmares.

[Captainpaintball]

The link doesn't work.(for me at least)

[Captainpaintball]

Tell them that MSBC infobabe Ashleigh Banfield had to dye her hair brown/black because the natives wrefused to talk to her! That seems kind of racist to me!