This Just In ...

Ten Commandments For Liberals Who Want to Argue About Politics

Posted by Kevin Fischer on July 14, 2009 | 13 comments

Liberals have a certain air about them. Call it arrogance, pomposity. Only they are wise. Their intelligence surpasses that of everyone else by a country mile.

There is no justification for liberals to pontificate from their lofty high horses since they have no ability to reason or rationalize using clear thought, facts, and documentation.

Nowhere is this more evident than in talk radio. Liberal talk show hosts are uniformed, dull, boring, and rather unpopular. That’s no surprise because when you are solely in command of three hours of broadcast, there comes a time when you must offer substantive material beyond that found on a bumper sticker. Unsubstantiated opinion inspired by one’s feelings du jour doesn’t cut it.

Liberal callers to conservative talk shows are like fish in a piranha tank, easy fixing’s that are simply no match for a host that has command of the issue at hand. They can’t muster much once they’re done expressing anger or calling names.

Yet liberals act and feel as though they are intellectually superior when in reality they’re nothing without their crying towels.

Conservative columnist John Hawkins and his list-themed pieces often point out the shortcomings of the left.  In a recent column, Hawkins wrote:

“Liberals love to think of themselves as sophisticated, nuanced intellectuals, but the truth is they have a kindergartner’s view of the world. If it has been defined as ‘nice’ to people they like, they're for it. If it has been defined as ‘mean’ to people they like, they’re against it -- and that is about as deep as it gets. Unfortunately, that lack of adult perspective isn't so cute in political leaders who are making life and death decisions that may still have ramifications fifty years from now.”

In another column, Hawkins offered this:

“When liberals are losing an argument, they love to shift the discussion not to the facts at hand, but to the motivation of the person on the other side. That's because it's almost impossible to prove what someone's motive may be for a particular action.

Thus, liberals can claim that Charles Pickering, a man who went toe-to-toe with the Mississippi Ku Klux Klan in the sixties, is actually a racist or that George Bush invaded Iraq to try to steal its oil.

From the liberal perspective, the more shameless the lies, the better because the target of the scandalous accusation and his defenders will often waste inordinate amounts of time and energy fighting ridiculous, unfounded allegations that a certain percentage of uninformed
Americans will simply assume are true without evidence.”

All of this is a prelude to an outstanding blog by Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes entitled, “Ten Commandments For Liberals Who Want to Argue About Politics.”

Commandment #1 (and this is really good, especially for those matzo-skinned lefties) reads:

“1. This is the First Commandment for a reason, because it is the most important: IN, or OUT. Your preference is to argue politics, or not to. One or the other; drop the ‘nuance.’ You aren’t a little girl on the elementary school playground, so you don’t get to punch, bite, hit, kick and then run screaming to the yard-duty teacher when someone returns fire.”

You can read all “Ten Commandments For Liberals Who Want to Argue About Politics” here.