How to Argue with a Liberal

Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
edited November 2012 in Spurious Generalities
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.


  • MarineBoatMarineBoat Regular
    edited November 2012
    8. Don't bother.

    Liberalism comes to the right conclusions sometimes, but for the wrong reasons. It's just vague utopian idealist humanist pseudo-leftist bullshit.

    What IS fun is to point out Obama's habit of doing the same things that Liberals hated bush for.
  • RemadERemadE Global Moderator
    edited November 2012
    1. Never avoid an argument! I don't see why people do. Debates in whatever form are healthy. Rolling over and taking it in the butt from the Media and Govt is something which should be challenged. If you can come down on one side of the fence or the other then all the better - as over here, Liberals are seen as "wishy washy on the fence" types. The Liberal Democrat Party are part of a Coalition now, the first time they were voted into any position of power as a Party since around 1945 (typing, not researching). I even have a book called "The Strange death of Liberal England" and it's rather famous.

    2. Liberals tend to be whiney teens with no experience of Politics. they will attack you with sarcasm and other low forms of wit, so you can use it in rebuttal - purely because any logical arguments will be ignored and fly over their head. Emotions should not dictate Politics. Smaller Government is better in my mind, and despite the NHS in this Country, I agree with the reform of the Benefit system despite having to rely on it during my lifetime post surgery. There is an element of shame in claiming it but my Parents must have paid a shitload more than their fair share in taxes over the years.

    3. It's funny leading them into facts. Of course they will try to escape with aforementioned sarcasm. Also watch out for gangs of Liberal teens/other year group as you can easily be overwhelmed with stupidity. Definitely do your research, but don't waste too much time because you need to enjoy life and not get overwhelmed with retarded counter-arguments. You may prove a Liberal wrong but they will either resort to idiocy or being quiet, then take out their anger on a forum or blog using their Macbook while moaning about Fascist Corporations and how "this idiot I ran into today" supports them.

    4. George Dubya, although being rather cringeworthy at times was not a bad President in the fact he was to-the-point. Ok he made some bad decisions and was not fully in control (no Leader is unless they are a Dictator due to their Aides etc). I need to read up more on Johnson as I am not too familiar with his policies or spending. My view on this, however, is that 4 years for a leader (the average in most "Western" Nations) is not long enough to do anything effective. It takes more time to enact bills and laws, or recover from the previous Leader if they screwed up somewhere. But yes, Liberals and this BDS is a hilarious thing to witness.

    5. Liberals hardly know more about Politics than the average High School pupil. The superiority complex of them is spectacular as they know they are compensating (or in some cases, they don't) for a lack of intellect and knowledge of Politics and History.

    6. Democrats aren't the squeaky clean party they make out to be. You could easily go back to the age of the Dixiecrats and pro-Slavery years they existed. Just because they have "Democrat" as their title does not mean they are Democratic or equal. And that does trickle down to you! Hope, my ass. Obama got in on a vote because he's the first black candidate and I lost what little "hope" I had for him when he muttered these words during his mention of Israel and Gaza last week:
    3,378 people have been killed in Pakistan in the last 8 years by drone strikes - you'd think they would get a bit pissed, right?

    And of course not forgetting the other places like Yemen, Somalia etc
    and the increasing use of UAVs for surveillance purposes within the USA and UK

    But back to wealth, just because Romney's tax returns were a bit iffy/controversial does not mean everyone else in the Republican Party follows in his footsteps.
    Just because there are people who have warped views on religion, rape and contraception does not mean that everyone in the Republican Party is like that. It was only yesterday I heard a total whackjob on the radio over here saying how Women should not leave the house because it is "the word of God" - and he is affiliated with the Church of England! Hardly an extremist organisation.

    7. Pretty self-explanatory there. I just have this image though. If you think Obama is the new-fangled bringer of peace, freedom, hope (hope doesn't do anything unless you have something to hope for) and everything else he promises, then look again. This is one example of thousands where those promises aren't applicable.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited November 2012
    I wonder how much truth there is in the caption to that photo?
  • RemadERemadE Global Moderator
    edited November 2012
    Of course. To be fair I was all up in the air typing this and was thinking of how much Liberals can warp the truth.
    I wish you could see a wider angle of the photo though. Just to see if there is any/how much truth in it. I saw a photo in the papers with a guy who appeared to be restrained and have a gun to his head and his hair being pulled. however when I saw the wider angle pic, the guy was just being given some water and was admittedly under military arrest (Iraq or the like). So it's not as bad as it first looked - however many Liberals had a field day over it.
Sign In or Register to comment.