Debating Liberals

A number of people have emailed me in recent weeks asking if I could "help" them debate liberals. I've politely declined. I don't want to tell people what to say, because that would make their debate artificial (besides, I don't pretend to be an expert). However, I do think it's worthwhile to create a guide to dealing with liberals who are geniunely interested in "debating," so I will attempt to document what goes on inside my brain (stand back).

It's important to note than when I use the term "liberal," or "Democrat," I'm speaking about what I call the "new left." The new left (or the New Democratic Party) is really the focus of much of the ridicule on this site. I have no problem with traditional liberals (with whom I disagree with on subjects such as health care). It is the new, rabid, anti-American left which has a stranglehold on the Democratic party that deserves to be mocked and ridiculed. The Kingpin of the New Democrats is, of course, Michael Moore. And, like the lemmings they are, most of the new leftists parrot what Moore says word-for-word. This is actually a good thing, since most of what comes out of Moore's pie hole is flat-out false (which makes it easy).

I would like to state that (for the most part) I'm a very nice guy. Contrary to what you might read here (like when I kick the crap out of the self-centered lightweights who write me hate mail), I am not a confrontational person. In fact, when debating someone at work, it is certainly not in your best interest to be the least bit in-your-face.

Here's why debating the new left is such a cakewalk. Most of the "facts" they spout are either urban legends (which have already been debunked) or they are simply inaccurate. In order for you to be an effective debater (or negotiator) you must have knowledge of history AND current events. The good news is, you don't have to be an expert, because most of the leftists I've spoken to don't have a clue what they're talking about. Most of their confidence comes from the false notion that the one or two "facts" they memorized from Fahrenheit 911 will catch you off guard (leaving you speechless). They also rely heavily on the fact that patriotism isn't "cool." In other words, they may try to get you to come off as a mindless flag-waver, at which point they will try to mock you (and get you to lose your temper). Don't take the bait.

1) Is what they're saying true? It really goes without saying that most of what passes as "fact" to the new left is anything but factual. If it isn't an urban legend (such as "no plane hit the Pentagon," or "Mikey from the Life Cereal commercial died from ingesting Pop Rocks and Coke"), it is almost certainly incorrect. You may recall Michael Moore's statement that columnist and pundit Fred Barnes was a complete prick to him the time they met for an interview. The only problem is Moore was lying. Fred Barnes has never met (nor even spoken to) Michael Moore. I no longer assume that liberals are telling the truth. I operate on the assumption that they are either lying or mistaken (and more often than not, I'm right).

A typical line of liberal bullshit involves America "creating" Saddam Hussein (or bin Laden). A liberal relative of mine once gave me the "We put Saddam in power" cliche. I love getting these. I asked her, "In what year did Saddam Hussein become president of Iraq?" She didn't know. She thought it was in the mid-80's. Wrong. I told her Saddam became president in 1979. I then asked her if she thought Jimmy Carter (one of her heroes) was somehow involved (and should be tried as a "war criminal"), since it happened during his presidency. She backed off the "We put Saddam in power" assertion pretty quickly.

Liberals don't seem to comprehend that alliances are fluid. They moan about how we backed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Yes, we did. We also allied ourselves with the Afghan jihadists when the Soviets invaded. Things change. We didn't train OBL to fly planes into our buildings, so get over it. Japan is one of our greatest allies, even though 60 years ago they were our greatest enemy. Can't liberals comprehend that things change, and today's ally may become tomorrow's enemy? No they can't. Use it against them. And what would have happened, for example, if Jimmy Carter had somehow tried to help the Shah of Iran stay in power? Aren't liberals always telling us to "mind our own business" around the world? But sometimes "minding our own business" results in brutal anti-American Mullahs gaining power. If Carter and the CIA were somehow able to keep the Shah in power, wouldn't we be in less danger today? Possibly.

Sometimes you have three choices: turn right, turn left, or stay put. The best we can do (without a crystal ball) is consider the reasonable consequences of our actions. Liberals have no understanding of this. They think there's a "perfect" solution and a "disasterous" solution for every problem. It's funny that leftists see moral issues in gray, but matters of war and peace in stark black and white. War is always wrong, no matter what. They don't even try to look ahead and see the consequences of NOT acting on a problem. Use this against them.

Another common fraudulent statement is "War IS terrorism." Bullshit. Terrorism is a non-state entity advancing its goals through the deliberate use of violence against non-state entities to create terror (such as Al Qaeda flying planes into the WTC, or the Chechen and Arab scum deliberately targeting children in Beslan, Russia). War is the selective use of military force by one state entity against another, with defined rules and boundaries. In war (at least when America fights one) great care is taken to ensure that civilian casualties are minimized (if not avoided altogether). Of course, the "War on Terrorism" is an ongoing battle on several fronts (including financial, political, and military options). Like the "War on Poverty" and the "War on Drugs," the "War on Terrorism" is not declared against any particular state, but it is most certainly not "terrorism"). Anyone who uses the "War is Terrorism" line loses right out of the gate. They are simply unworthy of a debate (and will not likely understand logic).

2) Is it self-contradictory? Occasionally, liberals may stop lying long enough to throw out an opinion. Statements such as "Bush is a racist," are not factual type statements. Therefore, they cannot be proven or disproven. However, many liberals (John Kerry being the best example) contradict themselves at almost every turn. Some examples are: Bush is a moron/Bush is controlling the world, Bush isn't doing enough to fight terrror/Bush is a warmonger, etc. When someone says "Bush is racist," they are usually talking about Arabs or Muslims. These people almost without exception will also say that Bush hasn't made us safer (even though they claim he's racist by locking up Arab Muslims with ties to terrorist groups). Well, which is it? (Actually in this case, both statements are bullcrap)

A good example of self-contradiction is in Fahrenheit 911. Moore claims that Bush authorized members of the bin Laden family to charter planes out of the country when all flights were still grounded. Not so. It was Richard Clarke who authorized a charter flight (with bin Laden family members) after an FBI background check AND at a time when charter flights were given the green light. However, since Clarke was a member of the Bush administration, it is fair to say that the "Bush administration" allowed these Arab Muslims to leave the country (in order to avoid being targeted by vigilantes). But wait, I thought Bush was a racist who wants to exterminate Arab Muslims. Surely a racist administration would NEVER have allowed these people to leave the country at a time when emotions were running so high, would it?

Conspiracy 'tards will quite often contradict themselves within a matter of seconds. They will talk about Bush being controlled by the Saudi Royal Family, and at the same time assert that "The Jews" run everything. Again, which is it? Give them enough rope, and they will hang themselves. The important thing is to point it out. Believe me, these people are totally unaware that they're being so self-contradictory, and will flap around like a fish once you re-state their contradictions in an obvious way.

3) Is it consistent? This one is almost guaranteed to win you the argument. Anyone who supports Kerry (and says "Bush lied about Iraq") is a hypocrite of the highest order. John Kerry said virtually the exact same thing that Bush did about Saddam Hussein and his WMD program. Bad intelligence does not equal "lying." Kerry had the same intelligence as Bush did, so if Bush lied, then Kerry lied (as did Clinton, Gore, Albright, Edwards, Hillary, etc.). There's no denying this.

Another inconsistency embraced by the left is Iran and North Korea. You'll often hear some leftist anti-war idiot say "Iran and North Korea DO have nukes, so why didn't Bush invade them?" To that, I say "Fine. So are you saying that you'd be OK with Bush invading Iran?" The answer is always "no." And, as has been pointed out numerous times, when Bill Clinton bombed Kosovo, it was NOT authorized by the U.N. Did anyone on the Hollywood left call Clinton a "war monger?" Of course not. Why? Because they're a bunch of hypocrites. Make a note of it.