Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Arguing With Liberals

Some men are damned because they have hearts of stone, neither fire nor water has any effect on them. So it is with liberals and logic. From time to time I'll engage a liberal in conversation which is like translating Finnegan's Wake into Goldfish - there's no point to it.
There's this annoying accountant I know who defends Michael Moore's films as 100% factual and maintains that John McCain said we'd be in Iraq for 100 years. Pointing out that even a cursory fact check of Moore's films would show a level of prevarication not seen since Bill Clinton last got caught with strange, i.e. any, lipstick on his boxers or that in fact, John McCain never said we'd be in Iraq for 100 years falls on willfully deaf ears. Why bother? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but liberals want there own facts.
Another example, an attorney friend and I were discussing the election and a pleasant enough woman overhearing us asked if we supported Obama, my friend said no, I said hell no and she looked as if we bit off a chunk of a Baby Ruth floating in the pool or a chicken's head. "Aren't you concerned about global warming? It's the most pressing issue facing the world today". My friend, "No". Me, "Hell no it has nothing to do with us." She said, "I can't believe you think that" and walked away.
Then there's my favorite:
What should we do about Iraq?
Liberal: Pull out immediately.
Isn't that irresponsible?
Liberal: We shouldn't have been there to begin with.
I disagree, but let's assume you're right, what now?
Liberal: Bush lied, people died, we need our troops home immediately, do you know we spend $35 billion a day there? That money could be used to fight global warming or for the AIDS quilt.
I thought the AIDS quilt caused global warming.
Liberal: I can't believe you think that.
I don't, not really, what about the Middle East? If we leave, won't Iraq become a resource rich failed state - a perfect breeding ground for groups like Al Queda to stage attacks on the US, our allies and interests?
Liberal: There's no Al Queda in Iraq.
Jesus, who says that?
Liberal: Keith Olbermann.
You must be shitting me. Al Queda cells have been uncovered in nearly every country in the Middle East and Europe, why not Iraq?
Liberal: Saddam Hussein wasn't religious and Al Queda is. There's no way two groups so opposed could agree on anything.
Like Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Third Reich could never agree on anything, such as dividing up Poland, Romania, Finland and the Baltic States?
Liberal: The Soviet Union fought the Nazis in the Great Patriotic War, they were enemies stupid.
Yeah I know, I saw the movie, but prior to the war they signed a non-aggression pact that Hitler later violated.
Liberal: Are you sure? I never heard of that.
I'm afraid so. It's called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. Your people at the time were outraged that the USSR would sully themselves by dealing with Hitler. As if one were worse than the other.
Liberal: What do you mean 'my people"?
Useful idiots on the left.

8 comments:

Dexter said...

Arguing with conservatives....

Liberal: What about our Iraq policy or lack there of?
Reactionary: 9/11
Liberal: Is Bush the worse President since James K. Polk?
Reactionary: 9/11
Liberal: Is John McCain the direction our country needs to go in?
Reactionary: 9/11

zaphod said...

We don't have an Iraq policy? Really? President Bush has only told it to you about a zillion times now. Are you really that dense, Dexter?

I guess you are. You probably thought you made a clever comeback. (sigh)

Okay, well, I'll give it to you one more time. I want you to copy this down and put it in your wallet. Here is our policy: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. We want a decent, stable, democratic Iraq right smack dab in the middle of the Near East.

There it is. That's our policy. So tell me now: what about Obama's Iraq policy or lack thereof? Near as I can tell he'll just watch it burn.

Dexter said...

I like how conservatives now define success in Iraq by what will happen if we pull out prematurely. Initially it was about spreading democracy and stability, etc, etc.... The worm has turned. The very instability you speak of was caused by our invasion.

Dexter said...

I like how Zaphod plays Huxley to El Duderin's Darwin.

zaphod said...

No question Iraq was more "stable" before we invaded. It was also a charnel house but no need to dwell on that little detail. Make a fetish of stability and I guess Saddam looks okay.

That Huxley and Harwin comment: didn't you already use that one before?

El Duderino said...

Dexter I'll strike a bargain with you. I'll concede that every Republican and conservative is a big doodoo head and is evil and wrong on Iraq if you can point to one prominent, national Democrat, other than Joe Lieberman, who unequivocally opposes Islamic extremism and has plan, other than cutting and running, for Iraq. This is your best chance to disprove the thesis of my argument, namely that liberals such as yourself are so obsessed with the past that they are unable to deal with the immediate future. I’m waiting.

Dexter said...

Andrew Jackson and Barack O'Bama (nice Irish lad)

(yeah i thought that Huxley comment sounded familiar. Drat.)

El Duderino said...

Don't be fatuous Dexter, Andrew Jackson has been dead, low these many years and Obama is softer than shite on Iraq (and everything else). The sad fact is, liberals have no clue how to proceed in the real world.