How liberals argue

[quiller]

This is something I've seen many times from liberals on the Internet, this version from The Pirate's Cove blog by William Teach.

Exactly how do liberals/progressives go about discussion of stories that do not bode well for them? (cross posted at Right Wing News)

    1. Ignore the story – pretend it is not happening, or deflect like crazy.

    2. Find some sort of moral equivalence or a story from 30 years ago saying a Conservative did something sort of similar.

    3. Come up with some conspiracy theories. This is usually the most amusing part, reading and hearing all the strange stuff they come up with in their reality based chat rooms.

    4. Blame Conservatives for bringing the truth to light. How dare they do dat!!!!

    5. Concoct strange defenses based on wild psychological discourse, which no one understands, including the writer, but it sounds good, and allows a liberal/progressive to say there is no problem.

    6. Whine about the discussion of the topic, proclaiming that it means nothing, and why aren't we talking about X? This is usually the point where Liberals/progressives truly understand how bad the issue really is for them, typically when even the NY Times cannot ignore it, so, now they want to have an in-depth discussion on the point of the Iraq War, which you have had 1,000 times, but, they strangely have never had.

     Alternately, this is the point where some liberals realize that they did not receive their talking points emails, so haven't a friggin' clue how to respond.

    7. Declare victory! Those dastardly Conservatives have been proven wrong again, and why do you keep asking so many questions?

    8. Ignore the issue. It never happened. ( . . . )

http://www.thepiratescove.us/2008/03/23/the-8-stages-of-liberalprogressive-discussion-when-they-are-busted/

==

And I'll add to this:

The depth of your racism is directly proportional to the fail of their argument.

[Montesquieu]

Just the Internet? What about Maddow?   

[taxed]

Just the Internet? What about Maddow?   

Nobody watches him.

[Montesquieu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thy_enemy#Quotations

[taxed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thy_enemy#Quotations

Do a forum search for "Sun Tzu"...

[quiller]

Just the Internet? What about Maddow?   

You mean MS-LSD's favorite manly-gyrl?....  I don't watch that commie pest-hole.

[Con4Evar]

How the tea party argues.


Here are some reputable sources proving a, b, c.


Tea Party:
BAN HIM!!!!!

[Cryptic Bert]

How the tea party argues.


Here are some reputable sources proving a, b, c.


Tea Party:
BAN HIM!!!!!

You look really stupid when the forum you accuse of censorship allows you post there.

[TboneAgain]

You look really stupid when the forum you accuse of censorship allows you post there.

I thought that's why he's allowed...

Oh, nobody told him, eh? Shit, I hope I didn't spill the beans.

[Solar]

You look really stupid when the forum you accuse of censorship allows you post there.

he he he....Ohhhh the irony, how the ignorant never catch on.

[quiller]

Redefining "cognitive dissonance" --- replying to a banned poster.