Arguing with a liberal

I’m in my waning days at my corporate job.  I’ve given my notice, and currently I’m only there in the mornings acting in a consulting fashion as I train my replacement.  I’m out of there at the end of November.  Hasta la vista, corporate world. 


In the meantime, I work with somebody who is a bonafide, hardcore liberal.  (that doesn’t ever seem to pop up at my other job, FBMG, strangely enough)  Pretty much everything I believe in, he doesn’t.  Everything he believes in is about as realistic as the tooth-fairy, but I digress. 


This morning we got into it about school vouchers.  I wore my I VOTED sticker in this morning, and since that was the main thing on the ballot, he asked my opinion.  Of course we were diametrically opposed, but it was extremely educational.  I learned the following facts: 


  1. Competition is good, except for in education, because then it is evil.
  2. Americans are becoming more fragmented, because we have like 300 TV channels, and when we were kids we only had 3, so we need public education to “bring us together”. 
  3. Public education exists so that people can learn about diversity, and different ways of life, otherwise you would just have to learn stuff from things like your parents, or religion, and that is bad.
  4. People shouldn’t send their kids to schools where they can freely associate with people of their choosing, because that is bad for diversity.
  5. Diversity is good, unless it is diversity from liberal thought, because then it is bad.
  6. And the founding fathers were all about public school because of diversity, (he actually used Land Grant as an example) and education has evolved into what we have today (not because of the Industrial Revolution training drones to sit still and concentrate on repetitive crap for 8 hours, mind you) because evolution is good, unless it is evolving so that parents have more choice or freedom, because then, evolution is wrong.


Okay then.  I’m all educated on the issue now.  Too bad I had already voted against the unionized strangulation of the free market.  Drat.  Foiled again.   


This is not the first time we’ve gone around about various topics.  I find that this individual gives me a fascinating view into the liberal mindset.  We’ve argued about guns, concealed carry, Iraq, terrorism, and self defense.


Let me break this down for you.  In order to toe the liberal philosophical line on the use of force, you have to honestly believe that defending yourself is somehow immoral.  You have to believe that if somebody assaults you, it is morally superior for you to just let them hurt you, than it is for you to fight back, whether it is on a small scale (rapist, murder, psycho) or on a large scale (other countries, terrorists).  


And if somebody does take action against you, it is your fault somehow, because you caused it.  Kind of like when a woman is battered by her husband, it is because she burned dinner or looked at him funny.  I pinned him down last time, and asked, “so if somebody was raping your children to death, you wouldn’t do anything about it?  You would just wait for the police to do it for you?”  No response.  Liberal brain vapor lock.  Then sorry, my friend, you are an evolutionary failure.  If you can’t protect your own DNA, then what good are you? 


Finally he comes back with “Oh, that hardly ever happens here.”  Ahh… wishful thinking.  That’s awesome.  I am a CCW instructor, so I kind of collect giant lists of horrible things, so I start rattling off local cases.  That ended it.  He needed to get back to work at that point.


The arguments always meander about aimlessly.  Any logical points I bring up are dismissed with a wave of the hand, and vague references to feelings, and people’s rights to have feelings.  There is no actual comprehension of how people actually operate in real life, rather just a list of platitudes and philosophical impossibilities heaped on a giant pile of steaming bullshit and wishful thinking. 


Oh well… On the bright side, at least I get to experience “diversity of thought” or some other friggin’ nonsense like that.  I’m counting the hours until I’m only working at a place where diversity of thought consists of AR15 vs. AK47 or Mad Greek vs. Apollo Burger for lunch. 

This Week In The News, November 8, 2007
Gun Show: The Aftermath

10 thoughts on “Arguing with a liberal”

  1. See, this is why I hate being a liberal. I get lumped in with douchebags.

    On the other hand, conservatives get the Jerry Falwell/Fred Phelps crowd, so I guess it evens out.

  2. I don’t bother arguing with most anti-gunners; logic and facts are ignored, and everything comes down to “feelings” and “It’s For The Children™”

  3. “I’m only there in the mornings acting as a fashion consultant”. Larry…WHAT THE?!!!

    No, really, that’s what I thought it said, at first. 🙂

  4. I think the only reason that liberalism is not defined as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (usually shorthanded to DSM-IV, since the 4th edition is the latest one) is that liberals probably write the manual.

    I’ve had numerous similar discussions, on a similarly wide range of topics, with liberals, and have reached the conclusion that the only explanation for their fantasy world viewpoints is a congenital mental defect. I have known some liberals who have overcome the defect, but only as the result of a major traumatic personal event. Lacking that rare, and expensive, form of education, they’ll be dreaming of bunnies and butterflies to the end of their days. They’re simply unreachable by any other means, especially logic in any form, to which they’re allergic and which also has a toxic effect on their behavior.

  5. The “For the Children” aspects of some of this so-called “Liberal thinking” (because the brain-deads calling themselves liberals these days are NOT swayed by facts and scientific evidence that show they are wrong – they’re just conservative to idiotic ideas) gets under my skin. I am behind a “for the kids” defense group – one designated solely for stopping child sexual predation. Of course, when I bring that up, a lot of knee-jerk reactions were “THEY’LL WORK TO BAN GUNS NEXT!” Which was NOWHERE in the mission statement, especially since child sexual predators DON’T use guns.

    I won’t even get into the arguments against banning “incest” that popped up in one quarter of that discussion.

    So these “For the Children” Libtards really need a tall glass of STFU.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.