Posts
Nothing is more frustrating than listening to a liberal discuss a social or political issue in emotional terms. Well, maybe trying to get gum off your shoe is more frustrating, or removing toilet paper stuck to the gum--but you get the idea.
Yet you have to give credit to liberals, in spite of them having little or no verification of their beliefs, be it on social issues, gun control, or economics, however, they still manage to win elections.
Part of their success they receive with public support can be attributed to how they use words. Liberals are black belts in verbal karate. They refer to abortion as a "health issue" or "a woman's right to choose," and it almost sounds plausible because there's usually an element of guilt attached to it--liberals thrive on guilt--it's the manure of their soil.
We conservatives try to counter liberal talking points but are less successful at it because we fail to make their rebuttals emotionally labile. We rely on facts and logic, which doesn't play well with liberals who might be disillusioned by the leftists who have destroyed the promise of hope, but who are not willing to give us a chance because the left is promising change that they can believe in--and they do. We need to do what the left has done since Washington was a corporal: baffle 'em with our BS.
When a liberal appeals to the emotions with "a woman's right to choose," conservatives need to counter that with emotional content such as: "a baby's right to live."
When a liberal declares that a 20 week old fetus isn't yet a human being, we need to ask: "Then what is it if not human? If you aren't killing a human being, then what are you killing?" Now that's emotion a liberal can identify with and get behind. But unfortunately, that will probably not convince a true liberal to accept your point of view--they made up their mind when the day they bought their first pair of Earth Shoes, and trying to change their thinking and get them to use logic, is like trying to use a pogo-stick for body surfing.
Not surprisingly, liberals love liberal art courses, which puts them at an advantage at cocktail parties and picking up LBGTXYZ people (I believe Facebook has 57 varieties of sexual preference--like the Heinz Corporation's products). And liberal arts is the way to go if you're looking for work at Bob's Big Boy or the Obama administration. But the most gainful employment liberal arts courses offer is for those who want to teach Gender Studies, Black Studies, Medieval Knuckle Jousting and the like.
Another important thing we can learn from liberals is how to be cool. A liberal can wear a Che Guevara t-shirt and look cool. Anyone who can wear a shirt with the likeness of that cold-blooded, scumbag, commie killer must know a thing or two about how to be cool, and we need to learn how to do that in case Osama t-shirts go on sale.
Liberals are usually experts in walking back stupid, obvious lies, present administration excluded. When Susan-Sunday-Talk-Show-Knuckle-Jouster-Rice said that Bowe Bergdahl served his country with "honor and distinction," she was obviously talking out of the wrong bodily orifice. But when CNN's Jim Acosta interviewed her on D-Day about this obviously moronic remark, she tried to walk it back with: "What I was referring to was the fact that this was a young man who volunteered to serve his country in uniform at a time of war. That in itself is an honorable thing."
Is it, Susie? Did Bradley (aka Chelsea) Manning serve honorably? He/she/it (say that fast) volunteered to wear the uniform. Benedict Arnold volunteered to wear it too. Would you say the same about them as you did about Bergdahl?
See Sue, it isn't about how you start off that counts--it's how you end up. If you don't believe me, go ask the New York Rangers about the first two Stanley Cup Games they just played.
So if conservatives are going to take walking back lessons they need to learn them from America's premiere back walker and bull artist, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the veritable Queen of Balderdash.
Hillary said she takes full responsibility for the Benghazi scandal in which 4 Americans were under attack by Muslim jihadists and we were only 400 miles away with jet fighters that could have made the trip in an hour. But, of course, we "stood down." In the same breath in which she said she takes full responsibility, she passed that responsibility off to "the experts" that know more about security than she knows. So she made it a kind of "responsibility hot potato" and time heals all non-life-threatening wounds.
But dude, that was, like two years ago.
ADDENDUM: This is more an after thought than an addendum, but I like the sound of addendum better.
One thing we conservatives need to learn better from our friends across the aisle is how to use the trusty old ad hominem attack. Imagine, we have a soldier, Bowe Bergdahl, who walked off his base, possibly deserted, and all of his brothers in arms said he deserted. Instead of taking that for what it's worth, the lamestream media attacked the soldiers who unanimously made the same claim. That's simply incredible.
It seems like everything of late has become politicized, even behavior that has no bearing on politics, like desertion in time of war.
Tweet
 |
| Hillary Clinton |
Yet you have to give credit to liberals, in spite of them having little or no verification of their beliefs, be it on social issues, gun control, or economics, however, they still manage to win elections.
Part of their success they receive with public support can be attributed to how they use words. Liberals are black belts in verbal karate. They refer to abortion as a "health issue" or "a woman's right to choose," and it almost sounds plausible because there's usually an element of guilt attached to it--liberals thrive on guilt--it's the manure of their soil.
We conservatives try to counter liberal talking points but are less successful at it because we fail to make their rebuttals emotionally labile. We rely on facts and logic, which doesn't play well with liberals who might be disillusioned by the leftists who have destroyed the promise of hope, but who are not willing to give us a chance because the left is promising change that they can believe in--and they do. We need to do what the left has done since Washington was a corporal: baffle 'em with our BS.
When a liberal appeals to the emotions with "a woman's right to choose," conservatives need to counter that with emotional content such as: "a baby's right to live."
When a liberal declares that a 20 week old fetus isn't yet a human being, we need to ask: "Then what is it if not human? If you aren't killing a human being, then what are you killing?" Now that's emotion a liberal can identify with and get behind. But unfortunately, that will probably not convince a true liberal to accept your point of view--they made up their mind when the day they bought their first pair of Earth Shoes, and trying to change their thinking and get them to use logic, is like trying to use a pogo-stick for body surfing.
Not surprisingly, liberals love liberal art courses, which puts them at an advantage at cocktail parties and picking up LBGTXYZ people (I believe Facebook has 57 varieties of sexual preference--like the Heinz Corporation's products). And liberal arts is the way to go if you're looking for work at Bob's Big Boy or the Obama administration. But the most gainful employment liberal arts courses offer is for those who want to teach Gender Studies, Black Studies, Medieval Knuckle Jousting and the like.
Another important thing we can learn from liberals is how to be cool. A liberal can wear a Che Guevara t-shirt and look cool. Anyone who can wear a shirt with the likeness of that cold-blooded, scumbag, commie killer must know a thing or two about how to be cool, and we need to learn how to do that in case Osama t-shirts go on sale.
Liberals are usually experts in walking back stupid, obvious lies, present administration excluded. When Susan-Sunday-Talk-Show-Knuckle-Jouster-Rice said that Bowe Bergdahl served his country with "honor and distinction," she was obviously talking out of the wrong bodily orifice. But when CNN's Jim Acosta interviewed her on D-Day about this obviously moronic remark, she tried to walk it back with: "What I was referring to was the fact that this was a young man who volunteered to serve his country in uniform at a time of war. That in itself is an honorable thing."
Is it, Susie? Did Bradley (aka Chelsea) Manning serve honorably? He/she/it (say that fast) volunteered to wear the uniform. Benedict Arnold volunteered to wear it too. Would you say the same about them as you did about Bergdahl?
See Sue, it isn't about how you start off that counts--it's how you end up. If you don't believe me, go ask the New York Rangers about the first two Stanley Cup Games they just played.
So if conservatives are going to take walking back lessons they need to learn them from America's premiere back walker and bull artist, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the veritable Queen of Balderdash.
Hillary said she takes full responsibility for the Benghazi scandal in which 4 Americans were under attack by Muslim jihadists and we were only 400 miles away with jet fighters that could have made the trip in an hour. But, of course, we "stood down." In the same breath in which she said she takes full responsibility, she passed that responsibility off to "the experts" that know more about security than she knows. So she made it a kind of "responsibility hot potato" and time heals all non-life-threatening wounds.
But dude, that was, like two years ago.
ADDENDUM: This is more an after thought than an addendum, but I like the sound of addendum better.
One thing we conservatives need to learn better from our friends across the aisle is how to use the trusty old ad hominem attack. Imagine, we have a soldier, Bowe Bergdahl, who walked off his base, possibly deserted, and all of his brothers in arms said he deserted. Instead of taking that for what it's worth, the lamestream media attacked the soldiers who unanimously made the same claim. That's simply incredible.
It seems like everything of late has become politicized, even behavior that has no bearing on politics, like desertion in time of war.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment