Arguing with Liberals

ArguingWithLiberals “It’s like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it’s victorious.”


Ever try arguing with a liberal? It’s pointless trying to use facts to educate people who have been taught that the truth doesn’t exist! They will always ignore your facts and counter them with emotive feelings and anecdotes.


The state education leftist propaganda indoctrination system teaches abuses kids with the false notion that they’re entitled to unearned self-esteem, and to not be offended by having their feelings hurt by the often-painful truth. Cause and effect are ignored, because it’s always someone or some thing else’s fault: enforced predeterminism excuses are at the root of all their favorite victimology sales scenarios.

When “self-esteem” (like “respect!”) is demanded but not earned, the demanders are insisting they are entitled to have rights without the concomitant corollary responsibility for having to earn them – exactly like ALL criminals always assert!

Criminal Marxists insist: “You earned stuff I didn’t bother to, SO YOU OWE ME!

The criminal negligents in the ‘education system’ only indoctrinate children in how to be better criminals!

And criminality retards children, because it keeps them dependent on others.

Here’s an obvious difference between the left and right: remember the old adage about “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day, but teach him how to fish, and you’ve fed him for a lifetime!“?

Right-thinking, civilized and law-abiding folk are all for promoting individual self-reliant responsibility, and so want to teach people how to fish (fend) for them selves, while leftist proglodytes really only want their victims to become dependent on them, as slaves are to a master; i.e:

Vote for us again, or you won’t get tomorrow’s fish – CAPISCE!?”

Liberalism is extortion, bribery, and blackmail all in one! Whee!

Criminals are infantile delinquents (worse than juvenile delinquents) because by imitating children and acting childishly, by posing as perpetually demanding infants, they can often play on their victims’ instincts to defend and educate children. Children are the only people in society who really are – at least temporarily – entitled to have rights without responsibilities. Criminals like to bask in the false perpetual extension of their pretended childhoods, routinely and slanderously accusing their victims of being “unfair!” to them.

In short, criminals only ‘teach’ victimology and how to be better extortionists, to children.

So, to liberals, there really are no evil crimes nor evil criminals, because everyone’s really only a helpless victim – of “society,” “products of their environments” (what’d Karl Marx himself call it – ‘Historical Predeterminism’ or something?) and/or “Slaves of Allah!”

And besides, to them, life’s too complex for anyone to ever really understand cause and effect, so, “since” all facts are therefore really only opinions anyway, any given liberals’ entirely fact-free opinion is the diversely opposite equal of any of those silly conservatives’ objective facts!

And THAT’S why everyone is equally entitled to unearned self-esteem! Whee!

(And remember, kids: “There’s No Wrong Answers”)!

Ever try arguing with a liberal? It’s pointless trying to use facts to educate people who have been taught that the truth doesn’t exist!

They’ve really only declared a confession of non-compus-mentis!

And their favorite deflection is the childish critical thinking logical fallacy called the Argumentum Tu Quoque, which only amounts to trying to compare two unrelated wrongs in order to pretend to make one of them into a right. “Two Wrongs Make a Right”:

There’s no evil crime nor evil criminals because we (i.e: you) all do it, too! Whee!”

Beyond that, their crime is all about the objectification: victim-blaming “defensively pre-emptive” slander.

They embrace the slanderous victim-blaming attack-first criminal “philosophy” that the best “defense” is a good offense, to keep their opponents on the defensive so they will remain emotionally off-balance and so never be able to (counter-)attack ‘first!’

Only lying thieves (fraud being the most basic form of criminal theft, the theft of the Truth) slanderously pretend their victims are too dumb to be educated!

The “elites” – including the “education” elites – are cowardly masochist traitors to rationality and civilization, who always want to form ever-larger gangs to protect them selves; they are all about the double-standards of subjectivism, and so oppose universal objectivity; they want rights without responsibilities, and so must offload their responsibilities onto their victims.

The reason they embrace might-made group “rights,” is both offensive and defensive: they can always assert they are “defensively protecting” others if and when they can make even a tenuous connection between some others at least somewhat similar to them selves who,  somewhere else, at some other time, were oppressed by some other people who were sort of like YOU; in which case, YOU OWE THEM!

The corollary is that if and when they get caught for their crimes, they can always use the group idol as an alibi-excuse to dilute their own culpability:

“I didn’t do it! ONLY ‘the GROUP’ did it! Whee!”

(Substitute “The System,” &/or “The Procedures” or your choice of idolatry for “The Group!”)

I’m pretty sure the main strategy AND subsequent tactics of liberals is to always generalize to dilute personal responsibility. It’s why they endorse group rights and responsibilities and absolutely hate factual cause-and-effect specifics. Generalizations are lies and exaggerations used to hide all the specific details of their individual criminal culpability. And they also get to blame specific victims for general group membership responsibilities, too!

They are criminals.

And, as such liberals like to assert that:

Criminals have rights, too!”

Well, actually: – NO, they don’t.

See, the Law is a social contract, where people agree to not attack (thereby innocent) others, first.

From agreeing to this, we get our only real right (to not be attacked first) and we have our only real concomitant, corollary responsibility (to not attack others first).

But when one chooses to break that contract and avoid one’s contracted responsibility BY attacking others first, one also thereby gives up one’s own right to not therefore be defensively (counter-)attacked by one’s attempted victims, second.

That counter-attacking second bit, was formerly known as “JUSTICE.” Criminals also used to be known as “Out-Laws” because their own choices had placed them outside the protections of the Law; it was therefore open season on them.

And even the courts do it, sometimes years later, when the perp is no longer a clear and present danger, because, as even the falsely divided civil and criminal laws agree, one must pay for what one takes.

The only job of any court or judge is to determine who started it, and to punish the instigating aggressors for their (even if failed) attempts; after all, it’s the thought (intent) which counts! And even “only attempted” crimes, are still crimes.

Any court or judge which refuses to do so, has abdicated their position of authority, and have become criminally negligent.

Basically, liberals are masochists: always trying to pretend to “control” their fears, BY causing the most worst-case-scenario problems (like by antagonizing innocent others) which cause the pains they fear the most. In this they do seem to recognize the simple cause and effect – that pain causes, and so can also cancel, fear, and not the reverse.

They just pretend to reverse it in order to deny ‘showing weakness,’ (i.e: fear of pain) as a part of their habitually presumptuous slanders, that all others are always out to get them!

I believe even the most wilfully self-blinded, obtuse criminal negligent (muslim, liberal) is almost NEVER really focused on chasing nebulous “hope and change” (say, via dopamine output stimulation) as they so-often pretend to others, so much as they are avoiding pain (or, in their cases, more specifically avoiding the fear of pain – including the fear of having to face those fears to actually discover and cancel the root causes of the mistakes and unsolved problems which cause the pains they fear). Like sane people, they still fear pain, but as masochists, are determined to cause themselves pain in order to cancel fear, while blaming their victims in doing so. This is both how and why most liberals ‘fail upwards.’

Even the most hardened drug addicts quickly become acclimatized to their drug of choice, and so require more and more and more of it to reach the same state of obliviousness, just as people who choose the relief from work tedium of a beach vacation quickly tire of the scene, as their minds automatically prioritize information by level of potential danger, and can be counted on to instinctively cast about for more problems to solve, more pains to avoid.

Such is the nature of the thought process itself, whether they want to honestly admit it or dishonestly try to avoid it and distract and deflect others into not-noticing they are doing so; they find millenniae of hard-wired evolutionary learning isn’t so easily avoided by even the stupidest monkey.

So basically, everything liberals do is a deliberate attempt to pretend to ‘prove’ themselves to be mentally incompetent, so they won’t have any responsibility to think for them selves about anything. We should simply let them ‘prove’ their point, declare them non-compus mentis, and move on to other problems, while striving to improve the education system for all future generations.

He that is good at making excuses is seldom good for anything else.”

-Benjamin Franklin-

(But there’s some good news, too: People are born tabula rasa – as blank slates – so it’s plain to see that liberals have actually been trained to be stupid and evil, by other people who were also trained to be stupid and evil; each generation trying to outdo the previous ones in the depths of evil stupidity to which they sink)! Criminality is nurtured not nature.

And so, when arguing with liberals, please always remember this simple rule of thumb, kids:

Truth welcomes scrutiny. Falsehood demands tolerance.


In fact, lefties always sound retarded (hence, the accuracy of such terms as “leftardation,” “libtarded,” etc.) BECAUSE all they’re ever really doing is trying to think up alibi-EXCUSES FOR THEFT, so of course their language has to employ all the critical thinking logical fallacy evasions, distractions, deflections, euphemisms, and metaphors (i.e: lies) in order to sell it to sane people, (and all crimes are forms of theft); i.e: “Wealth Redistribution” and that of course requires lies, like I just said, most often in the form of evasive metaphors and euphemisms (like for the best instance example, the term “Wealth Redistribution” itself)!

Openly, honestly endorsing stating one’s “Theft is Good!” assertions usually won’t work, when trying to sell it to sane people. If they were just plain stupid, they’d have to get some things right every now and then, just by random chance – but they don’t, because they have to know what’s right, in order to so perfectly oppose it all the time!

Since evil leftist masochists are always hell-bent on becoming victims of worst-case scenarios, they “project” onto and slander-blame their victims, because their first emotion is fear of getting caught for their crimes. So subjective double-standards are what they’re all about! Deliberately! For them, No objective Truth allowed!

Most of their sub-sequent forced predeterminism and group-rights idolatry is also only an excuse to “defensively” either do nothing, or to enjoy a perpetual excuse to attack others first, even if only by having the false right to delinquently force their own self-reliant responsibilities onto groups of “privileged/guilty” (innocent) others.

And of course they’ll always try to co-opt the largest gang, the government, into helping them with their wealth redistribution theft schemes.

As Thomas Jefferson noted: “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors?

And yet deliberate “error” (i.e: willfully intended, criminal negligence) isn’t really ‘error’ at all, is it?

The motto of criminally negligent leftists everywhere must be:

“There’s No Money In Solutions!” (So: Please Give Generously – AGAIN!)

They will always refuse to solve temporary problems with easy, simple and permanent solutions, in favor of not-solving them, spinning and pretending they are “eternal crises” with only temporary, band-aid “management therapies” available, in order to exploit the almost infinite number of symptoms unsolved problems generate.

Unfortunately, there’s only so many symptoms of The Golden Rule of Law (which simply defines all situational morality as “Do Not Attack First!”) one can address with lesser, circumstantial “laws” of morality, only so many right answers, before one must veer off into exploiting the almost infinite number of sorta almost right, (but really wrong) answers, in order to keep up the pretense that the legislators are actually doing something responsible to earn their pay and to continue to enjoy the right to govern others – a point which, after whence reached, societies decline into criminality and empires fall into ruin.


About unclevladdi

This entry was posted in Corruption, Crime, economics, Education, Globalization, human rights, Legal, media, Policy, politics, proglodyte, proglodytes, progressive, progressives, propaganda, Psychology, Regulation, Treason, War and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Arguing with Liberals

  1. Vladdi says:

    Daniel Greenfield has recently published a similar piece, bemoaning all the visible symptoms:

  2. dajjal says:

    Reblogged this on Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back and commented:
    Give it some thought, its worth your time.

  3. herbork says:

    This essay ought to be tattooed backwards on the backsides of bozos, so they can read it over their shoulders in a shaving mirror.

  4. Well Done…might i suggest a future work with an amended title “Modern Liberals” or Progressives or even stool pigeons? As a classical liberal I take umbrage to the criminals stealing the very word used to describe this criminal ideology.

    • unclevladdi says:

      Ah yes, of course Classical Liberalism is (OK, let’s be realistic here: WAS) completely different.

      In fact, it is of course only those very same “Classical liberal” Enlightenment values of self-reliant responsibility and individual human rights, that today’s Conservatives are trying to “conserve,” while the libertine “liberal” criminals revel in their notion of “progressively” looking ever “forward” to having no rules nor laws left at all to constrain only them selves.

      As with the old feudalist system, today’s liberals engage in group-might-makes-right extortion, claiming – as all criminals always do – to have rights without the corollary responsibilities to earn them; in fact, they want the false right to remain irresponsibly wrong, while imposing on only everyone else the responsibility to become right (as in factually correct).


  5. vladdi says:

    “If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.” (Psalm 29:9)

    Seems they had “liberals” back in the ancient Biblical times, too!


  6. vladdi says:

    Here’s a start for a possible easy solution:

    (It’s) “basically impossible to truly win an argument with a liberal. They’ll spout off about how all corporations are evil and then when you show an example of the good corporations do, they’ll dismiss it. Any argument you can give, which they have to agree with, will always be an exception. But there is something you can do. That’s to make them prove their point. You see… they can’t do it.

    Dr. Thomas Sowell came up with this formula and it’s absolutely brilliant. He came up with three questions to ask liberals, when they start mouthing off about any of their ideological positions. These questions are:

    Compared to what?
    At what cost?
    What hard evidence do you have?

    If we asked these questions more often, we might actually be able to make liberals think about their beliefs. When they say that taking guns away will reduce crime, ask them “What hard evidence do you have?” When they talk about something like universal health care, as they “At what cost?” When they say something is unfair, as them “Compared to what?”

    You see, they can’t answer those questions. Liberal arguments are based upon emotion, not fact. When Senator Fienstein was asked about the Second Amendment, she answered, “I think I know what’s best for this country.” That wasn’t facts; that wasn’t the law; that was emotion. She is afraid of guns, so she is determined to see them banished from existence. It doesn’t matter one lick to her that that’s an impossibility. Nor does it matter that doing so would leave guns only in the hands of criminals. As far as she’s concerned, any gun owner is a criminal.

    Those questions are based on reality and on trying to fit the liberal ideas into that reality. If it fits in with reality, then fine, let’s go ahead and do it. But you don’t make reality in Washington. You can’t legislate it or regulate it into existence. Reality is created by ordinary people doing ordinary things. Whatever lawmakers in Washington do, has to fit into that reality in one way or another.

    Can we give universal health coverage to all? Yes we can. But can we afford it? That’s another question all together. For that matter, does the healthcare industry have enough capacity to give it to all?

    Then there are the hidden costs in implementing liberal ideology. The IRS redefined “full-time” work to mean 30 hours per week, due to Obamacare. So, a lot of people who were making marginal wages to start with, lost a third of their income. That was a direct result of Obamacare, but you can’t find a single liberal who will admit it. Their response? Raise the minimum wage. Punish the corporations who don’t want to pay. Put them out of business… as if that’s going to help anything.

    Of course, the liberals are not easily dissuaded from their ideology. We see this time and time again in their response to things not going their way. When that happens, rather than admit there was anything wrong with their plan, their response is to say that they obviously didn’t do enough of it. So, they double down and do even more of what didn’t work.

    See the rest, here:



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s