Arguing With Liberals

I've been finding myself in a lot of arguments with liberals lately. I say argument because it's impossible to have a "debate" with people who lack common sense and the willingness to concede that they might actually be wrong. Debates contain give and take, and there's mutual respect amongst the participants. But arguments are just back and forth attacks, in one ear and out the other, and at least one side harbors contempt for the views of the other. That's why there's shouting, personal attacks and no productive outcome. I believe debate is vital, and that we should have them with friends, family and even strangers whenever possible, because it keeps us honest and helps us to know what we believe and why. But at the same time, i hate letting an ignorant liberal get the last word. So I put together a few thoughts that I use specifically when I'm confronted by a Libby looking to fight. I've never really written them down like this, so I figured why not. Enjoy!

I'm neither rich nor wealthy, but if I were it would be because I worked for what I earned. The fact that someone HAS wealth is not a reason to vilify them. And just because someone else HAS and you don't, that doesn't mean they somehow owe you anything. You want something? Go out and EARN it instead of waiting for someone to give it to you. It's usually faster that way, and it ALWAYS lasts longer, because you protect that which you earn. Not that you would know anything about earning. I'm sure you're sitting in your parent's basement using a phone or computer they paid for...

I may be white, but that doesn't make me a racist or a bigot. For you to assume so is inherently discriminatory, and that means YOU'RE the racist. When you you run around shouting "racism" every time you lose an argument, you trivialize true racism and you disgrace all who have suffered at the hands of real racists. Those who would tell Black or Hispanic citizens (or any member of a non-white race) that they have no control over their own lives and that their individual situation is always someone else's fault, are telling them that they are inherently incapable of achieving success on their own. THAT  racist. Telling a race of people that they NEED the government in order to succeed is racist. Asking that everyone play by the same rules and expecting everyone to learn self reliance, individual responsibility, and pride in one's personal talent is not racist. Telling a race of people that they can't live up to these expectations, IS racist. You would know that if you didn't take everything Al Sharpton says as law. Tawana Brawley comes to mind...

I am not a homophobe. I have no problem with homosexuals or anyone who does not fall into the category of "straight". I do not feel uncomfortable in their company. They are people and they have rights. Furthermore, I do not believe in legislating upon, that which cannot be  proven when it comes to people's inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I say if homosexuals want to get married, adopt children or what have you, then let them. I reject the argument that allowing gay marriage or adoption will corrupt children or the family unit. It seems obvious that heterosexual parents are fully capable of producing dysfunctional family units and turning their children into bad human beings. It seems just as obvious that homosexual parents probably have the same odds as heterosexual parents of making a family work or raising their kids to be good productive members of society. That said, it's important to note that there are 2 different kinds of marriage. There's the legal, courthouse, marriage license, new tax bracket marriage, and there's the religious sacrament of marriage. Whether you agree or disagree with a certain religious custom or edict, it is not government's role to dictate who can participate in religious customs. Government can no more legislate churches into conducting marriages for gay couples than it can legislate that Catholic churches must allow women to be priests, or that Lutherans must allow baptists to partake of communion. Government can't force a Muslims cleric to marry a Jewish couple, nor vice versa. Have the "its not fair" argument all you want, but legally government has no authority to dictate to religious institutions who can partake of what sacraments or other customs. I know you want to control what people believe, but unfortunately for you we live in a free republic instead of Nazi Germany...

I do not hate the poor. I want everyone to be successful and able to provide for themselves and their families. However, I believe teaching a person the skills to succeed, and how to work toward success is far more beneficial and long lasting than teaching people to be dependent on government. If you believe we should teach the poor and needy to seek out government handouts instead of arming them with the ability to flourish without government, then it is you must harbor contempt for the poor, and you who wishes them to remain in their current socioeconomic state. Government cannot create wealth, regardless of how much you desire it to. Effort, drive and determination create wealth and success. To tell those who are in poverty that they are incapable of rising out of it on their own, and that they need the government to take care of them is inherently discriminatory towards those people. I believe they have the ability to succeed and I want to teach them to focus that ability and put it to use. Yet liberals, who tell them they are doomed to fail, call me the evil one. A little bit of introspection might do you some good, but it's hard to look within yourself when your stuck so far up Obama's ass...

I do not hate the elderly. I believe we should help our elders as much as we can. But I believe in helping those who NEED it, and I believe the private sector is much better at helping the needy than government. Government cannot be trusted to put the needs of our elders ahead of their own campaign needs or lust for legacy. We get much more done, at a much lower cost, when we empower private entities like churches and charities help feed and care for our elders than when we rely on the politicians and bureaucrats of the federal government. We also need to prepare people well ahead of time for the expenses and circumstances of getting older by empowering them to achieve personal success. That is the first and most important step to caring for the elderly and making programs like Social Security and Medicare solvent, to start, and eventually obsolete. Of course that wouldn't do you or your President any good since your goal is to expand dependency and implode the American economy in order to replace our republic with a communist state...

I do not believe in anarchy, we need the rule of law. But government does not need it's hands in every facet of our lives. You and I are better equipped to make decisions for ourselves and our families than government will ever be. Only we as individuals can be certain of our intentions and motives. We can't trust government to look out for us, do what's best for us and our individual circumstances and all without ulterior motive. So it's simply common sense to leave as many decisions as possible up to the individual, and to limit the size and scope of government to that which individuals cannot accomplish on their own, such as defense of the nation, etc. But in order to understand common sense solutions you have to actually have common sense and the ability to think logically, and you fail on both accounts...

I do not support tax breaks for those who do not need them, but I do believe our tax system must be welcoming to businesses. No businesses means no job, no products or services and no money for anyone to be able to make ends meet. Our tax system should be based on consumption rather than income, because it gives consumers a choice in how much they pay in taxes rather than giving the government carte blanche to assign ambiguous tax rates based on wealth or a particular administration's definition of "fairness". With a consumption tax, businesses and "the rich" still pay more, but only because they spend more, not because the government declares them responsible for more. In addition, for those who claim we need income taxes in order to care for the needy, everyone has more money in their pockets with a consumption tax, increasing our ability to make ends meet and allowing us to choose to give aid to those in need as we see fit, rather than giving our money to politicians and bureaucrats who spend OUR money as THEY see fit. A consumption tax would also replace the more then 70,000 page tax code, with a much simpler and easy to abide by system, automatically reducing the time and costs associated with paying income taxes. It's just common sense. Unfortunately you can fit a common sense peg into a liberal hole...

I do not hate women. Women are just as capable as men at pretty much everything. I acknowledge we are each generally better suited for certain things from a genetic standpoint, but women are in no way inferior to men. I do however believe in protecting life, and this seems to be the point where I lose most liberals. By any definition a fetus is alive, and that life must be protected. Personhood and viability don't matter, life matters. I believe men and women should be made aware of the consequences of their actions, and when unintended pregnancies arise they should be responsible enough to see it through to birth for the child's sake. Human life is sacred, and life in one of our inalienable rights. That right should not be taken from a child because the parents did not take the responsibility of creating life seriously.  After birth, parents have the option of adoption if they are truly ill equipped to raise the child. However, I do not believe in leaving a mother who chose life to fend for herself. As long as she's willing to help herself, we should be willing to help her. By that same token, the father should be held responsible, and he should be the first line of help for the mother. If the father and mother and their families still are not enough, then obviously help should be available.  That said, I believe we can provide assistance through private entities much better than the government can. We get much more done, at a much lower cost, when we empower private entities like churches and charities help those in need than when we rely on the politicians and bureaucrats of the federal government. Unlike you, I'm not willing to end a life simply because I made a choice to have sex and a life was created. I see life as precious, not an insignificant inconvenience...

I do not hate immigrants. I believe we should welcome those who wish to become a part of our grand nation. However, we have laws for a reason. There is a legal way to come here and an illegal way. If you come legally, you should be free to flourish as you please, and enjoy the same liberties all Americans do. As long as you're willing  to follow our laws, contribute in your own way, become part of our society and assimilate into our culture, at least somewhat, you're more than welcome here. If you want to enjoy America the legal way, you should be free to do so. However, if you choose to break our laws and come here illegally, you should not receive the privileges that LEGAL immigrants do, and you should go to the back of the line behind those who did it the right way. By the way, if you believe in encouraging people to come here illegally, work here illegally-exploited as cheap labor and often in poor conditions, and live as fugitives, then you are the problem. It takes a special kind of disdain for a person to encourage them to live such a life. If you tell these people they deserve government dependency in the form of welfare, food stamps or other handouts, you are telling them that they cannot succeed without the government, and that is truly discriminatory and destructive to those people. Asking them to abide by our laws is not racist or discriminatory, it is simply matter of equal protection for ALL under those laws. I know you want to bring in as many people as possible and train them to be obedient, dependent liberal voters, but I actually give a damn about their well being and that of their families...

I do not want limitless access to guns and other weapons. We need laws to protect us from those who wish us harm. But I hold the 2nd amendment dear. Law abiding citizens should have the ability to arm and protect themselves. Criminals should not. Liberty and our inalienable rights are guaranteed unless we commit some heinous act to forfeit those rights, such as infringing upon the life, liberty or property of another individual or individuals. Any gun legislation we pass should aim to preserve the rights of law abiding citizens and keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and those who lack mental stability. Most importantly, a well armed, well practiced and well informed population is the best deterrent of tyranny. It is not only bad individuals that we have the right to protect ourselves from, but also bad government. The second amendment was written as a defense against those who would seek to rescind our liberty, and impose tyranny upon us, namely you and your President...