April 1, 2008

How to Reply to a Lefty

As luck would have it, my blog was recently visited by a friend on the left who was nice enough to give me lots of examples of what may come up when you get backed into a corner, talking politics, by someone with whom you disagree. He gave me so many examples that I may not have time to address them all. If you would like to read the entire exchange click here. Let me also clarify that I am posting this for my conservative friends who have been cornered, and weren't quite sure how to respond. I am not doing so to be mean to the commenter.

When it comes to the Constitution I will re-iterate that there are many on the left that believe that if something is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution as being un-Constitutional that it must thereby be Constitutional. Because rape isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't make it Constitutional. We could argue these points all day.

When I mentioned that Saddam Hussein used WMD on the Kurds he replied that "Hundreds of dictators slaughter thousands of people each year. Why aren't (we) you clamoring for the US to overthrow...." I didn't mean that we went into Iraq to save the Kurds, my point was only that Saddam Hussein had WMD and used them. But in reply, I would say that by his logic we should never have gone into Europe during WWII. Germany didn't attack us, Japan did.

He wrote that the US government gave Iran chemical weapons. That is a lie, plain and simple. There were some US chemical companies (now out of business) that may have sold chemicals to Iraq. And prior to our invasion of Iraq, contrary to what those on the left would tell you, the entire world believed Saddam Hussein was a threat, as did the previous Democratic administration.

Maybe telling someone to move to France is a bit harsh. I just think that people who want to live in a socialist country might find Europe a better fit than the United States of America.

If my visitor had read my blog regularly he would have found a post with a link to an article that details the progress we have made in Iraq.

The history books I've read have told me that from the 1950's to the 1980's the Soviets and communists were a real threat to freedom-loving people everywhere. They used brutality to enforce their "utopian" ideals. The "democratically elected Iranian government" in 1953 was a communist government allied with the Soviets, so the CIA assisted in the toppling of that government. And no, I have not said that I think Jimmy Carter should have invaded Iran, but he could have done something to help a US ally. Maybe he would have avoided the hostage crisis that humiliated him so.

In closing, they will make things up, omit other things and then get upset if you tell them to move to France. Keep up your guard and if you're lucky you won't get stuck in that corner!

4 comments:

tafka pb said...

Well, you certainly put me in my place. You again failed to address any of my key points. If you didn't mean we should have invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds, then why do you and your ilk bring it up repeatedly?

And again, it is abundantly clear that it is you who do not understand Constitutional law. You attempted to cite the 10th Amendment as a reason universal healthcare would be unconstitutional. When I asked how the 10th Amendment prohibited it, you threw out "rape."

Nice job.

Use an extreme, nonsensical example as cover because you have no real reply.

So, for all LC's readers, I hope you're taking notes. When someone brings up an issue you cannot address, the proper reply is "Rape is not mentioned in the Constitution."

And, people wonder why the country is so screwed up after six years of total GOP control and more than a year of GOP filibusters and vetoes.

The Lonely Conservative said...

Hey Tafka,

Did you actually believe that posting long comments full of fabrications, half truths and liberal spin would bring me over to your side? You've been drinking the Cool Aide for too long. Your party couldn't be more un-democratic if they tried, with the super-delegates and goofy caucuses that only a few can attend. And when it comes to your beloved socialist policies, what do you think the Founding Fathers meant when they formed a Republic to protect against tyranny of the masses? I don't want any part of your tyranny. Perhaps you would find it more enjoyable to visit a more left-leaning blog that would be more friendly to you ideas.

tafka pb said...

Still not countering any of my points.

That's what is great about blogs like this. The author can't defend any of her points, and starts throwing out cheap namecalling like "lefty" and "socialist" and asks that anyone who challenges her to stop reading.

And, I think if you check, you'll find that the GOP uses caucuses, too.

AND ...

The GOP also uses superdelegates, although they don't like to mention it. Just google the term GOP superdelegate, and you'll find many articles about the GOP version.

And, just in case you are too intellectually lazy to do so, here's an excerpt from an article with citations on wikipedia:

"In both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, there are a number of state-level unpledged delegates. They are chosen by each state's party through a method of its choosing: convention, caucus, or state party leader vote.[4] State-level unpledged delegates tend to vote for the candidate who received the most votes from their state. But they are not required to do so, and some state parties give them more leeway than others). Many state Republican party delegations are made up entirely of unpledged delegates which gives them the distinction "winner take all".[5] Even with these traditions, unpledged delegates are allowed to change their vote at any time before the national convention. This is why both the Republican and Democratic parties have the potential for a brokered convention."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

Once again, you show your ignorance of the things of which you speak.

I shall leave you alone now, since this debate has been far too easy.

Take care.

Some day you migth awaken to find that "every man for himself" and "money over people" turn out to be pretty dismal philosophies. But, that's how the GOP raises its soldiers. Good luck with that.

The Lonely Conservative said...

Sorry I don't have the mental prowess to read into the Constitution rights which it does not guarantee. That little trick is left up to people like you. And I'll tell you again, I am busy, I have a job and a family and I don't have time to bother with all of your rantings.