Are liberal commenters political imbeciles?

Liberal commenters love to call conservatives Photo: Howzey (Flickr)

LOS ANGELES, August 10, 2012 — Are liberal commenters political imbeciles?

The question may seem provocative, but based on what passes for intelligence on internet message boards, there is merit in this supposition.

The crux of virtually every liberal argument is to refer to the conservative as a “liar.” Then when asked to give an example of an actual lie, there is no response. There are only two conclusions that can be inferred from this.

One is that the liberal has no examples. This means that they made a charge that was untrue. This would make them actual — say it slowly — “liars.”

The other is that these people simply do not know what the word means. In their world, calling someone a liar translates into “I disagree with you but cannot articulate why.” This does not make the liberal a liar; it makes him an imbecile.

The word “imbecile” may seem harsh, but how else can we explain an adult unable to understand the meaning of a word that little children clearly grasp?

As a young child I had to testify in a deposition. The matter was routine, but the judge asked me some specific questions. “Eric, do you know what it means to tell a lie? Is it wrong to lie? Why is it wrong to lie? Do you know the difference between lying and making a mistake?”

The last one is important because lying is intentional and deliberate.

Young children understand this, but the moral relativism in the land of liberalism turns the notion of lying upside down in several different ways.

1.) “George W. Bush lied.”

2.) “Karl Rove is a liar.”

3.) “Fox News lies.”

4.) “Republicans are liars. Everything they say is a lie.”

5.) Mitt Romney is obviously a liar.

At this point conservatives ask liberals the same question. How? What are the actual lies? Is there a single actual example?

Then liberals respond in different ways.

1.) Random words that do not form a complete sentence. Examples of this include “Enron,” “Halliburton,” “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” “tax returns,” and “Bain Capital.” The conservative response is to dig deeper and ask a follow-up question. What about them? The left fails to graduate to complete sentences.

2.) Insisting there are tons if not hundreds of examples. Despite this, they do not provide even one.

When conservatives accuse liberals of lying, it is because they actually did it. Bill Clinton did lie under oath in a deposition. Dan Rather did air fake documents regarding George W. Bush’s military service. Barack Obama did say he would run the most transparent administration in history, and has repeatedly been caught acting in secret. MSNBC did air doctored videos to take the person videotaped out of context. Climate scientists were caught through emails manipulating their data.

The examples of liberals lying are met with shrugs. Yet actual evidence has to matter. To have a car bumper sticker that reads “No one died when Clinton lied” is to imply that liberal lies are acceptable. The ends apparently justify the means.

The next step is for liberals to read columns and deliberately ignore anything that does not fit their predetermined opinion of a conservative columnist. For instance, most reasonable people would understand that there are some honest liberals, and some corrupt conservatives. Yet most liberal commenters would ignore these sentences and claim that the column stated that all liberals were liars and all conservatives were truthful. Again, an inability to read is not the hallmark of a bright individual.

Only two questions remain. What should liberals do, and why does this matter?

In reverse, this matters because the internet has become the Wild West. Internet commenters hiding under fake screen names have become the new bullies on the block. They are not interested in contributing anything positive to society. They just want to harass people for kicks. Their attitude is “if you don’t like it, don’t write.” This is the wrong answer. The solution is to encourage civility and enforce it when necessary. Everybody benefits when issues are discussed in a civilized manner.

Liberals will then say that using the word “imbecile” defeats my point. Wrong again. Calling out bad behavior with a tough but accurate definition is the antidote to bad behavior, not the bad behavior itself. Shooting an armed intruder is self-defense, not murder. When adults use words without knowing what those words mean, they are intellectually challenged. That is a polite way of calling these people imbeciles.

What liberals should do is copy Aretha Franklin. As the song says, just “think.” Think before writing. Know what words mean.

Anybody accusing anyone else of lying should be prepared to state exactly what the lie was.

Only honest sources should be used. You cannot be your own source.

“Lying” is not the same as “disagreeing.” The fact that too many liberals despise conservatives for existing and breathing air does not make conservatives liars. It just makes liberals angry and vindictive.

The left has lost the policy discussion. Liberals were dominant in the 1930s, peaked in the 1960s, began slipping in the 1970s, were in full retreat in the 1980s, and have not recovered since. The conservatives do not need to get in the gutter because conservatives at this stage in history win when the discussion is policy based. The right does not want a personality contest because the left has the advantage in that situation.

The politics of personal destruction is all the left has. This is why they throw around words like “liar” without being responsible enough to justify the use of such a loaded term.

So to every liberal commenter who has ever called a conservative a liar, the challenge is simple. Put up or shut up. Give a concrete example without personal attacks.

Failure to do this leaves only two conclusions. The liberal accuser is either a liar or an imbecile.


This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from The Tygrrrr Express
 
blog comments powered by Disqus
Eric Golub

Eric Golub is a politically conservative Jewish blogger, author, public speaker, and comedian. His book trilogy is “Ideological Bigotry,” “Ideological Violence,” and  “Ideological Idiocy.” 

He is Brooklyn born, Long Island raised, and has lived in Los Angeles since 1990. He received his Bachelors degree from the University of Judaism, and his MBA from USC. A stockbrokerage professional since 1994, he began blogging on March 11th, 2007, the three year anniversary of the Madrid bombings and the midpoint of 9/11. He has been inflicting his world view on his unfortunate readers since then. He blogs about politics Monday through Friday, and about football and other human interest items on weekends.

 

 

Contact Eric Golub

Error

Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Featured
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus