BREAKING. Supreme Court Halts Obama Climate Change Rule
The US Supreme Court has blocked an attempt by the Obama administration to destroy the US coal industry. It ensures this rule will not be enacted under Obama.Read More »
Over at Facebook, a liberal friend of mine posted a link to a NYT article regarding Sarah Palin and the Wasilla rape kit issue. I responded that the article was a smear because it purported allegations as if they were facts, and I linked to Jim Geraghty’s Campaign Spot article that mentions how, at a minimum, there is no evidence proving that Palin made or wanted any rape victims to pay for their own kits.
Then, of course, all of my friend’s friends decided to get in on the action. The ensuing conversation (of which my original friend did not participate) went like this:
Person 1: She did it. Don’t be a stupe.
Me: This is your evidence? Calling me names? … I find your comment unfortunately typical of many Palin-haters. You offer no evidence, no analysis, and not even any base-level starter argument. I would like to think that anyone who personally hates a candidate, beyond political disagreement (no matter how severe), should first figure out where such internal feelings come from before taking a political argument beyond politics. Perhaps you are not a Palin-hater, but I write this because your comment mirrors them so much.
Person 2: I will sprinkle nut crust on your salad. Is this really the venue to freak a [expletive]? What will you accomplish?
Me: Nothing more or less than posting a link to a political article might or might not accomplish. Nothing more or less than name-calling in lieu of logical argument building might or might not accomplish.
Person 2: Are you just defending Palin for the challenge? It seems like a losing battle.
Me: Got you to pay attention, didn’t I? Hence also why people post articles.
Person 2: You made a big fat [derogatory term] spectacle of yourself is what you did. People post articles not so others can chew them out over it, but so that people will have easier access to the information they may or may not be interested in. All I’m saying is, whether or not the article lied is a matter of journalistic integrity. There’s no reason to go to town over it.
Me: That doesn’t make sense. If I can use Facebook, then I can use the internet to find my own articles just fine, and (my original friendand others know that long before they post such links. And of course nobody wants to be chewed out! It’s called debate, and it’s part of what’s made America great for over 230 years.
Person 2: Posting an article isn’t an invitation for debate.
Me: Sorry; I’ll put my tail between my legs and exercise my First Amendment rights somewhere else, I guess…
Person 1: Victory!
Ok, so, what we have here are two examples in the same conversation of absolutely ridiculous claims.
First: If the media flat-out lies, then we can just chalk it up to a question of journalistic integrity and nobody should “go to town over it.” I guess this would mean that all of us who care about the truth are just wasting all of our time since it seems like it’s up to the journalists to be truthful or not, and it wouldn’t be right for anyone to call them on it. That might be fine in some other country, but not in the United States. Unless you’re a liberal.
Second: “Victory” to liberals is defined as the muting of free speech. This first part of the Bill of Rights of the freest country on the face of the earth does not apply to anyone with whom liberals disagree. But is it really a shock that someone who does not support free speech is a Palin-hater? Especially since we had already established that journalistic lies are irrelevant to the public? Can you imagine what would have happened if I actually attacked The One, instead of simply defending Sarah Palin and America? I’d rather not think of it, but I’m sure we’ve all seen the examples of it elsewhere already. [cough]SNL[cough cough]
From my conversation, I have reaffirmd that there are many (I say “many” because we have heard all of this before in other places here) liberals 1) have no logic; 2) do not think it is important to argue about actual point at hand in a debate (in this case, the NYT article); 3) do not care about what is true or what is not; and 4) dislike free speech. If any of these four things can be considered sane in a free democratic society, then I am not aware of it.
For anyone still doubting whether the real hardcore Lefties are actually all that bad, please re-read this post.
DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP