How To Talk To A Liberal: Questions You Can’t Answer

The other day I got into a debate with a liberal on twitter (shocking I know). This guy had responded to one of my posts regarding Tea Party opposition to military intervention in Syria, saying that such a position was illogical and implying that those who held it were despicable human beings. He then began grilling me with all kinds of foreign policy questions, from events in Reagan’s time to Bush’s War in Iraq.

Now I’m no foreign policy expert; in fact I know precious little about the intricacies of dealing with other nations. So I’m left with a classic debate scenario:  the unanswerable question. How do you respond to a question when you don’t know the answer?

The simple solution is, you don’t. You can’t know everything, so the proper response is to take control of the situation by admitting that fact up front.

Even if the opponent continues to push it this should still be your answer. Doing so takes the issue off the table so that you don’t have to step into the trap set for you to make a statement that you will not only regret but probably disagree with later.

So the next time you find yourself asked a question that you don’t know the answer to, just remember my favorite go to response:  I don’t know.

How to Talk to a Liberal: Redistribution of Wealth

Living in California most of my life has given me the opportunity to witness liberalism first hand in some of the most tragic ways. High taxes, manipulative policies, special favors for illegal aliens–you name it, we’ve got it. Liberals have left no stone unturned in finding new ways to legislate, regulate, and utterly ruin the lives of the average citizen every time they come in contact with a government run entity.

You’d think I’d one day get used to this kind of ideology–but no! California liberals never cease to amaze me at how ready they are to take your money and spend it on foolish, fraud filled programs. Take Chad for instance (real name withheld for privacy concerns). Chad believes that middle class families should be paying for his life as a college student. Their money should be taken from them and redistributed to those who do not make as much, if any at all.

This is all well and good if you’re Chad the starving college student who never worked a 40 hour week in his life. However, the best way to respond to this liberal (Marxist) nonsense is to set up the scenario in terms that he can understand. What if Chad got an assignment from his liberal college professor, and he worked REALLY hard on it for weeks on end to get it done. And what if Chad turned in the assignment and got an A, but when the teacher handed it back he said, “Chad, I know you got an A on this assignment, but I don’t think that it’s fair to the other people that didn’t work as hard and got lower grades. I think we’re going to have spread your grade around and just have everyone get a C.”

How does redistribution feel now Chad? Not so good when you’re the one having the earnings from YOUR hard work taken from you, does it? The way I always look at this Marxist ideology is not via the myth of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but by looking at redistribution of wealth as what it really is:  theft.

Think Before You Tweet

One night I was perusing through the #iHateItWhenPeople hashtag and I noticed this gem of a tweet from a self proclaimed liberal.

Untitled

I would just like to ask my dear friend Jesse if he took the time to read my bio in which I describe myself as a Christian conservative (among other things), would the first thing that came to his mind be a stereotype? Do you think of a sheltered, home schooled girl still wet behind the ears that “clings to God and guns?” Well it turns out that Jesse (from NorCal) actually believes in a few stereotypes as well, demonstrated in a previously retweeted post.

Untitled2

This retweet clearly expresses the false stereotype that prolifers only care about unborn children, and don’t give a rip about what happens to them after they are born.  Perhaps by retweeting this false stereotype of cruelty and heartlessness Jesse was trying to explain to us why we shouldn’t believe media narratives or political caricatures–or perhaps not. It’s unfortunate that the same people that cry against bigotry only seem to desire open-mindedness for opinions that they agree with, while stereotyping those they do not.

Great Tweets from the #AuditTheIRS Tea Party Rally!

Where Did Occupy Wall Street Come From?

Many of us probably wondered where groups like Occupy Wall Street got their ideas and tenants that they were supposedly fighting for.  One place can be found right in your junior college classroom, in a gem of book called “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn, or as I affectionately call it “The Second Communist Manifesto.”  Below is an updated version of one of my college essays done in response the book in an attempt to draw a correlation between Zinn’s ideology and that of OWS.

Zinn’s thesis is to tell history from the point of view that is against pro-capitalist governments.  He believes that capitalism is the root of America’s problems, that these governments should be overthrown by a bloody revolution, and that they should be replaced with communist societies.  Contrastingly, excessive regulation on the free market, over-printing of money, high taxes, and increasing national debt due to excessive spending by the government are only a few of the alternative sources for America’s economic problems. 

While some groups may think that they are ready for Zinn’s solution (i.e. Occupy Wall Street), the majority of American’s believe that capitalism is still the economic structure that should be used and that the government should stop abusing it (i.e. The Tea Party).  Now when I first read this thesis I thought that the U.S. military would be a daunting force deterring such a bloody revolution as Zinn advocates.  However, there was a great deal of violence that took place at the Occupy Wall Street protests and to my knowledge little to no action took place in response.  Obviously, they did not reach the level of violence that Zinn called for, but I wonder how far OWS could have gone without receiving severe remedial action.  Howard Zinn (and OWS for that matter) would not be strictly Marxist if they did not advocate in favor of violence, thus they cannot peacefully protest without deviating from their ideology.

According to Zinn, “incentives of cooperation” are natural human desires.”  He believes that human nature is basically good and that it is the economic and governmental structures that bring about the evil.  This line of thinking is severely flawed since humans create these structures.  His view of human nature comes into play in specifically in reference his anticipated result of his bloody revolution.  He states that his bloody revolution will usher in “a new culture of sharing, of respect, a new joy in the collaboration of people to help themselves and one another.”  In reality, the countries that experience communist societies have resulted in the wealth of a small elite and a miserably poor existence for the rest of the society.

I find it particularly interesting that the exact verbiage used by Occupy Wall Street is in Zinn’s 23rd chapter.  “One percent of the nation owns a third of the wealth […]. This is possible because the more of the 99 percent that begin to see themselves as sharing needs, the more the guards and the prisoners see their common interest, the more the Establishment [capitalist government] becomes isolated, ineffectual.”