Thursday, April 14, 2005

Libs purport to relish "fact-driven" debate

When I read the ludicrous quote from liberal Jonathan Chait in the New Republic, that non-liberals are averse to "fact-driven debate" (which implies that liberals engage it), I laughed so hard that I almost launched my Diet Wild Cherry Pepsi from my nostrils. Note to self: Don't drink beverages while reading political commentary.

The column illustrates how conservative speakers have been assaulted by "fact-driven" leftists who "relished academic debates" while on college campuses. Uh-oh...wooks wike wittle Jeffey has been pissing Mummie and Daddie's money away while off at the university! From Coulter:
Liberals enjoy claiming that they are intellectuals, thrilled to engage in a battle of wits. This, they believe, distinguishes them from conservatives, who are religious fanatics who react with impotent rage to opposing ideas. As one liberal, Jonathan Chait, put the cliche in the New Republic: Bush is an "instinctive anti-intellectual" and his administration hostile to "fact-driven debate." In a favorable contrast, Clinton is "the former Rhodes scholar who relished academic debates." Showing his usual reverence for fact-checking, the New York Times' Paul Krugman says the Republican Party is "dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research."

I'm not sure how these descriptions square with the fact that liberals keep responding to conservative ideas by throwing food. (Remember the good old days when liberals' "fact-driven" ideas only meant throwing money at their problems?)


On March 29, liberals' intellectual retort to a speech by William Kristol at Earlham College was to throw a pie. On March 31, liberals enjoyed the hurly-burly of political debate with Pat Buchanan at Western Michigan University by throwing salad dressing. On April 6, liberals engaged David Horowitz on his ideas at Butler University by throwing a pie at him.

What might work better is some form of disincentive to liberals who engage in violent behavior whenever they hear an idea they don't like but can't come up with words to dispute.
But Ann...that's the modus operandi of the left: when you've lost the argument (which is often), attack the winner! Geez, it's like watching pro wrestling! And Hulk Hogan defeats Andre the Giant for the World Heavyweight Title! WHOA! Andre smacked him with the chair...what a sore loser!

Isn't it funny that liberals can muster outrage when we attack Saddam Hussein, but nary a peep when fellow Americans are attacked? I know, food fights aren't exactly military warfare, but I thought libs were supposed to be peace-loving pacifists against all violence? Well, I guess they are, but only to murderers and Islamic fascists, not to conservative speakers!

Oh, Coulter says about the food hurlers: "Fortunately for me, liberals not only argue like liberals, they also throw like girls."