Arguing with a liberal is like arguing with your eleven year old after heâ€™s been told to put the Game Boy away because homework isnâ€™t finished yet.
â€œIâ€™m almost done.â€
â€œNo, put it away right now.â€
â€œBut Daddy, this level is almostâ€¦â€Â You take the toy away because it was already his third warning and now eleven year old boy is attitude boy. Â (Just the wayÂ a liberal cops an attitudeÂ when hisÂ arguments fall apart.Â Â Too bad we can’t give them a spank.Â Â ”Bad liberal, bad liberal.Â Â You lie one more time little liberal and I’m going to have to wash your mouth out with soap!”)
Back toÂ eleven year old, â€œYouâ€™re so mean, that level is hardâ€¦â€
â€œShut up and do your homework or this sucker is going in the trash, and donâ€™t you dare stop pouting, I want to see that miserable look stuck to your face for the rest of the evening!â€
A liberalâ€™s idea of countering a debate is telling you youâ€™re an ass or a liar, or a meanie, and never acknowledging or rebutting any points or facts with intellectually understandable arguments.Â Come to think of it, my eleven year old arguing for Game Boy makes a little more sense than a liberal.
While conservatives chide liberals for their willingness to supplant intent and goals in the U.S. Constitution, almost uniformly their response to these assertions is, â€œWhat about Guantanamo!â€Â Invariably followed by, â€œGeorge Bush is a Nazi!â€
If you want a real good example of the liberal debating technique, just watch Hannity and Colmes on Fox one evening.Â Hannity or some conservative guest will site a fact like â€œheat risesâ€ and Alan Colmes will say, â€œNo it doesnâ€™t, no it doesnâ€™t, not if itâ€™s hotter up there than it is down here.â€
Ostensibly, George W. Bush has superseded the Constitution of the United States by holding military detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military facility.Â Now, the obstreperous and incessant harangue from the left to release these prisoners and to abandon the base back to Cuba is deafening.Â According to the lefties, Guantanamo has â€œno strategic purposeâ€.
Strategic purposes are important too!Â Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal that America built and had sovereignty over because that minor gateway from Pacific to Atlantic has ceased to have strategic purposeâ€”idiot.Â
To understand the liberal thought process you must imagine you are the strongest and brightest member of a group, only to find your goal as a member of this group is to become the weakest and the dumbest.Â To earn your popularity you need to do stupid things and excoriate your own accomplishments.Â If you do something really debauched like cut off your own limb on a stage in front of people and call it artistic expression, then you go straight to the head of the class.
Liberal political policy extends this psychotic theme to empowering our enemies and demolishing ourÂ military and our economic supremacy, because it is precisely this supremacy which makes us vulnerable.Â Go figure, the weaker we get, the safer weâ€™ll be.Â (Check out Column #47 Dear Hugo Chavez,)Â
The U.S. Constitution has limited jurisdiction over aliens in American custody out of the country; a good reason to keep Guantanamo.
Even if detractors donâ€™t want to acknowledge that little caveat, they should at least read the Fifth Amendment, the one they are all bent out of shape aboutâ€”due process:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
One little clause might get your attention even if your IQ hovers right around that of the turnip, â€¦except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public dangerâ€¦
This concept might be tough for the turnip heads to wrap their little brains around, but the Founders deliberately gave the Commander in Chief expanded powers over members of the military, and especially in times of war or public danger.Â Even if Congress didnâ€™t declare war because of policy dispute or political squabbling the Founders still wanted the President to have the authority and powers necessary to protect the American people, hence the open term â€œpublic dangerâ€.
Libs canâ€™t stand that a Republican could have such authority, and so their tendency to interpret that damn â€œliving documentâ€.Â Of course it must be â€œinterpretedâ€ because if a Democrat becomes president again, it needs to be reinterpreted.
Guantanamo Bay was first inhabited by U.S. Forces in 1898 during the Spanish-American war.Â Cuba and the United States signed an agreement in 1904 to give the U.S. sovereignty over an area of approximately 45 square miles as long as it was used for coal mining and naval operations.Â In 1934, a newer agreement was signed where explanation was included to secure the agreement without change, unless both parties (the U.S. and Cuba) agreed to such change.Â To Castroâ€™s dismay, such agreement has never occurred and will not as long as the United States Presidency is occupied by a bright and strong leader.
With Barack Obama on the horizon for the Democrats who likes Cubaâ€™s form of government better than ours, and John McCain exhibiting dismay over operations at the facility, it probably wonâ€™t be long before the United States of America gives up another asset valuable and important to our national security.
Copyright 2008 Jim PontilloÂ Â