I wish that some Conservative or Republican (not remotely the same thing) would give the following speech:
Hey, you Democrats and Leftists — largely the same thing — we, the people of America, are really disappointed in the silly superficiality of your arguments on all the big issues.
Pick the issue — abortion, climate change, tax policy, ideology, foreign affairs — you choose. Your side always chooses the shallowest, most emotion-driven, silliest argument. As a result, people often just die.
Here are some examples: Regarding abortion: You never answered the question: “What if ‘it‘ is a baby? A genuine human being? What then? You’ve militated for the right to kill that ‘thing’ and you’ve killed tens of millions of such ‘things’ since 1972. And you never, ever, not even once, proved to anyone that ‘it’ is not a baby. If ‘it’ is a baby, then right here in the United States, we’ve engineered an atrocity on the same scale of moral horror as the Holocaust, and the Holodomor, and the 20th Century slaughter of 80 million Chinese.
Regarding this so-called big issue of Climate Change: You’ve constantly made the charge that we Conservatives “don’t believe in Climate Change.” You say that the climate is changing and that we must do something about it, and that what we must do about is is take more of Americans’ money and reduce their freedoms.
Yet we all learned, since we were little children, that the climate does nothing but change. Your charge that we don’t believe in Climate Change is false. Demonstrably false. However, the media are either too lazy, or unwilling, or unable, or insufficiently honest, intelligent, educated or informed to call you on it. Why don’t you call yourselves on it, and raise the level of your game?
Just as with abortion, you never answered a crucial question: What if what we humans do is just not all that significant in climate change? And the follow-up is just as important: Prove to me that what humans do is a big deal in climate change. Absent the answer to that question, there was never any need for an environmental movement — beyond “Let’s clean up after ourselves, okay?” — in the first place.
How about foreign affairs? Under what whacked-out state-of-mind would anyone think that “leading from behind” is even remotely a legitimate phrase to hear? You never answered that question. You should have, because hundreds of thousands have died in foreign lands, in large part because of the state of mind that permitted that nonsensical phrase to cross anyone’s lips.
Speaking of which: you on the left are fond of saying that when someone talks about getting tough on radical Islamic terrorism, it’s a great recruiting tool for the jihadists. Yet you never answered the next obvious question; a question that you needed to answer in order to make your assertion: Which is the better recruiting tool for the terrorists: weakness, or what they perceive as weakness … or strength? I’d make you a trillion dollar bet that weakness is a vastly more effective recruitment tool for terrorists. It certainly has been throughout all of history. Research, say: Hitler, Adolf. Or Bullies, Schoolyard.
Then there’s feminism: You leftists all laid out how women had it so tough, but you never answered the question: What if men have it worse, or just as bad, as women? You never answered that question. The answer to that question was necessary to whether there was any need for feminism in the first place. It was absolutely necessary to justify all the mountains of pro-women, anti-men legislation that has been promulgated in the past few decades. Or, more to the point, since that question was never answered, there was no legitimate justification whatsoever for all that legislation.
How about “Gay Rights?” You never answered the question: “What if homosexuality’s just not normal?” It sure doesn’t seem normal. Here’s a simple, indisputable truth: if everyone were to adopt homosexuality as a lifestyle, humanity would be extinct in three generations. Does that sound like a normal lifestyle to you? Nothing against anyone gay, but here’s a simple truth: you do a sick person no favors by pretending that his illness is normal.
What about all the recent “Transgender ” flapdoodle? It’s entirely possible that a man with all the genetics and body parts of a man, thinks he’s a woman … but that doesn’t make him right. Generally that makes him confused. Yet, you on the left immediately called him “her,” and her “him,” without any more scientific evidence than the fact that you could count on him/her/it to vote Democrat. This is a deep truth about the leadership of the Democrat Party: They have no need whatsoever for scientific proof of any whack-a-doodle claim at all, beyond: “They’ll vote Democrat.”
This “transgender” silliness should have spawned a whole passel of questions: If a man thinks he’s a woman, or vice versa, what if he’s wrong? What if these people are merely confused? Do you know that they’re not just looking for attention? Do you even know that they’re not just perverts who want to go to the bathroom or shower with people of the other sex? (See our pointed observations here(1),for example)
But, no, people like ex-President Obama started immediately to make policy based on nothing more than what these people said. And this despite the fact that all scientific evidence that exists says these people are … wrong. I thought that the Democrats were supposed to be the Party of Science.
Here are the two most important questions of all regarding the nonsense concept of “transgender”: How on earth would a man even remotely have the slightest clue what it is to “be a woman?” And vice versa? And: What if these people need help, not some heartless idiot telling them they’re normal?
You leftists want to tax the rich. And tax and tax and tax and tax them. Yet, you have no answer to this question: What, really, have you done that suggests you’ve deserved the trillions of dollars we’ve all already given to you?
How about poverty? You on the left want to throw free stuff, taken from others, at poverty. Yet, you never answered the question: “Does that actually cure poverty, or does it simply pay the poor to stay poor?” And, of course, to vote Democrat. There’s a simple fact: If a person  completes high school,  has an intact mom and dad family, and  waits for marriage before producing children, then he or she has a greater than 95% chance of avoiding poverty. Two of those factors are well within the control of nearly everybody. The third — having an intact mom and dad family — is surely something that at least we can do for our children. The point: why are we not incentivizing intact mom and dad families? That poses another obvious question: “Since we are not incentivizing intact mom and dad families, then how do the Democrats answer the obvious charge that they want the poor to stay poor?” And, of course, to vote Democrat. That all implies yet another question: “Since we know that really simple choices that a person makes can nearly guarantee that he’ll avoid poverty, why are we not aggressively incentivizing, as a society, those choices?
I can tell you personally, because I’ve worked with the poor, that their lives can be miserable. And short. The inability, or lack of knowledge as to how, to overcome government-imposed obstacles to economic progress causes an incentive to despair, followed by just giving up. Many poor people succumb to that despair.
Gay people’s lives are, on average, considerably shorter than the lives of normal people. And, when the left refused to tell gays the truth: male homosexual sex causes AIDS, they actually colluded in the deaths of thousands of gays.
Same with so-called “transgender” people. They lead generally shorter, generally unhappy lives.
Feminists can’t assure us that abortion doesn’t kill a real human being, and what the left would have us do in reaction to Climate Change would increase poverty, and decrease economic mobility … acting to keep poor people poor. And dead sooner than non-poor people.
Obama’s emasculated, feeble foreign policy, wildly approved of by the American left, has already resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in other countries.
Whenever the left embraces a policy position, someone ends up dead. Whether it be a baby, poor people, old people, gays, transgenders, foreigners … you name it. If the left is embracing a policy position, you can bet your eyeteeth someone’s going to end up dead.
I wish some prominent Conservative or Republican would deliver such a speech.
(1) About Michael Sam, the first openly gay man to make a National Football League team, we made this point:
Bottom line: A gay dude made it into the NFL, and guess what — though they won’t admit it, a bunch of St. Louis Rams are going to be more than a bit skeeved out at showering naked with him after games and practices. If, that is, they’re normal.
It seems a tad rude to say it, and there’s no polite way to say it, so I’m just going to say it straight up: let’s face it, Michael Sam will feel like a normal chap would feel at the prospect of showering each day with the Dallas Cowboys’ cheerleaders.