Why Can’t Liberals Debate Honestly?

By
October 11, 2007

The moonbats are out in full swarm over the S-CHIP debate. As is becoming their common practice, they disingenuously put victims, even children who have experienced a tragedy, forward with no shame at all. That’s because they need to make the debate about something else. Whenever Americans actually understand what the libs are up to, their ideas are always rejected. Their victim pimping is nothing more than a sad tactic to try and prevent their positions from being challenged. But challenge them and their tactics we must.

For my part, I went up against Alan Colmes, who, as expected, stacked the deck against the conservative position with disinformation, and also Bill Scher at Liberal Oasis – I wonder who pays for the water there, you know it isn’t a lib? Or perhaps like the Dems in Congress, he simply has children carry it in for him?

I edited and reduced a file here – you should be able to right click and save as, or play it in your browser. The quality has been reduced to also reduce file size. The site for Alan’s show should have a full podcast up. The S-CHIP debate was at 11 PM.

Meanwhile, Ezra Klein has been going after Michelle Malkin. Frankly, if the Liberals actually felt their positions were sound, they wouldn’t use such pathetic tactics, or scream so loud when you start poking holes in their spin.

On behalf of all liberal bloggers of purported good faith, the Respectable Liberal Blogger Ezra Klein has chivalrously stepped up to the plate to challenge me to a debate about S-CHIP.

I’m. Trrrrembling.

With. Laughter.

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. Tano says:

    Huh?
    Is this some sort of a joke post?
    Ezra Klein offered to have a purely substantive debate with Malkin – no name-calling, or any side stuff, just a discussion of the issues with SCHIP.
    Her response was about as bizarre as one can get. How can anyone read that and not conclude that she is one sick puppy, and clearly unable or unwilling to have an honest discussion.
    So, Dan. Why dont YOU take up Ezra’s challange? This could be a glorious opportunity for you – move to the head of the class of wingnuttia, and show the world how smart and honest conservatives can be.

  2. Pothus says:

    Actually, I thought Michelle Malkin’s response was apropos to mr Klien. Guess I don’t drink the right kind of Kool-Aid as some that post here.

  3. bill-tb says:

    Liberals have different gods … to liberals logic is their enemy and truth is their terror. Once you make the proper substitutions it will become clear. Hard to debate circular reasoning, a circle which liberals find most gratifying..

  4. BobInStamford says:

    Bwaaah, the libruls stacked the deck. Perhaps if you had read the Limbaugh Letter, you would have been better prepared to handle those libruls.

  5. Fred Beloit says:

    To carry the BoobinBridgeport’s logic (hahahahah) to its conclusion we get a system like this: If I am poor, I really can’t afford anything and need the government to pay for everything. They need to buy me a car so I can get to my low-paying job, either a car or ticket to ride public transportation. I need help to buy food. I need help to buy clothes. I need help for entertainment, who can live without it. I need free health care. For everything I want to buy I need government help. There is only one final answer. We must put most of our pay or assets in the government so the poor can apply to the government to buy whatever they need. Of course then we will all end up poor, but that’s OK. The government will take care of us.
    The labial mind in action. Place ever higher taxes on smoking to pay for programs for the poor and then forbid smoking in ever more locations until finally in and around the home.

  6. Other Ed says:

    “The labial mind in action”
    Gotta get outta the basement and stop visiting all those porn sites Fred.

  7. Ken says:

    Challenging Malkin to a debate on the substantive issues of S-CHIP, in a forum of her choice, is now considered a “pathetic tactic”?
    Seriously?!?

  8. I’m not shocked that you think there’s something horrible and terrifying about a sober-minded debate about policy. We all know that your side couldn’t hold up a candle on this debate. But what surprises me is you’re so proud of it—we can’t win a substantive debate and it’s meany-headed of you even to ask!

  9. redherkey says:

    Actually, there’s a lot of value in the moonbat’s debate technique. For instance, standing next to me is a little 9-year-old girl who served in Iraq and is holding an endangered species baby lion cub. She’s planting a rainforest tree and rode her bike here to our rally to help reduce her carbon footprint.
    She says that we should round up all liberals and send them off to re-education camps. Actually, I think her exact words were “brainwash the smelly freaks before they screw us all.” Aren’t children cute?
    Anyway, since she’s got five of the categories required for immunity and unimpeachability in argumentation, we both want to know: when do we start rounding them up?

  10. dumbblonde says:

    why can’t liberals debate honestly?
    Maybe because so many of their arguments are based upon emotion, not logic. Therefore, when they are confronted with facts and rational thought, they have nothing to offer to the “debate” except personal attacks and illogical tantrums.

  11. templar knight says:

    Wow, Dan, you’ve brought out Amanda. Congratulations. And she knows she has won the debate, and has now declared herself the winner. More moonbat logic on parade.

  12. joeadams says:

    I just won a hundred bucks from a friend at work. I said there was no way malkin would debate klein because she wasn’t a classic reagan republican. Any good reagan republican would have debated klein because reaganites were about issues, about reform, and about economic theory. I bet my colleague 100 bucks she would find an excuse to not debate klein because she’s a politics of hate windbag, and let me tell you I am LOVING my new life as an anti-bush ex-republican. It’s already profitable!

  13. Lala says:

    How much does a family policy cost versus an individual policy?
    Could businesses tell single parents that they are changing the policies to only cover the employee since the Government will cover their children.
    This could be quite a substantial savings to business as there are so many children being raised in one-parent households.

  14. Lala says:

    Who is Klein and why should anyone be obliged to debate him?
    Is Malkin obliged to debate anyone who challenges her to a debate?

  15. chris says:

    Americans need universal coverage just to protect us from the diseased rednecks.
    http://www.charlotte.com/109/story/314034.html
    Geez, looks like taking a canoe down the Amazon with an open cut is safer than rubbing elbows with the ‘necks!

  16. tjproudamerican says:

    Let us assume that we share a nation, and we share a politics that is often entrusted with the soul of that nation.
    It is, under the circumstances that we speak honestly about things, NOT DISHONEST to show the people who are affected by the Social Net.
    Dan Riehl asserts, with nothing behind his assertion but his political beliefs (which is fine, but hardly convincing to do so):
    “As is becoming their common practice, they disingenuously put victims, even children who have experienced a tragedy, forward with no shame at all. That’s because they need to make the debate about something else.”
    So we are supposed to infer from Riehl Logic. as opposed to Real Logic, that the people affected by our Social Programs have no bearing on the debate.
    Essentially, the right complains that when you show real people who need real programs that is unfair.
    We live in the most propagandized age and society ever, where the slogan and the soft phrase carries the day. Don’t call it an Estate tax and talk about how qwe need to provide tax relief for the super wealthy so that Paris Hilton can live a meaning-free life pf shallow mediocrity, talk about a “Death Tax”.
    The conservatives have had a very easy time in America for the last 27 years, framing every argument. And when someone shows them how bankrupt their slogans are they cry “Foul!”
    I have never seen a baseball game where the batter gets to call balls and strikes; and tennis only works if we are honest and respect each other.
    This family is an example of what happens only in America among all the so-called Industrialized Nations. It is hardly unfair, emotional, stupid, or whatever to propose that everyone who needs medical care gets medical care they can afford, and to start with children.
    I respect Dan Riehl and many other conservative bloggers and I can see that if we had no subsidies whatsoever, perhaps the market would sort things out. I read Friedman. But the social dislocation of such a proposal would be revolutionary. In the meantime, we have the American system: a little of this and a little of that. We need, most voters and people think, a little more health coverage. And this family is a good example why: many of us are one accident away from homelessness.

  17. curvedbrain says:

    Dan, you did good, but you let AlanC get away with repeated claims that the Frost family was “attacked”. This is a pernicious lie. Legit questions were raised about a family who is taking government benefits and who pushed their child on the public political stage to be used as a tool to read Dem staffer-written talking points. If someone comes forward and asks taxpayers for money to pay their bills, it’s entirely fair to ask if they could pay for those benefits themselves. These are legitimate questions, not “attacks”
    In the Frosts case, they asked for and received taxpayer paid benefits which had no asset test. It’s entirely fair to ask, and even speculate based on reported data, as to how much in real estate equity and other assets the Frosts and other government program recipients have, as most Americans, if they knew the truth, would be outraged to learn about families receiving govt. benefits while not being forced to tap substantial assets that could otherwise pay for them. We’re not talking about being forced to sell a family home for $10k, but if there are $100’s of thousands in real estate equity and other assets, especially with such a young family, then hell yes it’s fair to ask why there was no asset threshold requirement before handing out govt benefits. In cases like that, serious questions need to be asked, and a spotlight needs to be shined on programs which spend taxpayer money on programs to asset-rich families who could well afford to pay for themselves, because the program did not require an asset test.
    And since the Frosts are asking that taxpayers pay their bills, it’s entirely fair for taxpayers to ask reasonable questions of them. For example, why do two college educated parents from wealthy priveleged backgrounds, why do they have such relatively low reported incomes relative to their educational backgrounds for so many years? Health problems or what? Those working long hours and/or two jobs to support their families without asking for govt assistance deserve a truthful answer. Most normal people outside of the leftist hivemind bubble believe that government assistance should be given out to help people get back on their feet. If the Frost parents are healthy with college educations, it’s fair to ask, why, after so many years, why are you not standing on your own feet? Again, these are legit, fair questions of people asking for govt assistance.. they are not “attacks” or “stalking” as the left has so dishonestly characterized them

  18. Ray-Boy says:

    dumbblonde absolutely nailed it. The reason why liberals can’t debate honestly is because so much of their arguments rely on appeals to emotion, which is shifting sand. Malkin could debate the Respected Liberal Blogger and go in armed with facts and predictions based on experience, and the RLB would invariably fall back on “Republicans hate children” or “why are you being so mean?” or some other appeal to emotion that tries to shift the argument away from the facts or the reasoned argument about policy to the person’s supposed subjective intent. Liberals can’t debate honestly because they will move the goalposts whenever it suits them without the slightest twinge of shame.

  19. curvedbrain says:

    “So we are supposed to infer from Riehl Logic. as opposed to Real Logic, that the people affected by our Social Programs have no bearing on the debate”
    I don’t know about you, but the Social security benefits I’ll receive are going to be but fraction of what I paid into them, and that’s assuming a ridiculously low 2% interest rate. SS payments are not a handout in the case of most people.. Unlike govt benefits paid to the Frosts which is a handout.

  20. Lala says:

    One of the biggest scandals is the Medicaid program whereby middle class people give away their assets to their families in order to enter nursing homes at the expense of the taxpayers.

  21. Lala says:

    Here’s an eye-opener, get your child declared “learning-disabled” and you’re home free.
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/10082007/news/columnists/public_pays_for_upper_class_pr.htm
    PUBLIC PAYS FOR UPPER CLASS’ PRIVATE ED.
    Since 1999, the number of parents who get kids diagnosed with a disability, then apply for a private-school refund, is up enormously. The city paid more than $57 million for 3,675 kids whose cases were contested by the Ed. Department in the ’05-’06 school year.

  22. Urbaniak says:

    why can’t liberals debate honestly?
    Maybe because so many of their arguments are based upon emotion, not logic. Therefore, when they are confronted with facts and rational thought, they have nothing to offer to the “debate” except personal attacks and illogical tantrums.
    -dumbblonde
    Unlike Dan Riehl, whose unemotional, fact-based argument against S-CHIP was to call the Frost father “a simpleton and a loser.”
    Congratuations. You and your brethren’s decision to frame this debate by viciously attacking a family has been a resounding success.

  23. Worst President Ever says:

    1. Liberal Blogger offers to debate Michelle Malkin anyplace but on her network
    2. Malkin rejects offer. Specifically shes writes:
    ““Debate” Ezra Klein? What a perverse distraction and a laughable waste of time that would be. And that’s what they really want, isn’t it? To distract and waste time so they can foist their agenda on the country unimpeded.”
    3. Conservatives accuse Liberals of not being able to debate honestly.

  24. Lala says:

    WPE
    Why should Michelle Malkin debate Klein? Who is Klein except a 24 year old blogger? Does he have some kind of special cachet that demands that anyone he challenges must respond?

  25. Worst President Ever says:

    Michelle’s a blogger herself. We’re not talking a clash of Nobel Prize Winners here.
    Again,
    1. The title of the thread is that Liberal Bloggers Won’t Debate Honestly
    2. It was a conservative that refused the offer and dismissed the entire idea of a debate.

  26. Lala says:

    So Michelle Malkin does not want to debate with Klein. So what? Why should anyone think that she is required to do so? Did Michele say that she was open to debate any liberal blogger that wanted a debate?
    If she debates Klein then is she required to debate a whole host of bloggers?

  27. Lala says:

    Methinks the title of this thread was Dan Riehl referring to his own debate with Colmes.

  28. Worst President Ever says:

    Dan writes about Ezra Klein:
    “Frankly, if the Liberals actually felt their positions were sound, they wouldn’t use such pathetic tactics, or scream so loud when you start poking holes in their spin”
    Offering to debate has become a pathetic tactic?

  29. Lala says:

    WPE
    You have a reading comprehension problem

  30. RW says:

    Using WPE’s logic, I openly challenge Lebron James to a game of one-on-one. If he doesn’t accept, he’s a coward.
    I remember when Eric Alterman was grasping at Ann Coulter’s coattails & begging for her to pay him some attention by demanding a debate. Much like young & ignorant Ezra, it takes more than a few backslaps from the nutroots to actually make you someone worth paying attention to.
    Ezra obviously doesn’t know his actual standing in the grand scheme of things. Funny, you’d think that his paltry paycheck would give a bit of a clue.

  31. IslamoLlama says:

    Yes. It’s a well-known fact that discussion has a historical liberal bias. By offering to debate Malkin in a neutral setting – neutrality also having a well-known liberal bias – Klein reveals himself as the flaming leftard liberal that he is. He wants to bring “facts” to the debate, but Malkin knows better. She won’t debate him because she has pre-emptively declared that any “facts” Klein were to bring to the debate would be invalid. And if Klein has no facts to offer, its clear he’ll just rely on emotional appeal. Ergo, any debate that Klein and Malkin would enter into is a predetermined win for Malkin. She’s got more important things to do with her time than win debates about SCHIP, because she’ll be staking out Erza Klein’s house for the rest of the week, trying to determine of his counter tops are cement or granite and whether said counter tops were subsidized by kickbacks from the Frost family’s Soros inspired political slush fund.
    By merely asking to debate, Klein loses. Its all so perfectly clear. If you were a wingnut like Dan and Company, you’d see it too.

  32. Phoenix says:

    If Graeme Frost had been honest and dismissed his coaching by the libs exploiting his plight, he’d have thanked his mother and father for learning how to calculate how much money not to make so he could qualify for government freebies and private school scholarships.

  33. Tano says:

    Seriously now, wingnuts.
    Did any of you actually READ Malkin’s debate refusal?
    Apparantly not, for if you did, it is hard to imagine that you could, with a straight face, accuse liberals of relying on emotion. Malkin was clearly scared out of her mind at the prospect of actually having to deal with the substance of the issue, and her response was nothing but a long, oozing, dripping vitriol-laden rant.
    And for those of you who ask “who is ezra klien”, I got this really great news for you. There is a website called Google that you could use to track down the guy. He is just a blogger, but he has spent a lot of time trying to deal seriously with health issues. Y’all might even learn a few things about what the issue is all about.
    Of course, no one is obliged to debate anyone else. But it does kinda make y’all look ridiculous when your people decline sincere offers of an honest debate, then claim that your opponents cant debate honestly.
    So I repeat to Dan. Why don’t you Dan, take up Ezra’s challange. We all could use an explanation from the right why this program is so bad – one based on facts.

  34. h0mi says:

    “I don’t know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP. ”
    That’s gotta be the source of the outage over Frost’s comments.

  35. SCHIP: Think Progress is upset that CNN told the t

    The Democrats deliberately hid behind a child so that they could change the subject and distract from the basic point that the original bill had problems that needed to be addressed and instead the politicians expanded the bill, never addressed those…

  36. why can’t liberals debate honestly?
    Maybe because so many of their arguments are based upon emotion, not logic.
    You seem to forget simple facts.
    Klein offered to have a substantive, no-name-calling debate on teh issues of health care.
    Malkin punked out.

  37. Acephalous says:

    The Malkin/Klein Non-Kerfuffle; also, the Poetic Genius of Malkin’s Commentariat

    Just so I have this straight: Lynne Cheney agrees to be interviewed by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, but Michelle Malkin refuses to debate Ezra Klein in a venue of her choosing? Telling. Fellow conservative bloggers should shame her

  38. Fred Beloit says:

    Ok, stinkey, that is Tano, Malkin won’t debate a punk but you and I can debate using facts and logic. In fact that is what is tried here 24/7. What happens? It quickly degenerates into subject changing, question dodging, emoting, faux wit, statistics manipulating, and other such tactics designed to defeat logic. But why not try again?
    Ready? If you think the Frost kid makes a good example why we need more S-CHIP it follows logically that if we put a kid up from a conservative family in roughly the same financial situation as that kid and this new kid says, “I don’t need to be covered by S-Chip because my family has health insurance.” that would be one to one for the debate. So far the debate would be tied one to one. Agreed, Tano, or anybody?

  39. carol h says:

    It would be interesting if a child in a similar situation to the Frost’s could come forward and say that he does not need schip because his family has health insurance. It would be hard to find him, though, because a family with the income of the Frost’s who had two children with the catastrophic injuries the Frost children suffered and their ongoing medical expenses would most likely be bankrupt if they were relying on private health insurance. Illness and medical bills cause at least half the bankruptcies in this country and most of the people filing had health insurance. If you have private health insurance take a look at your policy and see if your family could cover the kind of expenses the Frost’s have without help. Many families in this country are only one major illness or accident away from bankrupty.

  40. Fred Beloit says:

    cxarol, would you be able to provide a source for this? And a question, are you saying those uncovered then are no longer treated,; they are left to die?

  41. Fred Beloit says:

    Oh, and carol, are you saying S-CHIP would handle any cost required for treatment or disease even if the treatments cost millions of dollars? There are no limits?

  42. curvedbrain says:

    “It would be hard to find him, though, because a family with the income of the Frost’s who had two children with the catastrophic injuries the Frost children suffered and their ongoing medical expenses would most likely be bankrupt if they were relying on private health insurance”
    Do you know this to be true, or do just “feel” like it’s true? If there was auto insurance at the time of the accident, wouldn’t that policy pay medical bills? Another question is, why did the Frosts purchase a $160k business property while not purchasing health insurance for the family BEFORE the accident? Should they be held accountable for that seemingly horrible judgement in any way?

  43. Fred Beloit says:

    Oh, and carol, are the Frosts now bankrupt?

  44. jj says:

    “Many families in this country are only one major illness or accident away from bankrupcy”.
    Or a myriad of other reasons, carol, most of which are due to bad decision-making, much of that caused by a government-created class of people who never take responsibility for anything.
    For example, I’m always amazed at the number of poor who smoke, suffer from diabetes and other chronic diseases, yet buy cigarettes and alcohol, gamble monthly at casinos, drive late model autos, buy expensive clothes, yet expect me and people in my position to reward them for their ignorance.
    The people in question(the Frosts) are educated, come from upper middle-class families, yet didn’t have the wherewithal to provide insurance for their children. Frankly, I’m appalled that the Frosts would have interjected their child into this debate. They should be ashamed.

  45. sglover says:

    “Actually, there’s a lot of value in the moonbat’s debate technique. For instance, standing next to me is a little 9-year-old girl who served in Iraq and is holding an endangered species baby lion cub. She’s planting a rainforest tree and rode her bike here to our rally to help reduce her carbon footprint.”
    Another one who needs his meds adjusted.
    So I see this joint is still a fever swamp for the inept. I guess everybody needs a “home”, eh? Please keep jabbering away at each other like this, lickspittles. Every time you show the world the right-wing Id, you add just a little bit more to the walloping that the Republican nutcases are going to get in November ’08. You guys are the greatest adversaries that HRC or Obama could ever ask for. Keep it up!

  46. sglover says:

    “Malkin could debate the Respected Liberal Blogger and go in armed with facts and predictions based on experience, and the RLB would invariably fall back on “Republicans hate children” or “why are you being so mean?” or some other appeal to emotion that tries to shift the argument away from the facts or the reasoned argument about policy to the person’s supposed subjective intent. Liberals can’t debate honestly because they will move the goalposts whenever it suits them without the slightest twinge of shame.”
    Well then, genius, by your logic, Klein ought to be a pushover. It shouldn’t take any effort at all for Malkin to show the world the nefarious, shifty ways of the liberal enemy. Hell, this ought to be an **opportunity** for Malkin, if she’s really so well-equipped with “facts”. So why doesn’t your pom-pom waving heroine take the challenge? Hint: It has very, very little to do with mean liberals and their “unfair” tactics.
    You people are pathetic. Do any of you have real, paid jobs? Outside of 7-11 Slurpee (TM) machine operator, I mean…..

  47. sglover says:

    “The people in question(the Frosts) are educated, come from upper middle-class families, yet didn’t have the wherewithal to provide insurance for their children. Frankly, I’m appalled that the Frosts would have interjected their child into this debate. They should be ashamed.”
    Ah, yeah. And rather than merely taking their public benefits and moving on, or better, fuming when somebody else’s kid got similar benefits, they had the gall to advocate for other people in the same unfortunate position. The horror!
    Honestly, you right-wingers have climbed so far up your own collective assholes that you have no sense of how you appear to normal people. By all accounts the parents are people who’ve DONE ALL THE RIGHT things, lived as responsibly and honestly as anyone can reasonable expect, and got dealt one of life’s unpleasant surprises. Common decency — an alien notion to you people — says that you don’t begrudge a child MEDICAL care, EVEN IF his parents are dissolute. Which, again, is not even the case, here. We aren’t scratching out a living out of farm plots any more — this is a wealthy society. The only thing we arguably CAN’T afford is a continuation of the current, broken health care system, which by every measure is horrifically inefficient. Only dead-enders like yourselves oppose substantial reforms to extend access to health-care. The old scare term, “socialized medicine”, just ain’t working the way it used to, is it?
    Like I said before, lickspittles, keep it up. The more you show your true selves, the stronger the revulsion you arouse among the great majority of your fellow citizens, who aren’t captured by the fears and pathologies and sheer mean-spiritedness that seize you.

  48. curvedbrain says:

    “By all accounts the parents are people who’ve DONE ALL THE RIGHT things, lived as responsibly and honestly as anyone can reasonable expect”
    By all accounts? Oh my. Well that settles it. The entire point is that the Frosts did NOT do all the right things.. that they did not appear to behave responsibly. Unless buying a $160,000 business property while letting the kids go without health insurance counts as responsible behavior.
    And although we don’t know for sure, it sure as hell doesn’t appear responsible that two college educated parents of priveleged background went so many years without working full time, or without jobs commensurate with their education. Since the Frosts are asking for taxpayer-paid benefits, it’s fair to ask why, after so long, they’re not on their feet.

  49. seekeronos says:

    My question for Mr. F.H. Frost is: How come you haven’t asked your fatcat father to help you out with his grandchildren?
    Surely Grandpa isn’t so hard-hearted that he wouldn’t help his own flesh and blood out?
    Or could it be that Big Daddy Corwin Frost is in full collusion with their scheme to bilk and defraud the taxpayers?
    Judging from how certainly bigwigs (like Tom Freston, CEO of Viacom) can maneuver things to ensure that his allegedly “special needs” kid gets only the best education available – of course, completely free and clear with the taxpayers ponying up the extravagant tuition?
    http://www.deseretmorningnews.com/article/1,5143,695214693,00.html
    Sounds like we might have a pattern of abuses… and with even the ultra-rich now feeling their rights to entitlement, is it any wonder that we are doomed to a meltdown as everyone votes themselves money from the public treasury?

  50. lonesomerobot says:

    attacking a 12 year old and his family rather than debating the actual issue = “poking holes in their spin”
    riehlly pathetic. you are losing this debate, and losing it BADLY. 2008 is looking worse for republicans by the day.
    the right really cares for unborn children; but once they’re born, screw ‘em.
    no health insurance for you, kid. sorry your parents are losers.