Are You a Liberal Zombie? Liberal Zombie Q & A
These day’s Gun control arguments and activism is a taste of the Liberal Zombie Apocalypse. They’re all over the place, on your news-feeds, on your browser, on your social media, on message boards, on the streets, etc. They don’t want your brain or flesh… Just a piece of your gun rights. They want the government to take more of your money, and make it harder for organizations to earn it.
On top of that, they want to turn you into one of them via their version of “discussion and compromise”. This involves you being in listen mode, while they try to convert you.
The following is a breakdown of their “line of reasoning”. I saw the original version of this on the old Protest Warrior forms. It was funny, but needed adjustments for easier reading. I improved, adjusted, and expanded on it over the years. This is a humorous take on the profiles of the liberals, embellishers, and phonies that we’ve came across.
Without further ado:
Q: First of all, what is a liberal zombie?
A liberal zombie is a former human that used to have a brain and was once capable of carrying out a debate. Today; however, said individual no longer has a brain and can only parrot leftist/Anti American tripe and drivel; facts are completely useless to him/her. This is also a person that doesn’t believe in personal responsibility and accountability. They choose to blame some outside factor for their demise instead. They’ll utilize the, “But they do it to,” argument in response to your pointing out their errant arguments and actions.
Q: What kind of defenses do these zombies utilize when shocked into reality by the facts?
Typical responses to the facts include rebuttals consisting solely of insults but no substance, name-calling, comments such as, “This thread is stupid”, and comments pulled from ones behind — or out of thin air. Other defenses include accusing you of being in denial, of being a phony, of arguing from assumptions, and of arguing from perception.
One defense used by these zombies is a severe emotional reaction to an analogy that forces them to question their flawed reasoning.
They’ll also tap dance around straightforward questions that you ask them. Or, they would simply ignore these questions.
If you want to get an idea of what they will tell you in advance, go watch and read some liberal news sources. Touch up on some conspiracy theories while you are at it. Don’t forget to watch and read foreign news sources as well, like those immediately to the right of Vladimir Lenin. Their reply will certainly be a refresher of these sources.
There’s a typical defense used by a borderline zombie whose perception of things come crumbling down like a house of cards… Whose misconceptions have been shattered as a result of being exposed to facts and/or logical arguments. This defense comes in the form of accusing you of having no debating skills, of accusing you of being brainwashed, or an accusation that your response had no substance when the facts dictate otherwise.
Treat these borderline zombies with care, any more exposure to the facts could send them hurtling down the path to becoming full blown zombies. Flaming them with the facts could accelerate this change.
Q: Where do these liberal zombies come from?
Most, if not all, liberal zombies begin as thinking human beings. But mainstream media propaganda likes to brainwash their audiences. Brainwashing includes thinking that the USA, its rich people, and its conservatives, are the causes of all of the world’s problems. It also includes making these liberals think that they are only presenting one of many “right” answers. Other people, unfortunately, do a Castro “face dive” into news sources that are based on emotion and not on fact.
But once facts and logic are applied to their dishonest tomes, leftist propaganda quickly falls apart as their ideology cannot stand up to intellectual scrutiny. Thinking people, on the other hand, are quick to see the facts and are very quick to connect the dots. They’re not suckered into confusing emotions as facts.
SOME humans; however, cling tenaciously to this leftist line of reasoning in spite of the facts. This causes their brain to literally begin to decay in their skulls. They have the appearance of humans, but – upon closer inspection – their glassy eyed stupefied stare and pungent aroma quickly identify them to be liberal zombies!
Q: Should I shoot them?
Heavens NO! You’ll only re-enforce the propaganda that they’ve been forced fed, about veterans, law-abiding citizen gun owners, and conservatives. You’ll end up going to jail.
Q: Should I debate them?
NO! This is about one of the most dangerous things a human being can do when confronted by this type of zombie. They’re IMMUNE to facts, to rational thought, and to logical reasoning. Debating them encourages them to repeat their liberal vitriol and drivels and may in fact attract MORE zombies. It’s best to ignore them, or hurl insults at them.
Q: Do liberal zombies KNOW they are zombies?
In most cases no, they still think they’re rational human beings. They’re usually completely devoid of a sense of humor.
There are issues and areas that make perfect sense to them, though facts — current and historical — do not support what they think makes sense. They believe that their drivel makes perfect sense to other people, even when common sense dictates otherwise. They see anyone, that dares to use the facts to discredit their tripe, as brainwashed sheep incapable of coming up with their position… Without rational thought and without instruction by some “right-wing” higher source.
If someone claims that the liberal media — such as the New York Times, BBC, CNN, MSNBC, and their ilk — are “centrist” or reliable news sources, for example, there’s a 99.99% chance that they’re a liberal zombie.
A liberal zombie, upon seeing this post, will demonstrate denial by claiming that they could take each of the criteria here and apply them to conservatives.
This is consistent with their “blame the other guy” mentality.
The ones that are truly in denial will try to go through this list and explain why they are not liberal zombies, or why others are zombies.
Q: Are all liberals zombies?
No, although liberals do have zombie like tendencies, there are many liberals that retain some higher brain functions and can hold an open debate. Then there are liberals that are borderline zombies, as mentioned earlier.
Warning: too many facts at once can overload a borderline liberal zombie, and fling them into full-blown brain melt down, handle these people gently!
Note: If you come across a classical liberal, don’t panic, they’re perfectly human and are very capable of analytical thinking. Their liberal like appearance is just a defense mechanism. This also applies to the fair and balanced modern liberals, who have maintained their brain functions. The latter is just being well intentioned and don’t mean any harm, their consistently being wrong should not be mistaken for zombie behavior.
Q: Are there other ways to spot this type of zombie?
My word yes!
Merely mentioning the following will often send any liberal zombie within earshot into a frothy frenzy of spewing utter nonsense:
* President Trump (or Republican politician),
* President Trump’s policies and accomplishments,
* Our right to defend ourselves and to act in our best security interests,
* Why gun control won’t work,
* Tax cuts given back in the percentages that they were paid,
* Responsibility and accountability,
* Why tax cuts are not income redistribution,
* Evidence that the liberals are wrong… Or a strong logical argument against liberal tripe,
Or support for the candidate that believes in these things.
If you want to quickly spot some liberal zombies, simply talk about liberal zombies. This will cause liberal zombies to come out of the woodworks and go straight for you. Use this trick with care.
It’s best just to walk away and ignore these zombies when this happens; or hurl insults at them. This may cause them to call you an oil hungry imperialist, fascist, sheep, (well versed in the army doctrine if you are in the military, no matter which branch), brown shirt, brainwashed, NAZI, racist, xenophobic, misogynist, sexist, homophobic, etc., before going away.
Q: Can liberal zombies ever say anything intelligent? Can we communicate with them?
The classical liberal and the fair and balanced modern liberals are the types that could hold an intelligent conversation on a regular basis.
The liberal zombies also can and do say something intelligent once in a while that is NOT 100% retarded. But they usually follow that with name-calling or insults.
Q: But thebesig, there are conservatives on This Aint Hell that utilize name-calling and insults, does that make them zombies as well?
If this happens, there’s a very good chance that the recipient of this label is actually an idiot, or what they are described as. This is not an insult on the account that this poster is calling it like it is.
This is different from someone calling you an idiot because they do not have a factual or logical reply or because they simply don’t like what you said.
Q: Do these zombies have a sense of humor?
No.
Q: If someone doesn’t have a sense of humor does that mean that they’re a liberal zombie?
They either don’t find you funny or they just simply lack a sense of humor. More criteria will have to be utilized before determining whether someone is a liberal zombie or not. If it’s the former, it’s possible that they take things to seriously. In this case they might become candidates for being real liberal zombies in the future.
Q: What should I do if I accidentally try to be rational with one of these zombies?
Quickly realize your mistake, ignore them, and then walk away – OR hurl insults at them until they call you an imperialist, fascist, brown shirt, brainwashed, in denial, xenophobic, misogynist, racist, homophobic, etc. and walk away.
Q: Hey thebesig, what do you do when the liberal zombie just won’t go away?
One common zombie fighting tactic is to instantly reply to their post with a cut and paste from a site that has nothing to do with the original thread, let me give you an example:
Thread title: Man-made global warming is real!
Your initial reaction is to debunk this with facts, but remember; this is NOT a rational human that we’re dealing with here, but a liberal zombie. Respond to the thread with cut/pastes from sites that have nothing to do with the original post. For example, an article on someone going full bore “trigglypuff”, a copy and paste of a sports event, or growing garden plants. Remember, Google is your friend!
Using President Donald Trump’s tweets greatly offends these zombies hint hint!
Q: Dear thebesig,
What should we do if we are accidentally bitten by one of these zombies? Their soulless behavior isn’t contagious, is it?
Please… I need answers quickly… I’m starting to feel like… like… like…. I…Am… Feeling… triggered!
Liberal zombie conversion is not spread by bites. It’s self-inflicted when a rational thinking human being clings tenaciously to leftist mantras in spit of facts and logic proving otherwise. Their brain suffers a massive meltdown and begins to rot in their skulls.
If you “feel” like you are becoming a liberal zombie, put the iPhone, iPad, games, etc., down and get a job… The feeling will soon pass.
Q: Hey thebesig, are there other types of zombies that I should be aware of?
There are these anti-western zombies that despise anything western and do not restrict their hatred to the US. These zombies honestly think that without western civilization, the world would be a utopia paradise with ever lasting peace. The criteria used on liberal zombies applies to these zombies as well.
Also, there’s the “Stolen Valor” zombie. These guys will do things like tell you about the nature of their service. Then, when you ask them questions about their service, they’ll tell you that “it’s secret” or “classified” or something like that.
Q: Thebesig, what do I do when name-calling does not work?
If this liberal zombie is immune to name calling (a rare and extra annoying type of zombie) then simply say, “Oh be quiet!” Then walk away. Don’t waste your time with these zombies, you’ll get better reception arguing with the walls.
Q: What’s the best way to recognize one of these zombies on websites like this?
Watch for the “clever” – you got under my skin – responses to this post.
Category: Liberals suck, Politics, Satire
Dear thebesig:
Is using bait and switch a legitimate way to deflate liberal zombies?
Also, would referring to kitchenware and cutlery as alternative self-defense platforms bring them to a screeching halt in the gun debate?
Is it okay to carry a list of subjects to use when the zombies try to change the subject under discussion?
Thanks for your help!
Ex-PH2 (unbeleagured)
Talking about kitchenware and cutlery, as harmful or deadly weapons, would fall under “facts and logic”, also mentioning these in any capacity would cause more liberal zombies to go to you, and those near you to go full bore zombie.
OH, I forgot – they don’t know how to cook from scratch. Thanks for the reminder, thebesig. 🙂
Hey now, some of us culinarily-retarded folks resent that!
The guy that wrote the original version of the above post was from your area. 😀
Oh, I so want to link this in response to a comment on a discussion I’ve been having – but it is on a beloved niece’s thread and I don’t want to risk pushing her over into the Sisterhood of the Liberal Zombies.
Give me an example of what the liberals over there are saying, and I’ll show you how to use the above article to handle it.
🙂
I performed the “walk away” maneuver, sometimes explicated as “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience,” or “Never mud-wrestle with a pig.”
I keep holding their feet to the fire.
For example, I’ve yet to have one of these liberals answer my simple, straightforward, yes/no questions per the parameters that I set. They either try to tap dance, which causes me to hold their feet to the fire, or they abandon the argument.
They know that answering those questions, just by putting an “X” in the box that I provided, would result in them destroying their own arguments.
This was a woman (I presume) who interjected her comments into a discussion my niece and I were having. I find that ignoring people who rudely interject their opinions into a reasoned discussion – especially people whom I do not know – has been the best tactic for avoiding pig-wrestling.
I was hoping that you would copy something that she said and paste it here. Then, I would take her quote, and match it with one of the items in the above article.
Oh, how I miss PW.
Laughing at lefty zombies and telling them how pretty they look in pink can be effective as well.
One of my personal small victories is being able to goad a lefty into calling me a baby killer. Love it, love it, love it. When they do, I give them a little smirk, make certain that they acknowledge it then either bust out laughing or walk away, whichever is most appropriate.
This.
“It’s best just to walk away and ignore these zombies when this happens; or hurl insults at them.”
I too have found pointing and laughing out loud to be very effective in countering the liberal zombie’s diatribes.
The conundrum is that ignoring them only emboldens them. Our ignoring them for decades is what allowed them to develop into what they are now. Their delusions most often take our silence as approval.
Most of these spoiled children need to finally hear the word, “NO.” Laughter is most often properly taken as the negative response we intend.
“Just say no” when they make ridiculous demands.
Yup, I labeled the above article as “satire”, and a couple other descriptions. I usually start by quoting a part of the above article to their reply, then I rebut them. I keep hammering them until they abandon the argument.
Perhaps in a future article, I’ll generate an article that lists their playbook tactics, and how to address them.
Laughter implies ridicule, which is to the liberal zombie what holy water is to a vampire.
I posted there as “Outspoken”.
Do you remember Yukon, alleged “priest” and “Green Beret”? He tried that nonsense on another message board, and I called him out for not answering questions that we asked him over there. It didn’t look like he made that many new posts right after that.
The response that he used to dodge our questions:
“I will no longer answer any questions about my military service. You people want to mock the military so I will not participate.” – Yukon
To which, we “fixed” this reply to say this,
“I will no longer answer any questions about my nonexistent military service because I did not serve. You people simply want to mock me so I will not participate any further”.
LOL
Vaguely remember that. Tried to not spend a great deal of time on their forum simply because it was so easy to stop by for a few minutes – hours later it was past time to be somewhere else. Besides, I was busy being a mod on one of those anti-Kerry sites.
Good times, and lots of great resources at PW.
Is that something we could use on our current troll-baiting zombie?
I see a lot of subject switching, attempts to control the convo by changing the subject, etc., so is this a zombie tactic, or just a dipstick at work?
Yes.
I’ve already seen them used against trolls on this site. For the troll that you’re talking about, it’s both.
Don’t forget the random accusations of racism.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I’d describe myself as a classical liberal. Your description is hilariously accurate and cuts to my bone! However, a Liberal Zombie would describe me as a Right wing fascist, racist, misogynist. So YMMV.
I swear that everyday these communists get louder and push farther with their nonsense, it gets harder for me to not endorse a good old fashion backlash purge.
Thanks to social media, and to sites like this, we could “fight back”.
Endorse the Backlash! (pussy hat with diagonal line through it)
Support the Purge! (hammer & sickle with diagonal line through them)
Either makes a great t-shirt patch.
Never understood exactly how I’m supposed to take someone seriously when they’re wearing a pussy hat.
Then you’re clearly a mysogynist.
/sarc
Dear thebesig:
What vaccinations do you recommend for young children to prevent “liberal zombie syndrome”?
Accountability, responsibility, willingness to learn, etc. For willingness to learn, the ability to separate the wheat from chaff, followed by the ability to analyze and synthesize to produce logical thought based opinions. Also, instilling in them many of the qualities that we gained in the military.
I would add applications of the “board of education” to the “seat of learning” as necessitated, early and as often as is required.
Making them do chores and holding them accountable for same, as well.
Along with good reasoned discussions around the family dinner table on a daily basis whenever possible.
Graybeard,
The “Board of Education” in the elementary school I went to was proudly displayed in the principals office. Mr Colcannon had no hesitation to calibrate on our K-6th butts when necessary.
Then he would call home: In my house that meant Mom would meet us at the door with a pancake turner (no matter what lengths my three brothers and I went to in order to break or hide the pancake turner, Mom ALWAYS seemed to have a pancake turner!) Then it was wait until your Father gets home…
Of course this was in the 60’s and liberals were long haired dope smoking draft dodging hippies.
I am often aghast and speechless when confronted by the Liberal Zombie, and usually default to looking for a sledgehammer…
The “board of education” was still in use in the 70s. I could relate to what you described above.
The discipline received in school was just an appetizer for the main course that would await us once we got home. I remember my dad, in the early 1980s, telling the teachers that he was okay with their administering corporal punishment on us, and that he would gladly bring them a specially made club for them to use on us.
We use the spanking spoon at Casa D
My Mom used wooden spoons. I remember back in the 80’s if I messed up at a friends house their parents would whoop my ass and then call my parents so I would get my ass whooped again when I got home. As a child the scariest phrase my Mother ever said was “just wait until your Dad gets home”.
Yeah, I have had my moments with liberal zombies. I’ve come to the conclusion that eventually they will leave an opening for you. Then, you respond with a simple but effective comment, smile at them and then turn and walk away. Usually they start sputtering, maybe even try following you and often look back at their friends muttering something like “are you going to let him get away with that”?. Meanwhile, other people in the area will laugh & shake their heads at them causing the zombies to start cursing you out. My grin gets bigger and bigger as I keep on walking.
Facts applied with a dose of sarcasm is like rubbing their skin with sandpaper and applying salt, I’ve done it to my moonbat sister who disowned me even before that!
Does it get you the, “arrogant”, or “smug” accusation? 😀
Ran into this exact problem with a decades old friendship. We usually avoid political discussions because there is no need for it as we are always focused on whatever task we are doing.
Out of nowhere, this friend turned to me and declared, “Sessions is a racist.” What? I was flabbergast. I calmly asked just what he has done which indicates racism. Of course there was no proffered evidence, but instead some mumbling about Mother Jones and stuff. I finally said, “When you can show me something that he has actually done, get back to me.”
The silence is deafening. Hell of a way to destroy a valued friendship.
“Mother Jones and stuff”! I just love a well thought out, concise response! Rational, as well. Do these people have any self awareness? If I was quoting Mother Jones, I’d stop, right there, excuse myself, and run! OWB, best laugh I’ve had, so far today! Thanks!
When being vetted for the job the MSM LOVED to throw out his very Southern name, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, like it meant a lick of difference.
The Libs stick to one damn narrative and WILL NOT yield.
yep, same assholes that got all bent when we properly referred to the previous occupant as Barrack Hussein Obama… go figure
Definitely, hold their feet to the fire and ask them to present a fact-based, logical, and reasoned argument. It doesn’t take long for them to run out of steam, or to tap dance. I had somebody, in a climate change argument, attempted to claim that the glaciers “in the North Pole” were “melting”.
I had a little fun with that. Then, I reminded him that the North Pole is in the Arctic Ocean.
During the debate, I started to hammer him with facts. He simply said, “I’m going by what NOAA” said. This is the same NOAA that got caught in the books regarding temperatures.
I’m not a climate scientist, but I know a bunch of people who are – I find the juxtaposition of the climate change and gun control debates interesting. For gun control, conservatives say, “Hey, this is stuff where we know a lot more than people who don’t own guns, maybe it’s worth listening?” And they have a point. But when it turns to climate change, the prevailing attitude amongst conservatives seems to be, “Well, the people who do it are (somehow, exactly how is totally unclear) ‘bought and sold’ and can’t be trusted!”, as if hundreds of thousands of people who study the very complicated interconnected climate systems -the experts, like the gun owners!- can’t be trusted.
I know I’m likely to be considered a ‘liberal zombie’ here, but I challenge anyone who is convinced climate change is a hoax to sit in on a lecture at a top-tier school about all the many proxies that show change and point out the errors. We still have plenty of people who disbelieve evolution, despite its foundational bearing on modern medicine. I think dismissing climate change is in the same boat.
Believing that NOAA, NASA, NCAR, DOE, DOD and nearly all other countries are part of a conspiracy takes a much bigger leap of faith than, say, maybe accepting there’s something to it?
Your comment presupposes that anyone who chooses not to offer alms at the alter of man made climate change lacks the capacity to evaluate the science (or lack thereof) surrounding the issue.
Also, fuck your “top tier” university bullshit. Everybody reads the same books dude. Being a smug elitist neither makes my skepticism a conspiracy theory nor makes the religious cult of global warming anymore appealing to me than going to church.
Oh shit! Maybe it’s the skepticism, freedom, independent rational thought that keeps me out of religions and my guns adequately lubed. Maybe once your friends with their “top minds” wrap their fucking heads around that shit, they can get on with the task of creating a computer model that actually does something you know, that’s like repeatable. Like how things work in that science stuff. At the top tier, you know ’cause that’s how we should know they aren’t full of shit, they preach at the expensive church.
LC: I’m not a climate scientist, but I know a bunch of people who are Knowing a bunch of people who “are” climate scientists does not count for you. Knowing these climate scientists does not make you an expert on climate change, nor does it give you a leg to stand on to argue about it. However, there is a way for you, or anybody else, to compensate for that. Given the access to factual information available on the Internet, there is no excuse for not understanding the basic physics involved with climate. Nor is there any excuse given the fact that that there is plenty of scientific data, and raw data, that proves man-made global theory wrong. LC: — I find the juxtaposition of the climate change and gun control debates interesting. In both cases, conservatives come to the argument armed with knowledge of the topic being debated, based on fact, as well as the development, history, and background leading to the current facts. LC: For gun control, conservatives say, “Hey, this is stuff where we know a lot more than people who don’t own guns, maybe it’s worth listening?” And they have a point. This isn’t just about people knowing more about guns than others. This is about the understanding of human nature, as well as the understanding of our history. This includes the arguments that our forefathers advanced for defending a citizen’s right to bear arms. Recent history, regarding the ability of current gun laws to prevent gun crimes, should argue against “much of the same” or “similar” regarding gun control. In this argument, the conservatives clearly have a factual advantage over the liberals. Where the conservatives debate from their understanding of human nature, and the “laws of nature” argument of our founding fathers, the liberals debate using, as a reference point, a world that they think exists. The current gun law arguments, that they are advancing, are affected by one of two things: the fact that there are already laws in the books to do what they are advocating we should do more of, and the… Read more »
LC: I know I’m likely to be considered a ‘liberal zombie’ here, but I challenge anyone who is convinced climate change is a hoax to sit in on a lecture at a top-tier school about all the many proxies that show change and point out the errors. Nobody here is arguing that climate change is a hoax. What is a hoax is “man-made global warming”, that’s what we are disagreeing with. The science simply does not support that. The papers that do make “global warming” arguments, whose projections are based on global warming, tend to rely on computer models. These models do not include every single variable, related to the climate, that impacts climate. There are climate realists, near the areas that you talk about, that would gladly “sit in through one of their lectures, and call them out on their lack of accuracy. If they attempt to push the disproven man-made global warming, they could gladly point to events, happening around the world, to prove them wrong. If they had done a study, I would download the studies and look through them. A real scientific academic journal article would list methodologies and limitations. They would also have references that I’d be able to review. If I were to sit in one of their lectures, not only would I do the above, I’ll even pull out sections of their studies and force them to come to terms with their limitations and methodologies. Most glaziers nothing? False! The majority of the world’s glaciers, 90% of them, are actually growing. Arctic ice sheet melting? That happens every spring and summer, but the Arctic Ice Sheet freezes back during the winter. In fact, it had recovered most of its loss from the “record” 2007 melt. And speaking of challenges. Lord Monckton challenged Al Gore to a debate on climate change. Al Gore refused or ignored the challenge. If there was any merit, to the man-made global warming theory, Al Gore would be more than happy to debate against Lord Monckton. LC: We still have plenty of people who disbelieve evolution, despite its foundational… Read more »
Thebesig, I’ve read all your rebuttals to LC’s comments, and there is one thing that you may or may not have included, but which I did not find.
That is the ACV (actual cash value) of the term ‘climate change’ as a commonly used/misused title for collecting funding for studies related to “climate change”, down to the microscopic level.
As an example, the most outspoken promoter of that term is Michael Mann, a faculty member at Penn State University, who has for at least 13 years that I know of, received grants up to $3 million per year for climate-related studies. He gets half of that money. The other half goes to Penn State. This is a substantial sum of cash, and while not all grants are at that financial level, they are all consistently offered.
The revenues for applicants total in some billions, maybe higher. It’s a cash cow, with a high-end cash value for those who kowtow to the liberal side of that particular fence.
I wanted to focus on the science and observation aspect in my reply to him, as that’s the trail I followed. 😀 I’ve argued the funding aspect before, and could’ve brought it up had LC came back.
Michael Mann is also the guy that came up with the fraudulent hockey stick graph, which erased the Roman and Medieval warming periods. He has been called out before, and people want to see the data he used to come to his conclusions.
I’m traveling and helping friends on the East Coast with the storm; I can’t reply now, but will try to get back to it at some point. My view? You’re wrong, but I do appreciate the length response. 😉
Best of luck to your friends LC, hope they weather the storm ok. I’ve got family back that way too.
LC: I’m traveling and helping friends on the East Coast with the storm; I can’t reply now, but will try to get back to it at some point. My view? You’re wrong, but I do appreciate the length response. BANG! GOT ONE! Q: First of all, what is a liberal zombie? A liberal zombie is a former human that used to have a brain and was once capable of carrying out a debate. Today; however, said individual no longer has a brain and can only parrot leftist/Anti American tripe and drivel; facts are completely useless to him/her. Q: What kind of defenses do these zombies utilize when shocked into reality by the facts? Typical responses to the facts include rebuttals consisting solely of insults but no substance, name-calling, comments such as, “This thread is stupid”, and comments pulled from ones behind — or out of thin air. Other defenses include accusing you of being in denial, of being a phony, of arguing from assumptions, and of arguing from perception. Yes, I have you guys down to a “T”. I’ve been debating against liberals over the past 14 years. My waiting, for you to return, will be but a drop in the bucket in comparison. Likewise, during those 14 years, I’ve lost count of how many times the opposition told me that I was “wrong”, without advancing a fact-based, logical, reasoned argument to back that opinion. Your opinion, about the validity of my argument, is invalid. Simply saying that I am “wrong”, is not refutation. Give me something to dismantle, so that I could repeat what I did above. In order for me to make a comment, or jump into an argument, two main criteria have to apply: 1. I have to have extensive first-hand, and/or studied, experience in the topic. 2. The opposition, or future opposition, are clearly wrong. Since I’m disagreeing with you, and I have dismantled you, it’s obvious that those two conditions were met. Once the opposition applies, a third condition kicks in: 3. The opposition’s rebuttal requires a counter rebuttal… Ad infinitum. So, I look forward… Read more »
Oh, I am QUITE familiar with that UPenn version of the Pilsbury Dough Boy, Mr. Mann.
He is rapidly losing ground, especially since he teams up on a regular basis with Bill Nye, the not-a-scientist guy, who wants to eradicate all dissent about the subject.
It’s fun to twit these beings. It makes them sputter.
I must say that I disagree with how you engaged LC.
Shit like:
“These models do not include every single variable, related to the climate, that impacts climate.”
I’m deep into a single barrel, but does anything more complex than the butter to popcorn ratio analysis at the cinema multiplex include all variables? Then for fucks sake does it account for all the crispy vs. soggy pieces?
That is a statistically flawed argument on it’s face just as shitty only worse than the fucking garbage these fucking cultists pass off as peer reviewed. Good old fashioned scientific method is everything you should stick with. In your absence they will judge you “ignorant” and dismiss every reasonable point you make.
Um, am I the only one who auto translates that to blasphemy and apostasy?
Why is it that actions taken to avoid an apocalypse look like communism? If they wanted to save humanity vice control it, wouldn’t they be trying to leave? Why do the strong central control countries get a pass while modern democracies pay the tab?
COMMUNISM
Fuck those guys.
I am Sincerely,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Classical Liberal
Are you poor and left behind? You too can get on board and cause the famine of 1921 where communism obliviously fails and you die. There are only a few tickets left for you to give it to the Czarist overlords in their face by starving to death under the loving care of men just like you. Act now! You don’t really have a choice! It’s Starvation! For your Country! You like this!
Jack Daniels: 😆 I must say that I disagree with how you engaged LC.
I don’t seek approval, from others, on how I conduct my debates. I enjoy taking people’s arguments apart and dismantling them.
Jack Daniels: 😆 That is a statistically flawed argument on it’s face just as shitty only worse than the fucking garbage these fucking cultists pass off as peer reviewed…
The man-made global warming crowd are basing their opinions on flawed computer models. Based on their opinions, they are generating peer-reviewed papers that politicians, from at least one major party, want to utilize to influence domestic and international policy.
Do these models have to include every single variable? Yes. Is it possible, with the current technologies, to do so? No. However, the more of these variables that are included, in these computer models, the better the chances these models would have of being more correct.
For example, many of these computer models failed to factor in the effects of the sun, or give the sun proper credit. Consequently, the further we get away from an original computer model prediction, the bigger the difference we see between the projected computer model average temperatures and the actual average temperatures.
My argument is not statistically flawed, but partially based on the fact that I have taken both graduate-level and doctorate level scientific research classes. I understand how the scientific process is supposed to work. Many of these computer models, and subsequent research papers, amount to academic dishonesty when they attempt to argue that the planet is “warming up” and that people are behind it.
Without the inclusion of all real world variables into these computer models, they have to be matched with raw data taken from the real world, as well as to observed trends.
Fuck sour corn mash Tennessee whiskey.
thebesig: “Do these models have to include every single variable? Yes.”
Next breath: “For example, many of these computer models failed to factor in the effects of the sun, or give the sun proper credit.”
Are you being intentionally obtuse? We fucking agree dude. Use your words like a rifle; not a fucking blunderbuss. It was a method critique not a content dispute. Don’t give those fuckers an inch.
“My argument is not statistically flawed, but partially based on the fact that I have taken both graduate-level and doctorate level scientific research classes. I understand how the scientific process is supposed to work. Many of these computer models, and subsequent research papers, amount to academic dishonesty when they attempt to argue that the planet is “warming up” and that people are behind it.”
Was my criticism of this EXACT FUCKING POINT just too nuanced for you?
Nice touch that you defaulted to the same dried up barren pussy of “Muh edumacation” like the pinko dipshit that bowed the fuck out after you got his scent. Epic comment thread moment BTW. The argument from authority shtick sets me off; mostly because I fucking hate myself for using it, but also because it’s fucking weaksauce.
Not that anyone cares, it was Four Roses Single Barrel, Warehouse QS Barrel No. 65-2B and a 12 year old Perdomo, yeah it’s Nicaraguan but for some reason capitalism seems to make shitty cigars. Fuck it.
Oh, and do it to it, thebesig. You obviously have a whole lot more gas in the tank for this type of shit than I do. “In Ireland, in Lebanon, in Palestine and Berkeley…”
Jack Daniels hangover: Fuck sour corn mash Tennessee whiskey. The nature of the reply suggested that Jack Daniels was speaking. Jack Daniels hangover: Are you being intentionally obtuse? We fucking agree dude. Use your words like a rifle; not a fucking blunderbuss. It was a method critique not a content dispute. Don’t give those fuckers an inch. No, not being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse. There is a purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph, concept, etc., that I use. Your dismissing my statement, about including every variable in the computer models, was a strawman. No, it’s not a “statistically flawed argument”. Again, I’ve taken both graduate and doctorate level research classes that emphasizes the scientific method. This includes utilizing statistical analysis and statistical tests to prove, or dismiss, a hypothesis. Insisting on including all the variables is not a statistical flaw. In fact, it has less to do with statistics and more to do with matching controlled experiments to what exists in nature. Meaning, your critique of the method that I use showed a lack of understanding of my intent, of the appropriate methodology, as well as a lack of understanding of what is statistically valid or not. Jack Daniels hangover: Was my criticism of this EXACT FUCKING POINT just too nuanced for you? Your criticism was “off mark” and based on the fact that you didn’t understand what I was arguing. It’s a fact, for the computer models to come as close as possible to reality, regarding projection and prediction over the long-term, all the variables have to be included. Not just some, not just a fraction, but all. Absent that, the results have to be supported by real-world data. You erroneously dismissed my statement as “statistically flawed”. Jack Daniels hangover: Nice touch that you defaulted to the same dried up barren pussy of “Muh edumacation” like the pinko dipshit that bowed the fuck out after you got his scent. Epic comment thread moment BTW. The argument from authority shtick sets me off; mostly because I fucking hate myself for using it, but also because it’s fucking weaksauce. I’m sorry,… Read more »
You guys are fighting over nothing except who can type the most words.
Stop it. And try the MacAllan 25 Single Malt. That should settle the argument.
Can we all agree that LC is a blunt instrument with a control freak streak, who can’t edit his comments down to less than 1500 words?
Truth.
Now lets argue about booze!
But seriously what is the contact email address for submissions? I’ve been kicking something around for this easter and I want to send it in for some editorial feedback (I feel it has a nassrisic me me me tone to it) and possible submission for the up coming holiday slot.
You can send it to Our Glorious Leader Jonn Lilyea (USA-Ret) and ask him to chop it up for you.
A good way to edit out what you do NOT want to say is print a hard copy, get some beverage with caffeine and a blue or red pen, and put a line through everything you refer to as ‘narcissistic’. Then edit the copy on your computer, and reprint it.
My rule of thumb is 1300 words or less, because I run off at the keyboard like an open faucet.
solid copy
He dismissed a statement that I made, regarding the source of information for many of the peer reviewed work that politicians want to leverage, as “statistically flawed”. I had to clarify for him how he missed the mark.
As for “typing”, I’m using Dragon NaturallySpeaking Version 15, to dictate instead of type.
it’s $300 in the website, but I got it for under $100.00. 
https://www.nuance.com/dragon/business-solutions/dragon-professional-individual.html
Good to know thebesig, but be careful with that software, especially if you’re a soft-talker, or tend to mumble. My engineer uses it to write his reports, and you’d be absolutely amazed at some of the shit it comes up with. At times, it’s so bad, I can’t even decipher what he meant from context, and have to ask him to explain it for me. I’d get on him harder about proof reading, but he’s close to retirement, and has dyslexia, so i just giggle, and ask him to tell me what he meant..
I’ve used this software for years, starting from the previous versions. I started with Version 6 over 10 years ago. When I got started, I had some issues. The words that ended up on the screen were not always the words that I wanted there. However, I had to work them out given the amount of “writing” that I had to do.
The post that you’ve replied to, and this one, for example, were dictated.
I’ve even “written” papers just by dictating into a screen. Whenever I have to resort to typing, after dictating for a long time, I feel “handicapped”.
Some tips when using speech to text:
* Be confident…
* Articulate…
* Speak naturally…
As with typing, a draft review is still needed. Editing, using the software, is even more convenient than going through and manually editing. 😀
I’ve even had situations to where I was dictating words, while sitting on a rocking office chair, leaning back with with hands behind my head, and feet resting on another chair.
Hmmm… I tend to think through my fingers which communicate with my keyboard.
Whatever floats your rowboat, if it works for you, so be it.
After all, I still make notes in longhand which will, some day, become a secret language that can only be interpreted by a raven familiar with Gregg Shorthand.
They called him Shorthand, because…. 🙂
I can still do that, “think through the fingers to the keyboard”.
my PC and laptop are set up with Dragon NaturallySpeaking. On other computers, I still use keyboarding.
I took shorthand in high school, came in handy for the balance of my high school years and during my undergrad years. I can still take notes using shorthand.
I usually get out of Easel chart or whiteboard “scribe duties” by giving them a sample of my shorthand notes as an “example” of my “penmanship”.
The textbook that came with the shorthand course was pretty good, I tried to see if my school would let me keep a copy. They didn’t want to give one up.
In one of the English classes that I took, we had a legitimate speed reading workshop. Still use those skill sets.
Go back to pencils and paper. You will be way more concise. But your points are well taken. You won the debate, IMHO.
Thanks.
I would need a lot of paper, preferably a thick notebook, because I would have a good percentage of that notebook filled out. I’ll also need a whole set of pencils to, with pencil sharpener within reach.
I would use shorthand to capture my thoughts and to generate an outline. Then, I would generate the longer copy using shorthand, then I would transcribe from shorthand to longhand.
It’s like what I mentioned above, there is a purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph, etc., that I use.
Whenever I debate somebody, I get a good sense of their psychological profile in their responses. I adjust words here and there, and use specific words, to get them to react a certain way. The more they respond, the sharper the psychological profile that I get.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdf
I’m not feeling wordy today.
The side of the argument that dismisses religious faith, and the concept of people being the center of creation, embrace a disproven theory that requires faith to believe in, that puts humans at the center (man-made global warming).
just wow, LC.
You had your ass handed to you. Epic pwned.
Do you wise up or double down?
I strongly disagree, but I’m traveling and got roped into helping some people out in a storm.
If post-length determined who got their ass handed to them, I’d be crowned eternal champion here.
I totally would come to your aid but COMMUNISM diverted me. Witch one of us locals would take the time to post while helping anyone? I would guess ZERO. Fuck you commie.
Got shit to say when an atheist vet lubes his gun with your tears. fuck right off.
Just so you know; I own your fucking soul.
If you back up and read what LC dropped into this, it’s as plain as a comet in the night sky that he missed the entire point AND tone of thebesig’s article.
If I have to explain what he missed, he’s far more dense that I thought.
LC: I strongly disagree,
BANG! GOT HIM AGAIN! 😆 😈
Q: Do liberal zombies KNOW they are zombies?
In most cases no, they still think they’re rational human beings. They’re usually completely devoid of a sense of humor.
Comical Ali/Baghdad Bob? Is that you? Your disagreeing with the fact that your argument got destroyed does not dismiss the fact that your argument did indeed got destroyed.
LC: but I’m traveling and got roped into helping some people out in a storm.
If you are out traveling, to help people with the storm, you would not even waste any of your time posting here. Heck, you would not even be reading the responses here. You would be too busy doing what you claim you are busy doing.
I’m seeing you making an excuse for not coming here after getting your argument destroyed. What you’re truly hoping to do is to “disappear” under the auspices of “helping others”, then hope that this thread disappears into obscurity. Then, people would “forget” about both this thread and your excuses for not doing here what you did on the other threads.
LC: If post-length determined who got their ass handed to them, I’d be crowned eternal champion here.
A look at your post length, on the other threads, shows that you generate larger than normal posts when arguing with others on this website.
My responses are fact-based, logical, and reasoned arguments. There are certain factors that influence the length of my replies, which include the length of the reply that I’m rebutting. It also includes how wrong your position is. The more erroneous your argument is, the longer my responses.
This isn’t just about post length, but the quality of the argument contained in that post.
More importantly, notice how consistently LC changes the direction of the comments to suit his needs (all about HIM) instead of responding to the subject matter of the article that the comments in this section address.
That is typical progtard deflection. They ignore any point you convincingly make to counter their argument or they simply change the direction of their assertions. Another favorite tactic besides the straw man argument is assuming false premises/facts which they claim are irrefutable. Their final go to is ridicule and the “you are a bad person” contention: calling those disagreeing with them racists, homophobes, sexists, etc. As one of my law professors once observed: “It is pointless to argue with a zealot; they will believe what they want to believe despite all the evidence to the contrary.”
IS being a troll or trollbaiting sort a precursor to being a liberal zombie?
Neither the troll (the one willfully taking up space and purposefully adding nothing of value to the conversation) nor the troll baiter (one who purposefully entices a troll to continue adding nothing of value to the conversation) is necessarily of a particular political or philosophical persuasion.
do you even internet, bro?
Naw, never heard of it.
Do they meet the following criteria?
Q: First of all, what is a liberal zombie?
A liberal zombie is a former human that used to have a brain and was once capable of carrying out a debate. Today; however, said individual no longer has a brain and can only parrot leftist/Anti American tripe and drivel; facts are completely useless to him/her.
Thank you. I would then consider the troll in question as being on the verge of being on the verge, wavering and waffling between nuisance attention-whoring and falling over the edge into the liberal zombie abyss.
“Q: Do these zombies have a sense of humor?
No.”
All the above sound like a perfect description of my ex-wife…
I think you forgot one of the most common responses to situations for, “Q: What kind of defenses do these zombies utilize when shocked into reality by the facts?”
When confronted these individuals often believe that the lack of knowledge involved is always on the opposite side (possibly due to Dunning-Kruger effect) so they simultaneously dismiss the opposition’s own knowledge and stave off additional facts by spewing the phrase, “educate yourself”. Possibly one of the most annoying things I’ve run into.
I’m constantly adjusting the above, and will include some of the commentary here in future adjustments. Next week, I’m posting the companion to the above, also relating to liberal zombies.
thebesig, Excellent write up. Thank you and it is going on the refrigerator for the few L-Zs I have to tolerate in my wife’s family.
If you have a Facebook account, or are participating on a message board, you could have serious fun posting this as an original post. Once the liberal zombies “attack”, you’d be able to copy and paste the applicable parts of the above post to the liberal Zombie’s response.
Dear thebesig:
I’m considering applying to a university not too far away for grad school. They have some undegrad level classes pertinent to what I want to study at the graduate level.
All the graduate classes are at night, while the undergrad classes are held during daytime hours. I may, therefore, be in attendance at classes all day long and into the evening hours. Obviously, I may encounter a percentage of liberals slowly lurching toward the zombie state.
What is the best way to avoid close encounters with them?
Is there a spray or repellent I can buy at a military surplus store that would ward them off?
Would I be better off wearing obsidian pendants as a deflector to confuse them?
Should I invent my own language to confuse them? For example, I could start with ancient Egyptian, switch to Tamarian, and then go to h’Osta. Or I could just stick with Latin.
Bear spray might work, but you will be arrested for assault by the campus police. Too bad you are not a highschooler in Coward Brounty, Floriduh, then you would get a little counseling. Or, your crime might be ignored altogether, like those of St. Travon, figurative son of the Lightworker.
I did the language switching on a guy with an India/Pakistani accent wanting me to think my Apple device was compromised.
Note: these are consecutive phone calls to Compound HQ.
He didn’t understand German.
All he knew of Spanish was “No Espanol.”
Classical Greek and he hung up on me.
It was kinda fun while it lasted.
I tend to speak Spanish to telemarketers, and to unwanted phone calls. When the person on the line has a heavily accented English, the more fun I have speaking Spanish to them. In one case, I had someone from India, or Pakistan, asking, “DO… YOU… SPEAK… ENGLISH!” He raised his voice while saying that. I kept speaking Spanish.
Pan ruzumisch popolska.
My hats off to you for wandering into a Liberal Zombie congregation/hang out area. Your ideas for how to avoid close encounters with them would do one of two things.
1. They would attract zombies to you.
2. You just might send some of them away from you into a safe space. But, for those that do not go to the safe space, you might end up becoming a zombie magnet.
Ah! Then a properly labeled can of ‘Bullshit Repellent’ (canned air) placed in plain sight, but not opened, might be the best remedy.
I will also invest in the obsidian pendants, as they are cheap and plentiful and incredibly dense. It is easy to compare obsidian, a volcanic glass, with liberal zombies and trolls.
Possible preview, triggered snowflakes leave auditorium when woman says that there are differences between men and women.
Just wow… and this is what passes for “higher education” these days…
That is a perfect exhibit of denial of reality at work.
Why don’t they just stick their fingers in their ears? Used to do that when we were kids.
Reality is a very, very harsh mistress. How do we inflict more of it on them?
I think that speaking in complete sentences without recourse to acronyms like LOL or OMF would properly confuse the modern Liberal Zombie.
Or alternately you could walk around quoting such luminaries as Dirty Harry, Winston Churchill, Thomas Jefferson and Warren Zevon. (How’s that for an anti-zombie combination?)
Or writing in cursive? 😀
Holy moly, thebesig! That’s like me using hieroglyphs in the 5th grade to them! The expressions on their puzzled faces would be… well, priceless.
I could also quote Martialis, whose scatty poetry translates well from Latin to English, if you aren’t prissy.
Reviving a practical daily use of Latin as a spoken language is worth it. There are some bodacious insults to be found in ancient languages.
I’m looking forward to it.
I don’t favor talking to vermin, but when I do I remember that famous maxim:
neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos
I like to hammer Liberal Zombies. I know that I won’t change their minds. One of the reasons I do it is to show those, “sitting on the fence”, that the liberals don’t have a real argument, and that the argument that they do have is flawed.
On one message board, the others on my side of the argument utilize some of my tactics to keep hammering the liberals long after my last argument.
As for pearls before swine:
http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2018/03/03
The original proverb, in its context and entirety, is
“nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos”
in the Latin, but if you really want to confuse them put it in its original format:
“μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν μηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων μήποτε καταπατήσουσιν αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῶν καὶ στραφέντες ῥήξωσιν ὑμᾶς”
[…] A Terrorist – Keyes Edition The Political Hat: Google Vs. Witches This Ain’t Hell: Are You A Liberal Zombie? Liberal Zombie Q&A, also, Navy Deserter Arrested For Murder In Georgia Victory Girls: The March For Our Lives Is Sheer […]
I’ve shared the hell out of this
Definitely a must read to anyone
Dealing with one of these lib-tards
Then, when they reply, copy and paste the applicable section, of the above post, to your reply to them.
Before I forget another classic example of not only were the Germans brainwashed during WW2
But also a whole generation of Americans thanks to a Dumbass Bush with icing on the cake by Obummer
So, um, is the storm over? What happened? Maybe he was killed helping his buds?
He was hoping that this thread would march onto obscurity and be forgotten… Along with his participation and excuses.
In reviewing the comments and thebesig’s article, I feel that there is some real and verifiable value in acquiring fluency in an obscure language, partly because it confuses the liberal zombies enough to make them leave, and partly to keep those old Norse and Saxon idioms alive and kicking.
I have “Phase II” coming up.
Looking forward to it, thebesig.
Maybe ellsee will cut his responses to less than the length of the Oxford Unabridged, latest edition.
Maybe we discuss immigration, borders, citizenship and all that which defines a country. 🙂
Just being hopeful.