The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

The First Liberal Argument: S. I. N.

Those of us who debate the left regularly know that substantive genuine arguments with them are rare. Since we already covered what their last argument is, let us cover their first.

The left’s opening tactics often boil down to a simple acronym S. I. N.

Switch the Subject: They bring up one point and as soon as they can see you are about to answer it with substance they change the subject, start making it all about you instead of the fact at hand, or they move the goal post (EG you cant prove this, oh OK you proved that but you cant prove this, OK you got that but you cant prove…).

Ignore the Facts: This is very common. No matter how many facts you bring up a common tactic is to go on with their narrative as if you never posted and presented them with that fact in the first place. When confronted with facts they will : Switch the subject, attack you, or just repeat what they said before without ever acknowledging you gave them a fact to begin with.

Name Call: You are ignorant, uneducated etc etc. You just hate X and Y. You are a racist bigot sexist homophobe etc.

This is why Satan is known as The Great Accuser. Evil understands that a false accusation against an innocent person is often more effective than an accurate one against a guilty person. The guilty person has mentally prepared a defense and is ready for it, often with the collusion of others:

Whereas the innocent are taken aback and shocked by such accusations.


The lefts campaign and tactical playbook – “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky, is dedicated to Satan himself by the author:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: From all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

One Response to “The First Liberal Argument: S. I. N.”

  1. kickbass said

    How funny. I’ve seen/heard all of these behaviors demonstrated by people of any/all political bent including conservatives. In fact, this post does it by lumping 50 or so million people into “The left’s opening tactics often boil down to a simple acronym S. I. N.” (I see the word “often”.) Are you going to say that Conservatives don’t often engage in S. I. N.? If you are, well you are deluded.

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    Interesting how you have to put words in our mouth to create a straw-man argument. This is another variation of switching the subject (ergo making it about “me”.) So I will use your own tactic against you. Are you saying that this is not a common tactic of the far left?

    I hate to burst your bubble with a little common sense but here goes; we do not define things by superlatives because absolutes are rare and we do not define them by the exceptions because they are uncommon. We define things by the pattern, by what is common. What is often seen and becomes a recognizable pattern of behavior, so often it almost becomes cliche. These are the tactics leftists use the most often. I have debated literally hundreds of them and this is a pattern I have seen regularly, and so have many others. While I am confident that there are some in all ideologies that may use such tactics, such tactics are uncommon in other ideologies, they are predictable to the point of humor among leftists.

    Also keep in mind that deception is a pillar of leftist philosophy. If you read almost any leftist or progressive thinker they speak of this, Hegel (the Hegelian Dialectic), Stalin (the truth is anything thet supports communism), Saul Alinsky, Frances Fox Piven, Walter Lippmann (liberals, progressives, democratic socialists – there are no real difference as all wish to progress to a leviathan state), Mao, and even MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell who says that bluedogs are just conservative and rhetorical cover so the socialists can get away with more. While many politicians do spin and commonly lie when there is a scandal to attempt to get themselves out of trouble, for the left lying is calculated aggression.

    For example: Barack Obama says that government must live within its means and then puts forth a budget with 1.3 trillion to 1.6 trillion yearly deficits for as long as they eye can see, and that is assuming 4 and 5% economic growth (HA). Or when Obama goes to El Paso and says that he has done everything the GOP wants him to do with the border and now it is time to pass amnesty (laughable), or after he signed the Stimulus Bill he bragged about how it did not have one single earmark on national television, and then a few days later signed a $411 billion dollar omnibus spening bill with over 8000 earmarks in it, or how his Press Sec. claims that Texas Governor Rick Perry is lying about the federal government denying Texas disaster aid because of the wildfire problem there that has burned millions of acres “because the federal government is paying 75% of the bill” – but here is the rub, they are paying 75% of the bill for 25 fires out of 9000; a key fact he chose to omit. I could go on for 10 pages but I would not want to rub it in.]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: