If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker's personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?

Political debate with liberals is basically impossible in America today because liberals are calling names while conservatives are trying to make arguments.

It's impossible to talk without labels. "Dog" is a label, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless, nor does it mean there's no difference in a Shih Tzu and a Doberman.

Why is it that the same people who have the least confidence in the police and the military are the most willing to allow only the police and the military to have guns?

Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening.

Strom Thurmond the only segregationist anyone can name. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party had former Klansmen, members of a terrorist group that was lynching and murdering black people. That was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party.

Democrats all claim they'll get rough with the terrorists, but they can't even face Brit Hume.