I have noticed a recurring pattern when debating a Leftist. First they tell you what is wrong with your statement with no explanation. Second after you counter their first statement with simple facts they then use a con-man like convoluted overly complex cockamamie solution. Third when you explain that away with simple facts and truth they then predictably start with the name calling!
I found this nicely done article on the Advance Indiana blog where Gary R. Welsh explained it quite well.
Hammond Representative Mara Candelaria-Reardon is one of the leading voices of opposition to Delph’s legislation. She says she does not envision him stopping now, particularly with the success of Alabama’s law.
“Mike Delph is like a rabid dog with this issue and I would be shocked if he didn’t go ahead and do it,” Candelaria-Reardon says. “I mean, he seems to be pretty addicted to the limelight pursuing this legislation has continued to create for him.”
Candelaria-Reardon says she does not think a law as harsh as Alabama’s will ever get through the Indiana General Assembly. Delph says the people of Indiana will ultimately have to decide whether tougher immigration reform is something the legislature needs to address.To be sure, there are legitimate debating points on the issue of whether states should be getting involved in the immigration debate at all since the U.S. Constitution reserves that power and responsibility to the federal government. It's a fair argument to make, however, that the federal government has done a poor job performing its constitutional duty given the tens of millions who have been able to immigrate to the U.S. illegally, and it's also a fair argument to make that state and local budgets are impacted negatively by illegal immigration.
People can disagree on the answer to any problem with which we are confronted without resorting to name-calling, but if you are a liberal, it's much easier to resort to the demonization of your political counterparts than debate the merits of your argument. That's because they understand a majority of Americans don't accept the merits of their arguments. They seek victory by dividing and conquering. Political correctness is their weapon of choice.
This was best exemplified during the recent Indianapolis mayoral election. The Democrats knew their candidate, Melina Kennedy, was losing to Mayor Greg Ballard in the polls. Their answer to defeating him was to seize on his poor choice of words during a debate with Kennedy where he described African-Americans as "a difficult population." By implication, Democrats characterized Ballard's words in a way to define him as a racist. To be sure, there were plenty of legitimate lines of attack Democrats could have raised against Ballard, but nothing stings more than being labeled a racist. The Democrats know Ballard truly isn't a racist, but that's not the point. The objective is to divide and conquer. That's why U.S. Rep. Andre Carson and other liberals have repeatedly labeled Tea Party supporters as racists. If you can't win on the merits of the debate, let the name-calling begin. It takes much less effort to name call than debate the substance of your arguments.
I always welcome any input on these matters especially from the Leftists. Just keep it civil, factual and truthful and I will not remove it (I know many of you Liberals struggle with a civil, factual and truthful discussion see
Why Liberals Always Resort To Name-Calling?).