I normally don't have the patience, but Billy was just askin' for it.
And if you missed it, there are at least two reasons why: 1) It all took place elsewhere, and 2) It went by faster than even I expected.
It all started because I'm sick of liberal garbage and decided to see if I could bait Billy into making a fool of himself. I know, normally you don't have to trap liberals into doing that, but Billy was trying really hard to appear to be reasonable.
But I knew he wasn't. In commenting that he was appalled and opposed to the Times recent smear of our service personnel, Billy couldn't resist saying he was opposed to the war.
That wouldn't have enticed me into an exchange with a liberal, it was what followed that begged for a response: Billy said he opposed the war because it was "unnecessary."
The problem with that is, it's a lie. And Billy added to my suspicions a short time later when he said that he opposed war because he's a "human being."
For the record, the real reason he opposes the war is because it was entered into by a Republican, and most specifically, George Bush.
Of course, Billy felt he couldn't admit that because that's no reason, much less a noble one.
So now before I get to particulars, I want to announce that I'm abandoning my quest to find a rational liberal. It's not because in thirteen years of searching, I could not find a single one, it's that Billy has forced a reassessment.
Why is it that on a few occasions liberals appear reasonable and even borderline rational but it never lasts? See, I've been on the wrong quest. I need to broaden the scope.
So I'm now looking for the first -sane- liberal.
I mean, I've debated hyenas who advanced better arguments than most liberals, and I'd always felt it was because they were undisciplined or had ADD. I mean the liberals, not the hyenas which are clearly more disciplined.
It's now crystal clear: liberals are just nuts.
You can't believe what they believe and not be nuts.
I don't know if their beliefs made them crazy or they were crazy and naturally gravitated to wacko ideas, but does it matter, they're still insane.
So while Billy appeared to be fairly rational at first glance, I thought it would be fun to try to provoke him into displaying his straightjacket-worthy self.
But I couldn't. And it had nothing to do with Billy possibly being that rational liberal we've all heard of from folklore. He took the bait all right – and quickly faded into the sunset after just a few simple questions – literally. It was an awesome sight.
Which prompts me to ask, do liberals turn to gas at lower temperatures than you or I?
Billy never even knew I'd perused his blog and seen he was completely different in his native habitat – frothingly obsessed with impeaching Bush and Cheney.
That may not be an absurd idea, but not for any of the reasons Billy thinks. In fact, Billy doesn't think, and he proved that when, in an attempt to mock me for employing a famous Monty Python debate technique, he said that liberals, unlike conservatives, are interested in "facts."
I know you're as dumbfounded as I was, but see for yourself, he said it.
So here's how it all unfolded…
After Billy said the war was "unnecessary," I responded with the perfect counter-argument: "It was absolutely necessary." I knew he'd find that preposterous even as he regarded his own "unnecessary" assessment as perfectly legitimate as a standalone argument.
Anyway, my exquisite refutation caused Billy to issue the standard absurd demand for links and documentation, to which I responded that those sorts of trivialities were unnecessary since he'd seen them all before and ignored them.
But then I added what I thought was too tempting for Billy to ignore: I said I could prove the war was necessary without having to send him anywhere else.
That was neither an idle boast nor a bluff, but I knew Billy would feel confident I couldn't do it.
And I was right. Billy bit.
I quickly got him to concede that he didn't oppose war because he was "human" (a debate in itself which I was willing to ignore for the moment) and that he only opposed wars he was opposed to. All I had to do was mention Darfur, which he was all in favor of.
But I'll never forget his response: "I see you have a plan."
Clearly, Billy wasn't used to that sort of thing. I can only imagine the shock he must have felt. But I could, because, you know… I was a human being.
Then I turned to Afghanistan. Billy was in favor of that too, but he hastened to add that he differed from his friends. It must have been gut-wrenching and so very lonely… if that mattered.
Because it's "just the facts, ma'am," and the fact was, Billy felt Afghanistan was "necessary."
I thought it important to toss Billy a bone so I mentioned that those precious "facts" he so cherished should certainly play a part in determining the necessity of any action, but that "necessary" itself is a value judgment… it's subjective… unless there's a checklist I don't know about?
But I never got to pointing out that if liberals really cared about facts, Clinton would have been convicted, they would admit Bush won Florida, and no one would know or care who Valerie Plame was..
And that's just three molecules off the tip of the iceberg of examples.
After getting Billy to admit that he was in favor of intervening in Darfur and Afghanistan, I asked if he was in favor of our involvement in Somalia and Kosovo, and if he'd also wished the other Billy had been a "human being" and sent troops to Rwanda?
I had intended to demonstrate to Billy that reasonable men can differ on what's necessary, and then we'd move on to Iraq after I pointed out that he favored intervention everywhere – except Iraq.
Now I've debated long and hard whether to present the rest of my "plan" here… because I never got to present it there. See, Billy bolted.
Apparently even he could see where it was leading, but in case he didn't, I've decided to save the rest of my argument. I will provide some hints though, since we can presume that Billy would have responded affirmatively for military force in Somalia, Kosovo, and Rwanda.
So of all the countries in which he favored our intervening, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Serbia/Kosovo, and Rwanda, which ones posed an actual threat to America and its interests?
Now compare any one of them to Iraq: which is strategically more important?
By the time we actually got to "Necessary or Unnecessary," we would already have extracted a long string of concessions from Mr. Goat.
And there was even another trap Billy had fallen into. He asked with an implied certainty like all good liberals do if I thought the Iraqi people were better off now.
But I only think that because they are. And Billy doesn't think they are because his poor powers of thought and reason don't allow him to see the obvious – and his bias guarantees that.
Unless… say, you don't you think Billy would try to argue that Iraqis were not an oppressed people or that Sadie was "contained," do you?
Actually, i wouldn't put it past him, because it's not just that liberals are that stupid and they don't know the meaning of shame, they also never learn… or admit they were wrong.
But now don't think that Billy high-tailed it for the hills because he was about to be busted and he could read the writing on the wall. I mean, that's probably all true, but the real reason he left is far more elementary… we'd reached the third level of our little reasoning exercise, and he's never been beyond the second before. I'm sure he simply became disoriented and that he'll wander back in someday… probably completely by accident.
Which reminds me, anybody here seen my favorite little anti-Semite, Lenny?