After reading many, too many perhaps, comments and closely monitoring the public statements by modern liberals over the last few years, it is obvious and inarguable that people counting themselves as “progressives” are guided in their political philosphy (to the extent you can count it as one) by childish emotion.

For example, on the issue of terrorism, Republicans are “wimps” that are “scared” of this barely existent threat, or the “dry drunk” can’t handle the problem nor can the Republican party. Well, which is it? Neither of course. These are just talking points used by unthinking juveniles.

Another example can be seen on the issue of taxes and “the rich.” Liberals are often moral scolds to Republicans and conservatives on this issue claiming they want to help “the poor.” They often will abandon even what appears to be a sacrosanct devotion to the separation of church and state to misquote the bible on our duty to help the less fortunate. The problem is, they really have no interest in helping “the poor” as they give less to charity than Republicans do. This issue is solely about hating “the rich” and wanting to punish them for their good fortune.

The punishment is due because many liberals believe that “the rich” have gotten wealthy by taking advantage of, or otherwise suppressing, “the poor.” Which is why they despise them and wish to punish them by taking away their wealth via taxation. None of these beliefs about “the rich” are in any way true. It is simply an emotional reaction based on ignorance. Again, they act like children in whatever analysis, if you can call it that, of the issue takes place and their response.

Of course, regarding the war in Iraq the over the top, fact less, illogical, emotion-based arguments are the most apparent on the part of liberals. The continuous claims of “Bush lied” (in a rich bit of irony that statement is a lie), “war for oil” (a claim that can’t be proven), “occupations can’t work” (a claim refuted by modern history) are all based on emotion, war is apparently always wrong, rather than a sober analysis of the situation.

Because of this it is literally impossible to discuss this issue with “progressives” at this point. They simply refuse to acknowledge that (few) in the political class doubted Saddam had WMD programs and ties to al Qaeda prior to the Bush presidency. The decision to invade Iraq after the 9/11 attacks was a completely logical extension of existing US policy and the new reality confronting us regarding terrorism. Yet liberals become completely unhinged when “discussing” this issue. Engaging in conspiracy theories, ignoring plainly evident facts, and unleashing emotion based diatribes that are completely illogical and circular.

For example, Republicans are “chickenhawks” for supporting OIF according to those on the left. However, liberals never stop reminding us that they support(ed) the invasion of Afghanistan. Well, we have 13,000 troops there, which liberal has gone to their local recruiter and asked to be sent there?

Answer: zero. Because they are just against something Republicans are for. Like children not wanting to follow the instructions of their parents, not because and idea is good or bad, simply because it is the parents who are giving the instructions. Liberals don’t believe the whole “chickenhawk” rationale, it is again just a talking point used by arrested development adolescents.

I could go on with more examples, global warming is another, but you get the point. I can not think of a single issue where the left doesn’t make emotion-based statements that are out of line with reality. Not one.

In the end, I find absolutely crazy that a major political party can act like this and never be called on it by the media. To me this confirms the media’s liberal bias. Becasuse an overwhelming majority of mainstream media members agree with Democrats ideologically, they are never questioned on such child-like silliness. An objective media would do so. And, a country serious about real problems would reject such people politically as well. Sadly, ours has not.

This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.