We’re talking Twitter here.  I love twitter.  Granted, I don’t have the number of followers that other talkers have – but at about 77,000 I’m doing OK for a backbencher.  But even though I don’t have the most followers, I am far and away the most entertaining #tot out there.  I love the challenge of trying to get a point across in 140 characters or less, and I enjoy the information that my followers provide – especially when I’m on the air. 

That being said … for some reason I’m just unable to tolerate idiots, morons, fools and various dumbasses on Twitter.  I may have a bit of a hair trigger when it comes to blocking followers, and yesterday kept me busy.  Every follower that sent me a Tweet – and I’m sure I didn’t catch all of them – asking me why I “hated” Rick Santorum, or why I was “hating on” Santorum --- I blocked ‘em.  I have enough intelligent and funny followers to deal with; why would I want to have to endure idiots?   Oh … and to be perfectly fair, I push no small number of my followers to the point that they block me as well.  Their loss.  Certainly not mine.  I’m not being paid for being on Twitter, nor do I get paid for sending Tweets … so block away.

This whole “hate” thing is getting so tiring.  Somehow we’ve come to the point when to disagree with someone is to “hate” them?  As they say … Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? 

You do realize how this “hate” nonsense started, don’t you?  Liberals, you see, have trouble debating issues.  They rely on emotion.  Conservatives and libertarians will say “I think ……”  Liberals and proggies will say “I feel …….”  When faced with facts and logic liberals become desperate.  Why one liberal professor at either Morehouse or Spellman College in Atlanta got so frustrated with adversaries using logic in arguments with her that she finally declared the use of logic in an argument to be … you guessed it ….raaaaaaaaaacist!  I remember this like it was last week.  I was doing talk radio at the time … it was about 20 years ago … and I promise you I had no small amount of fun with this on the air. 

Now we fast forward a few decades, and liberals are still having every bit as much trouble dealing with facts and logic in arguments or debates as they were then. 

Example?  Try this.

“Those businessmen are greedy.”

“Really?  Define greedy.”

“Well what do YOU think it means?”

“I don’t know.  I’m not the one using the word.”

“OK … greedy is when you want more than you need.”

“Well who gets to decide what you need?”

“What do you mean?”

“Do you get to decide what a person needs?  Or is that a job for government.  You said that these businessmen were greedy.  Then you said that this means they want more than they need.  Need for what?”

“You know … to operate their business.”

“OK .. then who gets to decide what they need to operate their business.  Is there a formula somewhere?  Do the shareholders decide?  The employees?  Or does that job belong to some politician somewhere.” 

“They deserve enough to make a profit.  Beyond that it’s greed.”

“What profit margin should they be allowed to make?  And who sets this rate?

“They get to make a reasonable profit.”

“Again .. that doesn’t answer the question.  What’s reasonable?  Who decides? “

And on and on it goes.  The proggies have nothing but emotional outbursts in response to questions from the right.  This is fun!  Can I give you another script?

“Health care is a right.”

“How can health care be a right?”

“Everyone knows people have a right to health care.”

“Let me get this straight.  Do they have a right TO health care, or a right to SEEK health care?”

“A right TO health care.”

“Well, let me ask you a question.  Can a person receive health care without someone else providing either a personal service, a drug or other health care product?”

“I guess not, no.”

“So when you say that a person has a right to health care, aren’t you saying that a person has a right to the personal services or property of another person?”

“Well, that’s not what I’m saying ….”

“But that’s the reality, isn’t it?  There is no way that a person can receive health care without receiving either the personal services or the property of another.”

“OK, I guess so.  That’s right.”

“Fine.  Now .. what are the limits?”

“What do you mean ‘what are the limits’?”

“Well, we’ve established that you believe that people in need of health care have a right to a portion of another person’s life.  I’m just asking how much?  How much of another person’s life do they have a right to?”

“I didn’t say they have a right to any portion of another person’s life.”

“Then explain to me how a person can provide health care services or products to someone without expending a portion of their life to either provide the personal service or create the drug or product?”

“Well, that doesn’t mean they have a right to a portion of another person’s life.”

“Of course that’s what it means.  It can mean nothing else.  You’re just caught in your own argument.  You believe that one person has a right to a portion of another person’s life based on some need, real or imagined.  Now I’m asking you what the limits are – just how much of another person’s life you can claim, and you’re caught and you know it.?

Really … sucks to be a proggie, doesn’t it? 

So … since a proggies couldn’t argue when facts or logic are in play, a shift in tactics was needed.  Somehow you had to be able to shut down the person arguing with you before you get absolutely humiliated by your lack of an ability to respond logically to their positions and arguments.  The solution?  Scream “hate.”  Just announce to the world that the person with whom you are arguing “hates” the person who’s policies your discussing, and the conversation is over.  You, after all, don’t have to deal with that person because they acting out of hate … and you’re way above all that. 

Well anyway .. that sure took a lot of time, didn’t it.  The point is, if you’re tired of the humor and good times I bring to Twitter ..  use that “hate” ploy.  I have my blocking finger ready.  Not that you care --- but I rather enjoy it.